tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74668415581893562892024-03-02T14:24:03.634-05:00Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right AnswersA blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger362125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61633386841031498042021-02-08T13:47:00.001-05:002021-02-08T16:27:19.440-05:00A Declaratory Judgment Action In a Court of Law Is the Best Chance that We Have to Learn the Truth About the 2020 Presidential Election and the Capitol Invasion<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">A Declaratory Judgment Action In a Court
of Law Is the Best Chance that We Have to Learn the Truth About the 2020
Presidential Election and the Capitol Invasion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">February 8, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYLCs6HzaxcHZ6niJFOTOZKBYdzVdbWCmi1IuW9UargBNVGtjUQJuYovH7kQaYWmDZyo7tmJfMQziSvnwRFJz2ie_iH3b9gFKQ-u2MN17zHO7GiQz24tcd6D8Mhw4Bm0n55W5_83MgOTY2/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="324" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYLCs6HzaxcHZ6niJFOTOZKBYdzVdbWCmi1IuW9UargBNVGtjUQJuYovH7kQaYWmDZyo7tmJfMQziSvnwRFJz2ie_iH3b9gFKQ-u2MN17zHO7GiQz24tcd6D8Mhw4Bm0n55W5_83MgOTY2/" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt;">It looks
like I was correct when I warned about Republicans turning on former President
Donald J. Trump. See my previous articles with comments, “</span><a href="President%20Trump%20Must%20Immediately%20File%20A%20Declaratory%20Judgment%20Action%20to%20Vindicate%20Himself%20and%20Put%20an%20End%20to%20the%20Election%20Controversy%20and%20New%20Impeachment" style="font-size: 16pt;">President
Trump Must Immediately File A Declaratory Judgment Action to Vindicate Himself
and Put an End to the Election Controversy and New Impeachment</a><span style="font-size: 16pt;">” (Jan. 11,
2021), “</span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/president-trumps-needs-to-make-his.html" style="font-size: 16pt;">President
Trump Needs to Make His Impeachment Defense First In Court Before Making It In
the Senate</a><span style="font-size: 16pt;">” (Jan. 17, 2021), and “</span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/former-president-donald-j-trump-should.html" style="font-size: 16pt;">Former
President Donald J. Trump Should File a Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a
Quo Warranto Action</a><span style="font-size: 16pt;">” (Jan. 26, 2021).</span><span style="font-size: 16pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">We have this
just before Trump's Senate impeachment trial is set to begin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-doesnt-bar-trumps-impeachment-trial-11612724124?mod=opinion_lead_pos5">"Breaking
With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial</a>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Conservative Attorney Charles J. Cooper is
the writer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The mainstream media is in
love with Mr. Cooper, given that he has represented and continues to represent various
political foes of Trump and now argues that under the Constitution’s impeachment
clause the House has the authority to charge and the Senate to convict a former
president for his conduct occurring while he was in office, even though at the
time of the Senate trial he is no longer in office. The simple reason for that
is, as I have also stated, the Congress may still want to, in addition to removing
such an offender from his current office, also ban him from future political
office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have warned that this will be
the winning argument, but the Republicans are bent on trying to get Trump's
case dismissed without ever reaching the merits of the election irregularities
and whether Trump caused the Capitol invasion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">At this
time, Trump faces four scenarios, with only the fourth providing the public
with the truth about the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol invasion
that followed and Trump clearing himself from any wrongdoing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">First, without
Trump preparing and presenting a defense on the merits, Trump's Republican political
enemies will win. I have explained that they hope to achieve a procedural
dismissal so that the question of the 2020 presidential election does not have
to be laid open before the Senate of the United States, which voted to certify
that election on January 6, 2021. Hence, if Trump’s detractors win on
procedural grounds, the election issue will not be revisited, and Trump will
not have cleared his name. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">Second, if
the Senate denies Trump's motion to dismiss on procedural grounds and moves
forward with the merits, Trump will need to be prepared to defend himself. At
this time, it is not clear what Trump will present as his defense during the
trial. The media is already reporting that there probably will not be any
witnesses at the trial which means that it is not possible that Trump would be
able to present all the facts related to the 2020 presidential election and his
alleged role in the Capitol invasion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
would also be a farce for Trump to testify at the trial without presenting any
other evidence. If Trump’s detractors lose on procedural grounds, it is likely
that 17 Senators, for the sake of their future political careers, will not join
the impeaching Democrats which gives Trump only a veneer of victory, for Trump,
while not being banned from future political office, will still not have
cleared his name. The merits trial will be filled with propaganda imagery of
the invasion which will be the Democrats' unspoken let alone proof that Trump caused
what the viewers can see on the big media screens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That show trial will create a biased record
that will follow Trump and his supporters for life. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">Third, if 17
Republicans do vote to convict, Trump will not have cleared his name and will
most probably be forever barred from future office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%;">Fourth, Trump
has chosen at his peril the politically charged Senate rather than a court of
law in which I have recommended he should file a declaratory judgment action,
request a stay of the Senate trial, and where he has a better chance that his due
process rights would be respected. The pending election lawsuits to be heard in
the U.S. Supreme Court only addresses the actual election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not involve the Capitol invasion and
the critical question of whether Trump legally caused that invasion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is only in a declaratory judgment action
filed in a court of law--where Trump (assuming he does not fear being deposed
and called as a witness) would have discovery, subpoena powers, the ability to
call witnesses, and the right to litigate both the integrity of the election in
the contested states and whether he legally caused the Capitol invasion--that Trump
stands any chance of creating a credible factual record of what happened in the
2020 presidential election and in the Capitol invasion. It is only in a court of
law that Trump has any chance of proving to the American people and the world the truth of what happened in the 2020 election and in the Capitol invasion that
followed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><br />
<span style="background: white;">February 8, 2021</span><br />
</span><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New";"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="background: white; color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><span style="color: #333333;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">####</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">Copyright © 2021</span><br />
<span style="background: white;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span><br />
<span style="background: white;">All Rights Reserved</span></span></span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81634917943059702892021-01-26T01:09:00.023-05:002021-01-26T21:23:25.211-05:00Former President Donald J. Trump Should File a Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto Action<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Former President Donald J. Trump Should File a
Declaratory Judgment Action and Not a Quo Warranto Action<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">January 26, 2021<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivzYsJTBx3doW2o3TExOvkOP53hwiNgij_rZJH7zf1wRpor4Dgq9ztlH-Bw1o79cOxbiqi2D9tEVWyD9xYyO_VgnRTDH5GaZYK1v3rDeYdGpp-b2Vhrto93iL6qeAs9EFrp371Na888BSW/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="162" data-original-width="311" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivzYsJTBx3doW2o3TExOvkOP53hwiNgij_rZJH7zf1wRpor4Dgq9ztlH-Bw1o79cOxbiqi2D9tEVWyD9xYyO_VgnRTDH5GaZYK1v3rDeYdGpp-b2Vhrto93iL6qeAs9EFrp371Na888BSW/" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Regarding
former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment, Leo Donofrio, Esq. has adopted
many of the suggestions that I have outlined in my two articles, “<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/president-trump-must-immediately-file.html"><span style="color: blue;">President Trump Must Immediately File A Declaratory Judgment
Action to Vindicate Himself and Put an End to the Election Controversy and New
Impeachment</span></a>” (Jan. 11, 2021) </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and “<span style="background: white;"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/president-trumps-needs-to-make-his.html"><span style="color: blue;">President Trump Needs to Make His Impeachment Defense First
In Court Before Making It In the Senate</span></a>” (Jan. 17, 2021).</span> See
Donofrio’s article, “<span style="background: white;"><a href="https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/01/23/trump-must-bring-quo-warranto-action-as-complete-defense-to-impeachment/"><span style="color: blue;">Trump Must Bring Quo Warranto Action as Complete Defense to
Impeachment</span></a>” (Jan. 23, 2021). Where I part company with Donofrio is
in his reliance on quo warranto as a legal avenue for Trump to follow for
defending himself in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial and for ousting
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris from office.</span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Donofrio
wants Trump to bring a quo warranto action under 16 D.C.Code §§ 3501-3548 in
the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia as a means to defend
himself against the impeachment and to remove Biden and Harris from the offices
they currently occupy. Donofrio maintains that quo warranto is the exclusive
remedy available to accomplish that. He maintains that the D.C.
District Court is the only court in the United States where such an action may
be brought. I will now demonstrate that Trump following Donofrio’s advice and
putting all his eggs in the quo warranto basket would be a grave mistake.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">At
common law, a private person had no right to bring a quo warranto action. Under
the common law, only the United States could bring a quo warranto action. <u>Wallace
v. Anderson</u>, 18 U.S. 5 Wheat. 291, 292 (1820). Congress can, however, pass
a statute allowing a private person to bring such an action. <u>Johnson v.
Manhattan Railway Co.</u>, 289 U.S. 479 (1933). Congress has done so, and the
D.C. statute is the only statute passed by Congress that permits such a
procedure. <u>Blackburn v. O’Brien</u>, 289 F.Supp. 289 (D.C.W.D.Va.
1968). A quo warranto action is a direct attack on an officeholder, questioning
his or her qualifications to hold an office and therefore his or her
warrant and authority to occupy that office. Donofrio fails to recognize the
many problems that exist with the quo warranto procedure that he advocates. The
D.C. District Code presents not only a cumbersome procedure that has to be
followed, but its very text shows that it is not applicable to a sitting
president and vice president. Additionally, even if it could be
successfully argued that it is so applicable, it would be unconstitutional.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Neither the U.S. Attorney General nor the U.S.
Attorney will help Trump</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Under
§ 16-3502, only the Attorney General of the United States or the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia can initiate a proceeding for issuance of
a writ of quo warranto “on his own motion or on the relation of a third
person.” </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“[A]
quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney
General or the U.S. Attorney.” <u>Taitz v. Obama</u>,707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3
(D.D.C. 2010) (citing <u>Andrade v. Lauer</u>, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C.
Cir. 1984)). </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">If the writ is brought on behalf of a third
person, it may only issue by leave of the District Court for the District of
Columbia. D.C. Code § 16-3502. “If the Attorney General
or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the
request of a</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">person
interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition
for leave to have the writ issued.” § 16-3503. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hence,
the quo warranto procedure starts by requiring that the quo warranto writ issue
in the name of the United States. It compels a concerned citizen to apply to
the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to bring the action on his
behalf in the District Court for the District of Columbia (16 D.C. Code §§
3501-3502). These officials have broad discretion. It is not realistic that
they would file a quo warranto action in the name of the United States against
a sitting president, their own boss and the same person who appointed them. It
is also unrealistic that they would file such an action in a case in which
among the list of defendants may be the House of Representatives, Senate, and
the whole Congress. Even appointing a special prosecutor would
present a problem, for who would appoint him or her? We have already seen how
the Executive and Congressional branches of government are both defending
Biden’s stance that he has been constitutionally elected president. The
Justice Department has dismissed out of hand any challenge to the Biden
election. How does Donofrio expect to get any cooperation from either of these
two branches of government which he would need to sanction and support his quo
warranto action?</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The court would probably not give its
permission for Trump to have the quo warranto writ issued </span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
D.C. statute provides a private litigant with a mechanism by which he or she
can still bring a quo warranto action even if the government refuses to do so.
If these government officials refuse to institute a quo warranto proceeding,
only an “interested person” may petition the court for leave to have the writ
issued in the name of the United States on the relation of the “interested
person.” § 3503. The court has broad discretion to deny the writ. Under the
standard for being an “interested person” as pronounced by <u>Newman v.
United States ex rel. Frizzell</u>, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), in a case involving a
public office one would have to have “an interest in the office itself peculiar
to himself” and be filing an action against another who allegedly usurped that
office. Indeed, <u>Newman </u>requires that the plaintiff be
“actually and personally interested” in the office and that there be another
person against whom the action is brought who has unlawfully occupied the
office in question. In other words, the plaintiff must himself make a claim to
the office to qualify to bring the action. Even if the quo warranto plaintiff
could show that he was an “interested person,” which Trump would have no
problem showing, the court still has to grant him its permission to bring the
quo warranto action.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Neither the president nor vice president is an
officer of the United States</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
court would most likely rule that the statute does not apply to removing a
sitting president or vice president because they are not “Officers of the
United States” under the statute. § 3503 provides that for who are the persons
against whom the quo warranto writ may issue. It states that the writ can issue
“against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a
public office of the United States, civil or military.” The
impeachment clause of the Constitution does not consider the offices of
president and vice president as offices of the United States. Article II,
Section 4 provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Note that the sentence does not say “all other” civil Officers of the United
States. For example, members of Congress are not civil officers
subject to impeachment and removal. See “<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII_S4_2_3_1/ALDE_00000691/"><span style="color: blue;">Impeachable Offenses: Early Historical Practice (1789–1860)</span></a>.”
Notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 which does separately list
“Senator or Representative in Congress” apart from “any office, civil or
military,” but does not separately list the president or vice president, the
president would also not be found to be a civil officer subject to the quo
warranto statute. Congress in passing the D.C. statute did provide private
litigants with a statutory mechanism for bringing quo warranto actions in the
D.C. District Court, but it did not intend for it to apply to ousting sitting
presidents. Under the Appointments Clause (Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2), it is
the president that is given the power to make, with the advice and consent of
the Senate, appointments of “Officers of the United States” and other positions
that are not considered inferior. Given the president’s power to fill these
offices and the impeachment mechanism existing in the Constitution, it is
doubtful that Congress meant to include the Office of the President itself,
which appoints those officers, when it wrote “public office of the United
States” in § 16-3501.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The court would not rule that Biden and Harris
have usurped their offices</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Under
§ 3501, the plaintiff must prove that the person holding the contested office
“usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred
by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or
military.” Can we reasonably expect the D.C. District Court to give
its permission to a plaintiff to bring an action against Biden and Harris who
Congress just recently confirmed as the president and vice president of the
United States on January 6, 2021 and who were sworn into their
offices on January 20, 2021, for the purpose of asking the court to issue a
ruling that they have usurped their offices? On the contrary, the court can use
that process to hold that the issue of Biden’s and Harris’s election has
already been constitutionally decided by Congress, is moot, and therefore deny
the application for the writ as a matter of law. Congress’s final determination
followed by both Biden and Harris being sworn into their offices is binding
upon a court. It does not appear that the Constitution provides any way to undo
any of that. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A quo warranto action does not extend to the
issue of whether Trump’s speech legally caused the Capitol invasion</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
quo warranto action would only extend to the question of whether Biden and
Harris lawfully occupy their officers (which as I have stated is now moot in
the eyes of a court). It would, however, not extend to the question
of whether Trump's speech on January 6, 2021, is a legal cause of the illegal
entry into the Capitol. This is a critical issue that Trump has to
pursue. If Trump’s speech did not legally cause the invasion of the
Capitol, then there is no legal basis to the Article of Impeachment. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">For
all these textual, procedural, and substantive reasons, a quo warranto action
would not help Trump in any way. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The quo warranto statute would be
unconstitutional if it could be applied to a sitting president or vice
president</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But
there is a more serious problem with what Donofrio proposes and that is one of
constitutional dimensions. Donofrio claims that Congress has delegated its
powers to remove a sitting president to the D.C, District Court by passing the
D.C. District Code statute. As written and only interpreting it as though the
Office of the President or Vice President are not included in its sweep, the
D.C. statute would pass constitutional muster. On the other hand, if the D.C.
statute were to be read as Donofrio does, to be used as a tool to oust from
office a sitting president or vice president, then such an application of the
statute would be unconstitutional.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It is
highly doubtful that Congress, a co-equal branch of government to the
Executive, has the constitutional power to pass a statute that would allow a
federal district court to alone directly remove a sitting president or vice
president. See <u>Marbury v. Madison</u>, 1 Cranch, 137 (1803) (shows that
Congress in enacting laws must do so within the confines of power given to it
in the Constitution and held that Congress had no power to give the Supreme
Court original jurisdiction in cases not described in the Constitution).
Surely, if Congress cannot give the Supreme Court power which the Constitution
does not give to that Court, Congress also cannot give to a federal district
court any power not belonging to it under the Constitution.</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">§ 3504 provides that the court remedy of a quo
warranto action includes a judgment that “he be ousted and excluded” from the
illegally occupied office. But the Constitution itself textually
provides how to remove a sitting president and vice president and Congress has
no constitutional authority to legislate a different way to do it. See Article
I, Section 8 which prescribes the legislative powers given to Congress. The
Constitution itself does not give Congress any authority to create by
legislation any such quo warranto actions that may be used to oust a sitting
president or vice president, let alone any authority to delegate that removal
power to the judicial branch of government. It is also doubtful that Congress
would attempt such a delegation of power given that the Constitution itself
provides for a mechanism to remove a president or vice president for misconduct
or prevent a person from becoming or continuing as vice president who is not
Article II qualified. The Constitution at Article I, Sec. 2 and 3 and Article
II, Section 4 gives Congress the power to impeach the president or vice
president which only applies to a duly elected and confirmed president or vice
president who is convicted of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.” As we can see, impeachment would only apply to a duly elected
president or vice president who has committed a serious offense. The
Constitution cannot be amended by an act of Congress. <u>See</u> Article
V (provides the procedure for amending the Constitution). </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
quo warranto remedy of removal from the office of president and vice president
that Donofrio seeks is beyond the power of the federal courts to grant and
would violate the political question doctrine and separation of powers, for
Congress has finally spoken on the matter and Biden and Harris have already
been sworn into office. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Finally,
Donofrio cites the case of <u>Drake v. Obama</u>, 664 F.3d 774 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir.
2011) in support of his position. But that case does not help
him. The central issue there was where a quo warranto action based
on the D.C. Code must be filed. The federal district court had
dismissed the quo warranto claim because plaintiffs had filed it in the
wrong venue (California). The 9<sup>th</sup> Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed. <u>Id</u>. at 786. The Court held that
a quo warranto action based on the D.C. Code can only be filed in the District
of Columbia. <u>Id</u>. at 785. There was no issue before
the Court whether the statute applies to a sitting president or vice
president. It did not give any opinion on whether a quo warranto action
under the D.C. Code applied to a sitting president or vice president. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;"><b><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The declaratory judgment action that I propose
is the only way that Trump should go</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A
declaratory judgment action that I propose gives Trump the best fighting chance
he has to defend himself in the Senate impeachment trial. A declaratory
judgment action under 28 U.S.C. §2201 and F.R.C.P. 57 does not suffer from the
procedural and constitutional infirmities of a quo warranto action that I have
outlined above. Trump has standing to bring the action against the House,
Senate, and the whole Congress.<a name="_ftnref1"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7466841558189356289/8163491794305970289#_ftn1"><span style="color: #333333;">[1]</span></a> First,
Trump will be personally harmed from the impeachment and he presents a real
live controversy with respect to that impeachment. He will be able to show that
it is Congress’s impeachment that is causing him his harm. He would
also be able to show that the court can give him the remedy he seeks which is a
declaration of his rights and obligations respecting whether he spoke the truth
about the irregularities of the elections in the contested states and whether his
speech regarding those elections legally caused the Capital
invasion. Second, he also has competitive standing against Congress,
Biden, and Harris which </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">continues beyond the 2020 election. <u>See</u> <u>Owen
v. Mulligan</u>, 640 F.2d 1130, 1133 & n.8 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1981)
(citing <u>Schiaffo v. Helstoski</u>, 492 F.2d413, 417 (3d Cir. 1974)
(holding that a rival candidate had standing to challenge an incumbent’s
activities seeking to secure an unfair advantage in future elections)). Trump
has stated publicly that there is a likelihood that he will run for president
again in 2024. In fact, the Democrats and some Republicans want to
impeach Trump so that he can no longer run for president. Given that Trump is
no longer in office, personally harming Trump politically in the future is one
of the main reasons why Congress, with the tacit support of Biden and Harris,
is pursuing its impeachment of Trump. In his declaratory judgment
action, Trump can challenge and seek to enjoin the activities of the House and
Senate, designed to impeach and convict him and intended to produce an unfair
advantage in favor of his primary and/or general election rivals in the next
presidential election. Hence, for these two reasons, Trump would present a
justiciable controversy in his declaratory judgment action. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In
his declaratory judgment action, Trump would be seeking a declaration from the court as
to his rights and obligations with respect to (1) his statements that the
elections in the six or seven contested states were not conducted according to
the Constitution and state and federal law and (2) whether his speech on
January 6, 2021 is a legal cause of the violent entry into the Capitol. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">An impeachment trial
in the Senate does not afford Trump the same due process rights he would enjoy
in a court and satisfy his need to pursue those issues. As we witnessed in
Trump’s first impeachment, there is no real legal standard as to what a high
crime or misdemeanor is. The interpretation and application of those
words are rife with political bias existing in any given moment of history. For example, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford in 1970 defined the words
thus: "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a
majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment
in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of
the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the
accused from office. Again, the historical context and political
climate is important." Gerald Ford's Remarks of April 15, 1970
on the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas Archived April 12,
2019, at the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190412080455/https:/www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/700415.pdf"><span style="color: #336699;">Wayback Machine</span></a>. Retrieved January 17, 2021. Hence,
Trump needs to develop and prove as much factual information as he can in a
hopefully dispassionate court of law before a jury free of passion, prejudice,
and sympathy prior to the Senate trial in order to meet that political
challenge there. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Trump would not have in the Senate the same discovery and
subpoena powers that he would have if he first filed the declaratory judgment
action in federal district court. A court of law has more power and
will to sanction discovery violators than would a politically charged Senate.
The rules of evidence apply in a court but not in the
Senate. Neither a civil nor criminal court would allow as we saw in
the House of Representative a witness to offer that President Trump is the
“white-supremacist-in-chief,” clearly irrelevant and inflammatory, as evidence
of liability or guilt with respect to the Capitol invasion. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Furthermore, just showing that Trump spoke the truth about the
election irregularities is not sufficient. Trump must
also demonstrate that he did not cause the Capitol violence and
invasion. The issue of causation (is Trump’s speech a legal cause of
the violent invasion of the Capitol) can better be presented and argued in a
court of law, which is highly experienced with the complexity of the causation
issue. Consider how the politically charged members of the House of
Representatives during the impeachment trial basically ignored the fundamental
issue of causation. Like in the House of Representatives, we cannot
expect a similarly politically charged Senate to give to the causation issue
the importance that the law demands it deserves. In the Senate, like we saw in
the House of Representatives, Trump would probably be subjected to that body’s
political judgment however tainted and be made a victim of our current
political and social “cancel” culture rather than given the benefit of any
legal judgment. Simply stated, Trump cannot expect to receive due process of
law in the Senate that he would receive in a court of
law. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Corporate interests have significantly cut President Trump’s
ability to communicate with the American people and the world. They are
therefore interfering with his political speech and ability to defend himself
and the nation. With a lawsuit in court, President Trump can fully
defend himself by taking action to show that he did not commit any
wrong. There, he would also have the right to have a jury of the
people decide the facts based on admissible testimony, exhibits, and
stipulations rather than the politically motivated Senate acting as a
jury. Finally, he would also be able to appeal to the Circuit Court
of Appeals and have a path to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. There is no
appeal from an impeachment trial by the Senate. Even if he were to file an
appeal to a court of a Senate conviction, that court would most likely rule
that it has no jurisdiction because an impeachment presents a political
question and is therefore a nonjusticiable issue. See <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-has-no-role-impeachment"><span style="color: #336699;">https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-has-no-role-impeachment</span></a> . </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In
the declaratory judgment action, he would be able to present all his evidence
of the illegal elections in the contested states. He already has
much of the information he needs right in the Texas lawsuit, other legal
actions, and evidence which he was never given an opportunity to present in
court. With such evidence, he could prove that his claims of
election irregularity were legitimate. Trump would then utilize
those factual findings in his later Senate impeachment trial. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">After developing his
evidence and factual record in court, he can then stand fully prepared to
challenge his impeachment trial in the Senate and show there that he did not
commit any “high Crime[]” or “Misdemeanor[]” and that the impeachment has no
factual foundation. <span style="background: white;">Trump also needs
to apply for a temporary injunction of the Senate trial, requesting that the
trial be stayed pending completion of his declaratory judgment action. Hence,
such an action in the federal district court would provide Trump with greater
due process rights which he will not enjoy in the politically biased Senate
where political rhetoric and ambition rather than facts will reign.</span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
Depending on what evidence Trump could bring to his declaratory judgment action and what he could prove there regarding the irregularities of the elections in the contested states, that information can be given to Congress. The question then is what Congress could do with the information. The approach that the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” under Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is not practical since the Vice President is needed to start the process and then a majority of a Biden cabinet would have to support the effort. The only other avenue that I see is in Section 1 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment which includes the possibility that a president can resign from office. Textually the section does not include a vice president, but I cannot imagine Congress not being allowed to ask a vice president to resign followed by such a resignation. Depending on what Trump would prove in his declaratory judgment action regarding the contested elections, that information can be given to Congress which could in turn request that Biden and Harris resign.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I have demonstrated that Trump should file a
declaratory judgment action and not a quo warranto action. The declaratory
judgment action will provide him with the due process rights outlined above
which are fundamental to our justice system and which he needs to exercise to
prove the facts he alleges about the elections in the contested states and that
his speech did not legally cause the Capitol illegal entry. He must
bring his case to a court of law first before he brings his defense to the
Senate. Legal action in a court is the only way that he can hopefully
receive the due process and justice to which he is entitled. Hopefully, he
will do so, for it will provide him with the factual evidence that he needs to
defend himself in the Senate impeachment trial. <br />
<br />
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
January 26, 2021<br />
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><br />
<br />
####<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2021<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br clear="all" />
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><a name="_ftn1"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7466841558189356289/8163491794305970289#_ftnref1"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">[1]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> Trump and Pence
had competitive standing to personally sue Biden, Harris, and the contested
states which does not mean making a motion to intervene in an ongoing suit like
Trump did in the Texas litigation. They had to bring their own
personal action against those defendants before Biden and Harris were sworn
into office on January 20, 2021. They could have sued them based on
the election irregularities in the contested states and on Harris not being an
Article II “natural born citizen.” Despite my writing to them and their legal
team that they take such action, for some unknown reason they chose not
to. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
</div>
</div>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15959845405126926352021-01-17T14:54:00.004-05:002021-01-23T20:36:14.285-05:00President Trump Needs to Make His Impeachment Defense First In Court Before Making It In the Senate<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">President Trump Needs
to Make His Impeachment Defense First In Court Before Making It In the Senate<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">January 17, 2021<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Q9bnbWl2OSXQYm41qjhxcds2V-n8vuwpNRKUK6waH1DRzbggJmB6ho9DAC2cA_viy-nIcejjZlqv2S50UjkNerSKV9-dwC4BTtQ4HJO8mQUfrpDsuTckklN01wU8zVBGZieAN1xhT-aW/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="248" data-original-width="203" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Q9bnbWl2OSXQYm41qjhxcds2V-n8vuwpNRKUK6waH1DRzbggJmB6ho9DAC2cA_viy-nIcejjZlqv2S50UjkNerSKV9-dwC4BTtQ4HJO8mQUfrpDsuTckklN01wU8zVBGZieAN1xhT-aW/" width="196" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">1868 <a href="https://craighill.net/2012/03/13/march-13-1868-andrew-johnson-impeachment-trial-begins/" style="text-align: left;">Impeachment Trial</a><span style="text-align: left;"> </span> of President Andrew Johnson </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ABC News is reporting the following: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">President Donald Trump's personal
attorney Rudy Giuliani tells ABC News he's working as part of the president's
defense team in his upcoming second impeachment trial -- and that he's prepared
to argue that the president's claims of widespread voter fraud did not
constitute incitement to violence because the widely-debunked claims are true.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">*** <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">"They basically claimed that
anytime [Trump] says voter fraud, voter fraud -- or I do, or anybody else --
we're inciting to violence; that those words are fighting words because it's
totally untrue," he said. "Well, if you can prove that it's true, or
at least true enough so it's a legitimate viewpoint, then they are no longer
fighting words."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032">https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-working-trumps-impeachment-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am glad to see that President Trump’s legal team has focused on the impeachment
defense of presenting evidence of the alleged election irregularities to the
Senate during the impeachment trial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As
I explain in my previous article, “President Trump Must Immediately File A
Declaratory Judgment Action to Vindicate Himself and Put an End to the Election
Controversy and New Impeachment,” <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/president-trump-must-immediately-file.html">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2021/01/president-trump-must-immediately-file.html</a>,
if the election in the six or seven contested states can be shown to be invalid,
then President Trump did not “lie” to the American people and his speech is
protected by the First Amendment. Such a showing would destroy the factual predicate
of the Article of Impeachment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But Trump bringing his case to the Senate rather than first
to a court of law is a grave error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I
explained in my article, Trump needs the declaratory judgment action against the
House of Representatives and Congress as a whole to be able to establish what
are the facts regarding the election in the six or seven contested states and
what was his role concerning the Capitol invasion of January 6, 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem with having in the first instance
the trial of those issues in the Senate is that Trump would not have the same
due process rights in the Senate that he would have in a court of law. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He needs to exercise those due process rights so that he can
later demonstrate in the Senate that he did not commit any “high Crime[]” or “Misdemeanor[].”
An impeachment trial in the Senate does not afford Trump the same due process
rights he would have in a court of law. As we witnessed in President Trump’s
first impeachment, there is no real legal standard as to what a high crime or
misdemeanor is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The interpretation and application
of those words is rife with political bias existing in any given moment of
history. For example, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford in 1970 defined
the words thus: "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is
whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a
given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses
two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require
removal of the accused from office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Again, the historical context and political climate are important."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gerald Ford's Remarks of April 15, 1970 on
the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas Archived April 12,
2019, at the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190412080455/https:/www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/700415.pdf">Wayback
Machine</a>. Retrieved January 17, 2021. Hence, Trump needs to develop and prove
as much factual information as he can in a hopefully dispassionate court of law
before a jury free of passion, prejudice, and sympathy prior to the Senate
trial in order to meet that political challenge there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Trump would not have in the Senate the same discovery and
subpoena powers that he would have if he first filed the declaratory judgment
action in federal district court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
court of law has more power and will to sanction discovery violators than would
a politically charged Senate. The rules of evidence apply in a court but not in
the Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither a civil nor criminal
court would allow as we saw in the House of Representative a witness to offer
that President Trump is the “white-supremacist-in-chief,” clearly irrelevant and inflammatory,
as evidence of liability or guilt with respect to the Capital invasion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, just showing that he spoke the truth about the
election irregularities is not sufficient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Trump also must demonstrate that he did not cause the Capital violence
and invasion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The issue of causation (is
Trump’s speech a legal cause of the violent invasion of the Capitol) can better
be presented and argued in a court of law, which is highly experienced with the
complexity of the causation issue. Consider how the politically charged members
of the House of Representatives during the impeachment trial basically ignored
the fundamental issue of causation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like
in the House of Representatives, we cannot expect a similarly politically
charged Senate to give to the causation issue the respect that the law demands
it deserves. In the Senate, like we saw in the House of Representatives, Trump
would probably be subjected to that body’s political judgment however tainted and
a victim of our current political and social “cancel” culture rather than to any
legal judgment. Simply stated, Trump cannot expect to receive due process of
law in the Senate that he would receive in a court of law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Corporate interests have significantly cut President Trump’s
ability to communicate with the American people and the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are therefore interfering with his political
speech and ability to defend himself and the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With a lawsuit in court, President Trump can
fully defend himself by taking action to show that he did not commit any wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There, he would also have the right to have a
jury of the people decide the facts based on admissible testimony, exhibits,
and stipulations rather than the politically motivated Senate acting as a jury.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, he would also be able to appeal to
the Circuit Court of Appeals and have a path to the U.S. Supreme Court, if
necessary. There is no appeal in an impeachment trial by the Senate. Even if he
were to file an appeal to a court of a Senate conviction, that court would most
likely rule that it has no jurisdiction because what happened there is a
political question and nonjusticiable. See <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-has-no-role-impeachment">https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-has-no-role-impeachment</a>
. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After developing his evidence and
factual record in court, he can then stand fully prepared to challenge his impeachment
trial in the Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trump’s legal team
should also seek a court order staying the impeachment trial pending completion
of his declaratory judgment action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The due process rights outlined above, among others, are fundamental
to our justice system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, all roads lead to President Trump having to bring
his case to a court of law first before he brings his case to the Senate. Legal action in a court is the only way that he can hopefully receive the due
process and justice to which he is entitled. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.</span><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
<span style="background: white;">January 17, 2021</span><br />
</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="background: white; color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><span style="color: #333333;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">####</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">Copyright © 2021</span><br />
<span style="background: white;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span><br />
<span style="background: white;">All Rights Reserved</span></span> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34225180941595381952021-01-11T13:45:00.005-05:002021-01-11T19:31:30.919-05:00President Trump Must Immediately File A Declaratory Judgment Action to Vindicate Himself and Put an End to the Election Controversy and New Impeachment<p class="MsoNormal">President Trump Must Immediately File A Declaratory Judgment
Action to Vindicate Himself and Put an End to the Election Controversy and New Impeachment
<o:p></o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">January 11, 2021<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaR1HIKMxnrnoX-TIV7USFXyj5VypErqALFLnYmSNjc2Sp4aT_MmQMVLam-kSLGxqbyAmKvInKyUtPNpoXGpII-yrcQXLSSaCB-lZ_XSOuzbGmxAhch_wCCDAbYu41mfT5We0wAsaQ0jtZ/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="178" data-original-width="283" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaR1HIKMxnrnoX-TIV7USFXyj5VypErqALFLnYmSNjc2Sp4aT_MmQMVLam-kSLGxqbyAmKvInKyUtPNpoXGpII-yrcQXLSSaCB-lZ_XSOuzbGmxAhch_wCCDAbYu41mfT5We0wAsaQ0jtZ/" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Attached find the <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/490165056/Articles-of-Impeachment-Incitement-of-Insurrection-pdf-4#from_embed">Houses'
Resolution</a> advancing articles of impeachment introduced today, January 11,
2021, against President Donald J. Trump. The House will be voting on the resolution
on Tuesday of this week. Should the House vote to move forward with the
impeachment, President Trump must immediately file a declaratory judgment action
in federal district court. </div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The document alleges that President Trump committed a “high
crime and misdemeanor” when he "incited violence against the Government of
the United States." It also alleges that Trump “engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against” the United States," an act prohibited by the Fourteenth
Amendment. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">To support these assertions it alleges that as a lead up to
the violence on January 6, 2021, President Trump "repeatedly issued false
statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of
widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified
by State or Federal officials." It
adds that "he reiterated false claims that 'we won this election, and we
won it by a 'landslide.'" It states
that "in context," those misrepresentations along with his saying
"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a county
anymore," incited the crowd to enter the Capitol and interfere with the
Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The articles also refer to President Trump's January 2, 2021
telephone call to Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, during which
it is alleged that he told him that he needed to "'find' enough votes to overturn the
Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if
he failed to do so." <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Because of these factual allegations and because they serve
as the foundation of the impeachment action, President Trump, as an interested
party with standing, should immediately file a declaratory judgment action
against Congress and the House of Representatives in federal district court under
28 U.S.C. §2201 and F.R.C.P. 57. There
exists a real live (not hypothetical) controversy between the House and him
which a court of law needs to decide, for Congress will not resolve the issue
given the results and disruption of the Joint Session on January 6. The declaratory action would terminate the
ongoing controversy regarding the integrity of the election. He needs to ask that the court declare what
his rights and obligations are respecting whether he lied to the American
people regarding the 2020 election. He
needs the election factual findings and ruling of the court to defend himself
in the impeachment proceedings. In the
action, he can challenge the votes in all the six or seven offending
states. He already has much of the
information he needs right in the Texas lawsuit, other legal actions, and evidence which he was
never given an opportunity to present in court.
Having proven that his claims of election irregularity were legitimate,
he would be able to show that the impeachment has no factual foundation and
thereby prevail in that regard. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">He should ask for a jury trial and for a speedy
hearing. He needs to ask for full
discovery so that he can prove that he did not lie to the American people. Depending on who wins and losses, the case
must be fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court.
All this needs to be done immediately so that the court findings can be
used to stop Biden's inauguration on January 20. Even if that inauguration cannot be stopped,
Trump still needs the court's findings to stop the impeachment and for his
future political career. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Having proven in court that his representations regarding
the integrity of the election are not false, there is no factual predicate to
the articles of impeachment. It also
shows that he was fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law and not to
incite violence against the U.S. Government.
Such a factual finding by a court will also show that President Trump is
not "a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution."
It will show that he did not "act[] in a manner grossly incompatible with
self-governance and the rule of law." <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">President Trump should also join a count in the complaint to
have the court declare that Senator Kamala Harris, born in California to parents who were temporarily in the United States and not U.S. citizens, at best is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" of the United States, but not an Article II “natural
born citizen." He has standing to
assert that given that Joe Biden added Harris to his ticket to draw votes away
from the Trump/Pence ticket.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <br />January 11, 2021 <br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</a> <br /><br />#### <br /><br />Copyright © 2021 <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <br />All Rights Reserved
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><br /><p></p>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55072080014918999532020-12-30T01:28:00.013-05:002021-01-03T21:48:20.724-05:00It Is Sufficient If Only One House of Congress Objects to the Electoral College Vote on January 6, 2021 To Compel The House of Representatives To Vote For The President of The United States<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">It Is Sufficient If Only
One House of Congress Objects to the Electoral College Vote on January 6, 2021
To Compel The House of Representatives To Vote For The President of The United
States<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">December 29, 2020<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXcGckHHNmbbqBOWvFO4khko9YAEs9u8bCTluatWuuXafDXnSQZIWfGQnA8K_1wEu3mc63xeot8EHwSJbr3ETqst-51NOOuf77wlxM2wNULY7wUicAJZp5GnJlRrn_geff8cpjctKB0RNa/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="624" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXcGckHHNmbbqBOWvFO4khko9YAEs9u8bCTluatWuuXafDXnSQZIWfGQnA8K_1wEu3mc63xeot8EHwSJbr3ETqst-51NOOuf77wlxM2wNULY7wUicAJZp5GnJlRrn_geff8cpjctKB0RNa/w320-h320/image.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Disputed Hayes-Tilden Election of 1876</td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">This article was inspired by my recent two-part interview (<a href="https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/12/22/are-the-electoral-colleges-votes-valid-part-i/">Part
I</a> and <a href="https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/12/26/are-the-electoral-colleges-votes-valid-part-ii/">Part
II</a>) with the Post & Email and some of the public comments that
followed. The question is whether both Houses of Congress need to reject a single return of a state’s Electoral College vote for an objection made during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, to prevail. As explained below, both Houses of Congress do not have to agree to reject that state’s Electoral College votes for those votes to be voided. </p><p class="MsoNormal">There are five scenarios under Section 15 of the Electoral
Count Act of 1887(3 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.) (“ECA”) for counting and resolving Electoral
College votes disputes in the joint session of Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenarios 1 through 4 deal with cases in
which both Houses either agree or disagree to the regularity of the votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenario 1 is the only case in which Congress
receives just one Electoral College return and both Houses must agree to reject
the vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenario 5 is the only one of
the five scenarios in which the two Houses disagree, but it only applies when
Congress receives competing electoral returns (one state submits to Congress more
than one Electoral College vote return).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>With such disagreement, it provides that the stalemate between the
Houses shall be broken by Congress having to accept the electoral votes which a
state’s executive (Governor) shall have certified. Hence, under Section 15, one
could argue that Scenario 5, which allows for a case in which both Houses
disagree, only applies if Congress receives official competing electoral returns
and that if it receives only one such return then the two Houses must under
Scenario 1 both agree to reject that vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As explained below, Congress in joint session is not shackled by Section
15 because Section 15 is unconstitutional and even if constitutional, it does
not apply to a case of a corrupt underlying popular vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Again, there are five scenarios for resolution under Section
15 of the ECA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenarios 1 through 4
deal with cases in which both Houses either agree or disagree to the regularity
of the votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenario 5 provides:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“(5) But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the
counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose
appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the
seal thereof, shall be counted.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scenario 1 only deals with cases in which there is only one
return of a state’s electoral votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
says that the votes must be counted unless both Houses reject the vote. So here
we have both Houses agreeing with each other to reject the vote. Implicit is
the case in which both Houses agree to accept the vote either with no objection
by any Senator or Representative or with voting to accept the electoral votes
after an objection. In both cases, the Houses are agreeing with each
other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scenario 2 through 5 deal with cases in which there is more
than one return of a state’s electoral votes. Scenario 2 is applicable only if
there was a “safe harbor” determination by a state’s “judicial or other methods
or procedures.” Scenario 3 only applies if there is a dispute as to what state
authority is the legal authority to appoint the electors and “the lawful
tribunal of such State” decides the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But again, both Houses must agree on that decision. Scenario 4 only
applies if there is no “safe harbor” relief as to which of two electoral vote
returns are the valid ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, both
Houses must either agree to accept or reject a return. Scenario 5 is the only
one of the five scenarios in which the two Houses disagree. With such disagreement,
it provides that the stalemate between the Houses shall be broken by Congress
having to accept that slate of electors which a state’s executive (Governor)
shall have certified. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, Scenario 1 through 4 of Section 15 of the Electoral
Count Act only apply if both Houses of Congress agree, either to accept or
reject any state’s electoral votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
do not apply if both Houses of Congress disagree with each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What applies in that case is Scenario 5.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenario 5 is the only one in which the ECA
includes the possibility of both Houses disagreeing on how which of the
competing electoral returns are to be counted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But we cannot use Scenario 5 if Congress received only one Electoral College
vote return from a state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore,
the provision purports to resolve the dispute between the Houses through the governor’s
certification. Seven contested states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all sent competing electoral returns to
Congress. No governor of any of those states has certified the Republican returns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, Congress can easily just ignore those competing
Republican returns and treat each such state as having provided just one electoral
return.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Notwithstanding this statutory structure, in a case in which
Congress only received one state’s official electoral return, both Houses of
Congress do not have to agree to reject that state’s Electoral College votes
for those votes to be voided. First, it is doubtful that Section 15 of the ECA
is constitutional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simply, Congress
cannot substantively amend the Constitution with a statute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Congress amended Article II, Section 1 with
the Twelfth Amendment because it saw the original Constitution as having not
provided for a substantive election problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If Congress wanted to substantively change the Twelfth Amendment, again
for failure of the Constitution to have provided a solution to a certain
problem, it had to do so with another amendment as it did through the Twentieth
Amendment. Congress cannot just carve out pieces of the Twelfth Amendment and
then change them with a statute such as Section 15 of the ECA. The necessary
and proper clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution does
not apply here to save Section 15.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, even if Section 15 of the ECA is constitutional, it does
not apply to limit Congress’s power in a case of a state’s corrupt popular vote,
including a case in which voters in a popular election and electors of the Elector
College voted for a candidate who is not an Article II natural born citizen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is neither the popular election nor the
Electoral College that wields the ultimate power to select the President and
Vice President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, the Constitution
ultimately tasks Congress with that authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The purpose of the ECA as a whole is to assist Congress in deciding how
and which electoral votes of a state to count when in joint session. While Section
15 requires that a state’s Electoral College votes be “regularly given by
electors,” it does not address cases in which there is a corrupt underlying popular
vote. Section 15 does not apply to limit Congress’s power when faced with a
corrupt underlying state’s popular vote. Section 15 therefore does not address cases
in which a state’s underlying popular vote was corrupted. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 15 does not provide for objections by Senators or Representatives
based on corruption of a state’s underlying popular vote. In fact, other than
to require that the elector’s vote be “regularly given,” the section makes no
mention of the possibility of a state’s popular vote being corrupt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, both Houses do not have to agree to
reject a state’s Electoral College votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There can be a case in which for political reasons the two Houses disagree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that were to happen, a governor’s
certification of any state’s Electoral College votes could not hamper Congress’s
constitutional duty to assure that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Constitution, Article
IV, Section 4), which means that it must guard our elections from any
corruption that would endanger our system of majority rule. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Constitution is the supreme law of the
land which means that the Constitution always prevails over a federal or state statute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Members of Congress take an oath or affirm to
support and defend the Constitution. Congress must have the constitutional power,
if not express then implied, when counting Electoral College votes not to count
corrupted and therefore unconstitutional popular votes which are the predicate
for those Electoral College votes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scenario
1 of Section 15 tells us that much in its provision that the two Houses can
reject a state’s Electoral College vote that they conclude has not been “regularly
given by electors” of that state even if their “appointment has been so
certified” by that state’s governor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 15 of the ECA cannot force a House of Congress to
count a vote when it would be a violation of the Constitution to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Congress cannot agree to accept a state’s Electoral
College votes (both Houses disagree) because one House concludes that those
votes are based on a corrupt underlying popular vote, then that state shall
have failed to follow the command of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which
provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct” its electors. Indeed, if a state can take back the power to
appoint electors, then it can lose that power for having conducted an illegal
election of those electors. States have rights under our Constitution, but not
the right to violate the Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>With such a constitutional violation, no candidate is allotted that
state’s Electoral College votes unless, and as to not disenfranchise that
state’s voters, a candidate can demonstrate that he or she was the true winner
of that state’s popular vote and that therefore that state has satisfied its
constitutional duty. If no candidate can show that he or she received the
required majority of all the Electoral College votes (270 of 538), then the
House of Representatives shall elect the President and the Senate the Vice
President as provided for by the Twelfth Amendment. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As to the grounds for rejecting electoral votes due to
voting irregularities which disqualify an offending state’s appointment of
the electors so certified, there is enough doubt regarding the integrity of the
votes for members of Congress to challenge those votes and demand a full debate
on the floor. Those grounds are documented, among other places, in the numerous
state lawsuits and in the federal lawsuit filed by Texas which the U.S. Supreme
Court refused to hear because of standing. A large percentage of Americans do
not think we had a legitimate election. While the immediate seizure of evidence
and appointment of a Special Counsel, and a Congressional investigation
following the election is necessary, there is enough evidence to now reject the
Electoral College votes of the offending battleground states, Arizona, Georgia,
Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. See Peter Navarro, <a href="https://www.usallegianceinstitute.org/the-immaculate-deception-12-15-20-1">“The
Immaculate Deception: Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities</a>,”
accessed here (explains the six dimensions of election irregularities in the
six battleground states). As Peter Navarro concludes in his report, if “this is
not done before Inauguration Day, we risk putting into power an illegitimate
and illegal president lacking the support of a large segment of the American
people.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For further support findings of
irregularities in the Pennsylvania election, see <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;"><a href="https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/12/28/group-of-pa-legislators-certification-of-presidential-election-premature-and-in-error/">Statement
by Pennsylvania lawmakers. </a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: #4472c4; mso-themecolor: accent1;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third, under the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments, Congress
can reject either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate for not being
eligible and therefore failing to qualify for the office he or she seeks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This can occur in the case of such a candidate
not being an Article II “natural born citizen.” Congress does not need the ECA
to make such a challenge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Senator Kamala Harris was born in CA to two non-U.S. citizen
parents. She was born with citizenship and allegiance to the U.S. and to her
parents’ two countries and not born with unity of natural allegiance to and
citizenship of the U.S.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Born with
divided loyalties, she is at best a 14th Amendment “citizen” of the United
States, but not an Art. II “natural born citizen.” For the full details on what
the original meaning of a natural born citizen is and why Senator Harris is not
a natural born citizen, see the <a href="https://www.usallegianceinstitute.org/laity-v-harris-amicus-curiae-brief">amicus
curiae brief</a> which I authored on behalf of the U.S. Allegiance Institute
recently filed in the case of Robert C. Laity v. Kamala Devi Harris, then
pending in the D.C. Federal District Court under Case No. 20-cv-2511-EGS, which
the court dismissed for lack of standing (not on the merits of the meaning of a
natural born citizen). This case is now on appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, both Houses of Congress do not have to agree to reject a
state’s Electoral College vote for those votes to be voided. Both Houses or
even just one can object to a state’s Electoral College vote either because the
underlying popular vote is corrupt and/or because in the case of Senator Harris
she is not a natural born citizen. If both Houses reject that vote or just one House
does so, then unless President Trump and Vice President Pence can demonstrate
that they garnered at least 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives should
choose who shall be President and the Senate who shall be Vice President. A quorum
of two-thirds in each House (two-thirds of all the states for the House of
Representatives and two-thirds of all the Senators for the Senate) is needed.
Once there is a quorum in both Houses, to carry a vote a majority of all the
states (for the House of Representatives) and a majority of all the Senators
(for the Senate) is sufficient.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the end, the Constitution and the circumstances of election
corruption it was designed to address should always trump a statute that not
only was not designed for that purpose, but actually thwarts that end. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is a <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dgq3o-STdxL6yoA04mML_B1Wge-ggQPWDIYDu4OgPKA/edit">list
of Republican Senators and Representatives</a> who can be contacted to share with
them this article and urge them to make an objection to the Electoral College
vote on January 6, 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">December 29, 2020<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">http://puzo1.blogspot.com<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">####<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p>Copyright © 2020</p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">All Rights Reserved<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3703612062762075192019-06-02T11:51:00.011-04:002020-10-25T13:42:10.452-04:00The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
The Fallacies of Congressional
Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
June 2, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
Reposted June 2, 2019</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTe8cA_sFsVJQZgUY5pyWhTEhx0p8bTiHhMmEFm2CLd12P7Kt_O" width="160" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche
Republicans recently said: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted
Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s
citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes
in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was
born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted
Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen">http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen</a>
. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Quasius’
argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies
of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in his
two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos. <span style="background: white;">Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo published in
2009: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;">“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical
opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who
is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S.
citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born ‘in’ the United
States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of
United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S.
residency requirements."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions">http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions</a>
. <span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then
he wrote in his 2011 CRS memo: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“The
weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’
citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or
‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its
jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S.
citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal
requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”
I<span style="background: white;">n this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has
ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although
several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause
has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years,
as well as more recent litigation.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf</a>
.
<span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;"><br />
<br />
</span>Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and
historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural
born Citizen” clause means. A “notion”
is defined, in relevant part, as: “1. A general idea 2. a
belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s
New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1:
Idea, conception <have a="" he="" means="" of="" what=""> 2: a belief held: opinion, view
3: whim, fancy <a go="" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" sudden="" to="">.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
480 (1974). And this “opinion” only
“appears to support” that notion. Here,
we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to
what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, he only put forth a theory that this
“scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or
opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is. </a></have></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While
his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural
born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen
at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth
status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a
“natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something
else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, is true. He also stated that “<span style="background: white;">there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the
presidential eligibility requirements.”
As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme
Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born
citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down
what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form. I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at
birth=CAB<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All NBCs are CABs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen”
mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333;">First, it is a tautology to
argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen. Second, this argument commits the fallacy of
affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one
is a NBC). Third, this argument suffers
from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the
middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise
meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the
class of NBCs). So, while the major and
minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is
false. We should see intuitively that
the conclusion does not follow from the two premises. A</span>n easy way to see the invalidity of
the argument is the following: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All poodles are dogs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bubbles is a dog.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs
being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or
some other type of dog. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the
Maskell/Quasius statement. Now we will
test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument. To do that, we need to help Maskell and
Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one. Here we go:
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All CABs are NBCs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This argument is valid because if the major and minor
premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound,
meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound
because its major premise is false. With
the major premise being false, so is its conclusion. Let me explain. First, the major premise, all “citizens at
birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and
Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there
does not exist any evidence that they did.
Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text
of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at
Birth” or some variant thereof.
Additionally, while it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are
“citizens at birth,” it does not follow that all “citizens at birth” are
“natural born Citizens.” If I am wrong,
Bob Quasius can cite for us an authoritative source which provides that all
“citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” So there is the challenge. Let Bob Quasius or anyone else who might want
to come to his aid provide one authoritative source which demonstrates that all
“citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” By doing this, he will also be proving that
Jack Maskell is correct. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anticipating that Bob Quasius
will not be able to provide any such source, I have therefore demonstrated how Jack
Maskell is incorrect in what he stated to be the definition of a “natural born
Citizen.” Using their exact words, they made
an invalid argument about who is included and excluded as a “natural born
Citizen.” Even adjusting what they said
to make a valid argument, they made an unsound argument, for they provided a
non-existent definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Either way, Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius lose. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now
as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a
country to parents who were its “citizens” (at birth or after birth) at the time of the child’s
birth. This is the settled definition of
the clause under American national common law.
<u>See</u> Emer de Vattel, <u>The Law of
Nations</u>, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel
1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens”); <u>The Venus</u>, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253,
289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); <u>Inglis
v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor</u>, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); <u>Shanks v. Dupont</u>, 28
U.S. 242, 245 (1830; <u><span lang="EN">Dred Scott v. Sandford</span></u><span lang="EN">,</span><span lang="EN"> </span><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html" title="http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html"><span color="windowtext" lang="EN" style="text-decoration-line: none;">60 U.S. 393</span></a><span lang="EN">, 476-77
(1857) (J. </span><span style="color: #333333;">Daniels concurring); </span><u>Minor
v. Happersett</u>, 88 <st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place>
162, 168-170 (1875); <u><span style="color: #333333;">Ex parte Reynolds</span></u><span style="color: #333333;">, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark
1879); <u>United States v. Ward</u>, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); </span><u><span lang="EN">United States v. Wong Kim Ark,</span></u><span lang="EN"> 169 U.S. 649, </span>679-80 (1898) (all
confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of <u>The Law of Nations</u> (<st1:place w:st="on">London</st1:place> 1797) (1<sup>st</sup>
ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). This is the only definition of the clause
that has ever existed in the U.S. and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme
Court. The two conditions of being born in the
country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of
being a “natural born Citizen.” The
definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who was not
born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both
parents) who were its “citizens” (at birth or after birth) at the time of the child’s birth or both. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here
is what this definition produces as logical statements: I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC; born in the country
=BIC; and born to citizen parents=BCPs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
All BIC
and BCPs are NBC.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
All Xs
are BIC and BCPs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Therefore,
all Xs are NBC. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If NBC, then BIC and BCPs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
X is not BIC and BCP. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, X is not NBC.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If and only if BIC and BCP, then NBC.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
X is not BIC and BCPs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, X is not NBC.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All NBCs are BIC and BCPs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No Xs are BIC and BCPs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, no Xs are NBC.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders
in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.” They required this because they wanted to
protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices
from monarchical and foreign influence.
For the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of
the nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders
be born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States. Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born
to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz
(born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father),
Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal
(born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in
South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country
(BIC) to citizen parents (BCPs). Because
they acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien
parents (all of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe
also Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to
the United States. Under all of the
above logical statements, none of these individuals are “natural born
Citizens.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are
neither “<span style="background: white; color: #373737; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the
United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not
eligible to be President. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #373737; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",serif; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">June 2, 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Reposted June 2, 2019</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span lang="EN" style="color: #336699; mso-ansi-language: EN;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><span lang="EN"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Copyright © 2013<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com155tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18473646734349717342018-05-17T13:29:00.000-04:002018-10-22T18:26:43.415-04:00A Response to the Idea of Removing the Natural Born Citizen Clause From Our Constitution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
A Response to the
Idea of Removing the Natural Born Citizen Clause From Our Constitution<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
May 17, 2018<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="206" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg/350px-Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg" width="320" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
University of Richmond School of Law Professor Kevin C.
Walsh proposes ridding our Constitution of its “natural born Citizen” clause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See his article, “The ‘Irish Born’ One American
Citizenship Amendment,” here <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165238">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165238</a>
. Professor Walsh writes that the original Constitution is not perfect and it
is time to change its actual text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
that connection, he advocates that naturalized American citizens should be
eligible to be President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He states: “There
are not two classes of American citizenship, just one. It is time to repeal the
Natural Born Citizen Clause.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People
have posted comments to his article and Professor Walsh addresses them here <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/17/replies-to-comments-on-a-constitutional">https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/17/replies-to-comments-on-a-constitutional</a>
and here http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2018/05/replies-to-comments-on-a-constitutional-amendment-to-repeal-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-2712011.html
.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have picked two of the questions and Professor Walsh’s responses for my own comment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If very few people care much about this
amendment, why would anyone sponsor it?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Professor Walsh’s response:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My comment:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are
supposed to believe without any explanation that this amendment would be “good
for America generally.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are also told to change our presidential
eligibility so that some unstated person or party can garner more votes at the
polls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In his actual article, he calls it “’blood and soil’ white nationalism.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His
plan for getting the amendment accomplished is for Democrats to set up
Republicans to do the job for them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
looks like in Professor Walsh’s world, there should be no problem with “Russian
collusion.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What about competing loyalties to country of
birth for a candidate who is a naturalized citizen?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My comment:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Professor
Walsh does not address is the question of whether it is voters or parties who produce
our elected leaders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will Professor
Walsh next be advocating getting rid of our republican form of government and replace
it with mob rule?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He states that
citizenship is no guarantee of allegiance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>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?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally,
he tells us that a naturalized person is as loyal as a natural born citizen because
naturalization requires “a choice.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
he fails to tell us is what exactly is that choice and how does it relate to
allegiance to the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>American common law at the time of the framing
of the Constitution reflected this natural law and law of nations understanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>See</i> Emer de Vattel, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Law of Nations</i>, 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"); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Minor v.
Happersett, </i>88 U.S. 162 (1875) ("all children born in a country of
parents who were its citizens became. . . natives, or natural-born
citizens"); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">accord U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark, </i>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").</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, these elements are both necessary and
sufficient to make a natural born citizen (place of birth alone is necessary
but not sufficient).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Satisfying just one
of the elements will not be sufficient for producing a natural born
citizen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This definition is enshrined in
the Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the 14th
Amendment could have changed this definition, it did not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor can any Act of Congress supplant it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They fail to understand that these two
elements are both necessary and sufficient to make one a natural born citizen. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">One other
point merits discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New Jersey Administrative
Law Judge Jeff Masin, in my latest New Jersey </span>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:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/308269472/NJ-Judge-Advisory-Opinion-Rules-Canadian-Born-Cruz-Eligible-To-Be-President-4-12-2016">https://www.scribd.com/doc/308269472/NJ-Judge-Advisory-Opinion-Rules-Canadian-Born-Cruz-Eligible-To-Be-President-4-12-2016</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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 <i>Afroyim v. Rusk</i>, 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.” <u>Id</u>. 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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The debate on the meaning of a natural born citizen
continues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will not end until the
U.S. Supreme Court rules on the merits of the meaning of the clause. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> In the meantime, we should keep the natural born citizen clause right where it is, in our Constitution. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
May 17, 2018<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
####<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Copyright © 2018<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All Rights Reserved<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br /></div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64926143422463053272016-07-09T14:02:00.001-04:002016-10-03T11:08:37.344-04:00Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Carmon
Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted
Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">By
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">July
9, 2016</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Image result for image us supreme court" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHDWzaTRIoSvnTRcETTWLpl3YQYaFK3F9BRIciV82eflDfsdQr" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">On June 28, 2016, I filed on behalf of Pennsylvania
resident Carmon Elliott a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Petition can be
accessed at </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliot-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16" style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliott-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16</a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">
. The Court docketed the Petition on
June 30, 2016. Ted Cruz’s response to
the petition is due by August 1, 2016.
The U.S. Supreme Court docket can be read at </span><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-13.htm" style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-13.htm</a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">
. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The parties stipulated in the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania that Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the
State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always been a U.S. citizen from
the moment of her birth; that at the time of Cruz’s birth, his mother had been
physically present in the United States for more than ten years, including at
least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that Cruz was a
citizen at birth. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elliott filed a petition with the Pennsylvania
Secretary of State to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz pursuant to
which he sought to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the
Office of the President. In his
objection, petitioner alleged that given that Cruz was born out of the
territory and jurisdiction of the United States, his name should be stricken
from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born
citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United
States Constitution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz filed his opposition, contending that Elliott’s
objection raised a non-justiciable political question. As to the merits, Cruz contended that a
person born to at least one U.S. citizen parent, regardless of where the child
may be born, if a citizen at birth under any law, is an Article II natural born
citizen through inheritance of citizenship from the parent (jus sanguinis) and
without needing to be born in the United States (jus soli). </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The lower court ruled that the political question
doctrine did not apply and then went on to decide the merits of Elliott’s objection. After discussing some articles written by
some authorities, the court held that: “Having extensively reviewed all
articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds,
consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural
born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth. Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the
United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the
United States, and the objection filed by Carmen Elliott to the Nomination
Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elliott appealed the Order of the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed that Order on
March 31, 2016, and also denied Victor William’s Notice to Intervene as
Appellant and Elliott’s application for oral argument. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In our Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, we argue
that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important question of
constitutional law concerning the definition of an article II natural born
citizen that has not been but should be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Having a person sit as President and Commander
in Chief of the Military who is not a natural born citizen puts the national
security of the United States vitally at risk.
Whether or not the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately
sitting in those offices impacts the nation’s foreign policy. The nation needs a definition of “natural
born citizen” for future presidential and vice presidential elections. Congress, the executive, the political
parties, and the voters cannot define a natural born citizen. Only the judiciary can define a natural born
citizen. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has
decided an important constitutional question in a way that conflicts with
relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under those precedents, Cruz is at best a naturalized citizen of the
United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of
Congress, not an Article II natural born citizen under the common law to which
the Framers looked to define the clause when they drafted and adopted the
Constitution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We also argue that U.S. Supreme Court review is
warranted because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and it Secretary of State,
by allowing an ineligible presidential candidate to place his name on the
presidential primary election ballot, has violated Elliott’s Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment right and privilege to life, liberty, and property and equal
protection of the law which is implicated if Elliott is forced to live under a
president who is not an Article II natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Finally, we maintain that the important constitutional
issue raised by Elliott’s ballot challenge has not been mooted by Cruz
voluntarily suspending his presidential campaign because there is nothing
stopping Cruz from again running for President or Vice-President and the issue
of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is capable of repetition yet evading
review. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We urge Americans who are committed to having our
politicians and government respect our Constitution and the rule of law to support our cause. Express yourselves not only privately, but
also in public. Write letters and leave
comments in print and electronic media. Call
into radio shows and tell the hosts what you think. Mr. Elliott is also conducting a fund raising
campaign to raise funds to meet our printing and filing expenses. We will appreciate your contribution which you can make at </span><a href="https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; cursor: pointer; font-family: arial; font-size: small;" target="_blank">https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4 </a> . </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I will be posting updates as the Petition makes its
way to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">July 9, 2016</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">####<br />Copyright © 2016<br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />All Rights Reserved </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
UPDATE as of July 29, 2016:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On July 14, 2016, Ted Cruz filed a waiver of his right to
respond to the Petition. The Clerk has distributed
the case for the U.S. Supreme Court conference of September 26, 2016. Here is how the docket appears: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No. 16-13 <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Title: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
v.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ted Cruz<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Docketed: June
30, 2016<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lower Ct: Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Case Nos.: (29 MAP 2016)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Decision Date: March 31, 2016</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and
Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jun 28 2016 Petition
for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jul 14 2016 Waiver
of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.<o:p></o:p><br />
Jul 27 2016 DISTRIBUTED
for Conference of September 26, 2016.<br />
<br />
UPDATE as of October 3, 2016:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. See ORDER LIST: 580 U.S., published on Monday, October 3, 2016, accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100316zor_9ol1.pdf , The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give. The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits. We will just have to wait until another day. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com265tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11116132396245269832016-03-07T14:03:00.000-05:002016-04-16T09:54:39.911-04:00Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed”<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Ted
Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor
“TrusTed” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March 5, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Image result for constitutional convention of 1787" height="156" src="" style="text-align: left;" width="320" /><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“TrusTed” (one of his campaign slogans) Ted Cruz, born
in a foreign nation to an alien father, is running for President. Eligibility to be elected President is found
in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which provides: "No Person except a natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United
States." Since Cruz was born in 1970,
he must be not only a “citizen” of the United States, but a “natural born
citizen” of the United States in order to be eligible to be elected President. So, is Cruz a natural born citizen? The answer is “no.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rules
of Constitutional Construction</span></b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">n
interpreting what natural born citizen means, we should be reminded of what
Thomas Jefferson said regarding how the Constitution should be interpreted regarding
the jurisdiction of the states versus the jurisdiction of the national
government: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It may be
impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which shall decide at
once, and with precision in every case, this limit of jurisdiction, but there
are two Canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases . . . . 2 o</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">n
every question of construction [of the Constitution] carry ourselves back to
the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in
the debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the
text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was
past" [sic]. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson,
dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello. <a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.053_0998_1005/?sp=7">https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.053_0998_1005/?sp=7</a> . <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">"It is never to be forgotten that in the
construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in
all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place
ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that
instrument." <i>Ex Parte Bain</i>, 121
U.S. 1, 12 (1887). "[T]he
enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it,
must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have
intended what they have said." <i>Gibbons
v. Ogden</i>, 22 U. S. 1, 188 (1824). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Chief Justice John Marshall in his dissent in <i>Ogden </i>laid out the rule of
constitutional interpretation thus: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Much too has been said concerning the principles of
construction which ought to be applied to the Constitution of the United
States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On this subject also, the Court has taken such
frequent occasion to declare its opinion as to make it unnecessary, at least,
to enter again into an elaborate discussion of it. To say that the intention of
the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its
words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are
generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its
provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to
objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat
what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Odgen
v. Saunders</span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">, 25 U.S. 213, 332 (1827). The key to interpreting the Constitution and
its natural born citizen clause is finding sources that are relevant to
informing on the meaning the Framers and Ratifiers gave to its words and
phrases and particularly that clause and how that meaning thus shaped the
understanding of the people for whose benefit the Constitution was ratified.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There are also some </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">rules that our U.S. Supreme Court has established to
accomplish the task.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the
constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction
is inadmissible unless the words require it….” <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>. 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). “In expounding the
Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and
appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word
was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have
taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the
correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the
foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been
weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been
fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as
superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies.” <i>Holmes
v. Jennison</i>, 39 U.S. 540, 570-71 (1840).
Our Supreme Court has consistently expressed "a deep reluctance to
interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in
the same enactment." <i>Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport,</i> 495 U.S. 552, 110 S.Ct. 2126,
2133, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990); <i>International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Uaw v. Johnson Controls, Inc</i>, 499 U.S. 187, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 1204,
113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) .<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hence, the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II
must be given independent effect and meaning from an English “natural born
subject” and from the “citizen” of the United States clause of Article I and II
itself, the Fourteenth Amendment, and naturalization Act of Congress. All Presidents must qualify as Article II
natural born citizens, not only as Fourteenth Amendment or statutory citizens
of the United States. The two clauses
have different and distinct meanings or they would not have their own
independent life in the Constitution and Acts of Congress. Article II says natural born citizen and the
Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress say citizen of the United States. If being a citizen of the United States at
birth had the same meaning as being a natural born citizen, then the natural
born citizen clause would have no effect and be written out of the
Constitution. Such a construction is not
admissible. If we were not to give special meaning to the clause “natural born
citizen” and conclude that natural born citizen and born citizen of the United
States mean the same thing, the clause natural born citizen would be
superfluous. Hence, we have to give special meaning to the clause natural born
citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The U.S. Supreme Court case of <i>District of Columbia v. Heller</i>, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637
(2008) is very instructive in providing a list of relevant sources and
methodology that our U.S. Supreme Court uses for interpreting the
Constitution. There the Court looked to
the text of the Constitution itself. It
looked to the structure of the Constitution.
It looked at what state constitutions said and also the Federalist
Papers. It said that debates on the
Constitution (pre-enactment statements) are not reliable when interpret the text
of the Constitution. The Court said the
debates are not reliable because they do not necessarily reflect the “general
understanding of disputed terms.” Rather, the Court said debates can be
persuasive given that it can be argued that the people who voted on the
legislation probably voted with that understanding in mind. <i>Id.</i> The Court said that post ratification
commentary are “sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text
in the period after its enactment or ratification.” <i>Id.</i> This inquiry “is a
critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” <i>Id.</i> This understanding is provided by
interpreters of the constitutional provision being examined in the years
following its enactment and ratification.
<i>Id.</i> Apart from analyzing the text of the natural
born citizen clause, the structure of the Constitution, and case law, here I
will present historical evidence of the type that our courts and legal
profession have always relied upon when trying to determine the meaning of a
specific clause in the Constitution.
This evidence shows that the Framers and Ratifiers relied upon American
common law, which incorporated the citizenship principles of the law of nations
and not those of the colonial English common law, for their definition of an
Article II natural born citizen. This
evidence shows and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in <i>Minor v. Happersett</i>, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) confirmed that the
definition under that common law upon which the Framers relied for their
definition of a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents
who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This evidence also shows that neither the
Fourteenth Amendment nor <i>U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark</i>, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) or any other decision of the United States Supreme
Court has ever changed that definition and therefore it still prevails today.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Purpose of the Natural Born Citizen Clause</span></b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The original Constitution neither defines a citizen
nor a natural born citizen. The debates
at both the Constitutional Convention and in the state ratifying conventions
also give little information on the meaning of a natural born citizen. As Jefferson explained in his letter of June
12, 1823, the clause’s meaning can be found in the historical context of
English history and the American Revolution and what the Framers sought to
accomplish through the clause. Hence, a
correct understanding of a natural born citizen cannot be had unless we analyze
the purpose for which the Framers required all persons born after the adoption
of the Constitution to be natural born citizens and not just citizens in order
to be eligible to be President. Any
reasonable interpretation of the natural born citizen clause cannot thwart the
purpose for which the Framers required future Presidents and Commanders in
Chief of the Military to be natural born citizens. Let us now examine what that purpose was and
which still has relevance today. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates
relied heavily upon historical precedent, emanating from ancient Greece and
Rome, the English Glorious Revolution, and recent events from Holland and
Germany. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In England, because of the rules of royal succession,
it was not uncommon for the King to be foreign born and therefore a foreigner.
In the 1600s, the English crown was held by foreigners. From the Stuart House, King James VI, was
born in Scotland, and by succession became James I, King of England, Ireland,
and Scotland. His son, Charles I, was
also born in Scotland. The Protestant
William III, from the German House of Hanover, who came to power during the
Glorious Revolution of 1688 and thereby deposed the Catholic James II, was born
in Holland. Following the Glorious
Revolution in 1688, two Stuart queens ruled Great Britain, Mary II and Anne
(Prince Anne of Denmark), the daughters of James II and VII. Because of their family's Catholic ties,
under the provisions of the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1704 Act
of Security, the crown passed from the House of Stuart to the House of
Hanover, which had its seat in Hanover, Germany. King George I and II were both born in
Hanover, Germany. King George II was the
last English monarch to be born out of Great Britain. The colonies were under the authority of King
George III, who was a descendant of the House of Hanover, but born in
England. George, in his accession speech
to Parliament, proclaimed: "Born and educated in this country, I glory in
the name of Britain".<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><sup><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></sup><!--[endif]--></sup></a> He
inserted this phrase into the speech to demonstrate his desire to distance
himself from his German</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">forebears, who were seen as caring more for Hanover
than for Britain.<sup><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn2" title="">[2]</a></span></sup><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn2" title=""><!--[endif]--></a></sup>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><sup><sup><br /></sup></sup></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The English did not trust their foreign monarchs. They deposed James II, who was a Catholic and
closely allied with his cousin, Louis XIV of France. Parliament declared in the Act of
Settlement: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">2. That in case
the crown and imperial dignity of this realm shall hereafter come to any person
not being a native of this kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to
engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not
belong to the crown of England, without the consent of parliament. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">3. That no
person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall go out of
the dominion of England, Scotland, or Ireland without the consent of
parliament.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">*** <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">5. That after
the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the
kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging
(although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of
English parents) shall be capable to be of the privy council, or to enjoy an
office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of
lands, tenements, or hereditaments from the crown to himself or to any other or
others in trust for him. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><sup><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></sup><!--[endif]--></sup></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Under the Act of Settlement anyone who became a Roman
Catholic or who married one was disqualified to inherit the English crown. The act also placed limits on the role of
foreigners in the British government.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><sup><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></sup><!--[endif]--></sup></a> Founders and Framers who were lawyers
would have been familiar with these English statutes and come to learn how the
British looked upon persons who were
foreigners. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">America had recently fought an independence war with
Great Britain, which divided the loyalties of its own people. So, the Framers knew firsthand how critical
undivided loyalty and allegiance were to the future survival of their cause for
liberty and the preservation and perpetuation of the new republic. The Framers commanded that Presidents and
Commanders of the Military born after the adoption of the Constitution be
natural born citizens to assure that they would be born with those
circumstances which would best assure that they would develop the virtue of
love of country and thereby be free of monarchical and foreign influence in
whatever form it may present itself. The
historical record demonstrates that, with the Office of President being a
singular and all-powerful office both civilly and militarily, the Framers took
extra measures to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of the Office of
President. Rather than relying upon
Congress to elect the President, they gave that power to the Electoral
College. Unlike allowing “citizens” to
serve in Congress, they required future Presidents to be “natural born
citizens.” They looked to the natural
born citizen clause to assure that the President would in the future protect
and preserve the constitutional Republic which they had built. They sought to achieve this end by requiring
that those future Presidents and Commanders be born with unity of citizenship
and allegiance to the United States.
They looked upon the natural born citizen clause as a means to
accomplish their end. It is not up to us now to second-guess the Framers’
policy decision. Some want us to believe
that after having fought a bloody revolution with Great Britain in order to
constitute a republic based on the consent of the governed, and not wanting to
return to monarchical rule, the Framers would have allowed children born after
the adoption of the Constitution in the United States to British natural born
subject parents or out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States
to be eligible for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the
Military. We can ask ourselves whether the Framers would have allowed a child
born after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States to English
parents or out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to be
eligible to be President. It is highly unlikely that they would have. The only way they could have prevented that
was to maintain that only those children born in the United States to U.S.
citizen parents were natural born citizens.
Hence, that was the Framers’ definition of the clause. As we shall see below, the historical and
legal record confirms that the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen
was just that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Constitutional Convention and the Natural Born Citizen Clause</span></b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Constitutional Convention took place in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Pennsylvania State House and lasted from May
25 (when a quorum of seven states was secured) to September 17, 1787.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Alexander Hamilton gave a speech to the
Convention on June 18, 1787. He read to
the Convention his Propositions for A Constitution of Government. See Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 393); 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the
Federal Convention of 1787, at 617 (1911)
(Farrand). This speech contained
a sketch of a plan which has become known as the English Plan. This plan can be read here, <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp">http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp</a>
. Hamilton’s plan was not considered
because it resembled the British system, with a strong centralized government, an
executive serving for life which resembled a monarch, and virtually did away
with state sovereignty and consolidated the states into a single nation. James Madison informed us in his Convention
notes that “[i]t meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to
suggest the amendment which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R. in
the proper stages of its future discussion.
Although this plan was not formally before the Convention in any way,
several of the delegates made copies . . . Farrand. at 617.
Hamilton proposed in his Propositions that the "supreme executive
authority of the United States to be vested in a Governor. . ." and that
he also be the "commander-in-chief. . ." In this initial sketch, Hamilton did not
include any eligibility requirements for the supreme executive authority who he
would call the President rather than Governor in his later draft of the Constitution. In his speech to the Convention, Hamilton
advocated an executive for life. The
reason that he gave for such a life position was the following: “The Hereditary interest of the King was so
interwoven with that of the Nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that
he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad-and at the same
time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controuled, to answer
the purpose of the institution at home. one of the weak sides of Republics was
their being liable to foreign influence & corruption. Men of little
character, acquiring great power become easily the tools of intermedling
Neibours.” <i>Id.</i> Here we can see
that Hamilton was very concerned with the harm that could be done to the nation
by an executive who was corrupted by foreign influence and intrigue.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This “sketch of a plan of government” was not formally
presented to the Convention, but delegates, including James Madison, had
various copies of this plan. Farrand, at
617. This plan does not include Hamilton’s
“born a citizen” language which he included in his later draft of a
constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Before we go forward, let us consider who John Jay is. John Jay (1745-1829) was a Founding Father
who served as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also held other top government posts. He was a native of New York and drafted that
state’s first constitution in 1777. The
following year, he was chosen president of the Continental Congress. He then
became U.S. minister to Spain. He also
helped broker the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War.
President Washington appointed Jay the Supreme Court’s first chief justice in
1789. With the 1794 Jay Treaty he was
able to avert war with Great Britain. He
also served as governor of New York for six years and then retired from public
office.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A Committee of Detail met during the July 4 recess and
produced a rough draft of the Constitution.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On July 25, 1787, about five weeks after Hamilton’s
June 18 speech, John Jay wrote a letter to then-General Washington, who was
acting as president of the Constitutional Convention, stating: </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise
& seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into
the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that
the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve
on, any but a natural born Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29">http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29</a>
. John Jay reminded George Washington of
the importance of remanding back to the original concerns of the people and
offered his presentation, to which George Washington offered, verbatim, to the
convention. Alexander Heard and Michael
Nelson, Presidential Selection 123 (Duke University Press 1987) via Google
Books.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Jay demanded that there be a "strong check"
on foreign influence infiltrating the national government in general and the
Office of Commander in Chief of the Military specifically. A natural born
subject, whether under English common law or naturalization Acts of Parliament,
both of which permitted dual and conflicting allegiance at birth, did not
provide that strong check on foreign influence for which Jay was looking.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On July 26, 1787, the Constitutional Convention
instructed the Committee of Detail to come up with qualifications for the
offices of members of Congress and the President. 2 Farrand, at 116-17, 121-25. The Committee produced a report on August 6,
but it only contained qualifications for Representatives and Senators, and the
President was elected by the Legislature.
<i>Id.</i> at 177-79, 185. The Convention took these issues up again on
August 13. Elbridge Gerry expressed his
concern over foreigners allowed into the new government.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Mr. Gerry made a motion which the Convention
adopted on August 20 that the Committee be instructed to report back
qualifications for the Office of President.
<i>Id.</i> at 337, 344. On August 22, the Committee proposed that
the President “shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a Citizen of the
United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant thereof for Twenty one
years.” <i>Id.</i> at 366-67. The
Convention did not act upon the Committee’s report regarding eligibility for
the Office of President. On August 31,
the Convention agreed to refer all open matters that had yet to be agreed upon
to a Committee of Eleven, which had one member from each of the represented states. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On September 2, 1787, George Washington wrote a letter
to John Jay the last line of which read:
"I thank you for the hints contained in your letter." <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vTBIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter.%22&source=bl&ots=irKEbTeZk6&sig=ChIbapfpgcMD2_Z_QtA5MOle9_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ir6hVevCJ8eMNuS7gMgI&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter.%22&f=false">https://books.google.com/books?id=vTBIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter.%22&source=bl&ots=irKEbTeZk6&sig=ChIbapfpgcMD2_Z_QtA5MOle9_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ir6hVevCJ8eMNuS7gMgI&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter.%22&f=false</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Committee of Eleven presented a draft of the
Constitution on September 4, 1787, about six weeks after Jay’s letter and just
two days after Washington wrote back to Jay.
For the first time, it was proposed in a draft of the Constitution that
the President be elected by the Electoral College, and not by the
legislature. This was seen as a way to
protect the Office of President from foreign influence and corruption to which
the legislature was subject. It was
believed by Madison that it would be much more difficult for the Electoral
College to be so corrupted. But the Committee
of Eleven went even further. While the
Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a
“Citizen of the United States,” as well as a resident for 21 years, the
Committee of Eleven in a proposal that immediately followed that of the
Electoral College (that of the Electoral College was number “(4)”) only
grandfathered the status of a "Citizen” of the United States and required
future presidents to be a "natural born citizen." This was a stronger form of citizenship which
the Committee linked only to the singular Office of President and Commander in
Chief, to be satisfied by those born after the adoption of the
Constitution. There is no recorded
explanation for the addition of natural born citizen. Here is the first style of the clause as
presented by the Committee of Eleven:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(5) 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen
or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected
to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has
not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id.</span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">
at 493-94, 498; Madison's notes of the
Convention <a href="http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt">http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The natural born citizen proposal passed unanimously
without debate on September 7 (<i>Id.</i> at
536), which does not mean that the proposal was not discussed, for the
convention meetings were conducted in secrecy.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The draft of the Constitution then passed to the
Committee on Style which was tasked with producing the final version of the
Constitution. The Committee of Style
then gave the finishing touches to the clause and adopted it without
debate. The Convention then accepted it
on September 17, 1787 and sent it to the states for ratification. <i>Id.</i>
at 574, 598. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Yinger provides this summary of what transpired at the
Convention: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In one sense, the switch to the Electoral College
lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized
the line of potential foreign influence running through the Legislature. In
another sense, however, this switch broke the clear connection between the
citizenship requirements of legislators and the selection of the President, and
therefore boosted the symbolic importance of a citizenship requirement for the
President. This change in context, along with the Convention's decision to make
the President the commander-in-chief of the army, gave new weight to the
arguments in Jay's letter, and in particular to the suggestion in that letter
that the presidency be restricted to "natural born" citizens. When
Jay's letter arrived, probably sometime before August 13, the Convention was
not ready to deal with it, and indeed was somewhat hostile to its ideas. But
between August 31 and September 4, when the Committee of Eleven did its work,
the context changed and the seed that Jay had planted bore fruit.<sup><a href="http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm#N_37_">(37)</a></sup>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Yinger, at 5-6.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At the close of the Convention, Hamilton gave to
Madison another document which does contain in Article IX provision for the
election of a President and the “born a citizen” language for eligibility. Ferrand wrote that Hamilton gave this “paper”
to Madison at the end of the Convention and that Hamilton “would have wished to
be proposed by the Convention: He had
stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.” p. 619.
Farrand also wrote that Hamilton’s paper “was not submitted to the
Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of
Hamilton.” p. 619. This draft of the Constitution is not to be
confused with his sketch of a plan of government (the British Plan) which he
read to the Convention on June 18, 1787.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elliott’s Debates has additional information on this
proposed constitution. He explains: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">No. 5.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Copy of a Paper communicated to James
Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of Convention in Philadelphia, 1787,
which, he said, delineated the Constitution which be would have wished to be
proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of
the deliberations.</span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Note.— The caption, as well as the copy of the
following paper, is in the hand-writing of Mr. Madison, and the whole
manuscript, and the paper on which it is written, corresponds with the debates
in the Convention with which it was preserved. The document was placed in Mr.
Madison’s hands for preservation by Col. Hamilton, who regarded it as a
permanent evidence of his opinion on the subject. But as he did not express his
intention, at the time, that the original should be kept, Mr. Madison returned
it, informing him that he had retained a copy. It appears, however, from a
communication of the Rev. Dr. Mason to Dr. Eustis, (see letter of Dr. Eustis to
J Madison, 28th April, 1819,) that the original remained among the papers left
by Col. Hamilton.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In a letter to Mr. Pickering, dated Sept. 16 1803,
(see Pitkin’s History, Vol. 2, p. 259—60) Col Hamilton was under the erroneous
impression that this paper limited the duration of the presidential term to
three years. This instance of the fallibility of Col. Hamilton’s memory, as
well as his erroneous distribution of the numbers of the “Federalists” among
the different writers for that work, it has been the lot of Mr. Madison to
rectify; and it became incumbent, in the present instance, from the contents of
the plan having been seen by others, (previously as well its subsequently to
the publication of Col. Hamilton’s letter,) that it, also, should be published.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elliott’s Debates:
Volume 5 Appendix to the Debates
of the Federal Convention, Note 5. <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/appendix/">http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/appendix/</a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This subsequent draft of a constitution provided that
the President be then a citizen of one of the States or thereafter be “born a
citizen of the United States.” Article
IX Sec. 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of 1787 read: “No person shall be eligible to the office of
President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States,
or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hamilton gave his paper to Madison before the
convention came to an end which we know occurred on September 17, 1787, the
date the delegates signed the Constitution.
Hamilton served on committees that drafted convention rules and provided
for writing style. We can reasonably
assume that since the document was in the hands of these two influential
Founders and Framers, they would have discussed Hamilton’s presidential
citizenship proposal with others making decisions at that time. While we do not know exactly what happened
during the convention regarding Hamilton’s “now a citizen of one of the States”
and “hereafter be born a citizen of the United States,” we do know that they
were both rejected and “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution[]” was accepted. We can see that the Framers did not accept
merely being a citizen of a state. They
required that for those who could demonstrate that they had that status as of
the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the President at a minimum had to be a
citizen of the United States. For those
born after the adoption of the Constitution, their standard was more stringent
than Hamilton’s born a citizen of the United States. They required more than just being born a
citizen of the United States. Rather,
they demanded that future presidents and commanders be natural born citizens of
the United States. As we can see from the
Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress was given naturalization
powers which included the power to make citizens of the United States from the
moment of birth and after birth. But
Congress was not given any power to make actual “natural born citizens.” Hence, a natural born citizen would have to
come into being through no positive law.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> A natural born citizen would have to come
into being through his or her birth circumstances alone. Congress could extend the privileges,
immunities, and rights of a natural born citizen to persons that it would
naturalize in the future. But Congress
could not extend to those persons the privilege of being eligible to be
President which the Constitution only granted to actual natural born
citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hamilton did provide his paper containing the “born a
citizen of the United States” language to James Madison. Additionally, he most likely also discussed
his paper with other Convention delegates, even if he did not submit his paper
to the Convention. Ferrand stated that
Hamilton “had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations”
of the Convention. <i>Id.</i> at 619. It is hard to
accept that Hamilton would have gone through all that effort to draft that
proposed constitution and not share its principles with the Convention
delegates prior to the end of the Convention.
Hence, enough delegates probably knew about Hamilton’s “born a citizen
of the United States,” but no one made any suggestion that the Constitution
read “born a citizen of the United States” rather than “natural born citizen.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Additionally, it does appear as though the Committee
of Eleven was influenced by Hamilton’s language or his ideas given that it did
add a grandfather clause (Hamilton said “now a citizen of one of the States”)
which, while not accepting “now” a citizen of one of the states, allowed for a
citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to
be eligible to be President. It also
appears as though the same Committee was influenced by his “born a citizen of
the United States,” although they accepted Jay’s “natural born citizen” and not
just “born a citizen of the United States.”
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">What is critical to understand about the Hamilton
“born a citizen” language is that it shows that he did not request that the
President be a “natural born citizen.”
So he knew that the definition of the clause was a child born in the
country to citizen parents. By
advocating born a citizen, anyone who was made a citizen from the moment of
birth by positive law such as an Act of Congress would have been eligible to be
President. This would have included
children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and even
children born in the United States to alien parents who should by positive law
be made citizens from the moment of birth.
But the Convention adopted “natural born citizen,” a word of art, and
not “born a citizen,” a mere description, which means that the delegates wanted
a more stringent standard than just born a citizen. Given the meaning of the word of art natural
born citizen, that standard was a child born in a country to parents who were
its citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Defining
a Natural Born Citizen and All Those Who Are Not</span></b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A citizen is a member of a nation originally made by
associating with others to form that nation and thereafter by birth alone or by
naturalization through positive law. As to those citizens made by birth alone,
they are the natural born citizens, so made by their birth circumstances alone.
Given their birth circumstances, they do
not need a nation to confer upon them at birth or after birth its nationality
or citizenship by any means. Those birth
circumstances, as confirmed by the law of nations and American national common
law, are birth in the county to parents who were its citizens at the time of
the child's birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212 to 217
(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"); <i>Minor</i>, 88 U.S. at 167-68) (“The Constitution does not in words say
who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain
that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a
country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens
also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from
aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens
children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of
their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the
first.” <i>Minor </i>held that a natural born citizen did not need the Fourteenth
Amendment or any other law to be a citizen of the United States); accord <i>Wong Kim Ark</i>, 169 U.S. at 665) ("The child of an alien, if born
in the country, is [by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment] as much a citizen as
the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same
principle"). As to the other
citizens, they are so made by the naturalizing force of positive laws. In the
United States, these positive laws are, in addition to the Fourteenth
Amendment, naturalization Acts of Congress and treaties.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides: “(a) As used in this chapter--. . . (23) The
term ‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a
person after birth, by any means whatsoever." But this is a definition of naturalization
only for purposes of “this chapter,” which has specific consequences connected
to whether someone obtains U.S. citizenship at birth or after birth. It is a definition of the term that Congress
is applying to “a state,” which means to any nation in the world. This is not
the broad definition of the term as used in the Constitution. Under the Constitution, any person who is not
a common law natural born citizen is an “alien or foreigner” and in need of
naturalization by any means whatsoever. <i>Minor</i>,
88 U.S. at 167-68. This includes persons
who are born in the United States to one or two alien parents or born out of
the United States and its jurisdiction, regardless of the citizenship of the
parents. As to those children born in
the United States to one or two alien parents, they are made citizens of the
United States at birth specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment, which
incorporates the English common law jus soli rule of citizenship and its
naturalizing force. See Vattel, The Law
of Nations, Section 214, called “Naturalisation,” where he stated: “Finally, there are states, as, for
instance, England, where the single circumstances of being born in the country
naturalises the children of a foreigner.”
As to those children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the
United States, if born to one or two U.S. citizen parents, they are made
citizens of the United States at birth by Congress through its naturalization Acts. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Application
to Ted Cruz</span></b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">"Trusted" Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada
in 1970, says he did not know until 2013 that he was a Canadian citizen. <i>The
Dallas Morning News</i> reported on August 19, 2013: “Sen. Ted Cruz acknowledged late Monday that
he probably has been a lifelong Canadian, and vowed to renounce that
citizenship now that he realizes he’s had it.” “‘<i>The Dallas Morning News</i> says that I may technically have dual
citizenship,’ he said in a statement. ‘Assuming that is true, then sure, I will
renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American
by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.’” The newspaper further reported: “Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec.
22, 1970. His mother is a lifelong U.S. citizen. His father, born in Cuba, remained
a Cuban citizen until he was naturalized as an American in 2005. When Cruz was
born, his parents were living in Canada, where they had opened a seismic-data
business in the oil patch. Cruz lived in Canada until he was 4 years old, and
spent the rest of his childhood in Texas. . . . Under Canadian law, his birth
on Canadian soil made him a natural born Canadian. Under U.S. law, his mother’s citizenship made
him a U.S. citizen from birth. Both countries allow for dual citizenship.” <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130819-sen.-ted-cruz-to-renounce-canadian-citizenship.ece">http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130819-sen.-ted-cruz-to-renounce-canadian-citizenship.ece</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Generally, under Canada's Citizenship Act of 1947,
those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent
was a foreign diplomat. So, Ted Cruz, the lawyer who graduated from
Harvard Law School and who successfully argued cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court, who got a passport in 1986 so that he could travel to Great Britain for
a high school class trip, who is a U.S. Senator, who knew that one born in the
United States while subject to its jurisdiction (which includes birth to alien
parents) is a citizen of the United States, who knew that one who is born in
the United States who leaves the U.S. even for one minute
after his birth is still a U.S. citizen, who knew that in the United States one
can get a U.S. passport by presenting a U.S. birth certificate showing that one
was born in the United States, who knew that his
father was born in Cuba and that his place of birth made him a Cuban citizen,
who knew that his mother was born in the United States and that her place of birth made
her a U.S. citizen, and who knew that he himself was born in Canada (the place
of his birth) to parents neither of whom were foreign diplomats, did not know
that his being born in Canada made him a Canadian citizen? Now
really? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Furthermore, maybe Senator Cruz, Chairman of the
Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, can tell us
what he knows about persons born in foreign countries getting a security
clearance from the U.S. Government. Cruz said that “as a U.S. Senator, I
believe I should be only an American,” but he did not disclose to the people of
Texas that he was a citizen of Canada at birth when he ran for that
office. This is even with U.S. Senators,
among the various responsibilities they have relative to U.S. relations with
foreign nations, being called upon to vote on treaties with foreign
nations. In 2014, after being confronted
by the public media about his Canadian birthright citizenship, Cruz did
renounce that Canadian citizenship with which he was born. That was 18 months after he took the oath of
office as a U.S. Senator. But Cruz, born
to a Cuban citizen father, was also born potentially a Cuban citizen at birth. To date, he has not mentioned his potential Cuban
citizenship at birth, even though he could have qualified through his Cuban
father for that citizenship under the Cuban Constitution.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> What have Cruz’s
activities been in the U.S. Senate relative to the United States normalizing relations
with Cuba? I am not faulting and never
would fault Cruz for his birth circumstances.
But a U.S. Senator and President, acting in a public capacity, has to
disclose to the public what his or her private interest via-a-vis a foreign
nation may be. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Regardless of what Cruz knew or did not know about his
Canadian citizenship, Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a U.S. citizen
mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father.
Hence, he was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens,
which means that he is not nor can he be a citizen through his birth
circumstances alone. Rather, he is what <i>Minor
</i>called an “alien or foreigner” in need of naturalization.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Therefore, he is not nor
can he be a natural born citizen. Not being a natural born citizen, for him to
be a citizen he needed the aid of a positive law, which in his case is a
naturalization Act of Congress. He was
not born in the United States and so he could not rely upon the Fourteenth
Amendment, which provides the floor standard of citizenship for those born in
the United States, requiring that they be at least born subject to its
jurisdiction. Being born in a foreign
country, he had to rely upon a naturalization Act of Congress, without which
Cruz would have been born an alien. This
means that Cruz is at best a naturalized "citizen" of the United
States "at birth," so made only by a naturalization Act of Congress
(in his case it is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>). Congress through a
naturalization Act made Cruz a citizen of the United States “at birth,” meaning
that he did not have to go through any naturalization process after birth.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> But still, it is only because of this
naturalization Act that his birth circumstances allowed him to be a citizen of
the United States at birth. In other words, Cruz's birth circumstances alone would
have made him an alien and not a citizen. It is only by virtue of that
naturalization Act which took up his birth circumstances and allowed him to
become a citizen at birth. He therefore
is not and cannot be a “natural” born citizen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz and his supporters proclaim that the Framers
would have accepted Cruz as a true natural born citizen because of how the
First Congress treated persons such as him in the Naturalization Act of 1790.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> First, Congress does not
have the constitutional power to make anyone a natural born citizen. In matters of citizenship, the Constitution at
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives to Congress only the power [t]o establish
an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.” This naturalization power does not include
the power to make anyone a natural born citizen, who does not need any
naturalization Act of Congress or any other law to be a citizen. Congress
was not given any powers to bestow citizenship upon anyone through any process
other than naturalization. Hence, if
Congress made those foreign-born children citizens of the United States, it did
so only through its naturalization powers.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Second, that Act is a naturalization Act of Congress
and surely a natural born citizen does not need a naturalization Act of
Congress to be a "natural" born citizen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Third, the Act provided: “And the children of such person so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty
one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as
citizens of the United States. And the
children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out
of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born
Citizens.” Congress treated children
born in the United States to alien parents as aliens who could naturalize as
citizens of the United States upon their parents naturalization if done during
their children’s minority and when they shall be dwelling in the United States. This was consistent with the definition of a
natural born citizen which provided that only children born in the country to
parents who were citizens were natural born citizens and therefore also ipso
facto citizens of the United States. As
to children born out of the United States, the Act said that children born out
of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (both father and mother had to be
U.S. citizens) "shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United
States." Hence, it only treated children born out of the United States to
U.S. citizen parents for all intents and purposes as natural born citizens,
meaning that it gave by statute to those children the same privileges,
immunities, and rights enjoyed by true natural born citizens which under the
Constitution could not include the privilege of being President.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fourth, Congress, under the leadership of James
Madison and with the approval of President Washington, repealed that Act in
1795, when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795,<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> which provided in Section
3: “And be it further enacted, that the
children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and
being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization,
and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and
jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the
United States.” As we can see, Congress,
again consistent with the definition of a natural born citizen, treated
children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens, allowing them to
become citizens of the United States upon their parents naturalizing if done
during their children’s minority and if those children shall be dwelling in the
United States. It also surgically
removed the "shall be considered as natural born citizens” language of the
1790 Act and replaced it with "shall be considered as citizens of the
United States." What is critical to understand is that Congress treated
children who naturalized after birth and those who became citizens at birth by
birth out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents the same, i.e., as
“citizens of the United States.”
Congress clearly informed that those children born out of the United
States to U.S. citizen parents were not to be accepted as natural born
citizens, but rather as citizens of the United States, like children who become
citizens through naturalization after birth.
Congress has never again used the natural born citizen language in any
of its naturalization Acts. Rather, it has since 1795 told us that any person
becoming a citizen under one of its naturalization Acts is a citizen of the
United States. It is amazing that those who rely upon the 1790 Act to demonstrate
that Cruz is a natural born citizen omit from their story that Congress
repealed that Act in 1795 and in the 1795 Act said that those children shall be
considered as citizens of the United States and not as natural born
citizens. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fifth, Cruz was born to an alien father which means
that he could not benefit from the 1790 Act which required a child born out of
the territory and jurisdiction of the United States be born, not only to a U.S.
citizen mother but also to a U.S. citizen father to be bestowed U.S.
citizenship at birth. The 1790 Act,
along with that of 1795 and 1802, also required that the citizen father be a resident
of the United States prior to his child’s birth. Not until 1934 could someone like Cruz, born
in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father, become a
citizen of the United States.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Somebody born under the birth circumstances of
a Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and
to an alien father, was not even a citizen of the United States let alone a
natural born citizen of the United States until 1934, when Congress passed a
naturalization Act for the first time allowing children born out of the United
States to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father to qualify as a citizen
of the United States. Cruz and his
supporters also hide this little inconvenient truth from the public. Surely, we
are not to reasonably believe that someone born under the same birth
circumstances as Cruz, who was under the Constitution and under the
naturalization Acts of Congress an alien from 1776 until 1934 and only become a
citizen in 1934, could be a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz is correct that if he wants to be President and
Commander in Chief, he has to be “only an American.” But for a natural born citizen, that status starts
at birth, not at age 43, which is when Cruz renounced the foreign citizenship
with which he was born. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a
way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life,
liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They sought to do that by
giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and
preservation of that republic. In the governmental scheme that they gave us,
they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular
and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and
military power into one person. Because of such concentration of power in one
individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk
to the republic and its people. They therefore gave us the “natural born
Citizen” clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. Through the
natural born citizen clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into
the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree
possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival
and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and
personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. What is
profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in “Nature and
Nature’s God”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This historical and legal evidence, not meant to be
exhaustive, provides a clear picture that Ted Cruz is not a natural born
citizen and therefore not eligible to be President.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_edn16" name="_ednref16" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> So, is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen and to
be “TrusTed?” I think not. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March
7, 2016<br />
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<br />
####<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Copyright ©
2016<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">ENDNOTES:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> John Brooke, King
George III 612 (1972). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Brooke, at 156;
Simms, Brendan, Riotte, Torsten, <i>The
Hanoverian Dimension in British History</i>, 1774-1837, p. 58 (2007). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> 12 and 13 Will.
III, c. 2. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Following
the Perth Agreement in 2011, on March 26, 2015, legislation amending
the act came into effect across the Commonwealth realms. Today people who marry
Catholics are eligible to the British throne.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> For an excellent discussion of the
Constitutional Convention and the natural born citizen clause, see John Yinger,
<i>The Origins and Interpretation of the
Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President
to be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born
Adoptees</i>,? available at <a href="http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm">http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Historian Richard
B. Morris writes: “Jay’s ‘anti-foreigners’
proposal appears to have been reflected in the motion that Elbridge Gerry made
on the floor of the Convention in August.”
Richard B. Morris, <i>Witnesses at
the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay and
the Constitution</i> 189-90 (1985). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn7">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The concept of
"positive law" has existed since the beginning of ordered legal
systems. Positive law includes constitutions, statutes, case law, and any other
law adopted by whatever sovereign has power to make law at any given moment in
time. It has been said by many political and legal philosophers
throughout the ages that positive law has its origin in what man perceives to
be natural law and God's law, or what Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of
Independence called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” meaning the laws
of nature and the laws of nature's God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn8">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The Cuban Constitution provides in pertinent
part: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">CHAPTER
II. CITIZENSHIP<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Article
28: Cuban citizenship is acquired by birth or through naturalization. Article
29: Cuban citizens by birth are:<br />
a) those born in national territory, with the exception of the children of
foreign persons at the service of their government or international
organizations. In the case of the children of temporary foreign residents in
the country, the law stipulates the requisites and formalities;<br />
b) those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and on an official
mission;<br />
c) those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban, who have complied
with the formalities stipulated by law;<br />
d) those born outside national territory, one of whose parents at least is
Cuban and who lost their Cuban citizenship provide they apply for said
citizenship according to the procedures stated by law;<br />
e) foreigners who, by virtue of their exceptional merits won in the struggles
for Cuba’s liberation, were considered Cuban citizens by birth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba#CHAPTER_II._CITIZENSHIP">https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba#CHAPTER_II._CITIZENSHIP</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn9">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> With respect to children born out of the
United States, <i>Wong Kim Ark</i> explained
that such children can be citizens of the United States only if Congress makes
them so through a naturalization Act and if it does not, those children are
aliens. <i>United States v. Perkins</i>, 17 Fed. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936); <i>Schaufus v. Attorney General</i>, 45 Fed.
Supp. 61 (1942); <i>Zimmer v. Acheson,</i>
191 Fed.2d 209 (10<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1951); <i>Montana v. Kennedy</i>, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); <i>Rogers v. Bellei</i>, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); and <i>Miller v. Albright</i>, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), later all observed the
same. They all said that such children could be citizens of the United
States only through a naturalization Act of Congress, and that without such
Act, such children would be aliens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn10">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The
naturalization statute that made Cruz a citizen of the United States at birth, section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 301, effective on December 24, 1952,
provided: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">SEC.
301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at
birth: ….<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">(7)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its
outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen
of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically
present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or
periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after
attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable
service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be
included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Sec.
301(a)(7) required a U.S. citizen mother when the father is an alien to have
been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five
after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born
children. The ten-year requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT
December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still applies to
persons born during that period. Section 301(a)(7) was amended by Public Law
103-416 on October 25, 1994, creating section INA 301(g), which uses this
language with respect to the amount of time that a person’s U.S. citizen mother
has to be physically present in the United States prior to giving birth to her
child out of the United States: “not
less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of
fourteen years.” See 8 U.S.C. Section
1401(g). It is settled law that the naturalization statute of Congress that was
in effect at the time of one's birth is the statute that controls whether one
is a U.S. citizen or not. Please note
that given that Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 to a U.S. citizen
mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, if he was not born in the United States
he would be an alien, for his mother was only 18 years old at the time of his
birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn11">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Under the Child
Citizenship Act of 2000 (Public Law No: 106-395) foreign-born adoptees become
citizens of the United States as soon as their adoptions are finalized, with no
need for them to go through any separate naturalization process after their
birth. Under the logic of the thesis that any person who becomes a
citizen of the United States without having to go through any naturalization
process after birth is a natural born citizen, these adoptees would not be “naturalized”
citizens and therefore natural born citizens.
But still, S. 2128 was proposed to confirm that they were to be treated
as natural-born citizens. S. 2128 provided
a definition of a natural born citizen that included foreign-born
adoptees. Congress never passed this bill. This example further shows that we do not
arrive at who is and who is not a natural born citizen by manipulating the definition
of “naturalization.” Rather, we arrive
at it by showing that one does or does not satisfy the sufficient and necessary
conditions of being a natural born citizen which are born or reputed born in
the country to parents who were its citizens.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn12">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> United States
Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26,
1790).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Be
it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who
shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United
States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof
on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making
proof to the satisfaction of such Court
that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or
affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such
Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon
such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty
one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as
citizens of the United States. And the
children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out
of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born
Citizens: Provided, that the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident
in the United States: Provided also,
that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen
as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such
person was proscribed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Sess.
II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103, 1st Congress; March 26, 1790.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn13">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> United States Congress, “An act to establish
an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on
that subject” (January 29, 1795).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">For
carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish
an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">SEC.1.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person,
may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on
the following conditions, and not otherwise: --<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First.
He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior,
district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories
northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the
United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona
fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce
forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state
or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Secondly.
He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or
affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within
the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory,
where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support
the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the
prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or
subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Thirdly.
The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within
the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it
shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has
behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the
constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and
happiness of the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Fourthly.
In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any
hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or
state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make
an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to
which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in
the said court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">SEC.
2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now
residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may
be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in
some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least,
within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within
the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will
support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and
entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince,
potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject;
and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during
the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character,
attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the
good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission
to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the
orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover
making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility,
before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings,
required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the
clerk thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">SEC.
3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of
twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of
citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the
United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United
States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend
to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:
Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has
been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the
late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the
legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">SEC.
4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of
March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby
repealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Sess.
II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, 3rd Congress; January 29, 1795.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn14">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The Naturalization Act of 1790 required that
the foreign-born child be born to “citizens” and that the father be a resident
of the United States prior to the child’s birth, meaning that the child had to
be born to a father and mother who were U.S. citizens in order for that child
to be considered as a natural born citizen.
Cruz was born only to a U.S. citizen mother. Not being born also
to a U.S. citizen father, Cruz would not have been a citizen of the United
States under the early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1805, and
1855) and was made a citizen only because Congress eventually did away with the
common law doctrine of coverture (allowing husbands and wives to have their own
citizenship rather than wives acquiring that of their husbands) in 1922 with
the Cable Act of 1922 (ch.
411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women's Independent Nationality Act"). If born between 1802 and 1855 to U.S. citizen
parents who acquired that status after 1802, Cruz, born out of the territory
and jurisdiction of the United States, would under the Naturalization Act of
1802 not even be a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born
citizen of the United States. Cruz got
lucky because Congress in 1934 passed a naturalization Act (Act of May 24,
1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797) which for the first time allowed a person born in a
foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father to be a
citizen of the United States. That naturalization rule was carried
forward in the Nationality Act of 1940 (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat.
1137, enacted October 14, 1940) and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L.
82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), the latter being the statute in
effect when Cruz was born and without which or without those of 1934 and 1940,
Cruz would have been born an alien. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn15">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> “When in the
Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.” Declaration of
Independence, Preamble. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn16">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289#_ednref16" name="_edn16" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Marco Rubio is
also not a natural born citizen.
Somebody born under the birth circumstances of a Marco Rubio, born in
the United States to alien parents, was not even a citizen of the United
States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States, until the 1898
U.S. Supreme Court decision of <i>Wong Kim
Ark</i>, which made such persons citizens of the United States from the moment
of birth. The U.S. Supreme Court in <i>The
Slaughterhouse Cases</i>, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873) had said they were not even
citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. (“The phrase, ‘subject to its
jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers,
consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United
States.”) <i>Minor,</i> which defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a
country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, had
explained that "there have been doubts" whether such children were
even just citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The purpose of this article has been to further focus on Ted Cruz’s
ineligibility to be President rather than on Marco Rubio’s. For full details on how Rubio is not a
natural born citizen, see my many articles and comments at my blog, <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</a> . <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="edn14">
</div>
</div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com268tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-28195865518229838932016-02-29T20:21:00.000-05:002016-02-29T22:13:12.796-05:00The Framers’ Definition of a Natural Born Citizen Is Not Based on Race, Color, or Religion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Framers’ Definition of a Natural Born Citizen Is Not Based on Race, Color, or
Religion<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">February 29,
2016<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img alt="Image result for lady justice" height="133" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwGZcCddE2e5YAqDRwS02gphxz1cearS99SAagY5drl4RsBfI8" width="200" /><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">Donald
Trump has questioned whether Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother
and an alien father, and Marco Rubio, born in the United States to two alien
parents, are Article II natural born citizens, which they must be in order to
be eligible to be President or Vice-President.
Garrett Epps<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span></span></a>
attacks Donald Trump, saying that he is attempting to redefine who is a natural
born citizen by basing the clause’s definition on blood and race (he left out
religion). He states in The Atlantic:
“It’s not coincidental that the targets of these birther libels are the
first African American president and the first two credible Latino presidential
candidates.” He adds: “In much of the public mind, American
citizenship is being redefined into a matter of race and blood, apparently as
part of the nostalgia for an imagined golden era of racial, religious, and
sexual exclusion.” You can read the
whole story at </span><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/trump-birther-rubio-cruz/471015/#article-comments"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/trump-birther-rubio-cruz/471015/#article-comments</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">
. Ignoring that in our history,
President Chester Arthur, Charles Evan Hughes, George W. Romney, Barry
Goldwater, and John McCain (all very white) were all challenged for not being
natural born citizens, Epps does no better than to play the despicable race
card and by so doing it becomes evident that Epps is what he unjustly accuses
Trump of being. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Donald Trump is not redefining the meaning of a
natural born citizen. Rather, he is only
recognizing what that meaning is. Allow
me to explain. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution provides:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to
the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States." Hence, for those born after the adoption of
the Constitution, if one is not a natural born citizen, then one is prohibited
from being President. The Twelfth Amendment requires that also the
Vice-President be a natural born citizen.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Under Article II, one of the three requirements to
be President of the United States and its Commander in Chief of the Military,
for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, is not that the
individual be a human. Nor is it that the individual be a citizen. Rather, the
requirement is that the individual be a natural born citizen. (Under Article
II, one was eligible to the Office of President if one was just a citizen if
one had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution.) This simple
dichotomy tells us that a natural born citizen has birth characteristics which
are not possessed by humans in general, or even citizens in general. So then what is a natural born citizen, what
are its birth characteristics, and how does its definition differ from that of
a citizen? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Having fought a bloody revolution which saw not only
Americans fighting the British, but also Americans fighting Americans, the
Founders and Framers were well aware of how vital undivided and unwavering
allegiance was to the creation, survival, and perpetuation of the new nation
under republican principles. When setting
up the new national government, the Founders and Framers sought to prevent monarchical
and foreign influence from making its insidious way into the new national government
in general and into the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the
Military in particular. Hence, the
Framers provided that not Congress, but the Electoral College elect the
President and that any person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be
eligible to the Office of President and Commander in Chief be a natural born
citizen. Being a natural born citizen,
the President and Commander would from birth be loyal, faithful, and in
allegiance only to the United States. How
do we know that the Framers saw this consequence in a President and Commander
being a natural born citizen? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Since the beginning of their creation, men and women
who first created new groups and later ordered civil and political societies
became the first members of those groups or societies. As to their children, they belonged to the groups
or societies in which their member parents chose by free will to have them be born. These children, born to parents who were the
first members of that group or society in the land to which their parents
belonged were the natives or natural born members. This belonging became known as membership in
those ordered societies, which later became countries or nations. This membership entitled one to defined
privileges, immunities, and rights as provided by the customs and later laws of
those countries or nations. In countries
led my monarchical governments,<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> these members were called subjects. In contrast, in a country or nation led by a
republican form of government,<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> a
member of such country or nation came to be called a citizen. So, the first members of these republican
societies or countries were called citizens and their children, the first ones
to be born to those first members in those new societies or countries, were
called natives or natural born citizens. <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn4" title="">[4]</a></span></span><a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn4" title=""><!--[endif]--></a></span> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Needless to say that a natural born citizen is a
citizen from the moment of birth. But
that statement does not articulate any definition of the clause, for it does not
state the producing causes of the character.
As we have seen, in order for a child to be a natural born citizen, the
child must satisfy certain birth circumstances.
It is these birth circumstances that join at the moment of birth to produce
the recognized and articulated birth character and the clause’s ultimate
definition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So just what are these birth circumstances which
unite at birth to produce a natural born citizen? A child to be a natural born citizen must be
born to two citizen parents. Such a
child must also be born in the country of his or her parents. This ancient Greek<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
and Roman<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> rule
was confirmed by Emer de Vattel as being incorporated into the law of
nations. Vattel wrote in his highly
acclaimed and influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797): <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The <i>citizens</i> 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 <i>natives, or natural-born citizens</i>, are those born in the country,
of parents who are <i>citizens</i>. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of
the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,
and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in
consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as
matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his
children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their
tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion,
they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they
were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a
person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a
foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Law of Nations, at sec. 212 (emphasis
supplied). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Here we see how Vattel defined the natural born
citizens as children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. After providing this definition of the
clause, he referred to a citizen father because under the common law doctrine
of coverture, wives upon marriage adopted the citizenship of their
husbands. Hence, Vattel was merely
explaining how the citizen parents were to come to be, i.e., through a citizen
husband/father. Hence, the birth
character of a natural born citizen required a citizen father and a citizen
mother just as a natural child required a natural father and a natural
mother. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Not being natural born citizens, Vattel then
explained what status children born in the country to alien parents would have,
which was not that of a natural born citizen:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are
foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the
society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while
they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them
protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They
enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The <i>perpetual
inhabitants</i> are those who have received the right of perpetual
residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to
the society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow
the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right
of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel, Section 213, entitled, “Inhabitants.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We can see that if a child was born in a country to
parents who were only legal and permanent inhabitants and not its citizens,
those children inherited the same status possessed by the parents, i.e., that
of a permanent residents. That child was
not a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel also explained in Section 214 how persons,
who were not natural born citizens could become citizens of a nation by that
nation through its positive laws adopting such persons as its members either at
birth or after birth: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may
grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of
the political society. This is called <i>naturalisation.</i> There
are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the
rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where,
consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It
is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the
prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise
a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its
deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the
single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a
foreigner.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel, Section 214, entitled “Naturalisation.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We see that Vattel explained how a nation could
adopt as citizens persons not born as natural born citizens. He also explained how in England, because of
its local laws, children born there, even to alien parents, were naturalized at
birth to be subjects of that nation. The
historical and legal record demonstrates that the Founders and Framers did not
adopt this rule of the common law of England for defining a natural born
citizen. Rather, they adopted Vattel’s definition
of a “native[], or natural-born citizen[]” that Vattel provided in Section 212. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel also covered children born out of the country
to citizen parents in Section 215. There
he explained: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is asked, whether the children born of citizens
in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in
several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature
alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their
rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and
cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has
given him; I say “of itself,” for civil or political laws may, for particular
reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely
quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in
a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a
perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel, Section 215, entitled “Children of citizens,
born in a foreign country.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Again, Vattel confirmed that if a child was born in
a country to perpetual inhabitants, the child upon birth inherited from his or
her parents their status and became like them a habitual inhabitant of that country
and not its natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel, through Section 212, 214, and 215 confirmed
that only children born in the country to parents who were its citizens were
natural born citizens, and that all the rest were in need of naturalization,
either at birth or after birth. He
explained that in England, children born in the King’s dominion to alien
parents were naturalized at birth under the law of that nation which we know
was the English common law. He also
explained that children born out of the country to parents who were its
citizens were by the law of nature “citizens” of their parents’ nation, but
such status could be changed by the positive laws of that nation. Hence, under the law of nations, which did
not exist in a state of nature, only children born in a country to parents who
were its citizens were natural born citizens, which takes us back to the
definition that Vattel gave of a natural born citizen in Section 212. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Finally, Vattel also covered children born at sea
and to parents serving in diplomatic capacities or in the armies of the
state: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As to children born at sea, if they are born in
those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the
country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction
between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our
extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the
children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born
in its territories; for it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as
parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the
state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the
commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is [103] preserved over
the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the
children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth
took place in a port belonging to their own nation: for the port is more
particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on
board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose
that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle
elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel, Section 216, entitled, “Children born at
sea.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We can see that if a nation continued to exercise
jurisdiction over a person who was physically located outside its territory,
the nation could continue to claim that person as its citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel continued:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">For the same reasons also, children born out of the
country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a
foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a
citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still
dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted
its territory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel, §217, entitled, “Children born in the armies
of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, any child who was born at sea but still subject
to the jurisdiction of his or her parents’ nation or born out of the country to
parents either on diplomatic service for their nation or serving the armies of
their nation were reputed born in their country. This meant that such children, reputed born
in their parents’ country, were also natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel in Sections 220 to 223 also explained that
persons had a right to expatriated themselves from the country of their birth,
under prescribed conditions. In Sections
224 to 231, Vattel also explained the sovereign right of a nation to determine
who it will allow to enter its territory and under what conditions. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Who the nation accepted to be its citizens was
tested in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). In that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held
that a person of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not
be a citizen of a State or of the United States. To arrive at its decision, the Court found
that the slave was not a part of the sovereign people who made the political
decision to associate together to form the United States. We know that that ultimate holding was
eventually abrogated by the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
(1898). The Civil War, these constitutional
provisions, and statutory and case law together outlawed slavery and confirmed
that all people, regardless of race or color, could be citizens of the United
States. But none of that has anything to
do with how Dred Scott defined a natural born citizen, whose definition does
not contain any reference to race, color, or condition of servitude. Dred Scott prevented free blacks from being recognized
as members of American political society, i.e., citizens, not from being
recognized as natural born citizens. Hence,
what the Court explained about who were the natural born citizens, which did
not rest on any factors of race, color, or condition of servitude, is still
valid. In fact, in interpreting the
Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases quoted
from and relied upon the Dred Scott decision, explaining that Dred Scott <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">held that the words “people of the United
States" and "citizens" were synonymous terms; that the people of
the respective States were the parties to the Constitution; that these people
consisted of the free inhabitants of those States; that they had provided in
their Constitution for the adoption of a uniform rule of naturalization; that
they and their descendants and persons naturalized were the only persons who
could be citizens of the United States, and that it was not in the power of any
State to invest any other person with citizenship so that he could enjoy the
privileges of a citizen under the Constitution, and that therefore the
descendants of persons brought to this country and sold as slaves were not, and
could not be, citizens within the meaning of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 95 (1873)
(citing and quoting Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Justice Daniel, in his Dred Scott concurring opinion
was more exact with the definition of a natural born citizen. Concurring with the majority, relying upon
Vattel’s explanation of what the civil society, its citizens and natural born
citizens were, and quoting the definition of a natural born citizen found in
Section 212 of The Law of Nations, stated:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his
Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: 'Nations or States are bodies politic;
societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual
safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a
society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes
resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an
understanding and a will peculiar to herself.' Again, in the first chapter of
the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after repeating
his definition of a State, proceeds to remark, that, 'from the very design that
induces a number of men to form a society, which has its common interests and
which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a
public authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each, in relation
to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.'
Again this writer remarks: 'The authority of all over each member essentially
belongs to the body politic or the State.'<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">By this same writer it is also said: 'The citizens
are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties,
and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The
natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. As society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by
the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of
their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the
country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be
born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his
country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who
are permitted to settle and stay in the country.' (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p.
101.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 476-77 (Daniel, J.,
concurring).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It should be noted that Justice Daniel took out of
Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it
with “parents” and “person,” respectively.
This shows that Justice Daniel understood that Vattel was requiring citizen
“parents” and that “father” or “fathers” was only under the common law doctrine
of coverture the means by which married parents were to be both citizens in
order for a child born to them in their country to be a natural born citizen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hence, Dred Scott explained that the citizens were
only those persons who were the original citizens and children born to citizen
parents, meaning father and mother, and those made by naturalization. Hence the natural born citizens were children
born in the country to parents who were citizens. All the rest of the people were aliens or
foreigners who could become citizens through naturalization, which is what
Minor v. Happersett (1875) also later confirmed. The definition of a natural born citizen that
the Court gave had nothing to do with slavery or keeping slaves or children of
slaves from being citizens. The Court confirmed
what the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen was. At the same time, the Dred Scott Court found
that slaves were never citizens nor could they ever naturalize under any
then-existing naturalization Act of Congress.
Hence, they and their descendants were not citizens and with no parents
who were ever citizens, could also not be natural born citizens. That the Court made this finding does not in
the least disturb the definition of a natural born citizen which was a child
born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s
birth and which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875
confirmed to be the correct definition of the clause, which was after the Dred
Scott decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth
Amendment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Because of the disability of slavery found by the
Dred Scott Court, we know that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth
Amendment were passed to allow free slaves to become “citizens” of the United
States. Becoming citizens under those
laws, free slaves were then placed in a position to give birth to children in
the United States who would qualify as natural born citizens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The American
Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the United
States as then constituted or independence for the Confederacy. Of the 34 states that existed in January 1861,
seven Southern slave states each declared their secession from
the United States and formed the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy grew to include eleven
states and claimed thirteen states and additional western territories. Slavery and its extension into the western
territories was a major issue of the Civil War. With the defeat of the Confederacy, slavery
was abolished, after which began Reconstruction and the processes of once
again uniting the nation and guaranteeing the freed slaves civil rights.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As part of that Reconstruction, Congress passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 to undue Dred Scott’s holding that free blacks were
not citizens of the United States. It
provided in pertinent part: “All persons
born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding
Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Congress then followed with The Fourteenth
Amendment, which the nation ratified in 1868.
It provided in pertinent part: "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The U.S. Supreme Court for the first time
interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873). Critically important is the fact that the
Court, which was virtually the same Court as the later Minor Court except for
Chief Justice Chase who would pass away by then, when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment,
which interpretation reflected its understanding of who could be a citizen of
the United States by birth in the country, found that a child born in the
United States to alien parents was not a citizen of the United States under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Here is what Court said was the purpose and meaning
of the Fourteenth Amendment, and who the Amendment excluded from being a
citizen of the United States: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The first section of the fourteenth article to which
our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship
-- not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No
such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt
been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much
discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public
journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the
United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the
Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District
of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not
citizens. Whether [p73] this proposition was sound or not had never
been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the
celebrated <i>Dred Scott</i> case, only a few years before the
outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or
not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States.
This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen
and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled, and if was
to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then
all the negro race who had recently been made freemen were still not only not
citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment
to the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish
clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what
should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a
State, the first clause of the first section was framed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The first observation we have to make on this clause
is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject
of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the
United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it
overturns the <i>Dred Scott</i> decision by making all persons born
within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United
States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can
admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was
intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and
citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873).
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As we can see, the Court explained how Dred Scott
confirmed that it was not state law and state citizenship as so defined which
defined who the citizens of the United States were, but rather national law. It
explained how the Fourteenth Amendment confirmed that it was federal law that
created U.S. citizenship which then determined whether one was a citizen of
some state and that being a "citizen of the United States" was not to
be limited by race, color, or any factor other than the floor of birth in the
country while subject to its jurisdiction. For sure, in so explaining,
the Court was well aware of the ceiling of U.S. citizenship provided by the
natural born citizen clause which is birth in the country to U.S. citizen
parents and that anyone who satisfied that ceiling was without any doubt a
citizen of the United States. It then added that the jurisdiction clause
excluded from U.S. citizenship not only children born in the United States to
foreign ministers and consuls, but also those born to alien parents. Hence,
contrary to what Justice Gray said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the
Fourteenth Amendment did not remove any doubts regarding whether children born
in the United States to alien parents were citizens. Rather, it removed
doubts regarding who had jurisdiction to decided U.S. citizenship, the states
or the national government (it said the national government), and what law was
to decide that very important question, state or national law (it was national
law), and concerning whether free blacks could be U.S. citizens (it said they
were for they were not aliens and when born in the United States not subject to
any foreign power). And finally, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in
The Slaughterhouse Cases, the Fourteenth Amendment, through its subject to the
jurisdiction thereof clause, also confirmed that children born in the United
States to alien parents where not citizens of the United States under the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Court made no reference to race, color, or
condition of servitude in its statement that children born in the United States
to alien parents were not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, what disqualified these children from
U.S. birthright citizenship was alien parents.
So if a person was a natural born citizen, there was no doubt that one
was a citizen of the United States under any law. If one was born in the
United States to alien parents and hence not a natural born citizen, the
Supreme Court said that one was not a citizen of the United States, either at
common law or under the Fourteenth Amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 was again called upon
to determine who were the citizens and natural born citizen of the United
States. It did not look to either the
Civil Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment to answer that question, explaining
how citizens and natural born citizens had existed since the beginning of the
nation. Minor confirmed the common law definition of a
natural born citizen used by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the
Constitution. It said, as Dred Scott
had, that all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were
“natives, or natural-born citizens,” and that under that common law all the
rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized by
naturalization Acts of Congress. This
was a definition that it paraphrased from Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations,
Section 212 (1758) (1797), where Vattel
provided the same definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Even though The Slaughterhouse Cases had
already said they were not citizens of the United States, Minor opened the door
for children born in the United States to alien parents to be accepted as
citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, by saying that
“there have been doubts” whether those children were citizens given that “some
authorities” contended that they were.
Minor observed that it was not necessary for it to resolve those doubts because
Virginia Minor, being a natural born citizen, was without any doubt a
citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor confirmed Vattel’s
rules of the law of nations, as stated by Vattel in Section 212, 214, and 215, when
it held: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Constitution does not in words say who shall be
natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents
who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born
within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the
purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is
sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of
citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Later in its decision, the Court went on to
explain how persons who were not born in the country to parents who were its
citizens could become citizens of the United States, either at birth or after
birth, through the naturalization Acts of Congress. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, the high Court explained that at common law all
children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were “natives, or
natural-born citizens” and that all the rest of the people who were not natural
born citizens were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized under that
nation’s positive laws (as Vattel explained in Section 214). We can readily see that the Court
paraphrased the definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens” provided by
Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations.
As we can also see from what Minor explained, this law of nations
definition became part of the common law, which could only be American national
common law and not the English common law, which did not require that children
born in the King’s dominion be born to English subject parents. On the contrary, as we saw from Vattel’s
Section 214, the English common law automatically naturalized at birth children
born in the country to alien parents.<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Our nation has also adopted Vattel’s explanations on
expatriation, which was rejected by the English common law, and his
explanations on a nation’s right to decide for itself who shall be admitted to
its territory and under what circumstances. <a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We know that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) resolved
the doubts raised by Minor (who else can be a “citizen” by birth in the
country) by holding that those children were “citizens” of the United States at
birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be conflated, confounded,
and confused with the ceiling of national character provided by the “natural
born citizen” clause). A plain reading
of the Court’s holding shows that it held that Wong was a “citizen” of the
United States from the moment of birth and never made any mention of the clause
“natural born citizen” in its holding. Here
is the Court’s holding: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of
the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed
by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at
the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United
States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are
subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in
the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in
any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the
time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated,
this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition of a
natural born citizen and held, with the colonial English common law providing
it guidance on how to interpret and apply “subject to the jurisdiction” and not
as an aid to define a natural born citizen, and also by adding the conditions
of domicile and permanent residency to the jus soli (right from the soil) rule
of the English common law, that a child born in the United States to alien
parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and
neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was born subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, i.e., subject to its laws, and therefore a “citizen” of
the United States from the moment of birth, but only by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment. With the Court
requiring that those alien parents be subject to the laws of the United States,
it is doubtful that the Court would benefit those aliens in the country
illegally or temporarily with any right to pass on to their children the right
to be a U.S. citizen by birth in the United States. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was a natural
born citizen nor could it so hold, for the Court itself confirmed that a
natural born citizen was a child born in the country to parents who were its
citizens. Wong Kim Ark confirmed and
accepted Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen, not only when it cited
Minor and quoted its definition of a natural born citizen, but also when it
said: “The child of an alien, if born in
the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and
by operation of the same principle. Wong Kim Ark, at 665 (citing and quoting
Horace Binney, “Alienigenae of the United States,“ p. 22, note, December 1,
1853, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed.). Justice Gray
explained: “This paper, without Mr.
Binney's name and with the note in a less complete form and not containing the
passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the
American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204.”
Justice Gray accepted the distinction that Binney made between a child born in
the country to citizen parents who Binney called a “natural born” citizen and a
child born in the country to alien parents who he called a “citizen” without
any adjective. By adopting Binney’s
quote, Justice Gray told us that he saw a difference between a child born in
the United States to citizen parents who he called "natural born"
citizen and a child born in the United States to alien parents who he called a
"citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, and said
that it was birth in the country that made them both citizens. To defend
his position that it was birth in the country that made them both citizens, he
explained that for those born out of the United States, it was only a
naturalization Act of Congress that made them citizens, without which those
children would be aliens.<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Hence, how Binney and Minor defined a natural
born citizen were the same and Justice Gray accepted the definition both
provided.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">When it came to defining a
natural born citizen, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan also cited and
quoted Vattel thus: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Before the Revolution, the
view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">"The natives, or
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are
citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by
the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of
their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to
desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is
presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society,
reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of
the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens
merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to
the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to
the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country,
it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he
is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not
his country."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Book I, c.19, § 212.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">"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."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And to the same effect are
the modern writers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at
708 (Fuller, C.J. dissenting). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, when Minor and Wong Kim Ark are read in tandem,
we can see that Minor defined a common law Article II “natural born citizen”
and Wong Kim Ark defined a Fourteenth Amendment “born citizen,” (there are also
“born citizens” under Congressional naturalization Acts) which are two separate
and distinct classes of U.S. citizenships.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It has been said by
some who have misinterpreted Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations that it was not birth in
the country to citizen parents, but rather only a citizen father that was
necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.
They come to this conclusion because after Vattel defined a natural born
citizen as being born in the country to citizen parents he said: “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 country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their
tacit consent. . . . I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary
that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of
a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." But this language cannot serve as a
basis for coming to the conclusion that a citizen father is all that is
required to be a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Vattel first defined
a natural born citizen as being born in the country to citizen “parents.” Most clearly, Vattel in his definition of a
natural born citizen said, born in the country and born to citizen “parents,”
not citizen “father.” If birth could
occur anywhere, Vattel would not have said born in the country. Also, if he meant to say just citizen father,
it would have been easy for him to simply say so rather than using the word “parents”
in this definition of a natural born citizen.
Vattel did go on to explain that
the child had to be born to a citizen father.
But requiring that the child be born to a citizen father did not mean that
it was sufficient for the child to be born only to a citizen father or to just
one citizen parent. Vattel did not
express the idea that it was sufficient for the child to be a natural born
citizen to be born in the country to only one parent who was a citizen. Rather, while at the time that Vattel wrote
his treatise it was sufficient for a child born in the country to a citizen
father to be a natural born citizen, that was only because having a citizen
father meant that the child also had a citizen mother. Under the common law doctrine of coverture,
when a woman married a man, she automatically took on his citizenship and they
both thereafter held the same citizenship and allegiance. Also, at common law, “children” meant
legitimate children. Hence, requiring
that a child be born to a citizen father was the equivalent to requiring that a
child be born to married citizen parents.
It was only by being born in the country to two citizen parents that no
foreign nation could lay claim to the child’s allegiance and citizenship
through either jus sanguinis (right of blood or inheritance of citizenship from
one’s parents) or jus jus soli (right from the soil or acquisition of
citizenship by being born in a country).
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, for the Framers,
it was sufficient that a child be born in the country to a citizen father to
make that child a natural born citizen, for under the common law doctrine of
coverture, that meant that the child was born in the country to citizen
parents. This was the original definition
of a natural born citizen. Of course,
the Framers had no idea that Congress would pass a law in 1922 (the Cable Act)
which broke the wife’s allegiance and citizenship away from her husband. Congress did not provide that an alien
husband became a U.S. citizen upon marrying a U.S. citizen wife. Of course, this statute did not nor could it
amend the Constitution and its original definition of a natural born citizen
which required birth in the country to citizen parents, which then was achieved
through a citizen father. Rather, this law just changed the means or
mechanism by which that requirement was to be met. Each man and woman would
have to satisfy all applicable laws on their own in order to be citizens of the
United States. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">For the Founders and
Framers and for many years thereafter, marriage of a woman to a U.S. citizen
husband was enough for both to become U.S. citizens. The Framers never saw an alien husband
becoming a U.S. citizen upon marrying a U.S. citizen wife. For Congress in later years, marriage was no
longer sufficient for an alien woman to become a U.S. citizen. Rather, the wife would now have to go through
her own naturalization process if not a citizen of the United States. The Framers saw one mechanism for becoming a
natural born citizen which was based on the common law doctrine of
coverture. By abrogating the common law
doctrine of coverture, Congress changed that mechanism. But still the original status of a father and
mother being both citizens could be achieved by an alien woman marrying a
citizen husband. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">All U.S. Supreme
Court cases both before and after Minor that have provided a definition of a
natural born citizen have used the word citizen “parents” and never just
citizen “father” and rightfully so.
Justice Daniel in his concurring opinion in Dred Scott even went as far
as to remove “fathers” and replaced it with “parents.” Being born in the country to two citizen
parents, citizenship and allegiance in a foreign country was cut off, for no
nation could claim it either through jus soli (right of the soil) or through
jus sanguinis (right of the blood). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Of course, people
who are natural born citizens are all human and citizens. But not all humans
are natural born citizens nor even just citizens. Also, not all citizens are
natural born citizens. Under U.S. law
today, the difference between humans, citizens, and natural born citizens is
that only those who are born in the country to parents who were its citizens
are natural born citizens. Those who do not have those birth circumstances, but
who are still citizens under some positive law (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment,
naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty) are citizens. Those who are neither
natural born citizens (not born in the country to citizen parents) nor citizens
(they do not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress,
or treaty) are just humans. Race, color,
or religion do not play any role in establishing any of those categories. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, first there were
citizens. Then naturally there were natural born citizens, who were their
descendants born in the country. Being a
citizen meant one was a member of a political or civil society which was called
a country or nation. The first citizens were those who made that society.
Other citizens that followed were persons made citizens by the country's
positive laws. A natural born citizen (not to be conflated, confounded,
and confused with a citizen) was a child born in the county to parents who were
its citizens. As can be seen, race, color, and religion, had nothing to
do with the definition of being a natural born citizen. The barrier that
has existed in the United States in the past had been one about who was to be
accepted as a citizen, not as a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">All things in nature
perpetuate themselves through a process provided by nature itself. Nothing outside of nature itself is needed
for that thing to perpetuate itself. Man
can add to that natural process by introducing what we call artificial
agents. But by doing so, man is not
changing the natural process, but rather only adding to it. Vattel, who greatly influenced the Founders
and Framers, explained that as a natural and moral person, a nation too needed
to perpetuate itself if it were to survive as conceived. He saw a nation not only surviving but also
perpetuating itself through the love that its members gave to it. He also saw that it was parents, both father
and mother, who taught that love of country to their children on the most
fundamental and powerful level. Indeed,
Vattel did not see love of country emanating from a child being born in any
particular place, but rather from a child’s citizen parents who instill love of
their country in their child through education and rearing from the moment of
birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The natural born
citizen clause is not about pretend fairness or egalitarianism. The natural born citizen clause provides a
constitutional bright-line and objective test for Presidential and
Vice-Presidential eligibility. That
objective test is basically to ask whether the presidential candidate was born
or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at
the time of the person’s birth. When
voting for a President, voters cannot constitutionally vote for a person who is
not a natural born citizen, just like they cannot constitutionally vote for one
who is not at least 35 years old and at least 14 years a resident within the
United States. On the other hand, voting
for an eligible President is a subjective act done by the voters and their
choice is not to be questioned from a constitutional standpoint. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let us now apply
these principles to de facto President, Barack Obama. Obama was presumably born in the United
States to a U.S. citizen mother. But he
was born to an alien father (British and then Kenyan upon Kenya’s independence
from Great Britain). He was born in
allegiance to the United States and to Great Britain and then Kenya. He is therefore not a natural born
citizen. Race, color, or religion has
nothing to do with this conclusion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let us now apply
these principles to Ted Cruz. Cruz
concedes that he was born in a foreign country (Canada). While he was born to a U.S. citizen mother,
he also concedes that he was born to an alien father (Cuban). He barely became a citizen and only under a
naturalization Act of Congress. Not
until 1934 could someone born under such birth circumstances be a citizen, let
alone a natural born citizen. Cruz was
born with allegiance to the United States, Canada, and Cuba. Hence, he is not a natural born citizen.
Race, color, or religion has nothing to do with this conclusion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let us now apply
these principles to Marco Rubio. He
concedes that he was born in the United States to a father and mother who were
both aliens (they were Cuban). Not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1898
in its Wong Kim Ark decision that persons like Rubio born in the United States
to alien parents were citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment did someone like Rubio become a citizen of the United States (not to
be confused with a citizen of a state).
So, while Rubio can be a citizen of the United States, it is only by
virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rubio
was born with allegiance to the United States and Cuba. He is therefore not a natural born citizen. Race, color, or religion has nothing to do
with this conclusion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Trump is right.
Both Cruz and Rubio are not eligible to be President. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We come to the same
conclusion with respect to Bobby Jindal and Nikkie Haley. They
were born in the United States, but to two alien parents (both their parents
were Asian Indian). They have the same
status as Rubio. They were born with allegiance to the United
States and India. They are therefore not
natural born citizens. Race, color, or
religion has nothing to do with this conclusion. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal,
and Nikkie Haley are humans. They are also all (assuming Obama was born in the
U.S.) citizens (all citizens only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, except
for Cruz who is a citizen only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress). None
of them were born in the country to two parents who were its citizens at the
time of their child’s birth. None of them were born with sole allegiance to the
United States. None of them are natural
born citizens. Race, color, or religion
has nothing to do with this conclusion. Hence, being neither a natural born citizen
nor a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, none of them are eligible to the office of President. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">After its framing and ratification, the Constitution
prescribed who could be citizens and who could be natural born citizens. Because of the constitution’s limitation on
who could be a citizen, it took the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to make free blacks citizens of
the United States. It will not take
another civil war to change the definition of a natural born citizen which
would allow people like Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley to be elected
President or Vice-President. But it will
take at least another constitutional amendment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Professor Epps needs to go back and rethink his
entire race-based premise and unjust accusation against Donald Trump. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
February 29, 2016<br />
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<br />
####<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2016<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved <br />
<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">ENDNOTES:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Professor
Garrett Epps is a contributing writer for <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/garrett-epps/"><i>The Atlantic Online </i></a>.
He teaches constitutional law and writing for law students at the University of
Baltimore School of Law which he joined in 2008. His latest book is <a href="http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15328.html"><i>American Justice 2014:
Nine Clashing Visions on the Supreme Court</i></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> A monarchy is a form of
government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally
embodied in one individual reigning until death or abdication.
They are called monarchs.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#cite_note-1"><sup><span style="color: windowtext;">[1]</span></sup></a> Forms of monarchy differ
widely based on the level of legal autonomy the monarch holds in governance,
the method of selection of the monarch, and any predetermined limits on the
length of their tenure. When the monarch has no or few legal restraints in
state and political matters, it is called an <i>absolute monarchy</i>, and
is a form of autocracy. Cases in which the monarch's discretion is
formally limited, either by law or by convention, is called a <i>constitutional
monarchy</i>. In <i>hereditary monarchies</i>, the office is passed
through inheritance within a family group, whereas <i>elective monarchies</i> use
some system of voting. Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies
only those of certain pedigrees are eligible, whereas many hereditary
monarchies impose requirements regarding the religion, age, gender, mental
capacity, and other factors. Occasionally this might create a situation of
rival claimants whose legitimacy is subject to effective election.
Finally, there have been cases where the term of a monarch's reign is
either fixed in years or continues until certain goals are achieved: an
invasion being repulsed, for instance. Thus there are widely divergent
structures and traditions defining monarchy.
(emphasis in the original) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> A republic (from Latin: </span><i><span lang="LA" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">res publica</span></i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">) is a sovereign state or
country<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup> which
is organised with a form of government in which power resides in
elected individuals representing the citizen body<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-2">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-M-W-3">[3]</a></sup> and
government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In modern
times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which
excludes a monarch.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-M-W-3">[3]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-WordNet-4">[4]</a></sup> Currently,
147 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word
"republic" as part of their official names; not all of these are
republics in the sense of having elected governments, nor do all nations with
elected governments use the word "republic" in their names.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Both
modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In
the classical and medieval period of Europe, many states were
fashioned on the Roman Republic, which referred to the governance of the
city of Rome, between it having kings and emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political
tradition, today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes
considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus.
However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-The_Rise_of_Rome-5">[5]</a></sup> and Cicero,
sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek <i><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politeia" title="wikt:politeia">politeia</a></i> which
could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific
types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic.
Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but
had a democratic aspect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Republics
became more common in the Western world starting in the late 18th century,
eventually displacing absolute monarchy as the most common form of
government in Europe. In modern republics the executive is legitimized both by
a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included
in his work "The Spirit of the Laws" both democracies, where all
the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies,
where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> In 1673,
Pufendorf wrote, “De jure naturae et gentium libri octo,” or “The Law of Nature
and Nations: Eight Books,” published in
condensed form as “The Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law.” There
he explained:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">13. The state being thus constituted, the central
authority, according as it is one man, or one council of the few, or of all, is
called a monarch, a senate, or a free people. The rest are styled subjects, or
citizens, understanding the latter term in its wider sense. There are some,
however, who, in a narrower sense, usually call only those citizens, who by
their union and consent formed the state in the first place, or else their
successors, namely, the heads of households.
Moreover, citizens are either original or adopted. The former are those
who were present in the beginning at the birth of the state, or their
descendants. These it is the custom also to call indigenous. The adopted
citizens are those who from without join themselves to a state already constituted,
with the purpose of planting the seat of their fortunes there. As for those who
sojourn in the state, merely to tarry for a time, though subject just so long
to its authority, they are still not regarded as citizens, but are called
strangers or immigrants. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Samuel von Pufendorf, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30220382/Pufendorf-Samuel-De-officio-hominis-et-civis-juxta-legem-naturalem-libri-duo-T2-Traduction-1927" target="_blank">De Officio Hominis et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem</a> , <u>The Whole Duty of Man According to the Law
of Nature</u> (1673), trans. Andrew Tooke, ed. Ian Hunter and David
Saunders, with Two Discourses and a Commentary by Jean Barbeyrac, trans. David
Saunders, Book II, Chapter VI (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003).
4/5/2015. <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/888">http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/888</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">John
Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Denis Diderot all recommended
that Pufendorf's teachings be included into law curricula. He greatly
influenced Blackstone and Montesquieu. Through these thinkers, Pufendorf became familiar to Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Pufendorf’s political concepts are part of
the culture that produced the American Revolution. Clifton E. Olmstead, <i>History of Religion
in the United States</i> 89 (1960).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> “Ancient Greece
was composed of a number of city states, each one independent of the other and
conferring certain privileges upon its subjects. The greatest advantages of
citizenship among these city states was conferred by the Athenians, limited,
however, to native sons of native fathers and mothers, excluding from such
privileges foreigners and slaves.”
TRAINING MANUAL } WAR DEPARTMENT,
No. 2000-25 } WASHINGTON, <i>November 30, 1928.</i>CITIZENSHIP. <a href="http://www.constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.htm">http://www.constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.htm</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Aristotle
explained that citizenship came from both parents. In “Politics, Book Three, Part II, Aristotle,
writing in 350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition
of citizenship: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Part II</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="78"></a><br />
<br />
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="79"></a>parents
are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="80"></a>three
or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="81"></a>are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth
ancestor <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="82"></a>came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly
because he was in a difficulty, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="83"></a>partly in irony, said- 'Mortars
are what is made by the mortar-makers, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="84"></a>and the citizens of
Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="85"></a>for it is
their trade to make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="86"></a>simple,
for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government,
they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="88"></a>For
the words, 'born of a father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="89"></a>apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="90"></a><br />
<br />
There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="91"></a>made
citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at Athens after the <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="92"></a>expulsion
of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics, both strangers <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="93"></a>and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he
who <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="94"></a>is ought to be a citizen; and there will still be a
furthering the state, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="95"></a>whether a certain act is or is not an act
of the state; for what ought <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="96"></a>not to be is what is false. Now,
there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom we
describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="98"></a>And the citizen was
defined by the fact of his holding some kind of rule <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="99"></a>or office-
he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="100"></a>of a citizen. It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about
whom the <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="101"></a>doubt has arisen must be called citizens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html">http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Citizenship in
ancient Rome was defined as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Civitas,
plural Civitates, citizenship in ancient Rome. Roman citizenship was acquired
by birth if both parents were Roman citizens (cives), although one of them,
usually the mother, might be a peregrinus(“alien”) with connubium (the right to
contract a Roman marriage). Otherwise, citizenship could be granted by the
people, later by generals and emperors. "civitas". Encyclopædia
Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 12 Jul. 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/civitas">http://www.britannica.com/topic/civitas</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn7">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Lord Coke in famous
English case of Calvin's Case (1608) and later English authorities believed
that birth conferred the right to naturalization for those children who were
born to alien parents in the King's dominion and under his allegiance and
protection.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Lord
Coke wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">"it
followeth that Calvin the plaintiff being born under one ligeance to one King,
cannot be an alien born; and there is great reason, that the law of nature
should direct this case, wherein five natural operations are remarkable: first
the King hath the Crown of England by birthright; being naturally procreated of
the blood royal of this realm: secondly, Calvin the plaintiff naturalized by
procreation and birth-right."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Lord
Coke in Calvin's Case naturalized Calvin at birth and made him an English
"natural-born subject."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Richard Wooddeson, 3rd Vinerian Professor of
English Common Law from 1777 to 1793,</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> recognized
that mere birth in the country to alien parents under English common law
conferred the birthright to naturalization.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn8">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">
The allegiance of a natural-born British subject is regarded by the Common Law
as indelible. We are of opinion that this doctrine of the Common Law is neither
reasonable nor convenient. It is at variance with those principles on which the
rights and duties of a subject should be deemed to rest; it conflicts with that
freedom of action which is now recognized as most conducive to the general
good, as well as to individual happiness and prosperity, and it is especially
inconsistent with the practice of a State which allows to its subjects absolute
freedom of emigration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">***<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But
from the Declaration of Independence to this day, the United States have
rejected the doctrine of indissoluble allegiance and maintained the general
right of expatriation, to be exercised in subordination to the public interests
and subject to regulation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">***<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
subject was examined at length in 1856, in an opinion given the Secretary of
State by Attorney General Cushing, 8 Opins.Attys.Gen. 139, where the views of
the writers on international law and those expressed in cases in the Federal
and state courts are largely set forth, and the Attorney General says:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
doctrine of absolute and perpetual allegiance, the root of the denial of any
right of emigration, is inadmissible in the United States. It was a matter
involved in, and settled for us by, the Revolution which founded the American
Union.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Moreover,
the right of expatriation, under fixed circumstances of time and of manner,
being expressly asserted in the legislatures of several of the States and
confirmed by decisions of their courts, must be considered as thus made a part
of the fundamental law of the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Expatriation
included not simply the leaving of one's native country, but the becoming
naturalized in the country adopted as a future residence. The emigration which
the United States encouraged was that of those who could become incorporate
with its people, make its flag their own, and aid in the accomplishment of a
common destiny, and it was obstruction to such emigration that made one of the
charges against the Crown in the Declaration. [p713]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">***<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In
1859, Attorney General Black thus advised the President (9 Op. 356):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The
natural right of every free person who owes no debts and is not guilty of any
crime to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest
purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting
another allegiance in its place -- the general right, in one word, of
expatriation, is incontestable. I know that the common law of England denies
it, that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it, and that
some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not
very decisively, the same pinion. But all this is very far from settling the
question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we
derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and
justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized
nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In
the opinion of the Attorney General, the United States, in recognizing the
right of expatriation, declined from the beginning to accept the view that
rested the obligation of the citizen on feudal principles, and proceeded on the
law of nations, which was in direct conflict therewith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And
the correctness of this conclusion was specifically affirmed not many years
after, when the right, as the natural and inherent right of all people and
fundamental in this country, was declared by Congress in the act of July 27,
1838, 15 Stat. 223, c. 249, carried forward into sections 1999 and 2000 of the
Revised Statutes, in 1874. [p714]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent
of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of
citizenship of the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 711-714(1898) (Fuller,
C.J. dissenting). </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Framers'%20Definition%20of%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Is%20Not%20Based%20On%20Race,%20Color,%20or%20Religion%202-28-16.docx#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt;"> With respect to children born out of the
United States, United States v. Perkins, 17 Fed. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936); Schaufus
v. Attorney General, 45 Fed. Supp. 61 (1942); Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 Fed.2d 209
(10<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1951); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); and Miller
v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), later all observed the same. They all said that such children could be
citizens of the United States only through a naturalization Act of Congress,
and that without such Act, such children would be aliens. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com45tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8218207554111414882016-02-22T12:58:00.000-05:002016-02-22T13:47:30.164-05:00Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a Natural Born Citizen<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a
Natural Born Citizen <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
February 22, 2016<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img alt="Image result for image the Fourteenth Amendment" height="134" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiVeJ6XiRr-WuLiqHYwZnljHOPoE2kU94zrnnYGkKOY4t0X4v3" width="200" />Donald Trump retweeted that both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
are not natural born citizens. See <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201</a>
. George Stephanopoulos on Sunday,
February 21, 2016, asked Trump on ABC’s “This Week” about his Saturday retweet
and whether he really believed that Marco Rubio was not a natural born
citizen. See at about 1:30 at <a href="https://youtu.be/R9GkFo1Kfno">https://youtu.be/R9GkFo1Kfno</a>
("Donald Trump on His South
Carolina Primary Win, the GOP, and the Cruz Campaign Tactics") and <a href="http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=7663">http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=7663</a>
and <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270208-trump-im-not-sure-if-rubio-is-eligible-to-run-for">http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270208-trump-im-not-sure-if-rubio-is-eligible-to-run-for</a>
. Trump responded: “I think the lawyers have to determine it.” It was a retweet. Not so much with Marco, I’m
not really that familiar with Marco’s circumstances. I know that Ted has a problem.” Again, Stephanopoulos pressed Trump why he would
retweet the message if he was not be sure whether Rubio was a natural born
citizen. Trump said he did it because “I’m
not sure.” Stephanopoulos responded in
amazement: “You’re really not sure?” Trump responded: “I don’t know. I’ve never really looked at it, honestly
George.” Again, Stephanopoulos forged
forward “You’re not sure?” Trump then said
that he has contact with 14 million people on social media and “I retweet
things and we start a dialogue. It’s
very interesting.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Donald Trump is correct for retweeting that Marco Rubio is
not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and
birth <u>alone.</u> But birth does not exist in a vacuum.
There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth. Those
circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born and the place
where one is born. In order to have a valid definition of the natural
born citizen, it is necessary that we take these birth circumstances and make
them part of a definition.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There does, indeed, exist a definition that contains the
necessary and sufficient birth circumstances that must exist in order for one
to be a natural born citizen. The historical and legal record
demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth <u>alone</u>,
one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of
the child’s birth. Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or
reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the
child’s birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212
to 217 (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, 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 parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the
first”); accord <u>U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark</u>, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (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"). All other birth circumstances, i.e., either not being
born in the country or not being born to two citizen parents, do not produce
citizenship by virtue of birth alone. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Since 1790, Congress has for policy reasons seen the need,
exactly for the reason that they are not natural born citizens, to naturalize
children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States and before the ratification
of the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
(1898) to naturalize children born in the U.S. to alien parents. The First and Third Congress, which included
James Madison and many Founders and Framers, with the approval of President
George Washington, passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790 (<i>An act to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization, </i>Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103,
1st Congress; March 26, 1790, available at <a href="http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html">http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html</a>
) and the Naturalization Act 1795 (<i>An act to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, </i>Sess.
II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, 3rd Congress; January 29, 1795, available at
same). The 1790 Act provided:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have
resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for
the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on
application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein
he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to
the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and
taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of
the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and
the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings
thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the
United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling
within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time
of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United
States. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
~~~~~<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The 1795 Act made it harder for aliens to become citizens of
the United States, but repeated: “that
the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States,
and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such
naturalization. . . shall be considered as citizens of the United
States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend
to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.” So, under both Acts parents had to naturalize
in the United States to make their minor children citizens of the United States
and those children had to be dwelling in the United States for the new status to
attach to them. If parents did not
naturalize during their children’s years of minority, their children remained
aliens unless they naturalized on their own during their years of
majority. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we can see, the Acts’ language was broad and applied to
both children born in or out of the United States. These Acts explained that a child born in the
United States to alien parents could become a citizen of the United States only
if his or her parents naturalized during the child's minority and when the
child shall be dwelling in the United States, and if not done during that time
period, only upon the child-turned adult's own naturalization petition. Hence,
there is no question that when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution
and when it was ratified by the states, a child born in the United States to
alien parents was not a natural born citizen. Such a child could become a “citizen” of the
United States, but only after birth and only through naturalization of the
parents if done during the child’s minority or upon the child’s personal
naturalization petition upon reaching the age of majority (which was 21 years
of age). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have further evidence of the need, not only that the
child be born in the country, but also that the child be born to U.S. citizen
“parents” in order for the child to be a natural born citizen, from our
Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1868
was passed in that year. It
provided: “All persons born in the
United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not
taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” In 1862,
Representative John Bingham said on the House floor:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words “natural-born citizen of the United
States” occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that “Congress
shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to
citizenship. Who are “natural-born
citizens” but those born within the Republic?
Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by
birth—natural born citizens. There is no
such word as “white” in your Constitution.
Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it
depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of
[congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized,
are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the
Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born
citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching
natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to
Indians.” (emphasis in the original).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Note that in defining a natural born citizen, at first he
said that “[t[hose born within the Republic . . . are . . . natural born citizens.” Then he said “all other persons born within the Republic, of
parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born
citizens.” So in his second statement he
was more complete in his definition, adding birth to “parents owing allegiance
to no other sovereignty.” The
record does not contain any indication that any member of Congress disagreed
with Bingham’s statements on the House floor regarding the definition of a
natural born citizen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then in 1866, Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in
commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the
Fourteenth Amendment, and on the meaning of a natural born citizen paraphrased Vattel’s
definition of the clause thus:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply
declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born
within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to
any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a
natural born citizen. . . .<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here he explained that a natural born citizen was a child
born in the United States to parents who did not owe any allegiance to any
foreign power. That was a correct
definition of an Article II natural born citizen and a repeat of what he had
said in 1862. The record does not
contain any indication that any member of Congress disagreed with Bingham’s
statements on the House floor regarding the definition of a natural born
citizen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then in 1867, Bingham made another statement, saying:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits
of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born
citizen.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, Cong. Globe, 40<sup>th</sup>,
2<sup>nd</sup> Sess., 2212 (1867). He
made this statement with reference to the right to vote and not in reference to
defining a natural born citizen. Here,
Bingham, in defining a natural born citizen, only mentioned birth “within the
limits of the Republic.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In 1872, Bingham again addressed the meaning of a natural
born citizen. He made more statements on
the floor of the House. On April 25,
1872, he addressed the case of Dr. John Emilio Houard being incarcerated in
Spain for allegedly having committed a criminal offense there. Bingham demanded that the government of Spain
afford Dr. Houard due process of law under Spanish law. During the debate, the issue was raised on
the floor of the House whether the doctor was a citizen of the United States,
for if he was not such a citizen, the United States would have nothing to do
with the matter. Bingham argued:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in
favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a
natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a
doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the
United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day,
he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 42<sup>nd</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>
Sess., 2791 (1872).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bingham said that what made Huard a natural born citizen was
being born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. So, here, as before, he defined a natural
born citizen as someone born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Again, the record does not contain any
indication that any member of Congress disagreed with Bingham’s statements on
the House floor regarding the definition of a natural born citizen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One can argue that Bingham’s 1867 statement contradicts his
two previous and one subsequent statements, because in that statement he only
refers to birth in the United States and makes no mention of having to be born
to parents who were citizens of the United States. But actually they are not contradictory if we
analyze what Bingham probably meant to say in his 1867 statement and conclude
that it is not what appears on the surface.
We can see in his statement of 1862, that first he only called for birth
in the United States. But then later in
his statement he said that only those born in the United States to parents who
owed no allegiance to any foreign power were natural born citizens. So, when he first mentioned just birth in the
country, he was only saying that it was necessary to be a natural born
citizen. But then later he provided the
full definition of a natural born citizen which included birth in the country
to parents who were its citizens. The
same can be said for what Bingham said in 1867.
In mentioning birth in the country, he was only saying that it was a
necessary condition for being a natural born citizen. We know that he did not mean to say it was
sufficient, because then in 1872, he again explained that a natural born
citizen was a child born in the United States to parents who did not owe any
foreign allegiance to any foreign power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, Bingham provides a look into how the House of
Representatives defined a natural born citizen in the 1860’s and 1870’s. Bingham’s statement of 1872 was also made by
him after the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed and still, he included in
the definition of a natural born citizen not only birth in the country, but
also birth to U.S. citizen parents. This
information is valuable because it tells us how Congress was defining a natural
born citizen before the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment,
and then shortly thereafter. There is
little doubt that the House defined a natural born citizen as a child born in
the country to parents who were its citizens.
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) agreed with Bingham, stating that
a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen of the
United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hence, a natural born citizen could be only a person born in the United
States to U.S. citizen parents, which is what Bingham has said as early as
1862.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and replaced the
Civil Rights Act. The Amendment was passed to provide through the Constitution and not only through an Act of Congress for the citizenship of recently freed slaves and to protect their civil rights. It provided: “All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside.” The Fourteenth Amendment should not be read any further than providing for the remedy of making all persons born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction "citizens" of the United States, not Article II "natural born citizens" of the United States. A plain and simple reading
of its text shows that it only defines a “citizen” of the United States, not an
Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States. As far as the debates on the Fourteenth
Amendment go, we have to understand the first principle which is that that the
text of that Amendment concerns a “citizen” of the United States, and not a
“natural born citizen” of the United States.
Plainly on its face and except for those born before the adoption of the
Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 informs that being a citizen of
the United States is not sufficient to be eligible to be President. Rather, it demands that one be a natural born
citizen. Those who rely on the comments
made in debate during the adoption of the Amendment fail to demonstrate with
those comments by members of Congress that they were defining an Article II
natural born citizen as opposed to who was to be a citizen of the United States
under the Fourteenth Amendment. After
all, the issue before them was who was to be a citizen under that Amendment,
not who was to be an Article II natural born citizen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Additionally, what those debate comments show is that those
commentators all agreed that to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be
President, it was necessary that one had to be a “native-born citizen,” meaning
one was born in the United States and a citizen. So birth in the United States was a
necessary condition of being a natural born citizen and eligible to be
President. There is nothing in those
statements to indicate that they were saying that birth in the United States
was sufficient to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. And to the degree that such a position can be
inferred from what they said, whether they thoroughly studied and considered
whether birth in the United States was sufficient is another story. But in any event, those commentators agreed
that birth in the United States was a necessary condition of being eligible to
be President. That alone shows that
Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada, is not eligible to be President.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we saw from Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment
abrogated Congress’s naturalization Acts that applied to children born in the
United States and any conflicting treaties.
Wong Kim Ark informed that birth in the country while subject to its
jurisdiction, when it is through birth in the United States to one or two alien
parents, is strong enough to produce U.S. citizenship at birth and only by
virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (under English common law called a “natural-born
subject”). But such birth circumstances are not strong enough to
produce a natural born citizen under American common law (not to be conflated, confounded,
and confused with an English “natural-born subject” under the English common
law). That a person born in the United
States to one or two alien parents satisfies the material elements of the
Amendment does not make the very Amendment, the source of the citizenship,
disappear. It is still by virtue of the Amendment itself, and not by virtue of
birth alone, which is the case for a natural born citizen, that one becomes a
citizen of the United States at birth. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rubio was born in the United States to alien parents (they were both citizens of Cuba when Rubio was born). If born after Congress passed its first
naturalization Acts and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, at
best, he could have naturalized under a naturalization Act of Congress to
become a citizen of the United States after his birth, either by his parents
naturalizing during his minority or upon his own personal naturalization as an
adult. Having to naturalize by either
method in order to become at best a citizen of the United States after his
birth, he surely could not be a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rubio was born in 1971 and therefore gets the benefit of the
Fourteenth Amendment. But the Fourteenth
Amendment also does not make Rubio a natural born citizen. Only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment,
which was passed so that freed slaves could become citizens of the United
States, which abrogated Congress's naturalization Acts as they applied to
persons born in the United States, which came 81 years after the adoption of
the Constitution, which did not repeal the natural born citizen clause nor
amend it, and which only grants entry-level membership in the United States to
children born in the United States to aliens who are domiciled and permanently residing
in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, hence,
children born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction, Rubio
became a "citizen" of the United States "at birth," but not
a natural born citizen. Rubio, only by
virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (a positive law), became a citizen of the
United States before both of his birth parents did. It is not possible that he is a natural born
citizen, who, by reason of his or her birth circumstances, i.e., birth in the
country to parents who were its citizens, needs no law to be a natural born
citizen. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, Trump should do more than just retweet that he is not
sure whether Rubio is a natural born citizen.
Trump should forcefully expose Rubio for not being one, as he has done
with Ted Cruz. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, recently endorsed Marco
Rubio. But the endorsement by one who like Haley, born in the United States to
alien parents like Rubio, who is like Rubio not a natural born citizen, does
not nor can it convert Rubio into a natural born citizen. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
February 22, 2016<br />
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<br />
####<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2016<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55134595388010782912016-02-18T15:20:00.000-05:002016-03-13T14:09:16.426-04:00Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Ted Cruz Misrepresents the Law and His Being a Natural
Born Citizen at Town Hall Meeting <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">February 18, 2016</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Image result for originalism vs living constitution" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFn6QN_fxkGNB33ipBaxRU1wV0bh8uZUtZvCmFIiVyAiwI40de" /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">During a CNN Republican presidential town hall in Greenville,
South Carolina on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, a self-identified supporter of
Sen. Ted Cruz asked him to explain why he believes that he is a natural born citizen
under the Constitution even though he was born in Canada. "In order to prevent future controversy
and possible litigation will you please justify, constitutionally, your legal
right to be president of the United States as it relates to your natural born
status?" Julie Hershey asked Cruz. The full exchange can be seen on video
at <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-eligibility-cnn-town-hall">http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-eligibility-cnn-town-hall</a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz, in a style and tone as if he were arguing his
case before the U.S. Supreme Court, said that he was happy that Ms. Hershey (the
Justice) asked him that question. He
then answered that “the law under the Constitution and federal law have been
clear from the very first days of the Republic.
The child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural born citizen.” He continued that if two Americans travel
overseas and have a child there, the child is “a U.S. citizen by virtue of
birth.” The child born to U.S. service
members overseas is “a natural born citizen by virtue of the child’s parents.” The
child born to U.S. citizen missionaries overseas “are natural born citizens.” John McCain, who was born in Panama to two
U.S. citizen parents, “was a natural born citizen.” George Romney, who was born in Mexico to two
U.S. citizen parents “was a natural born citizen.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Then Cruz reached back to the early years of the
Republic. He said that the First
Congress, which contained many Founders and Framers and who wrote the first
naturalization Act, “explicitly defined the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad
as a natural born citizen.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz then admitted that he was born in Canada. But he added that he was born there to a mother
who was a U.S. citizen. He concludes
that therefore “I was a citizen by birth by virtue of my mother’s
citizenship. So, I have never been
naturalized. I’ve never breathed a
breath of fresh air on this planet when I was not a U.S. citizen. It was the act of being born that made me a
U.S. citizen.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz then concluded that “under the law the question
is clear. There will still be some who
try to make political mischief on it, but as a legal matter this is clear and straightforward.” He finalized by saying that any suit brought
by Donald Trump against him would not be meritorious. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">~~~~~<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So is Cruz telling the truth about what the law provided historically
and what it provides today regarding whether he is a natural born citizen and
whether he is under the Constitution a natural born citizen? The answer is “no.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth
and birth <u>alone.</u> But birth does
not exist in a vacuum. There are circumstances
that exist at the time of birth. Those
circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born and the place
where one is born. In order to have a
valid definition of the natural born citizen, it is necessary that we take
these birth circumstances and make them part of a definition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There does, indeed,
exist a definition that contains the necessary and sufficient birth circumstances
that must exist in order for one to be a natural born citizen. The historical and legal record demonstrates
that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth <u>alone</u>, one must be born
in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s
birth. Indeed, a natural born citizen is
a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at
the time of the child’s birth. See Emer
de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212 to 217 (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, 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 parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the
first”); accord <u>U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark</u>, 169 U.S. 649, 665
(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"). As we shall see, a</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">ll
other birth circumstances, i.e., either not being born in the country or not
being born to citizen parents, do not produce citizenship by virtue of birth
alone. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Birth in the country while subject to its jurisdiction, when not born to two U.S. citizen parents, produces citizenship at birth but only
by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">That
one satisfies the material elements of the Amendment does not make the very Amendment,
the source of the citizenship, disappear. It is still by virtue of the
Amendment itself, and not by virtue of birth alone, that one becomes a citizen
of the United States at birth.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Birth out of the country to one or two U.S. citizen
parents produces citizenship at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act
of Congress. That one satisfies the
material elements of the Act does not make the very Act, the source of the
citizenship, disappear. It is still by
virtue of the naturalization Act itself and not by virtue of birth alone that
one becomes a citizen of the United States at birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To make my point more clear, someone might be
considered to be a good person by virtue of having a lot of money. But that money does not exist in a vacuum,
for it could have been acquired by various means. It
could have been acquired by hard and honest work, inheritance, lottery, gift, finding
it on the ground, or even stealing it.
The same with being a natural born citizen. One can be a citizen of the United States at
birth by various means. But the only
means that was ever recognized by our history and our U.S. Supreme Court is the
means of being born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time
of the child’s birth. The recognition of
that means for becoming a natural born citizen does not depend upon any
positive law. Becoming a citizen of the
United States at birth by any other means, e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization
Act of Congress, makes one a citizen of the United States at birth, but,
needing those laws in order to acquire the citizen-at-birth status that they
bestow upon those who satisfy their conditions, it does not make one a natural
born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz cites to and relies upon the First Congress and
its Naturalization Act of 1790 to show that he is a natural born citizen. But his reliance there is misplaced. This Act does not help him. If anything, this Act and the one that
followed, that of 1795, when read in tandem confirm that the Framers did not
view someone like Cruz, who was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of
the United States, to be a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This naturalization Act did not nor could it make
anyone a natural born citizen. When the
Constitution was adopted and ratified, it already contained a definition of a
natural born citizen. That definition
was binding upon the nation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Constitution did not give to Congress the constitutional power to define a
natural born citizen. The Constitution
also did not give to Congress the power to amend it through a statute. Rather, the Constitution requires a duly
ratified amendment in order to amend it.
The 1790 Act is just a statute and surely could not amend the
Constitution’s meaning of a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Since 1790, Congress has for policy reasons seen the
need, exactly for the reason that they are not natural born citizens, to
naturalize children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Congress did not explicitly define a natural born
citizen in the 1790 Act. It only said
that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizens “shall be
considered as natural born citizens.”
This is no different from saying that a couple’s adopted children shall
be considered as that couple's natural children. In making that statement, the person is not defining
that couple's natural born children. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In the Naturalization Act of 1790, the First Congress
naturalized children to enjoy all the privileges and immunities of natural born
citizens. A careful reading of the
statute’s text shows that Congress did not give or change the definition of a
natural born citizen, but rather only naturalized children born out of the
United States to U.S. citizen parents. What
Congress did, by using the language “shall be considered as natural born
citizens,” was to only extend the privileges, immunities, and rights of a true
natural born citizen to those children born out of the United States to U.S.
citizen parents, to the extent that it could constitutionally do so. That extension could not include the
privilege of being eligible to the Office of President. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Only the Acts that are in effect when one is born
apply to the question of that person’s citizenship status at the time of
birth. Cruz was not born when the 1790
Act was in effect (only from 1790 to 1795) and therefore he cannot claim any
status to being a natural born citizen under it even if the Act purported to
and could constitutionally grant to anyone the status of a natural born
citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The 1790 Act also required that the child be born to
both a father and mother who were U.S. citizens. Cruz was born only to a U.S. citizen
mother. Not being born also to a U.S.
citizen father, Cruz would not even be a citizen of the United States under the
early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1805, and 1855) and is made
a citizen only because Congress eventually did away with the doctrine of
coverture (allowing husbands and wives to have their own citizenship rather
than wives acquiring that of their husbands) in 1922 with the Cable Act.
If born between 1802 and 1855, Cruz would not even be a citizen, even if
he was born to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Cruz got lucky because
Congress in 1934 passed a naturalization Act (Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48
Stat. 797) which for the first time allowed a person born in a foreign country
to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father to be a citizen of the
United States. That naturalization rule was carried forward in the
Nationality Act of 1940 (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137, enacted
October 14, 1940) and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (Pub.L.
82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), the latter being the statute in
effect when Cruz was born and without which, along with those of 1934 and 1940,
Cruz would be an alien. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In any event, the Third Congress repealed the 1790 Act
when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed “shall be
considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered
as citizens of the United States.” In 1795,
the Third Congress, clearly indicated that Congress never intended to suggest
that those persons were eligible to be President. Rather, what it meant to do was to only naturalize them to enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United
States, who were not eligible to be
President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, unless also natural born
citizens. Representative James Madison, along with the entire Third Congress,
and with the approval of President George Washington, told us in 1795 through
the Naturalization Act of 1795, that a person born out of the United States to
U.S. citizen parents was not a "natural born citizen" of the United
States, but rather a "citizen" of the United States. By surgically changing this language as it
did, the Third Congress, which still had many Founders and Framers among its
ranks as did the First Congress, with the lead of then-Representative James
Madison and with the approval of President Washington, made it known that
Congress did not intend in 1790 to grant the status of natural born citizen to
anyone born out of the United States, even if born to U.S. citizen
parents. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">All subsequent naturalization Acts of Congress provide
that Cruz is a citizen of the United States, even as we shall see below the one
which applies to his birth in 1970. But
yet Cruz tells us that even though he was born out of the United States,
because he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he is a natural born
citizen. Clearly, he is not telling the
truth, for Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen under the very words
of James Madison and President Washington.
At best, he would be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under
the naturalization Act that was in effect when he was born in 1970, which in
any case is not and cannot be that of 1790 which was long ago repealed and
which being born only to a U.S. citizen mother he did not satisfy in any
event. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So as we can see, Cruz cannot possibly be a natural
born citizen through the Naturalization Act of 1790. Reading the Act of 1790 and 1795 together confirms
that the Framers did not view someone like Cruz, born out of the territory and jurisdiction
of the United States, to be a natural born citizen. On the contrary, they would have viewed him
as an “alien or foreigner” in need of naturalization by Congress. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz also relies upon the Congressional naturalization
Act that was in effect when he was born in 1970. That Act is the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) of 1952. When enacted in 1952,
the INA at section 301, required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have
been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five
after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born
children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01
a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is
applicable to persons born during that period.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of
the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits
of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of
such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying
possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least
five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That
any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by
such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence
requirements of this paragraph.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The modern version of this statute is found at 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hence, a naturalization Act of Congress that applied
at the time of his birth, does make Cruz, a “citizen” of the United States “at
birth.” That naturalization Act of
Congress naturalized Cruz at birth to be a citizen of the United States from
the moment of birth. This Act does not
make him a natural born citizen. First,
a naturalization Act passed 165 years after the Constitution was adopted surely
cannot inform on the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen. Second, the Act is a naturalization Act. Third, Acts of Congress do not and cannot
amend the Constitution. Fourth, the text
of the Act does not use the clause “natural born citizen.” Fifth, Congress required the U.S. citizen
parents to satisfy a physical presence in the United States requirement. A natural born citizen surely would not be
subject to such a condition. Sixth, as
we saw for Barack Obama, simply being a citizen “at birth” or “by birth” is not
sufficient to be a natural born citizen, for one may qualify for that birth
status under the Fourteenth Amendment or under a naturalization Act of Congress
as Cruz does, but not also under the common law which defines a natural born
citizen. Because Cruz does not satisfy the American common law definition of a
natural born citizen, he must look to positive law such as an Act of Congress
for his citizenship status.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz is not a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth alone. Cruz is not a natural born citizen by virtue
of his mother’s birth alone. Rather he
is a citizen by virtue of a naturalization statute without which he would be an
alien. See: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 665 (1898) (explained that one born out of the United States to U.S.
citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a naturalized
citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it were not for a
naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and not a
citizen); <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">United States v. Perkins,
17 Fed. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936) (petitioner contended, among other things, that
he was born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother which made him a
natural born citizen, but the court citing Wong Kim Ark, whose statements the
court found not to be dicta as petitioner had contended, explained that
petitioner could not be a natural born citizen, but rather at most a
naturalized citizen so made by naturalization Acts of Congress); <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Schaufus v. Attorney
General, 45 Fed. Supp. 61 (1942) (a foreign born child was a naturalized
citizen within the meaning of an expatriation statute); <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Zimmer v. Acheson, 191
Fed.2d 209 (10<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1951) (“There are only two classes of citizens
of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; [footnote
1] and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States
is a naturalized citizen<sup> </sup>[footnote 2],” in footnote 1 citing to Elk
v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643;
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42
L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5
N.E.2d 68, 70; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45
F. Supp. 61, 67, and in footnote 2 citing to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 702-703, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island
Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; United States v. Kellar,
C.C.Ill., 13 F. 82, 85; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md.,
45 F. Supp. 61, 67. The Court held that
if the appellant became a citizen of the United States at birth under Revised
Statutes, § 1993, the appellant, “at the time of his birth, became a citizen of
the United States by virtue of the foregoing statute, but his status as a
citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen.” Id.
at 211); <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Montana v. Kennedy, 366
U.S. 308 (1961) (explained that if a child is not born in the country, the
child needs a naturalization Act of the sovereign authority to make that child
for all intents and purposes a citizen and without such naturalization the
child would be an alien); <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S.
815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can
be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its
naturalization Acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United
States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would be an
alien); and <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Miller v. Albright, 523
U.S. 420 (1998) (“There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs
no naturalization.’ 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States
acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at
703.”).</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by
virtue of his birth circumstances which qualify him for the status <u>only
because</u> a naturalization Act of Congress (a positive law) says so, not by
virtue of his birth circumstances <u>alone</u>. At best, he is a
“citizen” of the United States “at birth” by the very text of the statute.
He is a “citizen” at birth of the United States, Canada, and maybe Cuba
also. But he is not an Article II natural born citizen which could not
under U.S. law possibly allow one to be simultaneously a citizen at birth of
other nations. Renouncing his birthright Canadian citizenship as he did
in 2014 does not nor can it retroactively change the birth circumstances with
which he was born. He was not born with unity of citizenship and
allegiance at birth and therefore the Framers would not have trusted him with
the great and singular civil and military powers of the Office of President and
Commander in Chief of the Military.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz insists that he is a natural born citizen because
he was not “naturalized.” But as I have
shown above, we do not validly get to the conclusion that Cruz is a natural
born citizen by proclaiming that he "was never naturalized," when
first, he has not satisfied the constitutional definition of a natural born
citizen with its necessary and sufficient conditions, and second, we may have a
different definition and perception from Cruz of what "naturalized"
means. Getting to one being a natural born citizen by saying one was not
naturalized depends upon one’s definition of naturalization and not upon the definition
of natural born citizen. Hence, the approach
is not honest, for Cruz is not starting with the constitutional definition of a
natural born citizen, which provides its necessary and sufficient conditions,
but rather getting to the status by telling us that anyone who is a citizen and
not "naturalized" is a natural born citizen. The false game is
one of pretending to define "naturalized" instead of truly defining
"natural born citizen" under its constitutional definition. But Cruz’s argument that he was never
naturalized is false, for I have shown that under all the laws of the United
States, he was naturalized although at birth.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz looks to Senator John McCain for help. But there is no help there. Under the common law, the status of birth in
the country is also extended to children born physically out of the territory
of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who are on diplomatic service for
or serving the military of the United States. These children are “reputed
born” in the United States and do not need a naturalization Act of Congress to
make them citizens of the United States. See Vattel, § 217. “Children
born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign
court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the
armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are
reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on
the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its
jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">John McCain was born outside the territory of the
United States (in Panama), but not outside its jurisdiction, to U.S. citizen
parents serving the national defense of the United States. Because his
parents, serving the armies of the United States, are considered as not having
voluntarily quitted the territory of the United States and as having remained under
the jurisdiction of the United States, their son born to them in the foreign
territory is reputed born in the United States. Hence, McCain was born
"in" the United States to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore
a natural born citizens. Cruz’s parents had voluntarily left the United
States to pursue private economic interests in Canada. Neither Cruz’s
father nor mother were serving the national defense of the United States
(serving in the military or some other comparable capacity) while in
Canada. So, while in Canada, Cruz’s parents were under the strict
jurisdiction of Canada and not that of the United States. Additionally,
Cruz’s father was an alien. Hence, Cruz cannot benefit from the McCain
rule. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz also looks to former Governor George Romney for
help. But there too, there is no
help. Romney was born in Mexico to U.S.
citizen parents. Initially he was the
front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in
the 1968 election. But he withdrew from
the contest in early 1968. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney</a>
. Hence, he never advanced far enough for the issue of his place of birth to be
considered in any serious way. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, Cruz may be a citizen of the United States at
birth. But he became such only by virtue
of a naturalization Act of Congress, not by virtue of his birth alone or by
being born to a U.S. citizen mother alone.
Cruz was able to breathe fresh air as a U.S. citizen all his life only
because Congress through a naturalization Act so allowed him. Without that naturalization Act, Cruz would
have breathed fresh air only as a Canadian and Cuban citizen. Cruz therefore is not nor can he be a natural
born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz tries to escape the requirements of the natural
born citizen clause by characterizing the resolution of its meaning as a
political question. But the matter of
who is a natural born citizen is not a political question as Cruz likes to
characterize it. It is a clear and
direct question that arises under the Constitution which requires that anyone
born after its adoption must be a natural born citizen in order to be
President. The definition of a natural
born citizen has always been and continues to be under the supreme law of the
land a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both
U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Yes, Mr. Cruz, the matter is clear and "settled." The historical and legal record and reason
show that you are not a natural born citizen.
I am really turned off by Cruz and his supporters claiming to be conservatives
and defenders of the Constitution and then acting so deceitfully and dismissively on
the question of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen, which, being a
requirement of presidential eligibility, is such a fundamental requirement of
the Constitution and a safety feature for the survival and perpetuation of the
republic. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Any lawsuit brought by presidential candidate Donald Trump
against presidential candidate Ted Cruz on his not being a natural born citizen
will be successful. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
February 18, 2016<br />
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<br />
####<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2016<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85763500195601066612016-02-05T21:34:00.000-05:002016-02-18T12:42:41.635-05:00The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong:
Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">By
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">February
5, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img alt="Image result for image ted cruz born in canada" height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxV5MP7z-CZOLeGIcpC_Nr8P58GGHMbmSJKwd5rN4m0Vs9gzA92w" width="199" /><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">The Illinois Board of Elections recently found that
Presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz, is an Article II “natural born
citizen.” </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-natural-born-illinois_us_56b10542e4b0a1b96203f393"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-natural-born-illinois_us_56b10542e4b0a1b96203f393</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">
. Lawrence Joyce and William Graham
objected to Cruz being placed on the presidential primary ballot in Illinois,
contending that he is not an Article II natural born citizen. The Board rejected the challenge and found
that Cruz “is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his
mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth." The Board so
found because it said he "did not have to take any steps or go through a
naturalization process at some point after birth." The Board also had the audacity to cavalierly
state: “Further discussion on this issue
is unnecessary." The Board erred. The
Board’s ruling is an expression of Congressional Research Service attorney Jack
Maskell’s baseless thesis of his definition of a natural born citizen. Not only is Maskell’s definition a fabricated
and revisionist definition of a natural born citizen, it also is
nonsensical. See Mario Apuzzo, <i>The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative
Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen,”</i> </span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">
(June 2, 2013) (demonstrates how Maskell’s thesis is erroneous); Mario Apuzzo, <i>The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the
“Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter, </i></span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> (July 19, 2013) (same). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let us begin with a brief textual and structural
analysis of Article I and II. Article I,
Section 2 (applicable to Representatives) and Section 3 (applicable to
Senators) allows Representatives and Senators to be just “citizen” of the
United States for a minimum of seven and nine years, respectively, to be
eligible for those offices. It does not
require that they be “natural born citizens” of the United States. In contrast, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
of the Constitution says: "No Person except a natural born Citizen,
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United
States." We have to consider that
the House and Senate are collegial bodies which act as bodies of many individuals
and not by the decision of just one individual.
In contrast, the Office of President and Commander is singular. The Framers required future Presidents and
Commanders to be natural born citizens so as to provide a “strong check”<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> against
foreign and monarchical influence infecting the Office of President and
Commander in Chief. We can only conclude
from Article I and II that the Framers did not believe that being a citizen
provided a strong enough check against that pernicious monarchical and foreign influence
affecting the one person upon whom the great and singular civil and military
powers of the President and Commander devolve.
Rather, being a natural born citizen did. So, being a citizen of the United States
today is not sufficient to be eligible to be President. For those born after the adoption of the
Constitution, if one is a “citizen” of the United States but not also a “natural
born citizen” of the United States, then one is prohibited from being
President. The Twelfth Amendment requires that also the Vice-President be
a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As we can plainly see from the text of Article II,
today, if one wants to be President, one must demonstrate that one is a
“natural born citizen” of the United States, not just a “citizen” of the United
States. The text also does not say
“citizen” of the United States at birth.
As I will demonstrate, there is a critical constitutional difference
between these two types of U.S. citizenships and that only a natural born
citizen of the United States is eligible to be President. I will show that Ted Cruz might be a citizen
of the United States at birth. But
having acquired that at birth status by naturalization and not by birth <u>alone</u>,
he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen.
That Cruz did not have to go through any naturalization process after
his birth, assuming that to be true, does not nor can it erase the fact that he
was by law naturalized at birth by Congress through its naturalization Act
applicable to Cruz when he was born in 1970.
Needing Congress to naturalize him at birth, Cruz is not nor can he be
an Article II natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We have seen that the text and structure of Article
II, Section 1, Clause 5 reveals that the Framers made a critical constitutional
distinction between a “citizen” and “natural born citizen.” The only possible explanation for the
Framers using these two clauses as they did is that a citizen of the United
States who was born after the adoption of the Constitution and who was not
eligible to be President was a citizen of the United States, but not a natural
born citizen. Not being a natural born
citizen, that citizen could only be a naturalized citizen. So, what made that person a naturalized
citizen was the simple fact that he or she was not a natural born citizen. And what made that person not a natural born
citizen was the fact that he or she did not satisfy the definition of a natural
born citizen. So what is a natural born
citizen as opposed to just a citizen? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Constitution does not define a natural born
citizen. Hence, it is not the
Constitution that created the meaning of a natural born citizen. The definition of a natural born citizen
already existed when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when
it was ratified. It also existed before
Congress passed its first naturalization Act in 1790. Since the meaning of the clause already
existed prior to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and prior to
any naturalization Act, that definition did not nor could it draw its source
from the Constitution or any Act of Congress.
That definition could only come from some source other than the
Constitution or an Act of Congress. The
historical and legal record demonstrates that that source was the law of
nations, whose citizenship principles were incorporated into American national
common law and the naturalization Acts of Congress, and not the English common
law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">II. THE ORIGINAL CITIZENS<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Before we consider the meaning of a natural born
citizen, let first examine who the original citizens of the United States
were. Simply, the original citizens were
those people who associated together and adhered to the American
Revolution. They were made a citizen of
the free and independent state which they inhabited by the force of the
Declaration of Independence and the Revolution.
Upon ratification of the Constitution, they became the first citizens of
the United States. These original
citizens included the Founder and Framers and also most of the early
Presidents. Article II grandfathered the
original citizens of the United States to be eligible to be President. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">III. THE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Having examined who the original citizens were, now
let us examine who the natural born citizens were. Our U.S. Supreme Court has long confirmed
that the birth circumstances that make one a natural born citizen are birth in
the United States to U.S. citizen parents (meaning U.S. citizen father and
mother). Under the common law the
nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted
the Constitution, all children born in a country to parents who were its
citizens were “natives, or natural-born citizens,” and all the rest of the
people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized by some
law. See Emer de Vattel, <i>The Law of Nations, or Principles
of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and
Sovereigns</i>, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st
ed. Neuchatel 1758) ("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"); <i>Minor
v. Happersett</i>, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (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,” which is a paraphrase of Vattel’s law
of nation’s definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens”); as to a natural
born citizen, accord <i>U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark</i>, 169 U.S. 649, 665
(1898), citing Minor and quoting without criticism its common law definition of
a natural born citizen and citing an quoting Horace Binney, <i>Alienigenae
of the United States</i>, p. 22, note (2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Philadelphia,
Dec. 1, 1853) ("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," meaning birth in the country, and thereby distinguishing a
Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” of the United States “at birth” from an Article
II “natural born citizen” of the United States).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, a natural born citizen was defined under the
common law, which was American common law and not English common law, and not
by any naturalization Act of Parliament or Congress. While an Act of Congress did not created the
definition of a natural born citizen, examining what our early Congress did in
the area of naturalization provides valuable insight into the definition of a
natural born citizen and confirms that the Framers got their definition of a
natural born citizen from the law of nations and not the English common or
statutory law. As we have seen, a
natural born citizen is not a naturalized citizen. It would be absurd to contend that a
“naturalized” citizen is a “natural born” citizen, as absurd as saying that
one’s adopted child (so created by positive law) is one’s natural child (so
recognized only by his or her birth circumstances). So anything that could be said about a
naturalized citizen does not nor could it change the meaning of a natural born
citizen. If anything, knowing what a
naturalized citizen is confirms what a natural born citizen is and what it is
not. Who the Framers viewed to need
naturalization confirms who they held to be the natural born citizens. As we shall see, the only person who the
Framers viewed as not needing any form of naturalization was a child born in
the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s
birth. These children were the “natives,
or natural-born citizens.” <i>Minor v. Happersett</i> (1875). Since under the common law doctrine of
coverture both parents were either citizens or aliens, “parents” could only
mean a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens. Also, at common law “children” meant
legitimate children. So the Framers in
the end required that both the married father and mother be U.S. citizens at
the time of their child’s birth in the United States in order for their child
to be a natural born citizen. If a child
was born to an alien father, that meant that he or she was born to a father and
mother who were both aliens which in such case the minor child, under the
naturalization Acts of Congress then to be in effect, would have needed to
naturalize after birth either derivatively once the parents naturalized or on
his or her own upon reaching the age of majority. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">IV. THE NATURALIZATION ACTS OF CONGRESS<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let us now examine the early naturalization Acts of
Congress. Under the common law that had
prevailed in the colonies and which continued to prevail in the new states,
aliens could not inherit property. Additionally,
a number of children of U.S. citizens were born out of the United States during
the American Revolution. Hence, the
Americans followed the English model and passed the Naturalization Act of 1790
(1 Stat. 103), which is our nation's first naturalization Act. These naturalization Acts did not change the
common law. Rather, they abrogated it to
the extent that they could constitutionally.
In Great Britain, Parliament had no constitutional constraints as it was
and continues to be supreme. But in the
United States, Congress could only exercise those limited powers given to it by
the Constitution.<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> As its title and stated purpose, “An Act to
establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” clearly and plainly proclaimed,
this Act was no more than a naturalization Act passed by the First Congress
under its Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 naturalization powers "[t]o
establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United
States." The First Congress, which contained many Founders and Framers,
including then-Representative James Madison, saw the need to naturalize
children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. If it did not see that need, there is no
reason why it would have passed any naturalization statute which reached those
children. This would be consistent with
Congress not passing any naturalization statute reaching children born in the
United States to U.S. citizen parents who we shall see were the natural born
citizens and not in need of any naturalization.
To naturalize children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen
parents, children who were aliens under the common law, the First Congress,
with the approval of President George Washington, passed the Naturalization Act
of 1790. There it said that those
children "shall be considered as natural born citizens." While these children were born to a father
and mother who were U.S. citizens, they were not born in the United
States. They therefore could not be
natural born citizens. But Congress
sought to make them citizens of the United States and said that they shall
enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and rights as the natural born citizens,
provided that their U.S. citizen fathers had been residents in the United
States prior to the child’s birth. With
these children not being natural born citizens, the privileges, immunities, and
rights that Congress gave to them did not nor could it include the privilege of
being elected President.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">But the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of
citizenship only the power to make uniform the rules of naturalization. Since in such matters, the Constitution gives
Congress only power over naturalization and naturalization does not reach nor
can it reach the meaning of a natural born citizen, Congress has no power to
change the meaning of a natural born citizen.
If Congress wants to change that definition, it must do so through a
duly ratified constitutional amendment. This
means that Congress cannot through any of its naturalization Acts add or
subtract to the class of natural born citizens by either expanding or limiting
the definition of the clause by including less or more birth
circumstances. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">By attempting in its 1790 Act to declare persons
born out of the United States to “be considered as natural born citizens,”
Congress exceeded those powers and passed what could be ruled to be an
unconstitutional Act. Consider that in <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>, 5 U.S. 137<i> </i>(1803), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
Congress’s Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional in how it gave to the
Supreme Court original jurisdiction over a mandamus action. Hence, Congress could also have acted
illegally in giving to itself powers to define a natural born citizen which it
did not have under the Constitution.
Another problem with the Naturalization Act of 1790 was that, if
Congress did not intend to expand who could be a natural born citizen, it nevertheless
created confusion as to whether children born out of the United States to U.S.
citizen parents were under the Constitution eligible to be President since the
statute did say that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizens
“shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Probably to avoid any
constitutional problem and to make matters clear, the Third Congress in 1795,
with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval
of President George Washington, through the Naturalization Act of 1795,
repealed the Act of 1790, and changed "shall be considered as natural born
citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United
States." Clearly, President Washington and early Congress, which included
Madison and other Founders and Framers, informed that there was to be no
confusion or doubt that those children were not natural born citizens. In fact, through the surgical language
change, they told us that they were citizens of the United States, but not
natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So after repealing that Act and replacing it with
the Naturalization Act of 1795, in the latter Act, rather than using the same
words “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” Congress replaced them
with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Defining the citizens of the United States
through its naturalization powers was perfectly acceptable under the
Constitution and except when it referred to who shall be considered as natural
born citizens, that is what the 1790 Act had done. Clearly such exercise of power fell under
Congress’s power to establish a uniform the rule of naturalization throughout
the United States and the exercise of that power did not fall upon the natural
born citizens, but rather upon persons who were otherwise aliens and who the
nation through Congress adopted as citizens of the United States. In fact, the 1790 Act was the first and last
time that Congress ever in any naturalization Act mentioned the natural born
citizens. Starting with the 1795 Act and
continuing to the present naturalization Acts, Congress never again referred to
the natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Congress, to the present day, has never again in any
of its naturalization Acts referred to children born out of the United States
to one of two U.S. citizen parents in any way as natural born citizens. Congress has therefore, if not already in
1790 then since 1795, made it abundantly clear that such children are citizens
of the United States at birth, but not natural born citizens. This demonstrates that reliance upon the
Naturalization Act of 1790 to make someone a natural born citizen is
misplaced. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The law that applies in determining whether someone
born outside of the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. is very complex. It has continuously changed since the First
Congress passed our nation's first naturalization Act, that of 1790. The law
that was in effect when the child was born is the law that controls. Generally,
the changes have focused on whether the child was born to one or two U.S.
citizen parents, whether the citizen parent was the father or mother (the 1790,
1795, 1802, 1804 Acts required U.S. citizen parents and the 1855 Act referred
to U.S. citizen fathers only), whether the citizen father resided in the United
States (started as early as 1790), whether the child was born in wedlock or out
of it (started in 1940), and whether the child came back to the U.S. and
started to reside (started May 24, 1934) or later at least be physically
present (started in 1952). Congress’s
conditions for being accepted as a citizen of the U.S. at birth are called
condition precedent or condition subsequent.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As stated, Congress's naturalization Acts did not
permit a child born out of the U.S. prior to May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen
mother and an alien father to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Starting on that date, children born out of
the U.S. to U.S. citizen mothers and alien fathers, satisfying all conditions
precedent and subsequent, were adopted under the naturalization Acts of
Congress as citizens of the U.S. at birth and remained so. Hence, if Cruz was
born on May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father, satisfying
all conditions precedent and subsequent, he would have been under an Act of
Congress a citizen of the U.S. at birth and remained one. This is not to say that he was a natural born
citizen under the Constitution, who needs no such naturalization Act of
Congress to be recognized as a citizen of the U.S. at birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is telling to consider in this connection that the
1934 Act imposed for the first time retention requirements (condition
subsequent) if the parents were not both U.S. citizens. In such case, the child had to continuously
reside in the U.S. for at least five years immediately before turning 18 years
of age and take the oath of allegiance within six months after turning 21. The 1952 Act continued this retention
requirement, although it changed it from residency to continuous physical
presence. That Act required the child to
be continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least five years between
the ages of 14 and 28. Later statutes liberalized the retention requirement
until it was totally removed by the more modern naturalization statutes. This meant that a child could be born a
citizen of the U.S. but then lose that citizenship if he or she did not satisfy
that subsequent residency or physical presence requirement. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz says that he is a natural born citizen because
he was born a citizen under the 1952 Act.
Imagine if he did not move to the U.S. at age 4 as he did, thereby
satisfying the retention residency requirement.
In default thereof, he would have lost U.S. citizenship with which he
was born in 1970. See Bellei v. Rogers,
401 U.S. 815 (1971) (§ 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,
which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of
having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has
met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he
resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and
28 is constitutional). Now ask yourself
how could a natural born citizen lose his or her citizenship by not residing in
the U.S. for a certain period of his or her life? The question is pregnant with the
answer. Congress simply does not have
the power to take away a natural born citizen's citizenship in such a
fashion. This alone proves that the U.S.
through a naturalization Act of Congress adopted Cruz as a naturalized citizen
of the U.S. at birth and that he is not a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, we have seen that Congress has as early as 1790
passed naturalization Acts naturalizing people who were not natural born
citizens under the common law (either not born to U.S. citizen parents or not
born in the United States or both). Congress adopted these persons as citizens
of the United States, either at birth or after birth. If they were born out of
the United States to U.S. citizen parents, they were adopted as citizens of the
United States at birth. If they were born in or out of the United States to
alien parents, they could naturalize after birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">V. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In 1868 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
which provided in pertinent part that all persons born in the United States and
not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, were “citizens”
of the United States. This statute increased the citizens of the United States
only for free blacks whose ancestors had been slaves. These free blacks were
born in the United States. Their ancestors had long lost allegiance to any
foreign power. Hence, their children were born not subject to any foreign
power. Their parents were not viewed as aliens. Their children born to them in
the United States qualified to be citizens of the United States under the
statute.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">VI. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. It
provided that all persons born in the United States and “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof” are “citizens” of the United States. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
(1898) held that such persons are “citizens” of the United States from the
moment of birth and included children born in the United States to alien
parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and
neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. As we can see, the Amendment
caused expansion of U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to
alien parents. But these new citizens were not natural born citizens under the
common law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A natural born citizen is a citizen of the United
States “by birth” <u>alone</u> and necessarily becomes a citizen “at
birth.” So, he or she is a citizen “at
birth” due to his or her birth circumstances and nothing more like a positive
law. In other words, it is the birth
circumstances alone that make one a natural born citizen, not the fact that one
became a citizen at birth, which is only a necessary consequent (but not a
sufficient condition) of being a natural born citizen and which can occur due
to the force of the operation of law. Congressional Research Attorney, Jack Yet, Maskell,
maintains that all persons who are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,”
regardless of where born, to whom born, or by what means the status was
acquired, are natural born citizens.
There is no historical or legal evidence for Maskell’s thesis. On the contrary, what our U.S. Supreme Court
has explained about who is a citizen by mere birth and who is a naturalized
citizen demonstrates Maskell’s thesis to be erroneous.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Saying that someone is a citizen “at birth” or “by
birth” does not define a natural born citizen, for the expression is devoid of
the birth circumstances which make one a citizen at birth or by birth. The definition of a natural born citizen
needs birth circumstances. As we have
seen, those circumstances are birth in the United States to U.S. citizen
parents. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The fact that one became a citizen at birth does not
mean that one became such a citizen by the mere act of birth and therefore is a
natural born citizen. It also does not
mean that one is necessarily not naturalized and therefore a natural born
citizen. <i>U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark</i> (1898) explained: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the
declaration that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">all persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two
only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be
acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But
citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the
circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of
the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the
jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being
naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="pg_703"><u>[p703] </u></a>of the annexation
of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by
declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments
conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling
foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial
tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark, at 702-03. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark explained that there are only two
sources of citizenship, by birth or by naturalization. Citizenship by birth is established by the mere
fact of birth under the circumstances specified in the common law that was
incorporated into the Constitution or under circumstances as specified in the
Fourteenth Amendment. Every person born
in the United States to citizen parents (the common law requirement) and every
person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the
Fourteenth Amendment requirement), becomes at once a citizen of the United
States, and needs no naturalization after birth. The former is a “natural born
citizen” of the United States under the common law (Minor v. Happersett (1875))
and the latter is a “citizen” of the United States at birth by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark. As we can see from Wong Kim Ark, a person
born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States cannot become a
citizen of the United States by the mere fact of birth under the birth
circumstances specified in the common law or the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, such a person can only become a
citizen of the United States by naturalization, i.e., either by the birth
circumstances specified in an Act of Congress declaring children born out of
the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be
citizens of the United States at birth or allowing persons born out of the
United States to alien parents to become citizens of the United States after
birth, or by treaty declaring persons born out of the United States to alien
parents to be citizens of the United States after birth (applicable in the case
of the annexation of foreign territory or to American Indians in the
past). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark commented on both those
born in the United States who become citizens of the United States at birth and
those born out of the United States who also become citizens of the United
States at birth. It explained that the
former are made citizens automatically at birth by virtue of the common law or
of the Fourteenth Amendment. It added
that those children did not need naturalization by Congress, either at birth or
after birth. It also said that while the
latter are also made citizens at birth, because a naturalization Act of
Congress was the means by which that status was acquired, that child was a
naturalized citizen. Hence, even though
the child became a citizen of the United States automatically at birth and did
not need to go through any naturalization process after birth to be adopted a
citizen of the United States, the Court still held that child to be naturalized
albeit at birth. So, what the Court
looked to for determining if the child was a naturalized citizen was not
whether the child had to go through any naturalization process after birth in
order to be a citizen, but rather whether it was an Act of Congress that made
that child a citizen of the United States at birth. The fact that the child became a citizen of
the United States at birth did not mean that the child was not
naturalized. Only if the child became a
citizen at birth by virtue of either the common law or the Fourteenth Amendment
was the child not naturalized by an Act of Congress. If the child obtained his or her at birth
status by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, then the child was
naturalized, even if the child did not have to complete any other
naturalization process after birth. In
other words, that child needing a naturalization Act of Congress to be a
citizen of the United States at birth was naturalized at birth by that very
Act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark demonstrates that simply being a
citizen of the United States at birth does not mean that it was birth alone that
gave that child the right to be a citizen at birth. In the case of children born out of the territory
and jurisdiction of the United States, it is a naturalization Act of Congress
that confers that right, not the mere fact of birth. It also shows that simply being a citizen of
the United States at birth does not mean that one was not naturalized. This means that being a citizen of the United
State at birth does not necessarily mean that one is a natural born citizen,
for that child can still be a naturalized citizen which is not nor can such a
citizen be a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So being a citizen by birth with no need to rely
upon a naturalization Act of Congress is reserved only to those who are born
under circumstances prescribed by the Constitution. If one satisfies the circumstances prescribed
by the common law, one is a natural born citizen. If one satisfies the circumstances prescribed
by the Fourteenth Amendment, one is a citizen of the United States at birth
which is not the equivalent of a natural born citizen. The status of being a citizen of the United
States at birth is available to natural born citizens and citizens of the
United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress. But being a citizen at birth does not mean
one was not naturalized, for of all the citizens at birth only those who are
born in the territory and jurisdiction of the United States are not naturalized
by an Act of Congress. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">VII. CHILDREN BORN ABROAD TO DIPLOMATS OR IN THE
ARMIES OF THE STATE<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The case of John McCain also does not help
Cruz. Under the common law, the status
of birth in the country is also extended to children born physically out of the
territory of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who are on diplomatic
service for or serving the military of the United States. These children are “reputed born” in the
United States and do not need a naturalization Act of Congress to make them
citizens of the United States. See
Vattel, § 217. “Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its
minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of
the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a
foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent
with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and
subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its
territory.”). John McCain was born
outside the territory of the United States (in Panama), but not outside its
jurisdiction, to U.S. citizen parents serving the national defense of the
United States. Because his parents, serving the armies of the United
States, are considered as not having voluntarily quitted the territory of the
United States and as remaining under the jurisdiction of the United States,
their son born to them in the foreign territory is reputed born in the United
States. Hence, McCain was born "in" the United States to U.S.
citizen parents. He is therefore a natural born citizens. Cruz’s
parents had voluntarily left the United States to pursue private economic
interests in Canada. Neither Cruz’s
father nor mother were serving the national defense of the United States
(serving in the military or some other comparable capacity) while in
Canada. So, while in Canada, Cruz’s
parents were under the strict jurisdiction of Canada and not that of the United
States. Additionally, Cruz’s father was
an alien. Hence, Cruz cannot benefit
from the McCain rule. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hence, a natural born citizen needs neither the
Fourteenth Amendment nor any naturalization Act of Congress to be a citizen at
birth. It is the person’s birth
circumstances alone, birth in the country to citizen parents, which make the
person a natural born citizen. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">VIII. THE JACK MASKELL THESIS<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 19.9733px;">Maskell maintains in his new January 11, 2016 article as he did in his earlier edition that "the traditional, historical, and legal meaning" of a natural born citizen is "one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth.' This would include those born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction (i.e. 'native' born), even those born to alien parents; those born abroad to U.S. citizen-</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 19.9733px;">parents; or those born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at birth.' Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an 'alien' required to go through the legal process of 'naturalization' to become a U.S. citizen." <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd">https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd</a> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 19.9733px;"> . </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Maskell's definition of a natural born citizen is anything but "traditional" and "historical." Rather, it is a revisionist definition of the clause, a product of the "living constitution" existing in his mind and not that of the Framers. The Maskell argument, among many of its defects, blatantly
ignores the text and structure of Article I and II and this constitutional
law. Apart from erroneously believing
that “at birth” means the same thing as “by birth,” Maskell also ignores that due
to one’s birth circumstances one may still need either the Fourteenth
Amendment (if born in the United States) or a naturalization Act of Congress
(if born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States) to be made a citizen, regardless of whether those
positive laws make or adopt one as a citizen at birth or after birth. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 19.9733px;">Wong needed the Fourteenth Amendment to make him a citizen of the United States because while he was born in the United States, he was not born to U.S. citizen parents. Cruz himself needs a naturalization Act of Congress to adopt him as a citizen of the United States birth without which he would have been an alien at birth. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">In other words, in those cases it is still either the
Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization statute which determines and controls whether
someone is or is not a citizen, regardless of whether the Amendment or statute
makes or adopts one a citizen at birth or after birth. The need for the Amendment or statute does
not disappear simply because the Amendment or statute itself makes or adopts
one as a citizen at birth. If not for
that Amendment or naturalization statute, one being made or adopted a citizen at
birth would be an alien. As to persons born out of the United States, see, for
example, <i>U.S. v.</i> <i>Wong Kim Ark</i> (explained that one born out of the United States to
U.S. citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a
naturalized citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it
were not for a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and
not a citizen); <i>Montana v. Kennedy</i>, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) (explained that if a child
is not born in the country, the child needs a naturalization Act of the
sovereign authority to make that child for all intents and purposes a citizen
and without such naturalization the child would be an alien); <i>Rogers v. Bellei</i>, 401 U.S. 815
(1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents
can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of
its naturalization acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the
United States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would
be an alien); <i>Miller v. Albright</i>, 523
U.S. 420 (1998) (“There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth
and naturalization.’ <i>United States</i> v. <i>Wong Kim Ark,</i> </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?169+649"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">169
U.S. 649</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentxiv.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fourteenth
Amendment</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> of the Constitution guarantees that every
person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’
169 U.S., at 702<i>.</i> Persons not born in the United States acquire
citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. <i>Id.</i>, at
703.”). <i>Miller</i> did not say for persons born out of the United States, like
it did for persons born in the United States who become at once citizens of the
United States, that they did not need naturalization. On the contrary, it said that those persons
become citizens of the United States “by birth only as provided by Acts of
Congress.” So, it is not “by birth”
alone. Rather, it is “by birth as
provided by Acts of Congress.” All these
decisions by our U.S. Supreme Court demonstrate that, regardless of whether one
is made or adopted a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalized at
birth or after birth by a naturalization Act of Congress, one is still made and
adopted as a citizen by the Amendment or naturalized by the statute without
which the person would be an alien. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Maskell argues that someone who became a
citizen of the United States at birth is not a naturalized citizen of the
United States because Congress tells us so in its naturalization statutes. He points to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1101(a) (23) and
provides this quote: “The term
‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person
after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Maskell
errs on several fronts. First, Maskell
leaves out the beginning part of statutory definition which provides: “(a) As used in this chapter-- . . . (23) The
term ‘naturalization means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a
person after birth, by any means whatsoever.”
So Congress provided that definition of naturalization only for purposes
of a chapter in its own naturalization statutes and not for purposes of the
Constitution. Second, Congress’s definition
is not for the purpose of demonstrating how the Constitution defines
naturalization, which as we have seen is much broader than how Congress defines
it for purposes of its own statutes. Needless
to say, the Constitution controls what the definition of naturalization is, not
Congress. Congress could not through
such acts change who the Constitution views as being naturalized. Again, the Constitution relies upon the
common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar to define a
natural born citizen. Under that common
law, all children born in a country to parents who were it citizens were
citizens as were the parents. These were
the “natives, or natural-born citizens.”
Minor. Minor also explained that
under that common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,”
who could be naturalized as citizens of the United States under the
naturalization Acts of Congress. As we
can see, the Constitution’s definition of naturalization is broader than that
provided by Congress in its naturalization Acts. Under the Constitution, anyone who is not a
natural born citizen is in need of naturalization if that person wants to be a
citizen of the United States.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Maskell also argues that Cruz is a natural born citizen
under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a naturalization
Act of Congress that adopts children born out of the United States to U.S.
citizen parents. But that naturalization
Act was not around when the Framers wrote the Constitution in 1787. It therefore cannot possibly determine the
definition of a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the statute is a naturalization Act of Congress passed by
it under its naturalization powers. It
therefore cannot possibly make anyone a natural born citizen. Finally, the plain and clear text of the Act
demonstrates that it adopts persons to be "citizens" of the United
States, not "natural born citizens" of the United States. Hence, the statute does not do what Cruz
supporters wish it to do. On the other
hand, it the statue could be interpreted to make anyone born out of the United
States a natural born citizen, then there is a constitutional question whether
Congress has such power under its power to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization throughout the United States.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We have seen what the Constitution’s definition of a
natural born citizen is. Both Minor v.
Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) confirm that the Framers’
definition was a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, the Framers made a critical
constitutional distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural
born citizen." The only birth
circumstances allowing a child to be a natural born citizen were birth in the
United States to parents who were both its citizens. In contrast, “citizens” were everyone else
born under different birth circumstances and who were nevertheless made citizens
by a naturalization Act of Congress or treaty.
Later on in our history, Congress expanded those birth circumstances and
thereby made more “citizens” through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the
Fourteenth Amendment. These latter
enacted laws allowed children born in the United States to alien parents to
also qualify as citizens of the United States “at birth” (not to be conflated,
confounded, and confused with the natural born citizens). Our U.S. Supreme Court has for years
established that anyone who is born out of the United States to U.S. citizen
parents is a naturalized citizen of the United States, but only by virtue of a
naturalization Act of Congress and in default thereof an alien at birth. They are not "native-born citizens"
under the Amendment. Hence, being
naturalized and not even meeting the Fourteenth Amendment’s minimum
constitutional standard of citizenship, i.e., born in the United States while
subject to its jurisdiction, they are not nor can they be natural born
citizens, who represent the ceiling standard of U.S. citizenship. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Congress has the power under the Constitution to
"establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. . . throughout the United
States" and that under that power Congress creates "at birth"
citizenship. Before any constitutional
question can be analyzed as to whether one is a natural born citizen, one must
first demonstrate that one is at least a citizen of the United States "at
birth" under one of these statutes.
But satisfying any such statutory definition does not mean that one has
satisfied the Constitution's definition of a natural born citizen. The 1790 Naturalization Act said that
children born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States to U.S.
citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens." That the statute required, however, that both parents be U.S.
citizens. We know that the statute was
repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act which said that those same children
“shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” hence removing the
earlier use of “natural-born citizens.”
Evidently, Congress, with the lead of James Madison and with the
approval of President Washington, concluded that there should not be any
confusion as to whether those children were actually natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The naturalization Act of Congress that applies to
Cruz who was born in 1970 is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952. Hence, even if Cruz can satisfy
all the conditions of this statute, the question still remains whether his
"at birth" status under the statute satisfies the constitutional
definition of a natural born citizen. If
Cruz does not satisfy the statutory requirements, then we never get to the
constitutional question. If Cruz does
satisfy all the conditions of the statute which makes him a citizen of the
United States “at birth,” we then have to examine if the statute defines a
natural born citizen. If it does not, we
do not get to any constitutional question.
We have seen that Congress’s naturalization statutes contain very
specific requirements (condition precedent and condition subsequent) which
Congress has changed throughout our history.
Our law provides that for persons born out of the United States, U.S.
citizenship is determined by the statute in effect at the time of the person’s
birth, unless a later law changes that person’s birth status
retroactively. <i>Montana v. Kennedy</i>,
366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961). See also 7
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1131.1-2 (“The law applicable
in the case of a person born abroad who claims citizenship is the law in effect
when the person was born, unless a later law applies retroactively to persons
who had not already become citizens”).
This rule alone tells us that a naturalization Act cannot serve as the
basis for making one a natural born citizen. Surely, the Framers did not expect the
definition of a natural born citizen to change over time at the whim of
Congress without a constitutional amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">If the Congressional statute can be interpreted to
mean that Congress intended to include children that it makes as "citizens
of the United States "at birth" under its statutes to be the
equivalent to the natural born citizens, then we have to analyze whether the
statute is unconstitutional, for Congress only has power to establish a uniform
rule of naturalization throughout the United States. Both the 1790 and 1795
Naturalization Acts demonstrate that Congress's early naturalization Acts did
not define a natural born citizen and that Congress made it clear that it never
intended to do so. Congress has never
again even mentioned the clause "natural born citizen" in any of its
naturalization Acts and there does not exist any evidence from any
Congressional activity that Congress through any one of its naturalization Acts
ever intended to define a natural born citizen through one of its
naturalization Acts. Hence, showing that
one is a citizen of the United States "at birth' under a naturalization
Act of Congress does not establish that one is a natural born citizen. Even if it did, the question then is whether
that naturalization statute is constitutional given how the Constitution
defines a natural born citizen under a specific set of birth
circumstances. Given that Congress in
matters of citizenship has power only to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
throughout the United States, any attempt by Congress to add by statute rather
than by constitutional amendment additional birth circumstances and therefore
people who may be natural born citizens and therefore eligible to be President
would be an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s naturalization powers.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">IX. THE CASE OF WINSTON CHURCHILL<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The case of Winston Churchill, born in Great Britain
like Cruz born in Canada, demonstrates nicely the impact that a naturalization
Act can have on one’s life and how it was a naturalization statute and not his
birth circumstances alone that made Cruz a citizen of the United States “at
birth.” Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S.
citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, can be Prime Minister of Canada,
like Winston Churchill, born in Great Britain to a U.S. citizen mother and a
British citizen father, was Prime Minister of Great Britain. See Mario Apuzzo,
"If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can
Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen,?" available at </span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/01/if-winston-churchill-was-not-even.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/01/if-winston-churchill-was-not-even.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">
. Churchill was not even a citizen of
the United States, let alone a natural born citizen because when he was born in
1874 there was no naturalization Act of Congress in place making him a
citizen. Cruz got lucky because Congress
in 1934 passed a naturalization Act (Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797) which
for the first time allowed a person born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen
mother and a non-U.S. citizen father to be a citizen of the United States. That naturalization rule was carried forward
in the Nationality Act of 1940 (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137, enacted
October 14, 1940) and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif";"> (</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Pub.L.
82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952),
the latter being the statute in effect when Cruz was born and without which,
along with those of 1934 and 1940, Cruz would be an alien. The critical point is that Cruz became a
citizen by way of a naturalization statute.
Without that statute, he would have been an alien as was Churchill. Needing a naturalization statutes to make him
a citizen, Cruz is not nor can he be a natural born citizen. With respect to whether he is a natural born
citizen, it changes nothing that the naturalization statute made Cruz a citizen
of the United States “at birth.” It was
not his birth that made him a citizen (Churchill had the same birth circumstances),
but rather the naturalization statute. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Churchill and Cruz were born under the same
birth circumstances, both born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother
and a non-U.S. citizen father. Why
should Winston Churchill not be a natural born citizen and Ted Cruz be a
natural born citizen when they were both born in a foreign country to U.S.
citizen mothers and non-U.S. citizen fathers?
If Cruz is a natural born citizen, then Churchill should have been too
and he should have known it. But we know
that Churchill was not and he also knew that.
If Churchill was not a natural born citizen, then neither is Cruz. Cruz seizes upon the fact that Congress just
happened to come along after Churchill was born and changed the naturalization
Act which lucky for him, made him a citizen of the United States at birth. But surely, that naturalization Act did not
make the otherwise alien Cruz (which is what Churchill was) a natural born
citizen. Churchill honestly admitted
that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. But then Ted Cruz
believes that he operates under different constitutional rules and that those
different rules should apply to him merely because he wants to be
President. Cruz, being the
constitutional scholar, conservative, and religious persons that he says he is,
should just admit like Churchill that he is not eligible to be President of the
United States and Commander in Chief of the Military without a constitutional
amendment so providing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, we have seen, that one “did not have to take any
steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth"
does not prove that one is a natural born citizen. The
only thing it proves is that one is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”
It does not prove that one is a citizen “by birth,” let alone that one is a
natural born citizen. It does not prove
that one was a citizen “by birth” alone, which status is reserved under the
Constitution only for persons born in the United States. The latter include the “natural born
citizens” of the United States under the common law and the “citizens” of the
United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, who if not also
satisfying the natural born citizen birth circumstances, i.e., born in the
country to citizen parents, are not natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">X. ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION V. THE LIVING
CONSTITUTION <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Some argue that we should not define a natural born
citizen using the “originalist” approach to constitutional interpretation. That approach looks to the meaning of terms
and phrases that the Framers and Ratifiers gave to them at the time they
adopted and ratified it. Under
constitutional originalism, today we are bound by the historical meaning that
terms and phrases in the Constitution had when it was adopted and
ratified. These persons advocate for a
“living Constitution,” one which evolves with time to meet the changing needs
of American society. They maintain that
the original definition of the clause is too narrow and rigid and no longer
serves its original purpose. They
maintain that one is not being “open minded” when one takes the original approach
to constitutional interpretation. There
are several problems with this argument.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">First, the reason why societies pass laws is so that
people can be guided by a code of conduct.
The text of those laws tell the people exactly what they can and cannot
do. It is that very text which brings
certainty and predictability to human affairs.
The text of a law must be honored if we are to be guided by laws rather
than by the whim of man. As to the
“living” Constitution, Justice Black, Douglas, and Marshall in their dissent in
<u>Bellei</u> said it well: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Constitution, written for the ages, cannot rise
and fall with this Court's passing notions of what is “fair,” or
"reasonable," or "arbitrary." . . . This precious
Fourteenth Amendment American citizenship should not be blown around by every
passing political wind that changes the composition of this Court. . . . Of
course the Court's construction of the Constitution is not a "strict"
one. On the contrary, it proceeds on the premise that a majority of this Court
can change the Constitution day by day, month by month, and year by year,
according to its shifting notions of what is fair, reasonable, and right. There
was little need for the founders to draft a written constitution if this Court
can say it is only binding when a majority finds it fair, reasonable, and right
to make it so. That is the loosest construction that could be employed. It is
true that England has moved along very well in the world without a written
constitution. But with complete familiarity with the English experience, our
ancestors determined to draft a written constitution which the members of this
Court are sworn to obey. While I remain on the Court, I shall continue to
oppose the power of judges, appointed by changing administrations, to change
the Constitution from time to time according to their notions of what is
"fair" and "reasonable." I would decide this case not by my
views of what is "arbitrary," or what is "fair," but rather
by what the Constitution commands.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id.</span></u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> at 837, 844-45.
The Framers, Ratifiers, and the people have spoken. The Constitution contains the natural born
citizen clause and anyone wanting to be President and Commander in Chief must
satisfy its requirements. This clear
command cannot be ignored simply because we want certain individuals to be
eligible to be President today. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Second, the Framers inserted the natural born
citizen clause into presidential and commander eligibility so as to keep out of
those offices foreign and monarchical influence.<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Any interpretation of the natural born
citizen clause under a “living and breathing” Constitution, by expanding
eligibility for the Office of President and Commander to others who were not
natural born citizens in the eyes of the Framers, is an assault upon the
Framers’ purpose for requiring future Presidents and Commanders that they be
natural born citizens. The same national
security concerns regarding the Office of President and Commander in Chief of
the Military exist today as they did when the Framers adopted and the Ratifiers
ratified the Constitution. Today as then
we are concerned with foreign influence infiltrating our national government
and particularly the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the
Military. If we are to give force to the
Framers’ purpose for requiring future Presidents and Commanders to be natural
born citizens, then we can only define the clause as they did when they drafted
and adopted the Constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Third, we have seen the important national security
purpose that the natural born citizen clause plays in our nation. If we do not like the way the Framers defined
a natural born citizen to achieve that purpose and given the important national
security purpose that the clause serves, its meaning should be changed by
constitutional amendment. Passing such
an amendment requires ratifying a constitutional amendment which will involve
the consent of the nation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fourth, there is no more need today than there was
in 1787 to have children born out of the United States be found to be natural
born citizens. As we have children born
out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents today, so did the Founding
generation. The situations that provided
exceptions to the rule, birth outside the country to parents who were either
serving the armies of the nation or in diplomatic service, apply today as they
did then. But the Founding generation
did not see birth out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were out
of the country on personal or private business as giving ground for their child
to be found to be a natural born citizen.
There simply is nothing happening today which should compel a change in
that regard without passing a constitutional amendment so providing for that
change. Today we cannot say that it no
longer makes sense given our needs today to be bound by the original definition
of a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, we have seen that under the originalist approach
to constitutional interpretation, Ted Cruz is not even a citizen of the United
States, let alone a natural born citizen.
Under Congress’s naturalization powers, he is a citizen of the United
States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. Congress in later years accepted citizen
mothers as eligible to transmit their U.S. citizenship to their children born
out of the country and it is that acceptance which makes Cruz a citizen of the
United States at birth. But that change
has nothing to do with defining a natural born citizen. Hence, today Ted Cruz is at most a “citizen”
of the United States from the moment of birth only by virtue of a
naturalization Act of Congress. He is
not and cannot be a natural born citizen.
There is no basis to the argument that the original definition of a
natural born citizen should be abandoned and a more flexible one should be
adopted because our needs today require it.
If the American people do not like the original definition of a natural
born citizen, then let them change it with a duly ratified constitutional
amendment. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">XI. THE MEANING OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BEING
HOPELESSLY LOST<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Finally, there are even some who argue that the
natural born citizen clause is so ambiguous that it has been lost to history or
that the Founders and Framers did not agree on any one particular definition of
the clause. They argue that the Founders
and Framers were not precise in how they defined citizenship. They argue that since the Founders and
Framers did not give us a definition of the clause, we have no choice today but
to give it one ourselves. But there is
no reason to just throw up our hands as if defeated by ignorance. The simple
response to this argument is that sometimes interpreting the Constitution is
not easy. We saw in <i>District of Columbia v. Heller</i> 554 U.S. 570 (2008) what the U.S.
Supreme Court had to do to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment right
to bear arms, a clause that was never examined in the history of our
nation. The tools used by the Court can
be used to interpret the meaning of the natural born citizen clause. If fact, I have used those same tools here to
interpret the natural born citizen clause.
I have examined the text and structure of the Constitution and presented
historical and legal evidence, although not exhaustive given the need to keep
this article as short as possible, that demonstrates how the Framers defined a
natural born citizen. The reader is able
to decide whether the case has or has not been sufficiently made. Knowing how the Framers and our nation
originally defined the clause, there is no license to just give the clause
whatever definition is convenient to those living in the politically charged environment of today. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">XII. APPLICATION TO TED CRUZ, ALONG WITH BARACK
OBAMA, MARCO RUBIO, BOBBY JINDAL, AND NIKKI HALEY<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Given the Framers’ definition of a natural born
citizen, Donald Trump is right and the Illinois Board of Elections is wrong.
Ted Cruz is not an Article II “natural born citizen.” He was born in a foreign nation, Canada,
i.e., out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, presumably to
a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father.
Born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to an
alien father, the Framers at the time they drafted and adopted the Constitution
would not have seen Cruz at his birth as a citizen of the United States, let
alone a natural born citizen. The
Framers through the natural born citizen clause sought to provide a “strong
check’ on foreign and monarchical influence infecting the highest office in the
land. Under the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795,
1802, 1804, and 1855, Cruz would have had to naturalize, either derivatively at
the time his father’s naturalization or
on his own upon reaching the age of majority.
Such naturalization would have required his renouncing any allegiance to
any foreign power. Cruz was born with
dual citizenship of the United States and Canada. At the time of the ratification of the
Constitution, Canada was part of the British Empire. The Framers never would have permitted a
person born in Canada and thereby a natural born subject of Great Britain to be
eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Things are different with Canada today, but
Canada is still a foreign nation and would have still been in the eyes of the
Framers. Cruz did not renounce the
Canadian citizenship with which he was born until 2014, when he was 43 years
old, and he wants to be elected President only two years after that
renunciation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At best, under the applicable naturalization Act of
Congress, if Cruz can prove that he satisfies all of its conditions, Cruz is a naturalized
“citizen” of the United States “at birth” (not “by birth”) by virtue of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (undoubtedly a naturalization Act of
Congress) without which he would have been born an alien. But
that is not the end of the story. Cruz
is a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth,"
but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (The Immigration and
Naturalization Act of 1952). He is not a natural born citizen as the
Constitution defines that clause. He is
not an Article II "natural born citizen" "by birth" only by
virtue of his birth circumstances, as recognized and confirmed by the common
law to which the Framers looked to define a natural born citizen. As we have seen only the birth circumstances
of being born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both
U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth can make one a natural born
citizen. With that being the only
definition of a natural born citizen under the Constitution, Congress,
throughout our history and down to the present, did not nor did it intend to
make anyone a natural born citizen under any of its naturalization Acts,
including the one upon which Cruz relies for his “at birth” citizenship
status. The Act does not even mention a
natural born citizen. If Congress did so
intend and the statute is read to do just that, then the statute is
unconstitutional. Hence, any
interpretation of the statute as making anyone a natural born citizens is to
give the statute an unconstitutional reach.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Barack Obama,<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Marco
Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley, all born in the United States to two
alien parents, are also not natural born citizens. They are all “citizens” of the United States
“at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not Article II “natural born
citizens” of the United States. Having
their alienage, as inherited through jus sanguinis from their alien parents,
removed by the Fourteenth Amendment, they are in reality also naturalized “at
birth,” although by the Fourteenth Amendment and not by a naturalization Act of
Congress. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">XIII.
CONCLUSION <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Being neither “a natural born Citizen, [n]or a
Citizen of the United States, at the Time of the Adoption of this
Constitution,” Ted Cruz, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 19.9733px;">Barack Obama, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 19.9733px;">Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley are not </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">constitutionally eligible to the Office of
President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. For further analysis
and discussion of the difference between a “citizen” of the United States and a
“natural born citizen” of the United States, see Mario Apuzzo, <i>A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born
Citizen is Another,</i> </span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-citizen-is-one-thing-but-natural-born.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-citizen-is-one-thing-but-natural-born.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
February 5, 2016<br />
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<br />
####<br />
<br />
Copyright © 2016<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
</div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">ENDNOTES:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[1] </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">On July 25,
1787, John Jay wrote a letter to then-General Washington, who was acting as
president of the Constitutional Convention, stating:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">"Permit
me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong
check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national
Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american
army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> . John Jay reminded George Washington of the
importance of remanding back to the original concerns of the people and offered
his presentation, to which George Washington offered, verbatim, to the
convention. Alexander Heard and Michael
Nelson, Presidential Selection 123 (Duke University Press 1987) via Google
Books. Jay demanded that there be a
"strong check" on foreign influence infiltrating the national
government in general and the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military
specifically. A natural born subject, which permitted dual and
conflicting allegiance at birth, did not provide that strong check on foreign
influence for which Jay was looking. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Jack Maskell
erroneously argues in his updated article, <i>Qualifications
for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement</i>
(January 11, 2016), available at </span><a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> , that the English Parliament’s early
naturalization Acts changed the common law and actually became common law. He then makes the quantum leap in logic and
says that therefore English common law accepted children born out of the King’s
dominion to English subject parents to be natural born subjects. From there he tells us, although without any
historical or legal evidence to support his conclusion, that the Framers relied
upon that English common law to define an Article II natural born citizen. Through such a fallacious argument, he
attempts to show that persons born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the
United States to U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens also under an
“originalist” interpretation of the Constitution. The simple answer to his flawed argument is
that it was the English naturalization Acts themselves that naturalized those
children born out of the King’s dominion to be treated for all intents and
purposes as if they were natural-born subjects, not the English common
law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> The historical
record is replete with contemporaneous and later evidence that the Framers
required future Presidents and Commanders to be free of monarchial and foreign
influence. One example from later years
will suffice. James Kent, explained in
his 1 <i>Commentaries on American Law (8<sup>th</sup>
ed. 1854)</i>: <br />
<br />
The Constitution requires (a) that the
President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at
the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained
to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident
within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this
department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these
restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the
President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious
foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts
off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war,
which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany
and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Id.</span></u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> at 293. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Story
first said that the President must be a “natural born citizen” and then later
he said that he must be a “native citizen of the United States.” As we shall see below, Vattel and the
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in <i>Minor v.
Happersett</i> (1875) gave to “natives” the same meaning that they gave to
“natural-born citizens,” i.e., born in the country to parents who were its
citizens. In later years, the expression
“native-born citizen” took on the more limited meaning of born in the country
while subject to its jurisdiction and which describes a citizen of the United
States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (included as
qualifying alien parents to whom a child is born in the United States to satisfy
the jurisdiction requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment only those domiciled
and permanently residing in the United States and who were neither foreign
diplomats nor military invaders at the time of the child’s birth). There is never any question that a child born
in the country to citizen parents, i.e., a native, or natural born citizen, is
born in the country while subject to its jurisdiction. Hence, when it comes to “natives, or
natural-born citizens,” there never is any need to engage in jurisdiction
analysis as there is to determine whether one is a “native-born citizen” under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless,
there has been a tendency with courts, scholars, and commentators to conflate,
confound, and confuse a native-born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment with
an Article II natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///E:/The%20Illinois%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Got%20It%20Wrong-Ted%20Cruz%20Is%20Not%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%202-3-16.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"> Never having
presented an original or certified true copy of an original long-form birth
certificate to any court in which he was sued, it is presumed that Obama was
born in the United States. Still, he is
not an Article II natural born citizen because he was born to a U.S. citizen
mother and an alien father. If Obama was
born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States like Cruz, he
would have been a citizen of the United States only if a naturalization Act of
Congress allowed it. The law that
applied at the time of Obama's birth on August 4, 1961 (which is the same law
that applied to Cruz) required that his U.S. citizen mother have physical
presence in the United State prior to Obama's birth for a period of at least 10
years, 5 of which were after she turned 14 years old. Ann Dunham was only
18 when Obama was born. Hence, she could not possibly have met the
physical presence requirement demanded by the applicable naturalization Act
(the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952). So, if Obama was not born
in the United States, he would not have qualified, like Ted Cruz did whose
mother was 35 years old when he was born, to be a naturalized citizen of the
United States at birth under any naturalization Act of Congress. He would have
had to become a naturalized citizen of the United States after birth through
subsequent naturalization under one of those Acts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd">https://www.scribd.com/doc/295658863/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016#scribd</a></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com72tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17847962088265560142016-01-25T01:20:00.000-05:002016-01-29T07:06:14.479-05:00If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.4px;">If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen?</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.4px;"> By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.4px;"> January 25, 2016</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<img alt="Image result for image winston churchill" height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSm_DU2LOUAcJw_GgJk7UMPeTg4oenZgRPvfCnhXxOtpTvlFp0ow" width="183" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Under the common law the nomenclature with which the
Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, all
children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were “natives, or
natural-born citizens,” and all the rest of the people were “aliens or
foreigners,” who could be naturalized by some law. See Emer de Vattel, <i>The
Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and
Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns</i>, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 Citizens and
natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) ("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"); <i>Minor v. Happersett</i>, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (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.”); as to a natural born citizen, accord <i>U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark</i>, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898), citing Minor and quoting without criticism its common law definition of a natural born citizen and citing an quoting Horace Binney, <i>Alienigenae
of the United States</i>, p. 22, note (2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Philadelphia,
Dec. 1, 1853) ("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").<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Senator and presidential contender Ted Cruz was born
in 1970 in Canada to parents who, unlike Senator John McCain’s parents, were
not serving the U.S. national defense. He therefore was not born or reputed born
in the United States. He was also born to presumably a U.S. citizen mother, and
to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was Cuban). Hence he was also not born
to two U.S. citizen parents. Cruz is at best a “citizen" of the United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act,
a naturalization Act of Congress (assuming that he was born to a U.S. citizen
mother). But failing both constitutional common law requirements for
being a natural born citizen, i.e., born in the United States to U.S. citizen
parents, he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On the contrary, Cruz does not agree that this common
law definition of a natural born citizen under which he is not a natural born
citizen is the only definition of a natural born citizen that has ever existed
in the United States since July 4, 1776. Rather, he tells us that it has
been settled law since the adoption and ratification of the Constitution that a
child born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S.
citizen father like him is also a natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I have written several articles demonstrating why Cruz
is not a natural born citizen and that he is wrong to maintain that he is.
These articles can be read at </span><a href="http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com/" style="line-height: 107%;">http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com</a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I read a comment by Ghost posted on January 17, 2016
at <a href="http://theconservativemonster.com/constitutional-lawyer-mario-apuzzo-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/">http://theconservativemonster.com/constitutional-lawyer-mario-apuzzo-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/</a> ,
which asked: “was Winston Churchill eligible to become President of the
United States? Churchill’s mother was an American citizen! of High
Society Brooklyn and NYC.” This question led me to investigate the matter
and this is what I found. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Churchill was born in Woodstock, Oxfordshire,
England, on November 30, 1874, to Lady Randolph Churchill (née Jennie Jerome),
who was born in the United States, and to Lord Randolph Churchill, a
British citizen. Hence, Churchill was like Cruz born out of the United
States to what Cruz would consider a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen
father. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In 1963, Churchill was named an Honorary Citizen
of the United States by <i>An Act to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill
an honorary citizen of the United States of America, </i>Public Law
88-6/H.R. 4374; <i>88th Congress (1963) (9 April 1963). "H.R.
4374 (88th)". </i>Wikipedia also reports: “On 29 November
1995, during a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of
the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an <i>Arleigh
Burke</i>-class destroyer would be named the USS <i>Winston S.
Churchill</i>. This was the first United States warship to be named after a
non-citizen of the United States since 1975.” <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill</a> . <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Being born in 1874, the Naturalization Act of 1855,
Section 1, Stat. 604, would have applied to Churchill when he was born.
On February 10, 1855, Congress enacted "An Act to Secure the Right of
Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits
Thereof," (10 Stat.604). This Act stated, in part, that: “persons
heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth
citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby
declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the
rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided
in the United States.” Under that Act, children born out of the United States
to U.S. citizen fathers were considered as “citizens” of the United
States. Under this Act, U.S. citizen mothers were not capable to transmit
their U.S. citizenship to their children born out of the United States to
non-U.S. citizen fathers. It was only in 1934 that Congress allowed U.S.
citizen mothers to be able to make such children citizens of the United
States. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The 1855 Act also provided that a U.S. citizen woman
marrying an alien husband made her an alien like her husband. We have
this explanation on that Act: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by
marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost
their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly
linked women's citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently
found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien.
For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S.
citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually
leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad.
Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S.
citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this
decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the
United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their
marriages to noncitizens.(5) [5. Frederick A. Cleveland, <i>American Citizenship
as Distinguished from Alien Status</i> (1927) pp. 65-66.]</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html">http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html</a> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Under the 1855 Act, Churchill’s U.S. citizen mother
would have lost her U.S. citizenship when she married her non-U.S. citizen
husband and moved to England. Even if she did not lose her U.S.
citizenship, Churchill could not become a citizen of the United States because
he only had a U.S. citizen mother. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Even if Churchill's mother had retained her U.S. citizenship as constitutionally ineligible de facto
President Barack Obama’s mother did under Congress’s modern statutes, he
still would not have been a natural born citizen, for he would have been born
to an alien father. For sure, he would have been subject to a foreign power from the moment of birth as much as if
born to two alien parents. Consider that the constitutionally ineligible Senator
Marco Rubio, Governor Bobby Jindal, and Governor Nikki Haley, while born in the
United States, were born to no U.S. citizen parents.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Furthermore, being born in a foreign country, under jus
soli (right from the soil), Cruz also from the moment of birth acquired citizenship
and allegiance to the country in which he was born. Being born subject to a foreign power under
U.S. law, i.e., being born in allegiance to a foreign power under U.S. law, disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be
President. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">No one contended that Winston Churchill was a citizen
of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United
States. Can we just imagine the Prime Minister of Great Britain being a
natural born citizen of the United States and eligible to be President and
Commander in Chief of the Military? But yet, Ted Cruz wants us to accept
that he, born under the same birth circumstances as Winston Churchill, but
under a different naturalization Act, the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization
Act which allowed a child born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen
mother and non-U.S. citizen father to be a “citizen” of the United States at
birth, is a natural born citizen and constitutionally eligible to be
President. So, just because a naturalization Act made him a citizen of
the United States when a naturalization Act did not make Churchill born like
him a citizen of the United States, Cruz wants us to believe that under that
naturalization Act he is an Article II natural born citizen and that such a
proposition has been settled law since the framing of the Constitution.
Sure, Ted, just like you did not know until 2013 that you were a Canadian
citizen. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I will leave you with these quotes from Churchill himself. “I
am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with
that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of
my father's marriage.” (1963). <a href="http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/62-finest-hour-151/1838--wit-and-wisdom-reflections-on-america">http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/62-finest-hour-151/1838--wit-and-wisdom-reflections-on-america</a>
. </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Some in the press wondered if Churchill, who
was born to a U.S. citizen mother, would ever consider running for U.S.
president. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">When asked by a
reporter in 1932 on running for President of the United States, he correctly and honestly responded: "</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">There are various little difficulties in the
way. However, I have been treated so
splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the
Constitution, seriously to consider the matter." </span><i style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">The
Definitive Wit of Winston Churchill</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> 18 (ed. Richard M. Langworth 2009). But then that's Winston Churchill, not Ted Cruz. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
January 25, 2016<br />
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<br />
####<br />
Copyright © 2016<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 107%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com66tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-16107504941260267252015-11-29T23:01:00.000-05:002016-02-23T14:12:34.624-05:00A Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A
Citizen is One Thing, But a Natural Born Citizen is Another<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">November 29, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img alt="Image result for image declaration of independence laws of nature and of nature's god" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUUxhT_V2c7_y4fqKKmqVAtBNZesUu8znWw81kHt-bSMjEnISzfg" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Understanding that a citizen of the United States
(“citizen”) is one thing, but that a natural born citizen of the United States
(“natural born citizen”) is another is the key to understanding what a natural
born citizen is.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">To avoid constitutional
error, it is critical that these two classes of citizens not be conflated,
confounded, and confused.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">There are
different way by which one can become a citizen.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">But none of that does or should change what a
natural born citizen is.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Why is it important that we understand the constitutional
distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen and give the correct
meaning to a natural born citizen? It is
important because the Framers looked to the natural born citizen clause, apart
from the Electoral College, through its requirement of absolute allegiance and
love of country, as a means to provide for the safety and national security of
the republic. They looked to the natural
born citizen clause as a way to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of
the singular and powerful civil Office of President and military Office of Commander
in Chief of the Military. The Framers
saw such monarchical and foreign influence as an insidious way to destroy what
they had so greatly sacrificed to build. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The historical record is replete with examples showing
how the Framers sought to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of the
Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. For sake of brevity, I shall focus on this
one example. Alexander Hamilton gave a
speech to the Convention on June 18, 1787.
He read to Convention his Propositions for A Constitution of
Government. See Works of Alexander
Hamilton (page 393); 3 Max Farrand, The
Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 617 (1911) (Farrand).
This speech contained a sketch of a plan which has become known as the
English Plan. This plan can be read
here, <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp">http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp</a>
. James Madison informed us in his
Convention notes that “[i]t meant only to give a more correct view of his
ideas, and to suggest the amendment which he should probably propose to the
plan of Mr. R. in the proper stages of its future discussion. Although this plan was not formally before
the Convention in any way, several of the delegates made copies . . .
Farrand. at 617. Hamilton proposed in his Propositions that
the "supreme executive authority of the United States to be vested in a
Governor. . ." and that he also be the "commander-in-chief. .
." In this initial sketch, Hamilton
did not include any eligibility requirements for the supreme executive
authority who he would call the President rather than Governor in his later
draft of the Constitution. In his speech
to the Convention, Hamilton advocated an executive for life. The reason that he gave for such a life
position was the following: “The
Hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the Nation, and
his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being
corrupted from abroad-and at the same time was both sufficiently independent
and sufficiently controuled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home.
one of the weak sides of Republics was their being liable to foreign influence
& corruption. Men of little character, acquiring great power become easily
the tools of intermedling Neibours.” Id. Here we can see that Hamilton was very
concerned with the harm that could be done to the nation by an executive who
was corrupted by foreign influence and intrigue.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This “sketch of a plan of government” was not formally
presented to the Convention, but delegates, including James Madison, had
various copies of this plan. Farrand, at
617. This plan does not include
Hamilton’s “born a citizen” language which he included in his later draft of a
constitution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On July 25, 1787, about five weeks later, John Jay
wrote a letter to then-General Washington, who was acting as president of the
Constitutional Convention, stating:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise
& seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into
the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that
the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve
on, any but a natural born Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><a href="http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29">http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29</a>
. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">John Jay reminded General George
Washington of the importance of remanding back to the original concerns of the
people and offered his presentation, to which George Washington offered, verbatim,
to the convention. Alexander Heard and
Michael Nelson, Presidential Selection 123 (Duke University Press 1987) via
Google Books.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Jay demanded that there be a "strong check"
on foreign influence infiltrating the national government in general and the
Office of Commander in Chief of the Military specifically. A “natural
born subject,” as defined by the English common law, which permitted dual and
conflicting allegiance at birth, would not have provided that strong check on
foreign influence for which Jay was looking. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">On September 2, 1787, George Washington wrote a letter
to John Jay the last line of which read:
"I thank you for the hints contained in your letter." <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vTBIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=%22I+thank+you+for+the+hints+contained+in+your+letter%22&source=bl&ots=irLGdQj3j9&sig=c9ctNQH8UXoU0RhgqpdDo5L6R9c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQxIjL4bbJAhXGbj4KHUTVD1kQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=%22I%20thank%20you%20for%20the%20hints%20contained%20in%20your%20letter%22&f=false">4
Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America
1786-1870, p. 269 (1905).</a> While the Committee on Detail originally
proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for
21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural
born citizen" without recorded explanation. On September 4, 1787, about six weeks after
Jay's letter and just two days after Washington wrote back to Jay, the
"natural born citizen" requirement appeared in the draft of the
Constitution. Here is the first style of
the clause as presented by the Committee of Eleven:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(5) 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen
or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected
to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has
not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S.'</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Madison's notes of the Convention <a href="http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt">http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt</a>
.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The proposal passed unanimously without debate which
does not mean that the proposal was not discussed, for the convention meetings
were conducted in secrecy. Another
reason that there was no debate is probably that the definition that was used
of a natural born citizen was of such universal acceptance that it satisfied
all laws then know to the Framers. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At the close of the Convention, Hamilton gave to Madison
another document which does contain in Article IX provision for the election of
a President and the “born a citizen” language for eligibility. Ferrand wrote that Hamilton gave this “paper”
to Madison at the end of the Convention and that Hamilton “would have wished to
be proposed by the Convention: He had
stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.” p. 619.
Farrand also wrote that Hamilton’s paper “was not submitted to the
Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of
Hamilton.” p. 619. This draft of the Constitution is not to be
confused with his sketch of a plan of government (the British Plan) which he
read to the Convention on June 18, 1787.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elliott’s Debates has additional information on this
proposed constitution. He explains: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">No. 5.</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Copy of a Paper communicated to James
Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of Convention in Philadelphia, 1787,
which, he said, delineated the Constitution which be would have wished to be
proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of
the deliberations.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Note.— The caption, as well as the copy of the
following paper, is in the hand-writing of Mr. Madison, and the whole
manuscript, and the paper on which it is written, corresponds with the debates
in the Convention with which it was preserved. The document was placed in Mr.
Madison’s hands for preservation by Col. Hamilton, who regarded it as a
permanent evidence of his opinion on the subject. But as he did not express his
intention, at the time, that the original should be kept, Mr. Madison returned
it, informing him that he had retained a copy. It appears, however, from a
communication of the Rev. Dr. Mason to Dr. Eustis, (see letter of Dr. Eustis to
J Madison, 28th April, 1819,) that the original remained among the papers left
by Col. Hamilton.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In a letter to Mr. Pickering, dated Sept. 16 1803,
(see Pitkin’s History, Vol. 2, p. 259—60) Col Hamilton was under the erroneous
impression that this paper limited the duration of the presidential term to
three years. This instance of the fallibility of Col. Hamilton’s memory, as
well as his erroneous distribution of the numbers of the “Federalists” among
the different writers for that work, it has been the lot of Mr. Madison to rectify;
and it became incumbent, in the present instance, from the contents of the plan
having been seen by others, (previously as well its subsequently to the
publication of Col. Hamilton’s letter,) that it, also, should be published.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Elliott’s Debates:
Volume 5 Appendix to the Debates
of the Federal Convention, Note 5. <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/appendix/">http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/appendix/</a> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This subsequent draft of a constitution provided that
the President be either at that time a citizen of one of the States or be “born
a citizen of the United States.” Article
IX Sec. 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of 1787 read: “No person shall be eligible to the office of
President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States,
or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hamilton gave his paper to Madison before the
convention came to an end which we know occurred on September 17, 1787, the
date the delegates signed the Constitution.
Hamilton served on committees that drafted convention rules and provided
for writing style. We can reasonably
assume that since the document was in the hands of these two influential
Founders and Framers, they would have discussed Hamilton’s presidential
citizenship proposal with others making decisions at that time. While we do not know exactly what happened
during the convention regarding Hamilton’s “now a citizen of one of the States”
and “born a citizen of the United States” concept, we do know that they were
both rejected and “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution[]” was accepted. We can see that the Framers did not accept
merely being a citizen of the United States at birth. Rather, they demanded that future presidents
be natural born citizens. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hamilton did provide his paper containing the “born a
citizen” language to James Madison.
Additionally, he most likely also discussed his paper with other
Convention delegates, even if he did not submit his paper to the
Convention. Ferrand stated that Hamilton
“had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations” of the
Convention. Id. at 619. It is hard to accept that Hamilton would have
gone through all that effort to draft that proposed constitution and not share
its principles with the Convention delegates prior to the end of the
Convention. Hence, enough delegates
probably knew about Hamilton’s “born a citizen,” but no one made any suggestion
that the Constitution read “born a citizen” rather than “natural born citizen.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">What is critical to understand about the Hamilton
“born a citizen” language is that it shows that he did not request that the
President be a “natural born citizen.”
So he knew that the definition of the clause was a child born in the
country to citizen parents. By
advocating born a citizen, anyone who was made a citizen from the moment of
birth by positive law [Endnote 1] such as an Act of Congress would have been
eligible to be President. This would
have included children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents
and even children born in the United States to alien parents who should by
positive law be made citizens from the moment of birth. But the Convention adopted “natural born
citizen” and not “born a citizen,” which means that the delegates wanted a more
stringent standard than just born a citizen.
So then how did the Framers define a natural born citizen? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To understand who the natural born citizen are, we
must first understand who the citizens are.
Our U.S. Supreme Court has many times looked to the principles of the
English common law and William Blackstone to understand what the Framers meant
by various terms and phrases that they used in the Constitution. But Blackstone did not define either a
citizen or a natural born citizen. “The
constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural born citizens;' but neither that instrument nor any
act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British
jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the
subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.” United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, 788
(Cir. Ct. Ky 1866) (Justice Noah H. Swayne).
In fact, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) did not look to the
English common law to define a citizen. Minor
explained who the citizens were in a general way thus: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Before its adoption the Constitution of the United
States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States
or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such
provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a
political community, such as a nation is, implies an <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="pg_166"><b><u>[p166]</u></b><u> </u></a>association
of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons
associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it
allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in
this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the
other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">For convenience it has been found necessary to give a
name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and
the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words
"subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been
used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of
the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has
been considered better suited to the description of one living under a
republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their
separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of
Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this
sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and
nothing more.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id. at 165-66. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Founders and Framers were greatly influenced by
natural law and the law of nations.
Their favorite writer on the law of nations was Emer de Vattel, and his
treatise, The Law of Nations (1758) was constantly in their hands in the early
years of the republic. Vattel did not
define the citizens, simply saying in Section 212 of his treatise that they
“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.”
We can understand why Vattel would not have defined the citizens other
than to say that they were the members of a civil and political society, for
each society defined its members based on its own historical development and
positive laws. As we saw, Minor added
that being a citizen under the Constitution did nothing more than “convey[] the
idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Again, without mentioning the English common law or
Blackstone, but rather expressing concepts of natural law and the law of
nations, Minor then explained who the original “citizens’ were during the Founding
of the free and independent states and then the United States as a nation: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To determine, then, who were citizens of the United
States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what
persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what
were afterwards admitted to membership.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was
ordained and established by "the people of the United States,"<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="ZO-88_US_166n3ref"></a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n3"> <b><sup>[n3]</sup></b><sup> </sup></a>and then going further back, we find that these were
the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands
which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal
station among the powers of the earth,<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="ZO-88_US_166n4ref"></a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n4"> <b><sup>[n4]</sup></b><sup> </sup></a>and that had by Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of
America," entered into a firm league of <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="pg_167"><b><u>[p167]</u></b></a>friendship
with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and
their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other
against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on
account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#ZO-88_US_166n5"> <b><sup>[n5]</sup></b></a> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id. at 166-67. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Having examined the concept of who the original citizens were,
now we have to consider who the natural born citizens were. Minor said that “additions might always be
made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and
second, by naturalization.” Id. at
167. It is in telling us about those
additions to the citizens that Minor then told us how the Framers defined a
natural born citizen. The Framers had
one and only one definition of a natural born citizen. How do we know that? The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor informs
us. There it held: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">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 <b><u>[p168]</u></b><u> </u>parents.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the
purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is
sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of
citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words
"all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this
connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last
they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In
fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id. at 167-68. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Court explained that neither the original nor
amended Constitution (with the Fourteenth Amendment) defined a natural born
citizen. It said that we had to look
outside the Constitution for a definition of the clause. It held that the definition of a natural born
citizen existed at common law the nomenclature with which they were
familiar. Explaining what that common
law provided, it said that “all children” born in a country to “parents” who
were its citizens were “natives, or natural-born citizens,” and that all the
rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who would need a naturalization
Act of Congress in order to become a citizen of the United States. Here we can see that like when it defined
citizens, the Court did not rely upon the English common law and Blackstone,
who explained that any child born in the King’s dominion and under his
jurisdiction, regardless of the citizenship of the child’s parents, was a
natural-born subject. Rather, Minor’s definition
of “natives, or natural born citizens” was a paraphrase of the definition of
those terms provided by Emer de Vattel who in his The Law of Nations, Section
212 (1758) (1797) explained: “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.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, Minor looked to the law of nations and not to the
English common law for the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen. Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall,
C.J., concurring) and Justice Daniel in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.
393, 476 (1857) (Daniel, J., concurring), had done the same, citing and quoting
the law of nations and Vattel at Section 212 and not the English common law and
Blackstone. Hence, when Minor said that
a natural born citizen was defined “at common-law,” it was not referring to the
English common law. Rather, it was
referring to American national common law which incorporated the citizenship
principles of the law of nations. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Minor explained that if one was a natural born
citizen, there was no doubt that one was a citizen. Hence, accepting that Virginia Minor was a
natural born citizen, it held that she was a citizen. After the Court defined the natural born
citizens and told us that anyone who was a natural born citizen was without any
doubt a citizen, the Court raised the question <i>sua sponte</i> whether there could
be other “citizens” by birth “within the jurisdiction.” This question regarding other “citizens” did
not involve the “natural born citizens,” who the Court had just defined through
an all-inclusive and all-exclusive definition (the Court said that under that
common law all the people who did not meet that definition were “aliens or
foreigners”). So the Court did not raise
any question of whether there could be other birth circumstances that could
serve as the basis for making one a natural born citizen. These other children were different from
those that were natural born citizens because unlike them, they were born to
alien parents. In fact, the Court even
referred to these children as belonging to another “class.” The Court said that “some authorities”
included these other children as “citizens” also. The Court, however, said that “there have
been doubts” whether they were citizens.
So, not only did the Court explain that those children could not be
natural born citizens, it also said that it was doubtful whether they were even
just citizens. The Court was referring
to The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) which stated that children born in the
United States to alien parents were not citizens of the United States under the
Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, the
Court explained that it was not necessary for it to solve the doubts involving
whether the children of that other class were citizens. For sure, it was not necessary because
Virginia Minor was born in the country to parents who were its citizens which
made her a natural born citizen. Knowing
that Virginia Minor was born in the country to parents who were citizens, which
made her a natural born citizen, provided the Court with sufficient information
for it to decide the question of whether Virginia Minor was a citizen. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Court finally held that “all children born of
citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens,” meaning that
all children who were natural born citizens were citizens. Accepting both that rule to be true and that
Virginia Minor satisfied that rule was sufficient for the Court to hold that
she was a citizen. It simply was not
necessary for the Court to explore any other avenues by which Virginia Minor
could be a citizen. Indeed, she was a
natural born citizen which without any doubt ipso facto made her a citizen and
that is all she had to be in order for her to have standing to make her
Fourteenth Amendment argument that as a citizen of the United States, she had a
privilege or immunity that created a constitutional right to vote which the
State of Missouri could not abridge by making or enforcing any law against
her. The Court in the end held that citizenship
did not constitutionally give one the right to vote and so Missouri could
through its laws decide that it would not allow women to vote. But the Court's ultimate holding regarding a
woman’s right to vote has absolutely no bearing on the court’s <i>ratio decidendi</i>
that it applied to defining the citizens and the natural born citizens, an
analysis which makes its definition of a natural born citizen binding
precedent.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So Minor confirmed the Framers’ definition of a
natural born citizen. It also left open
the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents
could be a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, the Court demonstrated that there was
only one way to become a natural born citizen which was to be born in the
country to parents who were its citizens.
But it also explained that there were different avenues by which one
could become a citizen. It explained
that one way was for a person to satisfy the naturalization Acts of
Congress. Another way was to satisfy the
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment which it chose not to analyze and left
to be done another day. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The majority of the United States Supreme Court in U.S.
v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) answered in 1898 the Fourteenth Amendment
question regarding birth in the United States to alien parents which Minor left
open in 1875. It is the seminal case for
interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, which
establishes thereunder who may be a “citizen” of the United States from the
moment of birth, to persons who are born in the United States, but who do not
satisfy Minor’s common law definition of a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark thoroughly analyzed the question
of who was included as a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment and it showed that people like Wong, born in the United States to
alien parents who were legally domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, were citizens of the United States from the moment of birth
by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but they could not be natural born
citizens by virtue of the common law which Minor explained defined a natural
born citizen.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Wong Kim Ark explained that “[t]he Constitution of the
United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the
United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States" and
that “[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by
way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the
affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States." Id. at 654. Hence, Wong Kim Ark also confirmed that the
Fourteenth Amendment did not define a natural born citizen. The Court then explained that “[i]n this as
in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the
Constitution. <i>Minor v. Happersett,</i> 21 Wall. 162; <i>Ex parte
Wilson,</i> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/114/417/" title="subref">114 U.S. 417</a>, 422; <i>Boyd v. United States,</i> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/616/" title="subref">116
U.S. 616</a>, 624, 625; <i>Smith v. Alabama,</i> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/124/465/" title="subref">124
U.S. 465</a>. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could
not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley,
J., in <i>Moore v. United States,</i> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/91/270/" title="subref">91
U.S. 270</a>, 274.” Id. at 654. Hence, Wong Kim Ark, like Minor, explained
that the Court could use the common law to interpret the Constitution, Article
II in Minor and the Fourteenth Amendment in Wong Kim Ark. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">While it acknowledged Minor’s definition of a natural
born citizen and the common law it relied upon to arrive at that definition, in
rendering its decision it did not rely upon American national common law, but
rather on colonial English common law.
It did not rely on the former because it was not defining an Article II
natural born citizen, but rather a different clause of the Constitution, as
amended, the Fourteenth Amendment. In
fact, Wong Kim Ark said that it was not constrained by any rule of
“international law” or the municipal laws of any foreign nation in interpreting
the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, it
resorted to looking to and using colonial English common law as an aid to construing
the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. It found that under the English common law, a
child born in the King’s dominion to alien parents who were neither foreign
diplomats nor military invaders were born subject to his jurisdiction and
entitled to his protection, and therefore English natural-born subjects. It found that this rule had been continued in
the new free and independent states after the Declaration of Independence and
the adoption of the Constitution, by the states selectively adopting the
English common law through their constitutions and reception statutes. By the force of that state practice, it ruled
by analogy that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were
permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats
nor military invaders was born in the United States and “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.” Hence, that child
was a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on the
English common law’s exceptions to being born in the King’s dominion and within
the jurisdiction of the King, it also explained that any child born in the
United States to foreign diplomats or military invaders would not be born
subject to its jurisdiction and therefore not a citizen of the United States
under the Fourteenth Amendment. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So Wong Kim Ark resolved the question of the meaning
of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, as
applied to children born in the United States to alien parents, by resort to
the colonial English common law, which under its notion of broad allegiance,
treated non-diplomatic and friendly aliens present in the King’s dominions as
his subjects. It used the colonial
English common law to interpret the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, not the meaning of an Article II
natural born citizen. In conducting its
jurisdiction analysis, it did not reinterpret the natural born citizen clause
under the English common law, for Minor had already demonstrated that its
definition was to be found in American common law. In fact, no U.S. Supreme Court that ever
provided the definition of a natural born citizen relied upon any jurisdiction
analysis when defining a natural born citizen.
Actually, Wong Kim Ark recognized that a natural born citizen was a
different type of citizen than a citizen of the United States at birth under
the Fourteenth Amendment. “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.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758)
(1797). “At common-law, with the
nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was
never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its
citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
foreigners.” Minor 88 U.S. at 167. “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.” Wong
Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 665 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, “Alienigenae of the
United States,” 22, note (2<sup>nd</sup> ed. Philadelphia, December 1, 1853).
As we can see, both Vattel and Minor said a natural born citizen was a child
born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark agreed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Another crucial point needs to be addressed. What did Vattel and Minor mean when they said
“children” and “parents” as in all “children” born in the country to citizen “parents”
were natural born citizens? Under the
law of nations and at common law, children meant legitimate children. Hence, using the term children suggested that
the father and mother were married or at least that the child was legitimated
at some point. Under the law of nations
and at common law, “parents” could only mean father and mother. In fact, Vattel throughout The Law of
Nations, when referring to parents, spoke about a child’s father and
mother. Under the common law doctrine of
coverture, a wife upon marriage (<i>femes
covert</i>) become one with her husband.
She acquired the citizenship and allegiance of her husband, whether her
husband was a citizen or an alien. At
the Founding and until the passage of the Cable Act in 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat.
1021), there was no such thing as a husband having one citizenship and the wife
having another. This father and mother interpretation
of Vattel has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court which has always
interpreted Vattel’s “parents” to mean both father and mother. In their concurring opinions, Chief Justice John
Marshall in The Venus (1814) and Justice Daniel in Dred Scott did just
that. Minor provided a scenario where
the child’s parents were both either citizens or both aliens. The same occurred in Wong Kim Ark, where the Court
explained that a child born in the country to an alien parent is as much a
“citizen” as the natural born child born in the country to a citizen
parent. This statement can have
sense only if both parents are either aliens or citizens. So, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark provided
scenarios wherein the child’s parents are both either citizens or both
aliens. See also Lynch v. Clarke, 1
Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236 (1844) (confirms the same scenario when it said: “it is insisted that the national rule is
that of the public law, by which a child follows the <i>status</i> of its parents (emphasis in the original);” “Suppose a
person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents .
. .;” and “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United
States, whatever were the situation of his parents”); Ankeny v. Governor of the
State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009) (stating in footnote 12
“that the Court in <i>Minor</i> contemplates only scenarios where
both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President
Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United
Kingdom”). This reasoning followed from
our nation adopting the common law doctrine of coverture that the wife acquired
the citizenship of her husband. Hence,
the word “parents” in both Vattel’s and Minor’s definition of a natural born
citizen could not mean that one parent had one citizenship and another had a
different one; it could only mean father and mother who had the same
citizenship at the time of the child’s birth.
This law of nations and common law rule regarding parents having the
same nationality is reflected in the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3bbb286d8.html">1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness.</a> Article 2
provides: “A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in
the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within
that territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State,” in effect
providing that a foundling is to be treated and considered as though she
satisfies the definition of a natural born citizen under the law of
nations. Hence, the common public
understanding of “parents” at the time the Constitution was adopted and
ratified was that parents meant father and mother, with the spouses acquiring
the citizenship of the husband, and children meant legitimate children of those
parents. So, at the time of the adoption
and ratification of the Constitution, legitimate children were born either to
two citizen parents or to two alien parents.
Under the ancient maxim<i> partus sequitur patrem</i> (children follow the
condition of their parents), those children inherited the citizenship and
allegiance of their parents. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Finally, other convincing evidence demonstrating that
the Framers defined a natural born citizen as a child born in the country to
citizens parents are the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and
1804. The only children Congress did not
seek to reach with its naturalization powers in these Acts were children born
in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. There was no constitutional basis for Congress
to do that, for these children were the natural born citizens. What is also most telling is that in these
naturalization Acts, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and
in need of naturalization. This
Congressional naturalization rule was not changed until after the U.S. Supreme
Court in Wong Kim Ark held that children born in the United States to
qualifying alien parents were citizens of the United States from the moment of
birth. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">What this historical and legal evidence (not meant to be exhaustive) shows is that
there is only one definition of a natural born citizen. That definition is a child born in a county
to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens at the time of the child’s
birth. But there can be different
definitions of a citizen. Those other
definitions exist under the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Acts of
Congress, and treaties, all positive laws.
We can argue, for whatever reasons, about what those other definitions
of being a citizen should be under those particular positive laws. But whatever we agree or disagree on with
respect to a citizen under those laws, none of that changes or can change the Framers’
original common law definition of a natural born citizen which under the
Constitution is a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents,
meaning a married father and mother, who were U.S. citizens at the time of the
child’s birth. The Framers adopted this
definition of a natural born citizen into the Constitution. As such, it is the supreme law of the land
and cannot be changed unless done so by a duly ratified constitutional
amendment. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Even if today we were to relax the requirement of
parents having to be married due to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
requirements, we would still be left with the requirement that the father and
mother be both U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of their child in the
United States. Finally, the Cable Act of
1922, which for the first time gave to women the right to have a separate
citizenship and allegiance from that of their husbands, did no more than that;
it did not nor could it amend the definition of a natural born citizen which
required that both parents be U.S. citizens at the time of their child’s birth
in the United States. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">For sure, the United States would never deny its
protection to a natural born citizen, for no other foreign nation can make any
legitimate claim based on its sovereign authority to that person’s citizenship and
allegiance based on either <i>jus sanguinis</i> or <i>jus soli</i>, for under the American
national common law’s definition of a natural born citizen, i.e., a child born
in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth,
both right of blood and right of soil merge into the child at the moment of
birth to create a unity of citizenship and allegiance in the child at the time
of birth. Hence, that child is born with allegiance only to the United
States and to no other nation. Simply
stated, all the nations of the world recognize that person to be only a citizen
of the United States and of no other nation.
The Framers commanded that future Presidents and Commanders be born with
sole allegiance to the United States. In
contrast, citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization
Acts of Congress, who do not meet the definition of a natural born citizen, while
born with allegiance to the United States, are also born with citizenship and
allegiance to some foreign nation, under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship
in and allegiance to the foreign nation of one or both alien parents, and under
a naturalization Act of Congress, citizenship in and allegiance to the foreign
nation in which born and/or of an alien parent.
These citizens “at birth” are made citizens at birth only by operation
of law, the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress, and not by universal
principles of natural law and the law of nations, recognized and adopted by
American national common law. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is treason upon the Constitution and the Framers’
command that for the sake of the national security of the republic, for persons
born after the adoption of the Constitution, no person except a natural born
citizen is to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, to interpret
the natural born citizen clause out of the Constitution and replace it with how
we may today define under the positive laws of the Fourteenth Amendment or
naturalization Acts of Congress a citizen of the United States at birth, a person
who, if not also a natural born citizen, is not born with sole allegiance to
the United States. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">With these principles to guide us, we can only
conclude that de facto President Barack Obama, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco
Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal are all not natural born citizens. None of them were born in the United States
to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their children’s birth. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Obama, assuming he was born in the United States, is a
citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth
Amendment. He is not and cannot be a
natural born citizen under the common law because while he was presumably born in
the United States to a U.S. citizen mother, he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Cruz was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen
mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. He
can be a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization
Act of Congress (section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952). He is not and cannot be a natural
born citizen under the common law because, while he was born to a U.S. citizen
mother, he was not born in the United States and he was born to a non-U.S.
citizen father. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rubio and Jindal were
born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents. They are both citizens of the United States
at birth, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are not and cannot be natural born
citizens under the common law because, while they were born in the United
States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen parents. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">__________________ </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Endnote 1: The
concept of "positive law" has existed since the beginning of ordered
legal systems. Positive law includes constitutions, statutes, case law, and any
other law adopted by whatever sovereign has power to make law at any given
moment in time. It has been said by many
political and legal philosophers throughout the ages that positive law has its
origin in what man perceives to be natural law and God's law, or what Thomas Jefferson in The
Declaration of Independence called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” meaning the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">November
29, 2015</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">####</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Copyright
© 2015</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">All
Rights Reserved </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com120tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34360741681228254602015-11-25T00:15:00.000-05:002015-11-27T19:30:10.412-05:00New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of Jurisdiction <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<br />
New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of<br />
Jurisdiction<br />
<br />
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
November 25, 2015<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="New Hampshire state flag" height="133" src="http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/images/nh_fi.gif" width="200" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Christopher Booth of Concord, New Hampshire, Cameron Elliott of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Robert Laity of Tonawanda, New York, filed ballot access challenges in New Hampshire against presidential contenders Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, arguing that neither of them is an Article II natural born citizen. The challengers are correct. <br />
<br />
Still, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission refused to rule on the question of whether the senators are natural born citizens because, chairman Brad Cook said, the issues were not under the panel’s purview.<br />
<br />
“Our precedents say we don’t’ go there,” Cook said. “Personally, would I like the U.S. Supreme Court to decide these issues so we know what is, so it doesn’t keep coming up? Absolutely. Are we the vehicle to start that discussion? No, we’re not.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wmur.com/politics/elections-panel-allows-cruz-rubio-to-appear-on-primary-ballot/36641254">http://www.wmur.com/politics/elections-panel-allows-cruz-rubio-to-appear-on-primary-ballot/36641254</a> <br />
<br />
~~~~~<br />
<br />
The Commission refused to rule, basically saying that it does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Article II natural born citizens. It also said that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue. <br />
<br />
On the merits, neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are natural born citizens. Neither the original nor amended Constitution defines a natural born citizen. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that we have to look outside the Constitution for its meaning. It explained that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when the Constitution was adopted, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized if they met the requirements of naturalization Acts of Congress. Minor v. Happersett (1875).<br />
<br />
Cruz was neither born in the country, nor was he born to two U.S. citizen parents. He was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Unlike Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were there to serve the military interest of the United States, neither of Cruz's parents were in Canada for purposes of serving in the U.S. military. He therefore does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen. Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. A “naturalized born” citizen of the United States is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen of the United States.<br />
<br />
Rubio was born in the country. But he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. He was born in the United States, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents. Hence, he also does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that provides the only definition of the clause. He needs the Fourteenth Amendment because, while born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Rubio is a "born citizen" of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. Simply being a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one a natural born citizen of the United States under the common law.<br />
<br />
So, neither Cruz nor Rubio are natural born citizens. It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.9px; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />November 25, 2015<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/" style="color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/</a><br />####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.9px; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Copyright © 2015</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.9px; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 16.9px;">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.9px; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">All Rights Reserved</span></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com60tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80793733107816500502015-07-04T13:45:00.004-04:002015-08-08T08:53:36.499-04:00July 4, 1776, the Birth Day of the Nation and the Natural Born Citizen <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">July 4, 1776, the Birth Day of the Nation and the Natural Born Citizen</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">July 4, 2015</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img alt="Image result for image us flag waving" src="" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">In defining an </span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Article
II “natural born Citizen,”</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> it is important to find any authority from
the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves
defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding
period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and
Framers defined a natural born citizen.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Such
an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, </span><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">A
Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a
Citizen (1789)</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">, a very important and influential essay on defining a natural
born citizen.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_%28congressman%29">David
Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815)</a> was an American physician,
patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to
the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting
President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the
American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington,
Ramsay wrote with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being
personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published
History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28">History
of the American Revolution (two volumes)</a>, in 1807 a Life of Washington, and
in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major
intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and
abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of
the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, “Between Two Worlds: David
Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery,” J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984).
“During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for
its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance
with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” <a href="http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/">http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/</a>.
In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles
published an extensive study of Ramsay's “History of the American Revolution”
in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in
the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of
this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his
critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith
concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him
to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789">his
1789 essay</a>, Ramsay explained: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The “United States” are a new nation, or political
society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those “British
subjects” in “America,” who were thrown out of royal protection by act of
parliament, passed in “December,” 1775. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A citizen of the “United States,” means a member of
this new nation. The principle of
government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character
of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin word, “sub”
and “jacio,” and means one who is “under” the power of another; but a citizen
is a “unit” of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far
equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within
himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as
another. In the eye of reason and
philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings,
and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right
original sovereignty. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id. at 3. (emphasis in the original). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Here Ramsay described how the new nation came into
being from the revolution with Great Britain and that its new members were citizens
and not subjects. He then explained the “immense”
difference between a citizen and a subject.
Indeed, citizens were masters of their own destiny, all equal to each
other, and under no one. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Then he went on to explain how one became a citizen,
stating: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The following appear to be the only modes of acquiring
this distinguishing privilege.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">1<sup>st</sup>.
By being parties to the original compact, the declaration of
independence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">2d. By taking
an oath of fidelity to some one of the “United States,” agreeable to law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">3d. By tacit
consent and acquiescence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">4<sup>th</sup>.
By birth or inheritance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">5<sup>th</sup>.
By adoption. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id. at 4
(emphasis in the original). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">He then explained how one acquired citizenship through
each one of his categories. As to the 1<sup>st
</sup>category, these included all those persons who adhered to the American
Revolution by being a party to the Declaration of Independence through which “’a
nation was born in a day.’” The 2<sup>nd</sup>
and 3<sup>rd</sup> categories included those who took an oath of allegiance to
the American cause, or upon reaching the age of majority just accepted the new
states and continued to reside there under their protection. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Ramsay then went on to describe the 4</span><sup style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 107%;">th</sup><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">
category persons who the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called the “natural
born Citizens.”</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Here is what he
said:</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">4<sup>th</sup>.
None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born
since the declaration of independence, for obvious reasons: no man can be born a citizen of a state or
government, which did not exist at the time of this birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the
children of those who have taken a part in the last revolution; but this is
confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves
citizens. Those who died before the
revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but of
subjects, which they themselves possessed.
If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have
adhered to the king or congress. Their
children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of “British subjects,”
but not of “American citizens.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">5<sup>th</sup>.
Persons born in any country may have acquired citizenship by adoption,
or naturalization, agreeably to law. The
citizenship of such must be dated from the time of their adoption. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id. at 6 (emphasis in the original). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Then Ramsay drew these conclusions: "The citizenship of no man could be previous
to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none
but those who have been born of citizens since the 4<sup>th</sup> of 'July,' 1776. . . . From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred,
that citizenship, from inheritance, belong to none but the children of those 'Americans,' who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that
adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring.” Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in the original). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">While not using the phrase “natural born citizen,”
Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and
what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The
Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens
“Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born
Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of
independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who
have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the
children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that
“citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those
Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that
adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their
offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right,
belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July,
1776….” Id. at 6. We can see why the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 grandfathered "Citizens of the United States," which included themselves, to be eligible to be President. He also explained that persons born in any country
may have acquired citizenship by adoption or naturalization, telling us that in
order to be a natural born citizen one had to be born in the United
States. Ramsay did not use the clause
“natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright
which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he
defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born citizen,"
"native," and "indigenes," all terms that were then used
interchangeably.<br />
<br />
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder
defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an
American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American
words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David
Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison,
Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...” Given his position
of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian,
Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers
and would have known how they too defined a natural born citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and
being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the
Founders and Framers defined a natural born citizen and he told us that such a
person was one born in the country to citizen parents. In giving us this
definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but
rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the
“natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly
acclaimed and influential treatise, <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html">The
Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and
Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English)</a>.
We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined
a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous
historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that
existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how
the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generations
of citizens, who were either descendants of the original citizens or children
of naturalized citizens, born in the United States, who the Framers called natural
born citizens. It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of
these terms at the time they were framed and ratified.<br />
<br />
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that
Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship.
This article by Ramsay, provided to me by an anonymous source in 2010 while I
was handling the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress case, is one of the most
important pieces of evidence which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined
a natural born citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as
a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a natural born
citizen has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower
court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall,
C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides
his definition of “natives, or indigenes,” or who the Framers called natural
born citizens); </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">Inglis v.
Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles
of the law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Shanks v.
Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the
law of nations and Vattel and not the English common law); Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (relied upon the law of nations definition of
citizenship and not the English common law definition of a natural born subject)
(Daniel, J., concurring) (specifically citing and quoting Vattel and his
Section 212 for the definition of “natives, or natural-born citizens” and not
the English common law); </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
(in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its
operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign
States born within the United States”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162,
167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879,
5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42
F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted the same definition of natural born citizen as
did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in
commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the
Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause,
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every
human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not
owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your
Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US
Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)). <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html">two-citizen-parent
requirement</a> would have followed from the common law that provided that
a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the
Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and
(2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being
granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and
Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the
Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the
necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all natural
born citizens" are "citizens of the United States" but not all
"citizens of the United States" are natural born citizens. It was only through both parents being
citizens that the child was born with <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html">unity
of citizenship and allegiance</a> to the United States which the Framers
required the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have.<br />
<br />De facto President Barrack Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when
he was born in 1961 (regardless of where that may be), he was not born to a
United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United
States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was
born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom
and Colonies (CUKC) <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html">which
by descent made Obama himself a CUKC</a>. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s
father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being
temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent
to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal
resident or immigrant to the United States.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html">Obama
may be a plain born “citizen of the United States”</a> under the Fourteenth
Amendment or a Congressional Act (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/27679281/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100301-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5">if
he was born in Hawaii</a>). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear
presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who
have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence,
Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen, for upon Obama's birth his
father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same.
Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status
of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which
only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President
must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks
Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth
which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth
allegiance and loyalty to the United States, <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html">a
trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in
Chief of the Military</a>. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath
later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States, is not a natural
born citizen because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too is not
a natural born citizen. He has therefore
held the civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in
Chief contrary to the Constitution and therefore without any constitutional legitimacy.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">For a demonstration as to why Senator Ted Cruz,
Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens
and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be elected President, see Mario Apuzzo, “Senator
Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate
in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are
All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President,
accessed at <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So,
David Ramsay told us that a natural born citizen was born on July 4, 1776. Today is July 4, 2015, or 239 years since
that birth. Happy Birth Day natural born
citizen of the United States of America.
<br />
<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
July 4, 2015<br />
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/</a><br />
#### <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Copyright
© 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">All
Rights Reserved<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">I have adapted this
article from an article that I wrote and published on David Ramsay on April 2,
2010, entitled, “Founder and Historian
David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789,” accessed at <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html</a></span></div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com187tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74067021831659544152015-05-25T16:43:00.000-04:002015-12-09T17:56:50.108-05:00Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Senator
Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate
in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not
Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">May 25, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Soon, we will see various presidential candidates
debate each other for the right to win their party’s nomination for President and
ultimately to win the people’s and Electoral College’s vote for that
Office. The organizations that will be
sponsoring these presidential debates, Commission on Presidential Debates, Fox
News, Fox Business Network, Reagan Library Foundation, Salem Media Group, CNBC,
ABC, CBS, NBC, Telemundo, and National Review, in keeping with their bylaws, should
not allow any person who is not constitutionally eligible for that office to
debate. Allowing constitutionally ineligible
candidates to debate will only give the false impression to the American people
that such persons are constitutionally eligible to be elected President. This result is more damaging to the
Constitution and the rule of law, given that the federal courts refused to get
involved in the question of whether de facto President Barack Obama is an
Article II natural born citizen. There
has been mentioned in the news of some individuals who will be vying for the
Office of President. These are Senator
Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal. But these individuals, like Obama, are not
natural born citizens and hence not eligible to be elected President. They should therefore not be allowed to
debate. Allow me to explain. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for
those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35
years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a "citizen" of
the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President. It also
provides that for those born after the adoption, only a "natural born
citizen" of the United States is eligible to be President. So, with presidential eligibility under
Article II, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, we are
looking to define a natural born citizen, not a citizen. We can also see from this constitutional
scheme that in the United States there are only “citizens” or “natural born citizens”
and that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are
natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to
assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be
born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment
of birth and throughout their lives. They concluded that such a person
would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which
could result in conflict of interests which could harm the United States and
its people. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Since the Framers wrote citizen and natural born
citizen into the Constitution, the next question is what do these terms
mean? The historical and legal record
demonstrates that they did not look to the English common law for the definitions
of those terms. Indeed, </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Justice Noah H. Swayne, commenting on whether the English
common law defined a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen,” said: </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">“The constitution uses
the words 'citizen' and '<strong><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">natural born</span></strong> citizens;' but neither that instrument nor
any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our
own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and
Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.”
<u>United States v. Rhodes</u>, 27 F. Cas. 785, 788 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866). Rather, that record shows that the Founders
and Framers looked to natural law and the law of nations and the Enlightenment
for principles which justified and motivated the American Revolution, the
Declaration of Independence, and the writing of the Constitution. It was also in natural law and the law of
nations that they found their definitions of citizens and natural born citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As their most trusted expert on the law of nations,
the Founders and Framers looked to Emer de Vattel. In his, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Book I, Chapter
XIX, Section 212 (1758) (1797), Vattel defined a citizen as: “The
citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. Id. at Section 212. The
Framers also knew from the teachings of both the English common law and the law
of nations that citizenship and allegiance can be either inherited from one’s
parents (jus sanguinis) or acquired from being born in a country (jus
soli). Hence, when the Framers wrote the
Constitution, a citizen was any member of the United States made so by any means,
which included the American Revolution, Acts of Congress, or treaty. These
citizens were subject to the laws of the United States and enjoyed all the
privileges, immunities, and rights of all other citizens, including the right
of being protected by the United States.
The early naturalization Acts of Congress reflected this
understanding. As time went on and
because of the immediate need to make freed slaves citizens of the United
States, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were added to
the list of laws that could make citizens.
As we shall see below, these laws, while capable of making one a citizen
from the moment of birth or after birth, did not make one a natural born
citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Framers also defined a natural born citizen under natural
law and the law of nations. Again looking
to Vattel upon whom they would have relied for that definition, he defined a
natural born citizen as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born
in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it
will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Id</span></u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">. Sec. 212 Citizens and
natives. We can see that Vattel expected
not the citizens, but the natural born citizens as being the persons upon whom
the expectation lied as being the ones who would best protect and perpetuate
the civil and political society into which they were born. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Under this natural law and law of nations rule, a
natural born citizen had to do nothing other than be born in the county to parents
who were both citizens of that country. No law, including any
naturalization act or treaty, was needed to make him or her a natural born
citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The universal and immutable principle of the law of
nations that defined a natural born citizen was incorporated into American national
common law. We know this by what the
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor.
There it explained: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At common law, with the nomenclature of which the
framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all
children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or
natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some
authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the
jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this
class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of
this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for
everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents
within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span><u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Minor v. Happersett</span></u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">,
88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So Minor explained that it was this common law to which
the Framers looked to define a natural born citizen. Accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (distinguishing
a natural born citizen from a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth
Amendment, said that “[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country” can be a
citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment and “is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a
citizen, and by operation of the same principle"). Hence, the Framers defined a natural born
citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the
time of the child's birth. Under that
same common law, they saw all the rest of the people as "aliens or
foreigners," who could be naturalized under some positive law. With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment,
those otherwise aliens or foreigners became citizens of the United States “at
birth” under Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The definition of a natural born citizen as reflected
in American common law became under Article IV, Clause 2 upon ratification of
the Constitution the supreme law of the land subject to change under Article V only
by duly ratified constitutional amendment. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">During the Founding and until the Cable Act of 1922 (ch.
411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women’s
Independent Nationality Act") was passed, married parents of
children were both either U.S. citizens or aliens. See Minor and Wong Kim Ark (only provided for
scenarios in which the child’s parents were both either citizens or aliens). Hence, citizen parents meant that both father
and mother had to be citizens. The Cable Act reversed former immigration laws
regarding marriage. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Previously, a woman lost her U.S. citizenship if she
married an alien, since she acquired the citizenship of her husband. The law did not apply to men who married
foreign women, for such women became U.S. citizens. The
law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907. With this new law, women did not lose their citizenship
if they married an alien, provided he was an alien eligible to be naturalized
under U.S. law. Marian L. Smith,
"Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940," Prologue Magazine 30 (2)
(1998). Additionally, under the Act, women
who married aliens who were eligible for naturalization could keep their U.S.
citizenship, provided they lived in the United States. If they married such aliens and lived on
foreign soil for two years, they could lose their U.S. citizenship. In 1931, an
amendment allowed females to retain their U.S. citizenship even if they married
aliens who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship (e.g. at that time an Asian). The Cable Act was repealed in 1936. The liberation
of wives from their husband’s citizenship done by the 1922 Cable Act, an Act of
Congress and not a constitutional amendment, has not nor could it amend the
constitutional rule that both father and mother had to be citizens at the time
of their child’s birth in their country in order to make a natural born
citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To date, the American national common law meaning of a
natural born citizen has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, a "citizen" of the United States
"at birth" is defined by either the Fourteenth Amendment (only if
born in the U.S.) or naturalization Act of Congress (if born in or out of the
U.S.). Regarding the former, it is any person born in the United States and
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof." As to the latter, it
includes any person born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen
parents. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Act of Congress has any impact
on the meaning of a natural born citizen, for, not only because they did not
exist when the Constitution was adopted and ratified, but also because they did
not repeal or amend the natural born citizen clause or define it. Under
these well-established rules, a child of one or two alien parents, if born in
the U.S., can be a "citizen" of the United States "at
birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment. A child born out of the U.S.,
if born to one or two U.S. citizen parents, can also be a "citizen" of
the United States "at birth." But not being born in the United States
to two U.S. citizen parents, neither of them can be an Article II "natural
born citizen" of the United States, regardless of their "at
birth" citizen status, for they are born citizens, not natural born
citizens. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">De facto President Barack Obama is not a natural born
citizen because, even if he was born in the United States, he was not born to
two U.S. citizen parents. Obama was born
to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father. His father
was a citizen of Great Britain and then Kenya upon it gaining independence in
1963. Senator Ted Cruz is also not a
natural born citizen. Unlike Senator
John McCain who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving
the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the
United States to two U.S. citizen parents, Senator Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a
U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father who was a citizen of Cuba and
both in Canada for private purposes. Senator
Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens, for while
they were born in the United States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen
parents who were citizens of Cuba and India, respectively. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">If they are not natural born citizens, then what are
they? President Obama, Senator Cruz,
Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal are all "citizens" of the United
States "at birth,” but only by virtue of some non-common law positive
law. None of them are "natural
born citizens" by virtue of common law which provides the only definition
of the clause which is a child born in a country to parents (father and mother)
who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Obama (if born in the
United States), Rubio, and Jindal are “citizens” of the United States “at birth,”
but only because of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the only fact of being born in
the United States. Cruz is a “citizen” of
the United States “at birth,” but only because of a naturalization Act of
Congress, by the only fact of being born to one U.S. citizen parent. None of them were born with the complete
facts and circumstances needed at birth to be a natural born citizen and which
allows one to be a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen without the aid
of any positive law. They are all
missing either birth to two U.S. citizen parents or birth in the United States.
Obama was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus
soli if he was born in the United States) and Great Britain and then Kenya upon
conversion through its independence from Great Britain (through jus sanguinis from his father). Cruz was</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.1200008392334px;">born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus sanguinis if his mother was still a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth)</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.1200008392334px;"> and </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">born a citizen of and in allegiance to
Canada (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from his father). Rubio and Jindal were born citizens of and in
allegiance to the United States (through jus soli) and Cuba for Rubio and India for Jindal (through jus sanguinis from
both of their parents). They are all
therefore under U.S. law not born with sole allegiance to the United States,
but also subject to a foreign power and with natural sympathies for those
foreign nations, a condition that the Framers did not allow future Presidents
and Commanders to have. Being born
subject to foreign powers and influence and with such sympathies, they are not
nor can they be natural born citizens. Not
being natural born citizens, they are not eligible to be President. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">These ineligible candidates should not be allowed to
participate in the upcoming presidential debates. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">May
25, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Copyright
© 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">All
Rights Reserved<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com65tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59311786071821019992015-03-13T02:09:00.001-04:002015-04-17T09:26:16.276-04:00A Response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A Response to Neal
Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March 13, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the
Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement,
found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at <a href="http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/">http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/</a>
. The first sentence of the article
says: “We have both had the privilege of
heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”
The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of
the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are
natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.
Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S.
citizen (Cuban) father. I have written a
recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen
and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one
and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous
U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child
born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s
birth. The article is entitled, “What Do
President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born
Citizens," accessed at <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html</a>
. Katyal and Clement maintain that any
child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what
means, is a natural born citizen. They
add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not
need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen. But there is no historical and legal evidence
which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen
and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did
exist. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald
assertion. They provide no convincing evidence
for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born
citizen. They do not examine what was
the source of the Framers' definition of an Article II natural born citizen,
let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers
drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified. They ignore so much of the historical and
legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this
historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and
posted at my blog, <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</a>
.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">They gloss over what the Framers' purpose was for
requiring the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to be a natural
born citizen. They do not engage in any real
discussion on what the Framers were trying to achieve through the clause. They
dismiss all debate on the subject of foreign influence by flatly stating
without any evidence: "The Framers
did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth
just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and
ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep.
James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it
and specifically changed "shall be considered as natural born
citizens" to "shall be considered as citizens of the United
States." This is even more a
blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes
referred to persons born out of the King's dominion to British subject parents as
"natural born subjects." They
fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical
because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United
States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution
and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible. Hence, Congress referring to one as a citizen
rather than a natural born citizen, given the presidential eligibility requirements
of Article II, was a serious thing. They
do not discuss what the language of the 1790 Act, "shall be considered
as," meant. They fail to address
the issue that this was naturalization language and nothing more. They fail to discuss whether Congress even
had the constitutional power to make anyone born out of the United States a
natural born citizen, if that was Congress’s intent in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">They assert without demonstrating that the English
common law supports their position. But
they totally ignore that under the English common law, only persons born in the
King's dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that
those born out of the dominion and therefore out of his jurisdiction became
subjects only through a naturalization Act of Parliament.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">They cite to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of
England, but they do not cite to Emer de Vattel and his The Laws of Nations (1758)
(1797) or Minor, two leading sources that inform on U.S. citizenship. Both Vattel and Minor defined a natural born
citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. What is incredible is that they cite U.S. v. Wong
Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to demonstrate that British statutes called
children born out of the King's dominion to subject parents "natural
born." But they fail to tell the
reader that Wong Kim Ark considered children born out of the United States to
U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized by acts of Congress. In fact, they give
virtually no discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case because they know that the
case said that under the English common law, only children born in the King’s dominion
and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that any child
born out of that dominion needed an act
of Parliament to naturalize him or her. They
also fail to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S.
815 (1971), in which both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark
which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents
become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress who
made them citizens through a naturalization Act without which those children
would be aliens. It simply defies logic
and good reason to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all
without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Katyal and Clement argue that John Jay had children
born out of the United States while he was on diplomatic assignment and that he
would not have disqualified his own children from being natural born
citizens. This is a really baseless
point since Jay's children would have been born out of the United States to
parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and
therefore reputed born in the United States. Likewise, they present the John McCain
situation as proof for their position.
But they fail to realize that John McCain was born in Panama to U.S.
citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States which
makes him reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and
therefore a natural born citizen under the one and only common law definition
of a natural born citizen as confirmed by unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor. See Vattel, Section 217 (children born out of
the country to citizen parents serving in the armies of the state are reputed
born in the country). They give the
examples of Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney who they say
were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state.
The argument is meritless, for they were both born to U.S. citizen parents in
U.S. sovereign territory subject to no foreign power and hence were born in
part of the country known as the United States, all of which made them natural
born citizens under the common law definition of a natural born citizen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The authors conclude without demonstrating: "Despite the happenstance of a birth
across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen
from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the
Constitution." They simply make
this conclusion without having shown how their position is valid given the
historical and legal record.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The authors also show contempt to the constitutional
requirement that the President has to be a natural born citizen and for any
person who dare raise any such issue.
For example, they say: "simply because he was delivered at a
hospital abroad," rather than saying that he was born in a foreign nation;
"born in a Canadian hospital," rather than saying that he was born in
Canada; "[d]espite the happenstance
of a birth across the border;" they
call arguments with which they do not agree "spurious;" and they
consider objections to candidate's eligibility as "specious objections to
candidates eligibility," as if no one ever made any valid argument.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In short, Katyal
and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing
more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born
citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they
were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March
13, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Copyright
© 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Mario
Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">All
Rights Reserved<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com205tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37297663101990115442015-02-20T14:33:00.000-05:002015-08-23T16:23:31.202-04:00What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> Citizens</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"> February 20, 2015</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img src="http://www.history.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/declaration-facts-wide.jpg" height="199" width="320" /><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">“</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No person except a natural-born
citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any
person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
States.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This constitutional provision raises two
questions: who are the “citizens” of the
United States?; and who are the “natural born citizens” of the United
States? Let us examine these
questions. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Members of nations that are politically constituted as
republics are called citizens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Citizens can be either citizens from the moment of
birth or after birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Persons who are citizens from the moment of birth are
automatically made so by either their birth circumstances alone or by some law
that grants them that birth status without which they would not be so
recognized. In the United States, the
former are the “natural born citizens” of the United States and the latter are
“citizens” of the United States “at birth.”
Those who are made citizens after birth are also made so by
circumstances or by some law without which they would also not be
citizens. In the United States, these
citizens are commonly called “naturalized” citizens of the United States,
meaning they did not acquire their citizenship automatically at the moment of
their birth, but rather after birth through circumstances (the original
citizens of the United States who acquired that status by adhering to the
American Revolution) or formal naturalization process. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence
wrote about “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitling the American
people to “the separate but equal Station” “among the Powers of the Earth.” To understand why he would have used these
words which also leads us to an understanding of what a natural born citizen
is, consider this passage regarding what Aristotle, the Stoics, Christian
teaching, and modern thought said about natural law or natural right: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Aristotle
<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is in accordance with the general character of
Aristotle’s philosophy that his teaching regarding natural right is much closer
to the ordinary understanding of justice than is Plato’s [<i>see </i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000057.html">Aristotle</a>]. In
his <i>Rhetoric</i> he speaks of “the law according to nature” as the
unchangeable law common to all men, but it is not entirely certain that he
takes that law to be more than something generally admitted and hence useful in
forensic rhetoric. At least two of his three examples of natural law do not
agree with what he himself regarded as naturally right <i>(Rhetoric</i> 1373b4-18).
In the <i>Nicomachean Ethics </i>(1134bl8-1135a5) he speaks not, indeed,
of natural law but of natural right. Natural right is that right which has
everywhere the same power and does not owe its validity to human enactment.
Aristotle does not give a single explicit example; but he seems to imply that
such things as helping fellow citizens who are victims of misfortune resulting
from the performance of a civic duty, and worshiping the gods by sacrifices,
belong to natural right. If this interpretation is correct, natural right is
that right which must be recognized by any political society if it is to last
and which for this reason is everywhere in force. Natural right thus understood
delineates the minimum conditions of political life, so much so that sound
positive right occupies a higher rank than natural right. Natural right in this
sense is indifferent to the difference among regimes, whereas positive right is
relative to the type of regime—positive right is democratic, oligarchic, etc.
(cf. <i>Politics</i> 1280a8-22). “Yet,” Aristotle concludes his
laconic statement on natural right, “one regime alone is by nature the best
everywhere.” This regime, “the most divine regime,” is a certain kind of
kingship, the only regime that does not require any positive right <i>(Politics</i> 1284a4-15;
1288al5-29). The flooring and the ceiling, the minimum condition and the
maximum possibility of political society, are natural and do not in any way
depend on (positive) law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Stoicism<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Natural law becomes a philosophic theme for the first
time in Stoicism. It there becomes the theme not primarily of moral or
political philosophy but of physics (the science of the universe). The natural
(or divine or eternal) law is identified with God, the highest god (fire,
ether, or air), or his reason, i.e., with the ordering principle that pervades
and thus governs the whole by molding eternal matter. Rational beings can know
that law and knowingly comply with it insofar as it applies to their conduct.
In this application natural law directs man toward his perfection, the
perfection of a rational and social animal; it is “the guide of life and the
teacher of the duties” (Cicero, <i>On the Nature of the Gods</i> I,
40); it is the dictate of reason regarding human life. Thus the virtuous life
as choice worthy for its own sake comes to be understood as compliance with
natural law—with a law, and hence as a life of obedience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Inversely, the content of natural law is the whole of
virtue. The virtuous life as the Stoics understood it is, however, not
identical with the life of moral virtue (as distinguished from the life of
contemplation), for one of the four cardinal virtues is wisdom that is above
all theoretical wisdom; the virtuous man is the wise man or the philosopher.
One is tempted to say that the Stoics treat the study of philosophy as if it
were a moral virtue, i.e., as something which could be demanded from most men.
Justice, another of the four virtues, consists primarily in doing what is by
nature right. The foundation of right is man’s natural inclination to love his
fellow men, not merely his fellow citizens: there is a natural society
comprising all men (as well as all gods). The inclination toward the universal
society is perfectly compatible with the equally natural inclination toward
political society, which is of necessity a particular society. The unchangeable
and universally valid natural law—a part of which determines natural right,
i.e., that with which justice, in contradistinction to wisdom, courage, and
temperance, is concerned—is the ground of all positive law; positive laws
contradicting natural law are not valid.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is sometimes asserted that the Stoics differ from
Plato and Aristotle by being egalitarians. Differing from Aristotle (but not
from Plato), they denied that there are slaves by nature; but this does not
prove that according to them all men are by nature equal in the decisive
respect, i.e., as regards the possibility of becoming wise or virtuous (Cicero, <i>On
the Ends of the Good and Bad Things</i> iv, 56). The peculiarity of the
Stoics, in contradistinction to Plato and Aristotle, that explains why the
Stoics were the first philosophers to assert unambiguously the existence of
natural law would seem to be the fact that they teach in a much less ambiguous
way than Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle, the existence of a divine
providence that supplies divine sanctions for the compliance or noncompliance
with the requirements of virtue. (Cf. Cicero, <i>Laws</i> II, 15-17; <i>Republic</i> III,
33-34.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Stoic natural law teaching is the basic stratum of
the natural law tradition. It affected Roman law to some extent. With important
modifications it became an ingredient of the Christian doctrine.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Christian teaching<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Christian natural law teaching reached its
theoretical perfection in the work of Thomas Aquinas [<i>see </i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000052.html">Aquinas</a>]. It
goes without saying that in the Christian version, Stoic corporealism
(“materialism”) is abandoned. While natural law retains its status as rational,
it is treated within the context of Christian (revealed) theology. The precise
context within which Thomas treats natural law is that of the principles of
human action; these principles are intrinsic (the virtues or vices) or
extrinsic; the extrinsic principle moving men toward the good is God, who
instructs men by law and assists them by his grace. Natural law is clearly
distinguished from the eternal law—God himself or the principle of his
governance of all creatures —on the one hand, and the divine law, i.e., the
positive law contained in the Bible, on the other. The eternal law is the
ground of the natural law, and natural law must be supplemented by the divine
law if man is to reach eternal felicity and if no evil is to remain unpunished.
All creatures participate in the eternal law insofar as they possess, by virtue
of divine providence, inclinations toward their proper acts and ends. Rational
beings participate in divine providence in a more excellent manner because they
can exercise some providence for themselves; they can know the ends toward
which they are by nature inclined as good and direct themselves toward them.
Man is by nature inclined toward a variety of ends which possess a natural
order; they ascend from self-preservation and procreation via life in society
toward knowledge of God. Natural law directs men’s action toward those ends by
commands and prohibitions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Differently stated, as a rational being man is by
nature inclined toward acting according to reason; acting according to reason
is acting virtuously; natural law prescribes, therefore, the acts of virtue.
Man by nature possesses knowledge of the first principles of natural law, which
are universally valid or unchangeable. Owing to the contingent character of
human actions, however, those conclusions from the principles which are
somewhat remote possess neither the evidence nor the universality of the
principles themselves; this fact alone would require that natural law be
supplemented by human law. A human law that disagrees with natural law does not
have the force of law <i>(Summa theologica</i> I, 2, 90 ff.). All
moral precepts of the Old Testament (as distinguished from its ceremonial and
judicial precepts) can be reduced to the Decalogue; they belong to the natural
law. This is true in the strictest sense of the precepts of the Second Table of
the Decalogue, i.e., the seven commandments which order men’s relations among
themselves (Exodus 20.12-17). The precepts in question are intelligible as
self-evident even to the people and are at the same time valid without
exception; compliance with them does not require the habit of virtue <i>(Summa
theologica</i> I, 2, 100).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A sufficient sanction is supplied by divine punishment
for transgressions of the natural law, but it is not entirely clear whether
human reason can establish the fact of such punishment; Thomas surely rejects
the Gnostic assertion that God does not punish and the assertion of certain
Islamic Aristotelians that the only divine punishment is the loss of eternal
felicity. He does say that sin is considered by the theologians chiefly insofar
as it is an offense against God, whereas the moral philosophers consider sin
chiefly insofar as it is opposed to reason. These thoughts could lead to the
view of some later writers that natural law strictly understood is natural
reason itself, i.e., natural law does not command and forbid but only
“indicates”; natural law thus understood would be possible even if there were
no God (cf. Suárez, <i>Tractatus de legibus ac de Deo legislatore</i> n,
6, sec. 3; Grotius,<i>De jure belli ac pads,</i> Prolegomena, sec. 11;
Hobbes, <i>Leviathan,</i> chapter 15-end; Locke, <i>Treatises of
Civil Government</i> n, sec. 6; Leibniz, <i>Théodicée,</i> sec.
183).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Thomas treats natural right (as distinguished from
natural law) in his discussion of justice as a special virtue <i>(Summa
theologica</i> n, 2, 57). Therein he is confronted with the task of
reconciling with the Aristotelian teaching the Roman law distinction between <i>ius
naturale</i> and <i>ius gentium,</i> according to which natural
right deals only with things common to all animals (like procreation and the
raising of offspring), whereas the <i>ius gentium</i> is particularly
human. The Roman law distinction might seem to reflect early conventionalist
teaching (cf. Democritus, fr. 278). Thomas’ reconciliation apparently paved the
way for the conception of “the state of nature” as a status antedating human
society. (Cf. Suárez, <i>Tractatus</i> II, 18, sec. 4.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Thomistic natural law teaching, which is the
classic form of natural law teaching, was already contested in the Middle Ages
on various grounds. According to Duns Scotus, only the commandment to love
God—or, rather, the prohibition against hating God—belongs to natural law in the
strictest sense. According to Marsilius of Padua, natural right as Aristotle
meant it is that part of positive right which is recognized and observed
everywhere (divine worship, honoring of parents, raising of offspring, etc.);
it can only metaphorically be called natural right [<i>See </i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000776.html">Marsilius of Padua</a>].
The dictates of right reason regarding the things to be done (i.e., natural law
in the Thomistic sense), on the other hand, are not as such universally valid
because they are not universally known and observed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Modern developments<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Natural law acquired its greatest visible power in
modern times: in both the American and the French revolutions, solemn state
papers appealed to natural law. The change in effectiveness was connected with
a substantive change; modern natural law differs essentially from premodern
natural law. Premodern natural law continued to be powerful; but it was adapted
to modern natural law, with varying degrees of awareness of what was involved
in that adaptation. The most striking characteristics of modern natural law are
these: (1) Natural law is treated independently, i.e., no longer in the context
of theology or of positive law. Special chairs for natural law were established
in some Protestant countries; treatises on natural law took on the form of
codes of natural law. The independent treatment of natural law was made
possible by the belief that natural law can be treated “geometrically,” i.e.,
that the conclusions possess the same certainty as the principles. (2) Natural
law became more and more natural public law; Hobbes’s doctrine of sovereignty,
Locke’s doctrine of “no taxation without representation,” and Rousseau’s
doctrine of the general will are not simply political but legal doctrines. They
belong to natural public law; they do not declare what the best political order
is, which by its nature is not realizable except under very favorable
conditions, but they state the conditions of legitimacy which obtain regardless
of place and time. (3) Natural law by itself is supposed to be at home in the
state of nature, i.e., a state antedating civil society. (4) In the modern
development “natural law” is replaced by “the rights of man”; the emphasis
shifts from man’s duties to his rights. (5) Whereas premodern natural law was
on the whole “conservative,” modern natural law is essentially “revolutionary.”
The radical difference between modern and premodern natural law appears most
clearly if one studies the still remembered great modern natural law teachers
rather than the university professors who as a rule rest satisfied with
compromises.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The principles informing modern natural law were
established by two thinkers who were not themselves natural law teachers,
Machiavelli and Descartes. According to Machiavelli, the traditional political
doctrines take their bearings by how men should live and thus culminate in the
description of imaginary commonwealths (“Utopias”), which are useless in
practice; one ought to start from how men do live. Descartes begins his
revolution with the universal doubt, which leads to the discovery of the Ego
and its “ideas” as the absolute basis of knowledge and to a
mathematical-mechanical account of the universe as a mere object of man’s
knowledge and exploitation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Modern natural law as originated by Hobbes did not
start, as traditional natural law did, from the hierarchic order of man’s
natural ends, but rather from the lowest of those ends (self-preservation) that
could be thought to be more effective than the higher ends [<i>See </i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000519.html">Hobbes</a>]. (A
civil society ultimately based on nothing but the right of self preservation
would not be Utopian.) Man is still asserted to be the rational animal, but his
natural sociality is denied. Man is not by nature ordered toward society, but
he orders himself toward it prompted by mere calculation. This view in itself
is very old, but now it is animated by the concern for a natural-right basis of
civil society. The desire for self-preservation has the character of a passion
rather than of a natural inclination; the fact that it is the most powerful
passion makes it the sufficient basis of all rights and duties. Natural law,
which dictates men’s duties, is derived from the natural right of
self-preservation. The right is absolute, while all duties are conditional.
Since men are equal with regard to the desire for self-preservation as well as
with regard to the power of killing others, all men are by nature equal. There
is no natural hierarchy of men, so that the sovereign to whom all must submit
for the sake of peace and ultimately of the self-preservation of each is
understood as a “person,” i.e., as the representative or agent, of each; the
primacy of the individual—of any individual—and of his natural right remain
intact (cf. <i>Leviathan,</i> chapter 21).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The doctrine of Locke may be described as the peak of
modern natural law [<i>See </i></span><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000728.html" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Locke</a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">]. At first
glance it appears to be a compromise between the traditional and the Hobbesian
doctrines. Agreeing with Hobbes, Locke denies that the natural law is imprinted
in the minds of men, that it can be known from the consent of mankind, and that
it can be known from men’s natural inclination. His deduction of natural law is
generally admitted to be confusing—not to say confused—which does not prove,
however, that Locke himself was confused. It seems to be safest to understand
his doctrine as a profound modification of the Hobbesian doctrine.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">It is certain that, unlike Hobbes, Locke sees the
crucially important consequence of the natural right of self-preservation in
the natural right of property, i.e., of acquiring property, a natural right
that within civil society becomes the natural right of unlimited acquisition.
Property is rightfully acquired primarily by labor; in civil society, however,
labor ceases to be the title to property while remaining the source of all
value. Locke’s natural law doctrine is the original form of capitalist theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rousseau too starts from the Hobbesian premise [<i>See
</i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045001082.html">Rousseau</a>].
Hobbes asserted that the natural right to judge the means of self-preservation
is the necessary consequence of the right of self-preservation itself and
belongs, as does the fundamental right, equally to all men, wise or foolish.
But Rousseau demands that the natural right to judge the means of
self-preservation be preserved as an institution within civil society. Every
person subject to the laws must as a natural right have a say in the making of
the laws by being a member of the sovereign, i.e., of the legislative assembly.
The corrective to folly is to be found above all in the character of the laws
in general, both in origin and in content: all subject to the laws determine
what all must or may not do. The justice or rationality of the laws is thereby
guaranteed in the only way compatible with the freedom and equality of all. In
the society established in accordance with natural right, there is no longer a
need or a possibility of appealing from positive law to natural right, because
the members or rulers of that society are not supposed to be just men.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rousseau further differed from Hobbes by realizing
that if man is by nature asocial, he is by nature arational; questioning the
traditional view that man is the rational animal, he found the peculiarity of
man in his perfectibility or, more generally stated, his malleability. This led
to the conclusions that the human race is what we wish to make it and that
human nature cannot supply us with guidance as to how man and human society
ought to be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Kant drew the decisive conclusion from Rousseau’s
epoch-making innovations: the Ought cannot be derived from the Is, from human
nature; the moral law is neither a natural law nor a derivative of natural law
[<i>See </i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000634.html">Kant</a>].
The criterion of the moral law is its form alone, the form of rationality,
i.e., the form of universality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At about the same time that Kant, sympathizing with
the French Revolution, radicalized the most radical form of modern natural
right and thus transformed natural right and natural law into a law and a right
which are rational but no longer natural, Burke, opposing the French Revolution
and its theoretical basis, which is a certain version of modern natural right,
returned to premodern natural law [<i>See </i><a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000152.html">Burke</a>]. In doing
so, he made thematic the conservatism which was implicit to some extent in
premodern natural law. Therewith he profoundly modified the premodern teaching
and prepared decisively the transition from the natural “rights of man” to the
prescriptive “rights of Englishmen,” from natural law to “the historical
school.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Leo Strauss, "<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045000862.html">Natural Law.</a>" <u>International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences</u>. 1968. <i>Encyclopedia.com.</i> 20
Feb. 2015, at <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/natural_law.aspx">http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/natural_law.aspx</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In this explanation we can see the power, whether real or imagined, ascribed
to natural law as the common law of all men, as the source for providing the minimum
and maximum human conditions, in contradistinction to positive law which was established
by societies in order to satisfy their own particular needs that may pertain
only to that society. We can see how natural law evolved into that philosophy
to be adopted by man to guarantee his or her “natural right of
self-preservation.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">With these principles of natural law in mind, let us now
examine what birth circumstances make one a natural born citizen. In other words, under natural law what means
or mechanism makes one a natural born citizen?
The long-time settled definition of a natural born citizen, based on
common or universal consent of nations, is a child born in a country to parents
who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section
211 to 217 (1758) (1797). Vattel
explains that the law of nations is the law of nature applied to the affairs of
nations. Under that law of nations, he defines
the “citizens” as “</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">the
members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and
subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.” Section 212.
He also </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">explains that the virtue of love of
country, which is necessary for the preservation, survival, and perpetuation of
that country, is naturally given to our “native country” by its “natives, or
natural-born citizens, [who] are those born in the country of parents who are
citizens.” Section 211 to 212. (In Section 122, he also explains the duty
that one has to defend one’s adopted country “with his utmost efforts.”) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">America had recently fought an independence war with
Great Britain, which divided the loyalties of its own people. So, the Framers knew firsthand how critical
undivided loyalty and allegiance were to the future survival of their cause for
liberty and the preservation of the new republic. The Framers commanded that Presidents and
Commanders of the Military born after the adoption of the Constitution be
natural born citizens to assure that they would be born with those
circumstances which would best assure that they would develop the virtue of
love of country and thereby be free of monarchical and foreign influence in whatever
form it may present itself. The
historical record demonstrates that, with the Office of President being a
singular and all-powerful office both civilly and militarily, the Framers took
extra measures to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of the Office of
President. Rather than relying upon
Congress to elect the President, they gave that power to the Electoral
College. Unlike allowing “citizens” to
serve in Congress, they required future Presidents to be “natural born
citizens.” They looked to the natural
born citizen clause to assure that the President would in the future protect
and preserve the constitutional Republic which they had built. They sought to achieve this end by requiring
that those future Presidents and Commanders be born with unity of citizenship
and allegiance to the United States.
They looked upon the natural born citizen clause as a means to
accomplish their end. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Regardless of whether or not their value judgment is
correct or how the modern world thinks about natural law, the Founding
generation incorporated the universally binding natural law and law of nations
definition of a natural born citizen into American common law and the Framers relied
upon that common law when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. </span><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Minor v. Happersett</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> (“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”); </span><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">(cited and quoted
Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen and its source as coming from the
common law and held that a child born in the United States to alien parents,
who were neither foreign ambassadors nor military invaders, was under
principles laid down by colonial English common law born subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a “citizen” of the United
States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment [not to be confused with an
Article II natural born citizen]). As we
can see from this definition, a natural born citizen is a citizen from the
moment of birth by virtue of his or her birth (a citizen “by birth”) and
nothing more, by the force of being born in the country of which both of his or
her parents were member citizens at the time of his or her birth. A natural born citizen needs no law in order
to gain that status at birth, for he or she gains that birth status strictly by
the circumstances of his or her birth, just like a natural or biological child of
certain parents gains that status simply by being born to those parents as
opposed to an adopted child of certain parents who gains that status by being
adopted by those parents by the grace of a particular law. As applied to the United States, a natural
born citizen of the United States is a child born or reputed born in the United
States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s
birth. Having been incorporated into
the Constitution, this definition of a natural born citizen is the law of the
land until amended by constitutional amendment or re-interpreted by a U.S.
Supreme Court decision. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">A simpler way to look
at the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen is to consider that under
the law of nations, only a child who was born in a country to parents who were
citizens of that country were "true" natural born citizens. This law
of nations definition was incorporated into American common law. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">
<br />
<span style="background: white;">All other citizens who may be
so made "at birth" under the positive laws of a nation may be
citizens "at birth," and even considered by some as natural born
citizens, but they are not "true" natural born citizens. In this
connection, consider the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said that children
born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered
as natural born citizens," which the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed to
"shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Notice how
the First Congress said that those citizens "at birth" shall be
considered as natural born citizens, but since they were not true natural born
citizens, the Third Congress said that they shall be considered only as
citizens of the United States. Consider further that with the Naturalization
Act of 1802, as interpreted, Congress treated those same children (born out of
the United States to U.S. citizen parents who in 1790 were considered as natural
born citizens and in 1795 were considered as citizens of the United States “at
birth”) as aliens and in need of naturalization after birth. Surely, if those
same children were true natural born citizens, neither Congress nor those who
interpreted its naturalization act would have conclude that they were aliens. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">In this same connection, today
the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization Acts of Congress make children born
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof “citizens” of the
United States “at birth.” Other naturalization Acts of Congress make children
born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents also “citizens” of the
United States “at birth.” Of these children, those who do not meet the original
common law definition of a true natural born citizen, are “citizens” of the
United States “at birth.” Some consider them to be natural born citizens, like
the British, under colonial English common law and statutes, considered all
children born as or made “subjects,” “natural-born subjects.” But they are not
true natural born citizens under the more demanding and strict American common
law and hence constitutional requirement. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">Since the Framers used the
original American common law definition of a natural born citizen which came from
the law of nations, which definition became incorporated into the Constitution
as part of the supreme law of the land, only a "true" natural born
citizen may be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. And that true
natural born citizen is only that child who is born or reputed born in the
United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's
birth. </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Senator Ted Cruz was not born in the country of which
both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. He was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen
mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.
He cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States because he was
not born in the United States and also because he was born to a non-U.S. citizen
father. Rather, Senator Cruz’s birth
circumstances qualify him under Canadian law to be a citizen at birth of Canada
and under a naturalization Act of Congress as a “citizen” of the United States
“at birth.” He may also qualify as a
citizen at birth under Cuban law through birth to a Cuban citizen. These laws are positive internal or municipal
laws of these nations and not universally binding upon nations as the natural
law of nations. Under 8 U.S.C. 1401(g), a naturalization Act of Congress, Senator
Ted Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth.” He is made a citizen at birth not only by his
birth circumstances, but rather because this naturalization Act of Congress
makes him a citizen of the United States at birth. Hence, he is a citizen only because Congress
allows him to be one through one of its naturalization Acts, which
it can change at any time it pleases. (In
the past, and specifically under the Naturalization Act of 1802, as
interpreted, Congress has even denied altogether the status of a citizen of the
United States to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen
parents.) Additionally, the Constitution
gives to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power to naturalize which
does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen. Congress has recognized this limitation on
its power and therefor in its statutes calls persons it is naturalizing from the
moment of birth only “citizens” of the United States “at birth” and not natural
born citizens of the United States. Consider that the First Congress in the
Naturalization Act of 1790 said that children born out of the United States to
U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens” which the
Third Congress changed in the Naturalization Act of 1795 to “shall be
considered as citizens of the United States.”
Hence, at best under the very text of the statute, Senator Cruz is a “citizen”
of the United States “at birth,” not a natural born citizen of the United
States. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Senator Ted Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States
“at birth” by virtue of his birth circumstances and a naturalization act of
Congress (a positive law), not by virtue of his birth circumstances alone. At best, he is also a “citizen” of the United
States “at birth” by the very text of the statute. He is a “citizen” at birth of the United
States, Canada, and maybe Cuba also. But
he is not an Article II natural born citizen which could not under U.S. law
possibly allow one to be simultaneously a citizen at birth of other
nations. Renouncing his birthright
Canadian citizenship as he has recently done does not nor can it retroactively
change the birth circumstances with which he was born. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Similarly, de facto President Barack Obama, was not
born in the country of which both his parents were citizens at the time of his
birth. He was presumably born in the
United States to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father (his
father was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) under the British
Nationality Act 1948 which converted to a citizen of Kenya upon Kenya’s
independence from Great Britain in 1963).
Not being born to a U.S. citizen father, he does not satisfy the common
law definition of a natural born citizen.
He is, however, presumably a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,”
by virtue of his birth circumstances, and the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C.
Section 1401(a) (laws which provide that “[a]ll persons born . . . in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States. . . ”), not by virtue of his birth circumstances alone or some
law that constitutionally declares textually that he is a natural born citizen. He is therefore also not an Article II
natural born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So,
what do Mr. Obama and Mr. Cruz have in common?
They are both not born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the
United States and therefore not Article II natural born citizens. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Being neither a “natural born Citizen, [n]or a “Citizen of
the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” neither Obama
nor Cruz are constitutionally eligible under Article II to be President and
Commander in Chief of the Military. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">To review my examination of the
numerous historical and legal sources that support my position on the meaning
of a natural born citizen, see the many articles and comments that I have
published at my blog, <a href="http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com/">www.puzo1.blogspot.com</a>
. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
February 20, 2015<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
http://puzo1.blogspot.com<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
####<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Copyright © 2015<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
All Rights Reserved <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com105tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29082662362567563822015-01-28T13:30:00.000-05:002015-01-29T08:35:32.194-05:00Rick Santorum Is An Article II Natural Born Citizen and Eligible to Be President<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Rick Santorum Is An Article II
Natural Born Citizen and Eligible to Be President<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">January 28, 2015<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75"
coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe"
filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
alt="Description: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOUsz2HoEr-TbE0ER_llIw1HOtevPvmwYFxhWEG6xsQotdYLwV3w"
style='width:150pt;height:189pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Mario\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"
o:title="ANd9GcSOUsz2HoEr-TbE0ER_llIw1HOtevPvmwYFxhWEG6xsQotdYLwV3w"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOUsz2HoEr-TbE0ER_llIw1HOtevPvmwYFxhWEG6xsQotdYLwV3w" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOUsz2HoEr-TbE0ER_llIw1HOtevPvmwYFxhWEG6xsQotdYLwV3w" /></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Rick
Santorum will be a presidential candidate in 2016.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">As we know, the President and Commander in
Chief of the Military must be, among other things (at least 35 years old and a
resident in the United States at least 14 years), an Article II “natural born Citizen”
in order to be eligible for that Office.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">There has been some chatter that Rick Santorum is not a natural born
citizen and therefore not eligible to be President.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">My research shows the contrary, i.e., that
Rick Santorum is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President
and Commander in Chief of the Military.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The one and only definition of a
natural born citizen the Framers used when they adopted the Constitution is the universal one which is a
child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the
child's birth, meaning, when applied to the United States, a child born in the
United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's
birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797)</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> ) (“The natives, or natural-born
citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor
v. Happersett (1875) </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(“‘</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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 <span class="sspaghide1"> [902] </span>
natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">);
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (distinguished a "natural born citizen"
as so originally defined by the common law at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution per Minor from a "citizen" at birth under the Fourteenth
Amendment which was ratified 81 years after the adoption of the
Constitution). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Does Rick Santorum meet the Framers’
common law definition of an Article II natural born citizen” My research shows that he does. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Rick
Santorum was born on May 10, 1958 in Virginia.
"Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum
(1923–2011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age
seven from Riva del Garda, Italy, and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (b. 1918), an
administrative nurse who is of Italian and Irish ancestry.[8] </span><span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Santorum was born in </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester,_Virginia" title="Winchester, Virginia"><span style="background: white; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Winchester, Virginia</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #252525;">, and grew up in </span><span style="background: white; color: #0b0080;">Berkeley County, West Virginia</span><span style="background: white; color: #252525;">, and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_County,_Pennsylvania" title="Butler County, Pennsylvania"><span style="background: white; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Butler County, Pennsylvan</span></a>ia.” (footnotes omitted). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum</a> . </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Aldo Santorum (Rick Santorum’s father, who was born
on January </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">9, 1923 in
Italy</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">)
was the son of Pietro Santorum (Rick Santorum’s grandfather). Pietro, an Italian citizen, came to America on
November 20, 1923, and naturalized to become a citizen of the United States on April 14, 1930. See the research done by Commander Charles F. Kerchner at <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/86126538/Pietro-Santorum-Naturalization-Records-filed-1930-at-Somerset-County-PA-Courthouse">https://www.scribd.com/doc/86126538/Pietro-Santorum-Naturalization-Records-filed-1930-at-Somerset-County-PA-Courthouse</a>
When Pietro became a citizen of the
United States, Aldo was a minor and still living in Italy. Aldo got derivative U.S. citizenship through his
father, Pietro, when Aldo arrived in the United States on August 23, 1930 when he was age
7. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Aldo Santorum automatically become a citizen on August 23, 1930 through the naturalization of his father which had already occurred on April 14, 1930. This type of citizenship is called derivative citizenship. But since he was neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the formal sense after his birth, he did not have any evidence that he was a U.S. citizen. So, on April 17, 1961, he filed for a Certificate of Citizenship, not to obtain citizenship which he already had since 1930, but only to obtain evidence of that citizenship. His application and related documents have also been obtained by Mr. Kerchner and can be viewed here: </span><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/108907280/100-Proof-Rick-Santorum-Born-a-Dual-Citizen-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-Father-perfected-naturalization-3-yrs-after-Rick-was-born-FOIA-Response-R">http://www.scribd.com/doc/108907280/100-Proof-Rick-Santorum-Born-a-Dual-Citizen-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-Father-perfected-naturalization-3-yrs-after-Rick-was-born-FOIA-Response-R</a> . These documents show that Aldo served in the U.S. military from 1944 to 1946. The Immigration and Naturalization Officer who reviewed his application recommended that his Certificate of Citizenship be granted, concluding: <br />
<br />
"[T]he applicant did derive or acquire United States citizenship on August 23, 1930 through on which date he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States and under the age of 21 years, his father having been naturalized on April 14, 1930, his mother being an alien. and that he has not been expatriated since that time." <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Rick was not yet born when Pietro and Aldo became U.S. citizens in 1930.
Aldo married Catherine (Dughi) Santorum, who was a U.S. citizen. Hence, when Rick Santorum was born on May 10,
1958, to Aldo and Catherine, both his parents were U.S. citizens. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We have
seen that both de facto President Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz, both not
born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of
their son’s birth, do not satisfy the constitutional common law definition of a
natural born citizen. See my many
articles on this issue at my blog, <a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</a>
. On the other hand, my research shows
that when Rick Santorum was born in Virginia in 1958, he was born to a father
and mother who were both citizens of the United States. Those birth circumstances make Rick Santorum
an Article II natural born citizen and eligible to be President and Commander
in Chief of the Military. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">January 28, 2015</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">####</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Copyright © 2015<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span><span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21878465443916984782015-01-25T09:46:00.001-05:002015-01-25T14:27:50.306-05:00Attorney Mario Apuzzo on Moretti Underground Radio—Is Senator Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
Attorney Mario Apuzzo
on Moretti Underground Radio—Is Senator Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?</div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
January 25, 2015<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn2.btrstatic.com/pics/showpics/large/183105_pibW68Uy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn2.btrstatic.com/pics/showpics/large/183105_pibW68Uy.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On Monday, January 26, 2015, at 9:00 PM Eastern Standard
Time, I will be a guest of Hosts Jo Anne Moretti and Scott Farrarello on the radio show, Moretti
Underground, broadcast on the PRN Radio Network – Patriot Radio. The topic of discussion will be whether
Senator Ted Cruz is an Article II natural born citizen. Based on my research, it is my opinion that
Senator Cruz, like de facto President Barack Obama, is not an Article II
natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President and Commander
in Chief of the Military. During the
show, I will be discussing my research and opinion which I have drawn from that
research. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hope that you can join Jo Anne, Scott, and me and call in with
your questions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You can also access the custom web site chatroom at <span style="background: #F0F0F0; color: #182f5f; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",serif;"><a href="http://www.prnradionetwork.com/" target="_blank">www.PRNRadioNetwork.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The show can be accessed at <a href="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/prnradionetwork">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/prnradionetwork</a>
. The call in telephone number is (714)
888-7404. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
January 25, 2015<br />
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Copyright © 2015<br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />All Rights Reserved </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36518959974828841132013-07-19T23:07:00.000-04:002014-03-08T22:19:00.505-05:00The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The
Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl
Reporter <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">By Mario Apuzzo,
Esq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">July 19, 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="" /></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter
(“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted
my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the
country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s
birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Squeeky Fromm has
taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article, </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a
“Natural Born Citizen,” </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">accessed at </span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> . </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">You can read her response here. </span><a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/</span></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <br />
<br />
She says that I have misread </span><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Minor v. Happersett</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">, 88 U.S. 162 (1875),
</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">because the Court said
that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I
say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also said: “At common-law,
with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were
its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were
natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167-68.
Hence, the Court said that at common law, if one was not born in the
country to citizen parents, one was an “alien or foreigner.” This is the same
exact treatment that Congress gave to children born in the United States to
alien parents in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. In
these acts, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien
parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. So Squeeky Fromm has proven nothing other
than to show that she does not understand what she reads.<br />
<br />
Then Squeeky Fromm turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell fallacious argument.
In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has
totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed
that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural
born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):<br />
<br />
All NBCs are CABs.<br />
All X’s are CABs.<br />
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.<br />
<br />
To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:<br />
<br />
All poodles are dogs.<br />
Bubbles is a dog.<br />
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.<br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting
it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing
through some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I
said that this is the argument presented by Maskell. But I said that this is Maskell’s argument and
that it is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle
and is also fallacious for affirming the consequent. So, what is ironic is that
Squeeky Fromm attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument
when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.<br />
<br />
Then Squeeky Fromm takes a shot at the second part of my analysis of the
Maskell argument. I recast his argument
as follows to make the argument valid: <br />
<br />
All CAB’s are NBCs.<br />
All X’s are CAB’s.<br />
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.<br />
<br />
In my article, I explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and
made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s
informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but
unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained
that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major
premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of
a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis
that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” See below for a
summary of these cases. And even though Squeeky
Fromm comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show
that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she
does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just
to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect,
invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Squeeky Fromm has very
little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has
the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is
tested, it fails.<br />
<br />
I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his major premise is true.
I have also presented evidence that shows that his major premise is false. I
have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the Maskell major premise,
i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Squeeky
Fromm says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just
says a lot of mixed up nothing, demonstrates how incapable she is of
understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="background: white; line-height: 12.65pt; margin: 0in 0in 12pt 0.75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">II.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In her June 12, 2013 “Distributed
Muddle” article, accessed at <span style="background: white; color: #333333;"><a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/</a>
, </span><span style="color: #333333;"><br />
</span>Squeeky Fromm tries to persuade that she successfully addressed my
criticisms of Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell’s thesis (his major premise) that
all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”
<span style="color: #333333;">From her article we can see that s<span style="background: white;">he is starting to understand the world of logic a
little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first
part of my logical presentation in which I expose why to argue, that since all
“natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Barack Obama is a
“citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen,” is logically invalid. We have to recognize this argument and show
that it is invalid because it is one of the means by which Maskell arrives at
his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.” <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">Second, Squeeky Fromm, underplays the second
part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid
argument into a valid argument, that Maskell’s second argument is unsound
because the major premises is false. Maskell’s second argument can only be all
“citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens,” and since Obama is a “citizen
at birth,” he is a “natural born citizen.”
Maskell’s major premise in this argument would be all “citizens at
birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Squeeky Fromm fails to understand the
importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making
valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises
must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is
false and therefore also his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.” </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">Squeeky Fromm just blows this point off by
simply saying that there is just a disagreement between Maskell and me on the
definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Now is that not just genius for Squeeky
Fromm to figure out. I have challenged both Maskell and Squeeky Fromm to provide
evidence that Maskell’s major premise is true. We do not hear from Maskell nor
do we expect to. And from Squeeky Fromm,
who loves to make herself heard on a daily basis, she simply says that </span></span></span><span lang="EN" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">United States v. Wong Kim
Ark,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;"> </span></span><span lang="EN" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">169 U.S. 649 </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">(1898) trumps Minor. So there you have the strength of their
argument which is supposed to prove that Maskell’s major premise is true. We
know that Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country
to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. And we also
know that Wong Kim Ark, interpreting the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, and ultimately defining a
“citizen of the United States” at birth under that amendment, did not alter
Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” and even distinguished a
“natural-born citizen” from a “citizen of the United States” at birth under
that amendment. Squeeky Fromm is just
making stuff up given that she has nothing else to present to us which would
show that the Maskell major premises is true.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white;">So, Maskell’s first argument, that since Obama
is a “citizen at birth” he is a “natural born Citizen” is not valid. And his
second argument which necessarily contains the major premise, all “citizens at
birth” are “natural born Citizens,” has no historical and legal support. Hence,
Maskell’s argument, no matter which one we choose as to what is a “natural born
Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition, is false.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="background: white;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">III.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Squeeky Fromm also comes to the aid of
Ted Cruz in her June 25, 2013 article published at <a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/"><span style="background: white;">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="background: white;"> . </span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="background-color: white; color: windowtext;"> In this piece, which she passes
off as a decision against me rendered by an imaginary judge, she argues, albeit
without any historical or legal support, that my definition of a “natural born
citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens”
at the time of the child’s birth is wrong.
She maintains that Cruz, who was born in Canada to a non-U.S. “citizen”
father and a U.S. “citizen” mother is a “natural born citizen.” </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="background-color: white; color: windowtext;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 9pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">She attempts to
dismiss <u>Minor </u>as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s
eligibility, arguing that <u>Minor</u> did not define or deal with children
born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect. Minor told
us that at common law with which the Framers were familiar, such children were
“aliens or foreigners.” Here is the quote from the Court: </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“At
common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
familiar, it was never doubted that all children born<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>in a country of parents who were its
citizens</strong><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
foreigners.” We can see from what the
Court said that at common law if a child was born in the United States to alien
parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”<i>
</i><span style="font-style: normal;">It also follows from this common law rule that at common law (not to be
confounded with statutes), any child who was born out of the United States,
regardless of whether born to “citizen” parents or alien parents, was also an
alien or foreigner.</span> This common law rule was reflected in Congress’s
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which treated children born
in the United States <span style="font-style: normal;">to alien parents as alien born and naturalized at
birth children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents or
naturalized them after birth if born to alien parents. </span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">She states that the clause “natural
born citizen” “was discussed at length in <u>U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.</u>” This is
false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English
“natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor
a “natural born citizen.” Justice Swayne
in <u>United States v. Rhodes,</u> 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No.
16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were
defined by the English common law. The court said that “</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: -0.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws
little light upon the subject. . . . Blackstone
and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”
Id. at 788. So, Wong Kim Ark,
which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been
analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even
found in that law. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: -0.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 9pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Squeeky Fromm quotes
Wong Kim Ark’s comment that the English common law jus soli rule continued “to
prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” This statement does
not prove that a “natural born citizen” was defined under English common law
and not under the law of nations. What this statement means is that through the
time of the adoption of the Constitution, the states, which selectively adopted
the English common law until abrogated by state legislatures, decided who their
citizens were and that they to some undefined degree used the jus soli English
common law rule to make that decision. These state citizens became “citizens of
the United States” upon the adoption of the Constitution. But then in 1790,
Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by that of 1795, 1802,
and 1855. After that, the states, to whatever degree they still applied the
English common law, could no longer naturalize anyone after birth and their
state citizens were no longer recognized as national citizens or what the
Constitution called “citizens of the United States.” The only common law rule
that Congress did not nor could abrogate was that of the law of
nations/American national common law which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers
used to certainly and uniformly define a “natural born citizen.” And that
definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at
the time of the child’s birth.<br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm repeats that “citizens at birth” are equivalent to “natural born
citizens.” But like Jack Maskell, she begs
the question that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens.” Other
than just assuming, like Jack Maskell, that her statement is true, she fails to
provide any evidence that her statement is true. Hence, that the Fourteenth
Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the
United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that
person is a “natural born citizen.”<br />
<br />
She argues that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under 8 U.S.C. Sec.
1401(g). Here, she makes the absurd
argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act
of Congress. Using her logic, the “natural
born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply
naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural
born citizen.” She looks to the
Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of
the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the
Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with
the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with
“citizen of the United States.” Despite her statement that Congress never did
so, the 1795 Act, with James Madison’s influence, plainly shows from its text that
“Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to
some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” Furthermore, Wong Kim
Ark informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment “has not touched the acquisition
of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that
subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of
the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization.” So, Wong Kim Ark told us that children born out of the United
States to U.S. “citizen” parents become “citizens at birth” under Congress’s
naturalization powers. That means they are naturalized at birth. By her own
concession, if they are naturalized, they cannot be “natural born citizens,”
regardless of when they obtain their citizenship.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 9pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Squeeky Fromm puts
forth a straw man argument, arguing that it is an injustice that the children
born abroad to our military should be denied the status of “natural born
citizens.” But she misstates my position
on that issue. I have always argued,
under Vattel’s Section 217, a child born out of the United States to U.S.
“citizen” parents serving the defense of the United States (“the armies of the
state”) is reputed born in the United States and therefore a “natural born
citizen.” This rule makes John McCain, who was born to U.S. “citizen” parents
serving the U.S. national defense, a “natural born citizen” regardless of where
in Panama he may have been born.<br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm argues that my position that if Congress makes one a “citizen” at
birth, then Congress naturalized that person to be a “citizen” at birth is
absurd because Congress in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) passed a statute which also
acts upon the “natural born citizens.”
But that Congress may choose to pass a statute acting upon “natural born
citizens” does not make those persons naturalized citizens. Those persons are “natural born citizen” and
they do not lose that status because Congress may pass a naturalization statute which also acts upon them. <br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm engages in an invalid logical argument, arguing: All
"natural born citizens" are "citizens at birth," and since
Ted Cruz is a "citizen at birth," he is a "natural born
Citizen." As I have shown above, this argument violates the rule of the
undistributed middle. It is also fallacious for affirming the consequent. As I
have already explained, Jack Maskell commits the same logical errors. She also commits logical error when she argues:
All “natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens. Since Ted Cruz is not
a naturalized citizen, he is a “natural born citizen.” She does not understand
that we cannot arrive at an affirmative conclusion by way of one or two
negative premises. <br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm argues that “natural born citizens” are not naturalized citizens.
Citizens “may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” She adds that Cruz is a “born citizen” and not
a naturalized citizen. She concludes that since he is “born a citizen” and not
naturalized, he must be a “natural born citizen.” Her argument fails because she does not
account for how “born citizens” are made. “Born citizens” may be made by
American national common law, by the Fourteenth Amendment, or by Acts of
Congress. Per Minor, only the ones made by American national common law are
“natural-born citizens.” Those made by the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of
Congress are “citizens of the United States” at birth. So, as we can see, just
being a “born citizen” or “citizen at birth” does not automatically make one a
“natural born citizen.”<br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm’s argument that since parentage is irrelevant for “citizens at
birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore it must also be irrelevant for
“natural born citizens” fails for at least two reasons. First, as I have shown
above, there are different types of “citizens at birth,” and that parentage
might not be relevant to one type does not mean it is not relevant to another
type (which is the “natural born citizen” type). <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Squeeky Fromm begs the question that the Fourteenth Amendment
defines a “natural born citizen.” She may say it, but she does not prove it.</span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment is a
red herring when it comes to defining a “natural born citizen.” Why do I say that the Fourteenth Amendment is
a red herring when it comes to defining an Article II “natural born Citizen?” People like Squeeky Fromm love to use the
Fourteenth Amendment as support in the “natural born Citizen” debate. The amendment provides them with a moral
argument for their definition of a “natural born Citizen” which has a great
appeal with the American public. That
moral appeal is based on the history and purpose of the amendment. We cannot forget that Congress passed the
amendment as part of its Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was to guarantee, among various things,
the freed slaves citizenship through birth in the United States. The amendment was designed to put an end for
good to the Dred Scott decision, which had denied freed blacks the right to
U.S. citizenship. The amendment made
sure that no state could abridge the privileges and immunities enjoyed by
“citizens of the United States.” The
amendment also introduced the concept of due process as the protector of life,
liberty, and property from abusive state action (the Fifth Amendment prohibits
the federal government from depriving one of due process), and obligated the
states to extend equal protection of the laws to any person present within its
jurisdiction. The Amendment came to be
used as a primary tool to combat racism and discrimination, not only against
blacks, but all people who suffered such illegal activities at the hands of any
state. So the amendment is not only
connected to citizenship, but it is also supposed to protect our freedom and
secure many rights of the individual.
With all that, the amendment packs a strong emotional punch. So, people like Squeeky Fromm have found a
great friend in the Fourteenth Amendment in their attempt to convince people
that the amendment defines a “natural born citizen.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The problem for Squeeky
Fromm is that while the amendment defines two classes of citizenship, federal
and state, and has done great things for protecting life, liberty, and
property, and the civil rights of all persons present on American territory, it
has nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen.” But that surely does not stop Squeeky Fromm
from using the amendment when it comes to providing us with a definition of a
“natural born Citizen.” After all, how
could she pass it up after all it has done for the betterment of American
society? So people like Squeeky Fromm
will continue to tell the public how could anyone dare believe that a “natural
born citizen” is not defined by that amendment which does so much to protect
our American way of life. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But the simple
truth is that Squeeky Fromm conflates and confounds a “citizen” under the
amendment with an Article II “natural born citizen.” Anyone who will just stop and read the amendment
can readily see that it does not even mention the clause “natural born
Citizen.” Rather, it mentions “citizen
of the United States,” which citizenship status Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
tells us is no longer sufficient for one to be eligible to be President
today. If one also looks further into
the amendment, one will learn that it neither repealed nor amended Article II’s
“natural born Citizen” clause and therefore left that clause to be defined as
it had always been defined under American national common law. And that definition is, as confirmed by the
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and the majority and dissent in Wong Kim
Ark, a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time
of the child’s birth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
Squeeky Fromm argues that there is no sign of Emer de Vattel post <u>Wong Kim
Ark</u> and therefore Vattel is dead. This is false. <u>Minor’</u>s definition
of a “natural-born citizen,” being a paraphrase of Vattel’s </span><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The Law of
Nations</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">
(London 1797) (1<sup>st</sup> ed. Neuchatel 1758)</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, comes from Vattel. <u>Wong Kim Ark</u> did not disturb that
definition nor did it have to in order to find that Wong was a “citizen of the
United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor has any other
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, Vattel still lives and reigns after <u>Wong
Kim Ark</u> and even to the present.<br />
<br />
Squeeky Fromm also fails to understand this fundamental truth--that one becomes
at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean
that one was not naturalized. <u>See</u> <u>Calvin’s Case</u> (1608) which was
decided in England in 1608. That case proves that being a “citizen at birth”
can entail having been naturalized at birth which necessarily excludes one from
being a true “natural born citizen.” Calvin was born to Scottish parents in the
country of Scotland, after 1603, the year in which the English throne under the
Tudor dynasty descended to the Stuart King, James VI of Scotland, making him
James I, King of both England and Scotland. Since Calvin was born after 1603,
he was considered a postnati. The English Parliament for political and social
reasons refused to naturalize the Scottish Calvin as an English “natural born
subject” by statute. Since Parliament would not naturalize him by statute, it
was decided by the King’s men that they would get the courts to do so by common
law (judge made law). Lord Coke found that under natural law Calvin at birth,
having been born in the King’s dominion (Scotland), owed natural allegiance to
James as King of England and Scotland, by owing that allegiance to the natural
body (as distinguished from his political body and the laws of England that
came with it) of the King who reigned over both kingdoms. So because Calvin
owed natural allegiance to the natural body of the King and that natural King
also ruled over England, Lord Coke found that Calvin also owed allegiance to
the King as King of England. So it did not matter that Calvin at birth was not
bound by the laws of England. What mattered was that by natural law he was
bound by natural allegiance to the King who also ruled over England. Lord Coke
then, from the single circumstance of Calvin being born in the King’s dominion,
naturalized Calvin at birth vis-a'-vis England and ruled that he was a “natural born subject” of
England. Calvin’s Scottish parents (the antenati) were eventually naturalized
by statute as English subjects. Calvin’s case proves the fundamental rule that
gaining subject status at birth under the English common law rather than a
statute does not prove that one is a “natural born citizen,” for that status
was gained through judicial naturalization at birth See also Emer de Vattel,
The Law of Nations, Section 214 Naturalisation (1758) (correctly understanding <u>Calvin’s
Case</u> said: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the
single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a
foreigner”); Wong Kim Ark (said that persons who are born abroad to U.S
“citizen” parents and who are U.S. citizens at birth are nevertheless so naturalized
by Congressional Acts; Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) (considers persons
born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who are citizens at birth to be naturalized
at birth; J. Black dissenting in Bellei also said: "All means of obtaining
American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms
of naturalization"). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">IV.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">On July 14, 2013, Squeeky Fromm took another
jab at my Jack Maskell refutation. She
says: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“You see the same thing when Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. tries to cobble Logical Syllogisms into his Birther legal theories
when such techniques are totally inappropriate in situations where the major
premises themselves which [sic] are at issue. (See Note 1, below.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Note 1. For an example of Apuzzo’s
sashay into Putative Pedantics, see:<a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/</a>
.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Source:
</span><a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/are-the-birthers-gaslighting-themselves/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/are-the-birthers-gaslighting-themselves/</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> . <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Squeeky Fromm read my article entitled ,
<span style="background: white; color: #333333;">The Fallacies of Congressional
Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born
Citizen,” accessed at </span></span><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">
. </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">She learned something about logic
from my article. Now she attempts to use
that little bit that she learned to sound authoritative and show that she won
the argument. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I clearly stated the two possible
sources for Jack Maskell’s erroneous conclusion that Barack Obama is a “natural
born citizen.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The first source rests on invalid logical
argument. We can all agree on the
statement that all “natural born citizens” are born citizens. From this truism, Maskell wants us to believe
that since Barack Obama is a born citizen, he is also a “natural born
citizen.” This is a logically invalid
argument. It is as invalid as arguing
that all poodles are dogs, and since Bubbles is a dog, Bubbles is a
poodle. The fallacy is clear to see once
identified. The problem with these
fallacious arguments is in recognizing them when someone is trying to give us a
snow job. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The second source is based on unsound
logical argument. An argument can be logically
valid but unsound (false). This occurs
when the argument is valid as to its form, but upon investigation, one learns that
either the major or minor premise is false which produces a false conclusion. In my article, I took Maskell’s invalid
argument and made it into a valid one by presenting it in a valid logical form. Thus I produced: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">All born citizens are “natural born
citizens.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Obama is a born citizen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Therefore, Obama is a “natural born
citizen.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I demonstrated that while this argument
is valid as to its form, it is unsound because the major premise, All born
citizens are “natural born citizens,” is false.
It is false because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers wrote “natural
born citizen,” not “born citizen.” It is
false because just being born a citizen has never been the test for being a
“natural born citizen.” The expression
born citizen does not tell us how one becomes a born citizen. It does not tell us who shall be said to be a
born citizen. It does not tell us what
the facts and circumstances are which the definition of a “natural born
citizen” states are necessary and sufficient to make one a born citizen and
therefore a “natural born citizen.” No
U.S. Supreme Court has ever defined a “natural born citizen” by saying that
anyone who is a born citizen is a “natural born citizen.” There simply is no U.S. Supreme Court case
that supports such a proposition.
Congress has never defined a “natural born citizen” as simply anyone who
is born a citizen. In other words,
neither Jack Maskell nor anyone else has presented historical and legal
evidence which demonstrates that all born citizens are “natural born
citizens.” On the contrary, I have shown
that there has only ever been one definition of a “natural born citizen” and
that is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the
time of the child’s birth. This
definition is, indeed, a real definition, for it provides those facts and
circumstance which must be met in order for one to be a “natural born
citizen.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Squeeky Fromm also tells us that no one
ever heard of Emer de Vattel and that he is a non-figure when it comes to
defining a “natural born citizen.” She adds: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“1. Most of us have some memory of high
school civics class, and no memory whatsoever of anybody called Emer de Vattel.
The Birthers try to supplant our non-existent memory with false memories of
Vattel and his alleged two citizen parents theory of natural born citizenship.
There are actually some people who now claim to remember being taught about
Vattel in this light, and absolutely NO TEXTBOOKS which support that memory.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Apart from all the extant historical
evidence which proves Squeeky Fromm to be wrong about the definition of a “natural
born citizen” and Vattel’s connection to that definition, there are numerous
cases which show her to be wrong.
See: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">1. Emer
de Vattel,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><u>The Law of Nations</u>,
Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758): “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’”<span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">2. <u>The Venus</u>, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253,
289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring): “Vattel,
who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory
on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens
are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties,
and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The
natives or indigenes [having equivalent meaning to "natural-born
citizens”] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society
not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the
citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights.’” <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">3. <u>Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor</u>,
28 U.S. 99 (1830): <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“II. The second general question is,
whether John Inglis, the demandant, was or was not capable of taking lands in
the state of New York by descent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This question is presented under
several aspects, for the purpose of meeting what at present from the evidence
appears a little uncertain, as to the time of the birth of John Inglis. This
question as here presented, does not call upon the court for an opinion upon
the broad doctrine of allegiance and the right of expatriation, under a settled
and unchanged state of society and government. But to decide what are the
rights of the individuals composing that society, and living under the
protection of that government, when a revolution occurs; a dismemberment takes
place; new governments are formed; and new relations between the government and
the people are established.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">After stating
that the English common law broad allegiance no longer applied to the new
America after the Revolution, it held: </span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"></span><br />
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“2.
If born [in New York] after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of
September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his
infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his
election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of
disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which
never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from
inheriting the land in question.” </span><br />
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99,
120-27, 3 Pet. 99. (1830). Rejecting the English common law jus soli rule and
the rule of perpetual allegiance that may have prevailed in a state unless
abrogated by statute and used for deciding questions of inheritance of lands located
within a state’s jurisdiction, which rules were adopted by Justice Johnson and
Justice Story in their concurring opinions, and rather adopting the national jus
sanguinis rule of the law of nations, the Court held that if the child was born
in New York when it was a new state to alien parents, the child followed the
condition of his alien father, which could have been cast off at the age of
majority, and never having been done the son was therefore neither a “natural
born Citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States,” but rather alien born. So, even though the child was born in New
York after the Revolution, the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the
common or statutory law of New York might have been on the subject of
allegiance, still ruled that the child was alien born, because the father was
an alien at the time of the child’s birth.<span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">4. </span><u style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Shanks v. Dupont</u><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, 28 U.S. 242,
245 (1830):</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">As we saw above, in Inglis,
Justice Story was in the minority on the question of whether the demandant was
a citizen of the State of New York and thus a U.S. citizen.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Relying upon the English common law jus soli
rule, he had ruled that if born in New York after July 4, 1776, but before the
15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New
York, he was a U.S. citizen even though his father was a British subject.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">But in Shanks, which was decided after
Inglis, he accepted that the American Revolution changed the rules of allegiance in the new America and changed his position on allegiance and U.S. citizenship.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Here he started by saying:</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“After
the elaborate opinions expressed in the case of Inglis vs. The Trustees of the
Sailor’s Snug Harbour, ante p. 99, upon the question of alienage, growing out
of the American Revolution; it is unnecessary to do more in delivering the
opinion of the court in the present case, than to state, in a brief manner, the
grounds on which our decision is founded.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Justice
Story, adopting the Inglis majority position which rejected the jus soli (citizenship
through place of birth) of the English common law and accepted the jus
sanguinis (citizenship inherited from parents) of the law of nations, then went
on to explain: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“If she
was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this
case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country,
continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national
character as a citizen of that country.” Justice Johnson, dissenting for other
reasons, said that Ann Scott (married Ann Shanks) “was a native born citizen of
South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of North Carolina,” and that
her being a citizen of South Carolina at the moment of her birth was
established by the “leading maxim[] of common law,” “proles sequitur sortem
paternam,” which means “the offspring follows the condition of the father.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">5. <u>Barry
v. Mercein</u>, 46 U. S. 103 (1847): Argument
of counsel for John A. Barry, a British “natural born subject:” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
“4. The plaintiff in error being of
legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States
during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty
days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of
the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present
election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a
British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions
of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his
wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child
being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without
authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate
legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and
restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789,
sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5;
4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523;
Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397,
398.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">6. </span><u><span lang="EN" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Dred Scott v. Sandford</span></u><span lang="EN" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN" style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">60 U.S. 393<span style="color: #333333;">, 476-77 (1857) (J.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Daniel
concurring): </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The decision only dealt with the question of whether Dred
Scott was a “citizen of the United States.”
Nevertheless, Justice Daniel, concurring, </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">defined a “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and
still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural-born
citizen” from <u>Dred Scott</u> as described by Justice Daniel nor has there
ever been a need to do so. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The main point is that in deciding what a
"citizen" was in 1856, both the majority and dissent went back to
1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a
"citizen" to be. The Court said that the Constitution must be
understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The
judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founders. What they disagreed on is what the public
opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a “citizen.” In this regard, we know that the Court’s holding
that freed slaves were not “citizens of the United States” was overruled by the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Thirteenth (ratified in 1865) and Fourteenth (ratified
in 1868) Amendment, none of which repealed or amended Article II’s “natural
born Citizen” clause. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As to the “natural born Citizen”
clause, Justice Daniel said: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“The citizens are the members of the
civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its
authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise
than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again:
I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who
is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place
of his birth, and not his country.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(quoting and citing </span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Emer de Vattel,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><u>The
Law of Nations</u>, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It
should be noted that Justice Daniel took out of Vattel’s definition the
reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and
“person,” respectively. It is true that
it was only Justice Daniel in his concurrence that defined a “natural born
Citizen” the way he did. But on more
than one occasion, the United States Supreme Court has defined what a
"natural born Citizen" is. Justice
Daniel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was first confirmed by Chief
Justice John Marshall in <u>The Venus</u> (1814) and later confirmed by the unanimous
Court in <u>Minor</u> and both the majority and dissent in <u>Wong Kim Ark.</u> To this day, that definition has never been
changed. </span></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br />
<span style="background: white;"><br />
</span></span><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background: white;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333;">7.
<u>Minor v. Happersett</u>, 88 </span><span style="color: black;">U.S.</span><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> 162, 168-170 (1875): T</span><span style="color: black;">he
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained: “The Constitution does not, in
words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Hence, the Court
said that neither the original Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment
(ratified in 1868) defined a "natural born citizen." In
fact, there is nothing in the text of or debates on the Fourteenth Amendment
which in any way suggests that it amended Article II and its "natural
born citizen" clause. The Court said that the Amendment
did not add to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the people prior to the
adoption of that Amendment. We know that these privileges and
immunities enjoyed as a citizen of a state had been protected from
state deprivation by Article IV and privileges and immunities enjoyed as a
citizen of the United States were now also protected from state abridgement by the
Fourteenth Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, the
Amendment could not have granted the privilege and right of being elected to
the Office of President to persons who did not have that privilege and right
prior to its adoption. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background: white;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="background: white;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Court then further explained that since the Constitution did not provide the meaning of a "natural born citizen," </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">"[r]esort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
familiar, it was never doubted that all children born<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong>in a country of parents who were its
citizens</strong><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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 <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="pg_168"><b>[p168]</b> </a> parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. ” </span><br />
<br />
Id. at 167-68. <br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Hence, a child born in a country to parents who were
its “citizens” was not only a “citizen” like them, but also a “natural-born citizen,” which maybe his or her parents were not. Under that same common law, all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who the Court later explained could become "citizens of the United States" by satisfying naturalization Acts of Congress or maybe the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also sua sponte stated that "some authorities" went further and included as "citizens" children "born within the jurisdiction" to alien parents. The Court said that while "there have been doubts" about whether such children born in the United States to alien parents were "citizens," there never had been any doubts that children born in the country to citizens parents, who the Court called "natural-born citizens," were "citizens." So the Court basically said that with the "natural born citizens," there were no doubts that they were "citizens." But with non-"natural born citizens," such as children born in the United States to alien parents, who could look to no other law other than the Fourteenth Amendment to gain U.S. citizenship status, there could be doubts about whether they were even just "citizens." So, exactly from where did the citizenship doubts to which the Court was referring come? They surely did not come from the English common law which based on birthright, naturalized at birth as "natural-born subjects" children born in the King's dominion to alien parents. So the Court could not have been looking to the English common law for its definition of a "natural born citizen," for that law provided no doubt as to the "natural-born subject" status of children born in the King's dominion to alien parents. Also, the Court's doubts could not have come from the common law to which the Court said the Framers looked for their definition of a "natural born citizen," for under that common law there was no doubt that such children were not "natural born citizens." Rather, those doubts came from the new Fourteenth Amendment and its ambiguous "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, which the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) (virtually the same Court as the Minor Court) said excluded from U.S. citizenship children born in the United States to alien parents. So these Fourteenth Amendment potential citizens could not be "natural born citizens" under Minor's formulation, for there was no doubt that they did not meet its common law definition of the clause. They also could not even just be "citizens of the United States" under the English common law, for that law had no application in national U.S. citizenship. The doubts were whether they could be plain "citizens of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">With Virginia Minor being born in the country to "citizen" parents and thus a "natural born citizen," which without any doubt made her a "citizen" and therefore qualified to receive the privileges and immunities available under Article IV and the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment (which the Court eventually held did not include the right to vote), Minor said that it was not necessary to resolve the question that it raised about Fourteenth Amendment citizenship. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) eventually resolved this question. See my discussion below on Wong Kim Ark. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">8. <u>Ex parte Reynolds</u>, 20 F.Cas.
582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879): T</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">he
Circuit Court of the Western District of Arkansas explained: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“[W]hen
the question arises as to what people a person belongs, what rule is to govern
in the solution of the problem? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">There
is no statute law on the subject. We find that the question before the country
at one time, as to who was a white person and who was a member of the African
race, was solved by legislative or constitutional
enactments defining the nationality of persons according to the quantum of
white or African blood in the veins of the persons. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">These
laws were all enactments of the states, and had reference to the African race
alone. The United States never had any statute law on the subject (and has not
now) with regard to persons who are not subject to its jurisdiction. Now, in
this case, as the 38th article of the treaty only permits an American citizen,
or a white person, to expatriate himself -- to throw off his allegiance to the
government of the United States -- and place himself beyond the jurisdiction of
its courts by marriage to a Choctaw and residence in their country, we must
somewhere find a rule to define who is a Choctaw, in<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289" name="PAGE_15_1292"></a> [**15]
a case where there is mixed parentage. Does the quantum of Indian blood in the
veins of the party determine the fact as to whether such party is of the white
or Indian race? If so, how much Indian blood does it take to make an Indian, or
how much white blood to make a person a member of the body politic known as
American citizens? Where do we find any rule on the subject which makes the
quantum of blood the standard of nationality? Certainly not from the statute
law of the United States; nor is it to be found in the common law. In the case
of United States v. Sanders [Case No. 16,220], the court held that the quantum
of Indian blood in the veins did not determine the condition of the offspring
of a union between a white person and an Indian; but further held that the condition
of the mother did determine the question. And the court referred to the common
law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the
status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the
common law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a
connection between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from
the Roman civil law, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289" name="PAGE_16_1292"></a> [**16] that the
owner of a female animal is entitled to all her brood, according to the maxim
partus sequitur ventrem. But by the common law this rule is reversed with
regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition
of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining
their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147;
Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the
common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the
Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem -- the
one being a rule fixing the status of freemen; the other being a rule defining
the ownership of property -- the one applicable to different political
communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights
possessed by people in a state of freedom; the other defining the condition of
the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No
other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any
other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the
court says: "The universal maxim of<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7466841558189356289" name="PAGE_17_1292"></a> [**17]
the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the
application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and
without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the
condition of the mother." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of
affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the
same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: "As the society
cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the
citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and
succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of
the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit
consent." Again, on page 102, Vattel says: "By the law of nature
alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their
rights." This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common
law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule
in this case.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id</span></u><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. at 585, 18 Alb.Law J. 14-17 (cited
with approval in <u>United States v. Ward</u>, 42 F.320; 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS
1586; 14 Sawy. 472 (C.C. S.D.Cal 1890) and </span><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Keith
v. United States</span></u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 8 Okla. 446, 448, 58 P. 507
(1899)). </span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">9. <u>Ludlam v. Ludlam</u>, 26 N.Y. 356
(1883): “Vattel says: ‘ Society not
being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its
citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and
succeed to all their rights.’ B. 1, ch. 19, § 212.”<span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">10. <u>United States v. Ward</u>, 42 F.320
(C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890): </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">“B</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">y the common law this rule [partus sequitur ventrem] is
reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows
the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in
determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law
Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim
of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even
as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem
-- the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen; the other being a rule
defining the ownership of property -- the one applicable to different political
communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights
possessed by people in a state of freedom; the other defining the condition of
the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No
other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any
other civilized country. In the case of <u>Ludlam v. Ludlam</u>, 31 Barb. 486,
the court says: ‘The universal maxim of the common law being partus
sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the
father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance
beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.’ <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of
affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the
same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: ‘As the society
cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the
citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and
succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of
the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’
Again, on page 102, Vattel says: ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow
the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ This law of nature,
as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any
positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">11. <u>United
States v. Wong Kim Ark,</u><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>169
U.S. 649,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">679-80 (1898): C</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">onfirmed Minor’s
“natural-born citizen” definition when it said: <span style="background: white; color: #333333;">“'At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers
of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born
in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their
birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners” (citing and quoting Minor), </span>and
not being limited by the definition of a “natural-born citizen” when defining
who a “citizen” was under the Fourteenth Amendment, held that a child born in
the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was a “citizen” under
the Fourteenth Amendment. </span><br />
<br />
Wong Kim Ark eventually resolved Minor's open question, holding that a child born in the United States to permanently domiciled and resident alien parents was a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is critically constitutionally important to understand that the Court held Wong to be a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that he was a "natural born citizen" under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and which according to Minor provided the definition of a "natural born citizen." <br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">People like Squeeky
Fromm also use <u>Wong Kim Ark</u> to tell us about how the decision so well
met the needs of our nation of immigrants who have come to our shores thirsting
for freedom and opportunity, mixing that noble goal into the definition of a
“natural born citizen.” The simple
response to this “feel good” argument is that immigrants coming to America are
looking to become “citizens,” not “natural born citizens,” which is a status
that their children can enjoy like the children of the Founders, Framers, and
Ratifiers enjoyed. Hence, this appeal to
tradition is nothing but a fallacious argument applied to the definition of a
“natural born citizen.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Despite Squeeky
Fromm’s lack of memory of who Emer de Vattel was, all these decisions from our
U.S. Supreme Court and these lower courts confirmed Vattel’s Section 212
definition of the “natural-born citizens” as “those born in the country, of
parents who are citizens.” This is the only definition of the clause that
has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court.
The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both
necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.”
The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is
either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born
to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s
birth or both. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Squeeky Fromm takes the second part of
my article, the one related to an unsound argument, and presents herself as
some authority on the matter. She
presents a statement suggesting that I, the one who raised and discussed the
issue in the first place, do not recognize the issue concerning the truth of
the major premise. I clearly not only
recognized the issue, I created it as part of my logical analysis. I also demonstrated, as can be seen above, how
there is no truth to the Jack Maskell thesis that all born citizens are
“natural born citizens.” I did all that
so that the public can see how Jack Maskell ultimately is wrong in his
argument.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 0.75in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: center; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">V.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Squeeky
Fromm’s most recent foray is bringing Trayvon Martin into the “natural born
citizen” debate. In her article, The George Zimmerman Verdict and Birtherism,
at </span><a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/the-george-zimmerman-verdict-and-birtherism/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/the-george-zimmerman-verdict-and-birtherism/</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> , she argues
that Birthers are like “Trayvonites.” She argues that the Zimmerman verdict was
correct because the rule of law and the right to self-defense required it, but
that Trayvon Martin’s supporters refuse to see the light. What Squeeky Fromm fails to understand is
that the Constitutionalists (whom she calls the “Birthers”) have taken the
position that they have because of the Constitution and the rule of law. What is ironic is that a commenter on her
blog, “Joel Lawler,” has attacked her as being a racist for her pro-Zimmerman
position. He has told her to “take a
deep look into your own sad racist soul.”
She defends her position, saying that the evidence and law require
it. So here we see Squeeky Fromm arguing
that such decisions must be decided by the Constitution and the rule of law and
not by other extraneous factors such as emotion, anger, prejudice, or
revenge. But she does not grant the “Birthers”
the same right to argue that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.” We can only conclude from Squeeky Fromm’s
inconsistent positions that the Constitution and the rule of law count for her only
when it is politically expedient that they do so. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So,
Squeeky Fromm has failed to discredit my Jack Maskell refutation in her several
articles (the links are above). She
continues to embarrass herself with her own artistic muddle. She understands what the Constitution and the
rule of law mean, but she applies them selectively and only for political expediency. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In referring to the topic of her gaslighting
article ( </span><a href="http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/are-the-birthers-gaslighting-themselves/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/are-the-birthers-gaslighting-themselves/</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">
) </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">blogger
ppsimmons, this is what Squeeky Fromm ironically said to one of her
sycophants: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">"Hi FrankB!!!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Thank you!!! Somebody had to
de-construct him. Why do these guys try to put on airs like they know what they
are talking about??? All they do is make trouble for themselves.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Too bad that Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl
Reporter does not follow her own advice.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">July 19, 2013</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Updated March 8, 2014<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #336699;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Copyright © 2013<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com3179tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40916015061308832492013-06-02T23:32:00.000-04:002014-04-14T10:38:33.046-04:00The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
The Fallacies of Congressional
Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
June 2, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><img height="200" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTe8cA_sFsVJQZgUY5pyWhTEhx0p8bTiHhMmEFm2CLd12P7Kt_O" width="160" /> Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans recently said: </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted
Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s
citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes
in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was
born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted
Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a href="http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen">http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen</a>
. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Quasius’
argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies
of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in
his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos.
<span style="background: white;">Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo
published in 2009: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;">“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion
appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is
entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S.
citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born ‘in’ the United
States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of
United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S.
residency requirements."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions">http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions</a>
. <span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then
he wrote in his 2011 CRS memo: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen would<br />
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born<br />
'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born<br />
abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for<br />
U.S. citizenship 'at birth.' Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.<br />
citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an 'alien' required to go through the legal<br />
process of 'naturalization' to become a U.S. citizen."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf</a>
. <br />
<br />
I<span style="background-color: white;">n this memo, he also added: “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
</span>Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and
historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural
born Citizen” clause means. A “notion”
is defined, in relevant part, as:
“1. A general idea 2. a
belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s
New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1:
Idea, conception <have a="" he="" means="" of="" what=""> 2: a belief held: opinion, view
3: whim, fancy. </have><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974). </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">And this “opinion” only “appears to support”
that notion.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Here, we can see that
Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the
definition of a “natural born Citizen” is.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and
historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the
definition of a “natural born citizen” is. </span><br />
<br />
While
his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural
born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen
at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth
status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a
“natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something
else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, it is true. He also stated that “<span style="background-color: white;">there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the
presidential eligibility requirements.”
As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme
Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born
citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down
what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form. I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at
birth=CAB<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All NBCs are CABs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen”
mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333;">First, it is a tautology to
argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen. Second, this argument commits the fallacy of
affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one
is a NBC). Third, this argument suffers
from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the
middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning
the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of
NBCs). So, while the major and minor premises
are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false. We should see intuitively that the conclusion
does not follow from the two premises. A</span>n
easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All poodles are dogs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bubbles is a dog.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs
being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or
some other type of dog. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the
Maskell/Quasius statement. Now we will
test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument. To do that, we need to help Maskell and
Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one. Here we go:
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All CABs are NBCs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This argument is valid because if the major and minor
premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound,
meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound
because its major premise is false. With
the major premise being false, so is its conclusion. Let me explain. First, the major premise, all “citizens at
birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and
Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there
does not exist any evidence that they did.
Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text
of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at Birth”
or some variant thereof. Additionally, while
it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” it does
not follow that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” If I am wrong, Bob Quasius can cite for us an
authoritative source which provides that all “citizens at birth” are “natural
born Citizens.” So there is the
challenge. Let Bob Quasius or anyone
else who might want to come to his aid provide one authoritative source which
demonstrates that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” By doing this, he will also be proving that
Jack Maskell is correct. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anticipating that Bob Quasius
will not be able to provide any such source, I have therefore demonstrated how Jack
Maskell is incorrect in what he stated to be the definition of a “natural born
Citizen.” Using their exact words, they made
an invalid argument about who is included and excluded as a “natural born
Citizen.” Even adjusting what they said
to make a valid argument, they made an unsound argument, for they provided a
non-existent definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Either way, Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius lose. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now
as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a
country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s
birth. This is the settled definition of
the clause under American national common law.
<u>See</u> Emer de Vattel, <u>The Law of
Nations</u>, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel
1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens”); <u>The Venus</u>, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253,
289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); <u>Inglis
v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor</u>, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); <u>Shanks v. Dupont</u>, 28
U.S. 242, 245 (1830; <u><span lang="EN">Dred Scott v. Sandford</span></u><span lang="EN">,</span><span lang="EN"> </span><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html" title="http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html"><span lang="EN" style="color: windowtext; mso-ansi-language: EN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">60 U.S. 393</span></a><span lang="EN">, 476-77
(1857) (J. </span><span style="color: #333333;">Daniel concurring); </span><u>Minor
v. Happersett</u>, 88 <st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place>
162, 168-170 (1875); <u><span style="color: #333333;">Ex parte Reynolds</span></u><span style="color: #333333;">, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark
1879); <u>United States v. Ward</u>, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); </span><u><span lang="EN">United States v. Wong Kim Ark,</span></u><span lang="EN"> 169 U.S. 649, </span>679-80 (1898) (all
confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the <u>The Law of Nations</u> (<st1:place w:st="on">London</st1:place> 1797) (1<sup>st</sup>
ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). This is the only definition of the clause
that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court. The conditions of being born in the country
to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural
born Citizen.” The definition of a
“natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the
country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents)
who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here
is what this definition produces as logical statements: I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC; born in the country
=BIC; and born to citizen parents=BCPs<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
All BIC and BCPs are NBC.<br />
<br />
All Xs are BIC and BCPs.<br />
<br />
Therefore, all Xs are NBC. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If NBC, then BIC and BCPs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
X
is not BIC and BCP. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore,
X is not NBC. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If
and only if BIC and BCP, then NBC.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
X
is not BIC and BCPs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore,
X is not NBC. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All
NBCs are BIC and BCPs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No
Xs are BIC and BCPs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore,
no Xs are NBC. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders
in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.” They required this because they wanted to
protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices
from monarchical and foreign influence. For
the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of the
nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders be
born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States. Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born
to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz
(born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father),
Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal
(born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in
South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country (BIC)
to citizen parents (BCPs). Because they
acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all
of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also
Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the
United States. Under all of the above logical statements,
none of these individuals are “natural born Citizens.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither
“<span style="background: white; color: #373737; font-family: "Helvetica Neue","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;">natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be
President. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #373737; font-family: "Helvetica Neue","serif"; font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Mario Apuzzo,
Esq. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">June 2, 2013<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN">Updated April 14, 2014</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/"><span lang="EN" style="color: #336699; mso-ansi-language: EN;">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</span></a><span lang="EN"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">####<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #333333;">Copyright © 2013<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
All Rights Reserved </span><span lang="EN"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com245tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21119321744022971202013-03-25T20:07:00.000-04:002013-03-25T21:53:16.341-04:00Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible<br />
to be President<br />
<br />
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br />
March 25, 2013<br />
<br />
It is pretty amazing to see to what lengths some will go to convince us that their favorite political candidate is eligible to be President. Greg Conterio has written an article in which he concludes that Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father, is eligible to be President. The article can be read at <a href="http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/03/23/birtherism-and-the-tyranny-of-ignorance/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=65580535">http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/03/23/birtherism-and-the-tyranny-of-ignorance/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=65580535</a> . <br />
<br />
I do not object to Mr. Conterio having a view that is different from mine on the definition of a "natural born Citizen." What is most objectionable is how he goes about attempting to prove that he is correct and others are wrong. In referring to those who do not agree with him, Mr. Conterio uses language such as “ ‘Birtherism’ and the Tyranny of Ignorance,” (the title of his article), “resurgence of the ‘Birther’ phenomenon,” “depth of ignorance,” “false assertions,” “sort of thing,” “completely wrong,” “nonsense,” and “twist themselves into knots.” What is really amazing is that he also tells us that it only took him “a few minutes to do a quick internet search” to come up with the correct answer on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and how Ted Cruz meets that definition. And how could I not mention that he tells us that “[s]ome guy with a blog, or some attorney with some bizarre sounding legal theory are NOT authoritative sources.” I wonder what attorney Mr. Conterio has in mind. <br />
<br />
Mr. Conterio’s sole source for his definition of a “natural born Citizen” is Congressional statutes (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq.). He cites and quotes those statutes and while conceding that they at most only declare persons to be “citizens of the United States” at birth, he says that Congress’s expression has the equivalent constitutional meaning as a “natural born Citizen.” There are several problems with Mr. Conterio’s argument. <br />
<br />
First, given that the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution and they must have had a purpose for doing so, the clause had to have a specific meaning. As we shall see below, that meaning was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. The fact that there was in the Constitutional Convention no debate on the meaning of the clause gives us more evidence that the clause must have had a settled meaning. We also know that the Founders and Framers relied upon the clause to keep foreign influence and royalty out of the office of President and Commander in Chief. The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers were most concerned about foreign influence invading the administration of our new government. So, while they did have a concern with royalty occupying the office of President, the purpose for using the “natural born Citizen” clause was broader. As John Jay stated in his famous July 25, 1787 letter to then-General George Washington, he proposed that the Commander in Chief of the Military be a “natural born Citizen” so as to provide a “strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” The historical record contains statements from other Founders, Framers, and commentators as to the need to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. Moreover, even assuming that the purpose was only to keep royalty out of the White House, the Founders and Framers would have required that a child be born to parents who were U.S. citizens to make sure that their child at the moment of birth did not inherit from either one of his parents titles of royalty or nobility. <br />
<br />
So, we can see that the “natural born Citizen” clause, by requiring birth in the country to citizen parents, served a great purpose for the Founders and Framers. It not only was designed to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. But it was also designed to make sure that those high and powerful civil and military offices would never end up in the hands of royalty or nobility. In short, the Founders and Framers through the clause sought to preserve the new constitutional republic not only for the present, but also for Posterity. <br />
<br />
The historical record also shows that at first, the Framers were going to allow Congress to appoint the President. But they decided against that idea because they feared the foreign influence running rampant in Congress would spill over onto the office of President and Commander in Chief. So they decided on the Electoral College, a group of electors who would come together only once every four years to elect the President and then disband. The process was explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President (Hamilton). In referring to the President, Alexander Hamilton described him as the “person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. . . .” He described the Office of President as “so important an agency in the administration of the government . . .” “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 68, 457-61 (12 Mar. 1788). So we can see why the Framers took it out of the hands of Congress to elect the President and why they gave that task to the Electoral College. <br />
<br />
Yet, Mr. Conterio wants to give Congress the power, not to confirm what that settled meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was, but to actually change it as it wishes and when it wishes. On the contrary, Congress through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 only has the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. It would not only be contradictory to give Congress the power to change the meaning of “natural born Citizen” through its naturalization powers, but would also fly in the face of the Framers having taken away from Congress the power to elect the President and the reason for doing so. <br />
<br />
Second, Mr. Conterio does not realize that by giving Congress the power to define a “natural born Citizen” as it wishes and when it wishes he is giving Congress the power to amend the Constitution without constitutional amendment. I wonder what Mr. Conterio would say if he knew that from 1802 to 1855, any child born out of the United States, even to citizen parents, was considered by Congress to be an alien. What does that do to Mr. Conterio’s thesis of Congress deciding by statute who is a “natural born Citizen?” What did Congress’s 1802 statute do to Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be President? We know that the citizens made the Constitution and not vice versa. But yet, Mr. Conterio would have Congress decide who is a “natural born Citizen,” even giving to it the power to deny that status to a child who inherits by nature from his or her parents the right to be born in a free and independent republican America. <br />
<br />
Third, Mr. Conterio assumes without proving that a “citizen at birth” or “citizen from birth” is the constitutional equivalent to an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I have argued at length that the clause is “natural born Citizen” and not any other variation. I have also argued at length and historical sources, Acts of Congress, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent support me, that the phrases do not have the same constitutional meaning. Being a “citizen at birth” or “citizen from birth” is only one of the necessary conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” The other two necessary conditions are birth place and birth parents. All three of these conditions, birth time, birth place, and birth parents are necessary and sufficient conditions to be a “natural born Citizen.” See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (explained that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” <a href="http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm">http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm</a> .; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (same). Contra Ankeny v. Daniels; Tisdale v. Obama; Fair v. Obama (appeal pending); Farrar v. Obama; Galasso v. Obama; Jackson v. Obama; Paige v. Obama (appeal pending) (all found that mere birth in the United States is generally sufficient to make one a “natural born Citizen;” none of these Obama cases are decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court). <br />
<br />
Fourth, Mr. Conterio totally discounts the source to which the Founders and Framers would have looked for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Framers adopted the Constitution in 1787, there were no acts of Congress in place. Hence, the Framers could not have possibly looked to Congressional Acts which came later in time for the meaning of the clause. They had to have looked somewhere else for their meaning. Minor told us what that source was. It said it was the common law. And under the definition that Minor gave us of a “natural-born citizen,” a concept that belonged to the nation to define and not to any one individual state, we know that that common law was not the English common law, which had application only in the states and which the U.S. Supreme Court many times when interpreting terms in the Constitution consulted on matters that affected state local issues, but rather American national common law which had its source in the law of nations as found in Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations. <br />
<br />
Fifth, Mr. Conterio does not realize that all expressions of U.S. citizenship found in the positive laws such as the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, and treaties are nothing but exceptions to the American national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” It is telling that none of these laws include within their text the words “natural born Citizen.” Rather, they all use “citizen of the United States.” As Minor also explained, at common law, anyone who did not meet the definition of a “natural-born citizen” was an “alien or foreigner.” Hence, citizens made through these other positive laws are not “natural born Citizens,” but rather “citizens of the United States,” either at birth or after birth. They are given that status by positive law creating exceptions to the American national common law rule. Those exceptions do not drive or become the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, they only allow the making of more “citizens of the United States" and in the end prove through the exceptions themselves what the correct definition actually is. See Wong Kim Ark (which created another exception under the Fourteenth Amendment to the general national common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” by distinguishing a child born in the country to alien parents from a “natural born” child born in the country to “citizen” parents and finding that the former, because of being born in the country was as much a “citizen” as the latter, found Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural-born citizen”)). <br />
<br />
So, now we have Mr. Conterio trying to convince us that any argument on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” that does not fit well with him can only come from someone or something that is not only not an “authoritative source,” but also a “tyranny of ignorance.” On the other hand, he tells us that he is an “authoritative source” and well-informed on the “natural born Citizen” clause. Readers can decide for themselves what are the authoritative sources, what is logical and based on reason, and from all that what is the correct meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” A thoughtful and thorough analysis of all the historical and legal sources should lead the critical thinker to the unshakable conclusion that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were it “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. <br />
<br />
Since Ted Cruz was not born in the country (he was born in Canada) and he was not born to “citizen” parents (his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son's birth), he is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Under an Act of Congress (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g)), he is a "citizen of the United States" at birth. This means for him that he is eligible to be a Senator, who at a minimum only has to be a “citizen of the United States” for nine years, but not eligible to be President, who must be a “natural born Citizen.” <br />
<br />
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <br />
March 25, 2013<br />
<a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/">http://puzo1.blogspot.com</a> <br />
####<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com349