Birther Madness!

The Birther Conspiracies

The birther movement originated with anonymous e-mails during the Democrat primaries. Although Hillary dropped out of the race, others soon picked up the birther cause, and for more than four years, Americans have been hearing endless allegations about Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as president, and now the birther movement is turning to smear Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, etc. The allegations against Obama fall into two broad categories:

  1. Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore is not a citizen.
  2. Because one of Obama’s parents was a non-citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen, even if born in Hawaii.

The smears against Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal all relate to the fact their parents weren’t citizens when they were born, and the birthers claim one cannot be a natural born citizen unless born in the U.S. and both parents are citizens at the time of birth.

Most liberals have long been dismissive of the various birther conspiracies, but a surprising number of Republicans continue to believe Obama was born in Kenya, or that he was born in the U.S., but is not a natural born citizen as required by our constitution. More than one week after Obama’s birth certificate was released, 48% of Republicans still did not believe Obama was born in the U.S., according to a Rassmussen poll.

Obama released his long form birth certificate on April 25, 2011. Computer expert and Tea Party activist John Woodman published an excellent book, Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud?, which makes a compelling case that Obama’s birth certificate is authentic, and Obama is a natural born citizen. I’ve read Woodman’s book and had several conversations with him, and find him very credible. He’s no Obama fan, and made a facts-based analysis and concluded Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. As a conservative Republican who does not approve of Obama’s far left agenda and ideology, at first I was intrigued by the allegations, but agree with Woodman.

In my opinion Obama, helped fuel the birther movement by refusing to release his long form birth certificate for many months, and excessive secrecy about many details of his past, such as school records helped fuel birther conspiracies as well.

The Birther Movement Has Lost Almost 350 Times in Court!

This handy scorecard shows that birthers have never won in court, while losing 337 times, including 245 times in administrative or circuit courts, 70 times in appellate courts, and 22 times at the U.S. Supreme Court. There are at least eight cases are still pending.

Here’s a list of court cases where judges explicitly concluded President Obama is a natural born citizen (NBC):

Birthers usually cite Minor v. Happersett, but this has been consistently rejected by judges who found Obama is a natural born citizen. For some strange reason birther lawyers rarely mention all the recent cases they lost using the argument that both parents must be citizens. John Woodman does an excellent job of debunking the Minor v. Happersett on his web site. Birthers rarely mention Lynch v. Clarke, a case from 1844 in which a judge found the U.S. born child of two non-citizens a natural born citizen.

Sanctions of Birther Attorneys

A surprising number of birther attorneys have been SANCTIONED or reprimanded by courts. Judges are usually fairly tolerant of weak cases and appeals. An experienced attorney friend tells me sanctions against attorneys are uncommon, especially for frivolous claims and appeal. Most sanctions are for withholding information to the other party.

With so many birther cases and court precedents against birther conspiracies, judges understandably are frustrated that the court’s valuable time is wasted, with court calendars clogged, etc.

Orly Taitz was fined $20,000 for frivolous appeal, though fines over $10,000 are rare. She appealed the sanction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost every appeal. In imposing the sanction, Federal Judge Clay D. Land wrote:

When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.

In Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson sanctioned  the Liberty Legal and three plaintiffs, awarding attorney fees to the defendants, stating the birther claims in the case “lacked merit and were frivolous.”

In Hollister v. Obama, attorney John D. Hemenway was reprimanded by Judge James Robertson. Originally Judge Robertson wanted to fine Hemenway, but let him off with a reprimand, stating

Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old and takes considerable and justified pride in his patriotic public service and his status as a Rhodes Scholar. He is unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, and in his case the permissible alternative sanction of a reprimand will be sufficient.

Birther lawyer Mario Apuzzo has also had a brush with sanctions. In Kerchner v. Obama II, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against Apuzzo, and wrote: “We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.” Luckily for Apuzzo, the court let him slide, after he wrote a 95 page response defending his actions. I’m sure the extensive time Apuzzo spent writing a 95 page response cost him a mint in terms of attorney time not spent on other cases, and the judges concluded that was punishment enough.

Who are the Birthers?

A few prominent birthers are worth mentioning. They seem to have different motivations for their endless claims of ineligibility of Obama, Marco Rubio, and others.

Keith Russell Judd

Keith Russell Judd, Federal inmate number 11593-051

One birther, Keith Russell Judd, has another identity: Federal inmate number 11593-051 at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas! Keith Russell Judd has lost 50 cases, according to the scorecard, surpassing all other birthers! Apparently, as an inmate at  he has a lot of time on his hands. He’s serving a 17-1/2 year sentence for extortion. Not only has Keith Judd filed 50 birther cases and lost nearly every one of them though some are still pending. Keith Russell Judd ran against Obama in 2008 and 2012, got on the West Virginia ballot and won 40% of the vote in the Democrat primary.

Jerome Corsi - Deportation from Kenya

Jerome Corsi – Photo Taken During his Deportation from Kenya

Jerome Corsi is another prominent birther, who makes a living from writing about various conspiracies, and often promoting the conspiracies himself. Corsi played a prominent role in promoting the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed the U.S. under Bush would secretly merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada without the approval of Congress, and adopt a new currency, the Amero (rhymes with Euro). It’s interesting that many years later, the North American Union still hasn’t happened and the official U.S. currency is still the almighty dollar!

NAFTA Superhighway - North American Union - Jerome Corsi

NAFTA Superhighway

Various versions of this conspiracy abounded, among them “reconquista”, a conspiracy that unauthorized immigrants from Mexico would reproduce in huge numbers and then demand the return of the Southwest to Mexico. There were also claims of a NAFTA superhighway, which would facilitate mass illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Mexico across the U.S. Jerome Corsi has been a major backer of the birther conspiracies, and is the main source for Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s cold case posse investigation of Obama’s birth certificate. Not surprisingly Corsi has sold a lot of books about Obama’s eligibility for president!

Orly Taitz has been a prolific birther lawyer. She lost:

  • Keyes v. Bowen
  • Lightfoot v. Bowen
  • Barnett v. Obama
  • Cook v. Good
  • Rhodes v. MacDonald
  • Taitz v. Obama
  • Taitz v. Astrue
  • Taitz v. Fuddy
  • Taitz v. Ruemmler
  • Grinols v. Obama
  • Primary challenges in NH, GA, AL, IN, and MS
  • General election challenges in IN, KS, and MS.
Orly Taitz birther

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz was sanctioned and fined $20,000 for frivolous birther appeals. She’s also been sanctioned and fined $250 by Judge Andrew J. Guilford for not following court orders. Like Keith Russell Judd, Orly Taitz has political aspirations, but unlike Keith Russell Judd she hasn’t run for public office from prison.

Orly Taitz ran for California Secretary of State in the 2010 Republican primary, based upon her birther notoriety, losing to Damon Dunn by over 900,000 votes, more than a 3:1 Margin. Perhaps we shouldn’t also be surprised that in true birther tradition she challenged the eligibility of Damon Dunn in court, also losing that case.

Orly Taitz also ran for U.S. Senator from California, coming in fifth place with a whopping 3.1% of the vote in the 2012 nonpartisan blanket primary. Not surprisingly, in birther tradition Orly Taitz sued to block the primary election results, alleging “rampant election fraud” but she lost this case too.

Orly Taitz melted down on MSNBC, coming across as a crazy woman too!

Mario ApuzzoMario Apuzzo is another prominent birther attorney, with a 100% track record of losing birther cases (0 of 9 including appeals). Apuzzo has lost Purpura et al v. Obama, Kerchner v. Obama I, Kerchner v. Obama II, Tisdale v Obama, and Strunk v NY State Board of Elections et al (filed amicus brief). Apuzzo endlessly argues the founding fathers meant for Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to govern natural born citizenship, though there’s hardly a shred of evidence to support that claim, and Minor v. Happersett is the court precedent on natural born citizenship. Vattel was not even translated into English until AFTER our constitution was written, so many of our constitution’s framers no doubt didn’t real Vattel as they didn’t know French. Minor v. Happersett DOES NOT support Apuzzo’s theory that for one to be a natural born citizen, one’s parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth. Apuzzo has also posted rambling posts on our web site, which you can find here.

Joe Arpaio birther

Joe Arpaio

No discussion of birthers would be complete without mentioning Joe Arpaio. Arpaio was ‘late to the party’ but served to reinvigorate the birther movement when it had just about completely died out. Joe Arpaio is a notorious publicity hound, and he activated his “cold case posse” to investigate Obama’s birth certificate. When Joe Arpaio conducted a press conference to “conclude” Obama’s birth certificate was a fraud, but Arpaio’s claims were quickly debunked by author John Woodman, who alleges that Arpaio fabricated evidence. Mostly the cold case posse rehashed previous claims with material from Jerome Corsi.

In my opinion, the chief reason Arpaio injected himself into the birther movement had more to do with the criminal investigation of Arpaio for abuse of power. If he was indicted, which seemed likely at the time, Arpaio could claim Obama went after him because he was investigating Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to serve as president. Arpaio also has a long track record of politically motivated investigations against his critics and political enemies, including journalists, Maricopa County Supervisors who crossed him, and even judges who ruled against Arpaio. I previously wrote how the ethics panel that disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas concluded Arpaio was a central figure in the abuse of power scandal (more here).

Birther Conclusion

William F. Buckley took on the fringe elements in the conservative movement in his era, calling out Ayn Rand, the John Birch Society, George Wallace, racists, white supremacists, and anti-Semites, seeking to root them out of the conservative movement. The birther movement is clearly an embarrassment to conservatives, and we should rid ourselves of them as if they were head lice. Ya basta! (Spanish for now enough!).

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Discuss: “Birther Madness!”

  1. February 16, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    Very well written and comprehensive article, Bob Quasius, except for one little quibble that I have – with your assertion that Obama “helped fuel the birther movement by refusing to release his long form birth certificate for many months, and excessive secrecy about many details of his past, such as school records helped fuel birther conspiracies as well.” To my way of thinking, Bob, Obama was essentially asked the question – “When did you stop beating your wife” – an impossible question to answer when one never did beat one’s wife.

    I’m pleased Bob Quasius that you continue to focus on the “Birther” issue as this Racist, I repeat, RACIST orientation now appears to be strongly directed at Hispanics within America.

    Bob Quasius you did an OUTSTANDING job in confronting Mario Apuzzo when he tried to plead his Birther Cause here, in the Cafe Con Leche Republicans – see http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen – and you do an outstanding job in your comments above in placing Mario Apuzzo’s legal brief’s (lengthy though they are) within the context of the LARGER LEGAL framework of actual happenings with the U.S. Courts.

    I agree with you, Bob Quasius, that we will no doubt be hearing a lot more from the Racist Birthers as time goes on.

    KEEP UP your excellant work in this area, Bob Quasius !!!!!!

    Clapping on the sidelines,

    Robert Allen

    Posted by boba123
    • February 16, 2013 at 5:52 pm #

      My point is that politicians’ lives are much like open books, and anytime they are excessively secret about something it just generates speculation they are hiding something. Other presidential candidates released far more of their past than Obama has, and in that sense he fueled speculation. He still hasn’t released much of his school records, and should do so.

      Posted by bquasius
      • February 16, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

        Bob, I would think that the point that your bring up would also apply to the tax returns that ol’ Mitt Romney refused to release within this last election cycle.

        Posted by boba123
      • February 17, 2013 at 10:07 am #

        While I commend you for adding Obama’s name to your new facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/291486874312403/ and for writing this article, but this point about ‘school records’ is a hangover from what I *think* were your birther curious days.

        I can’t find any evidence of a history of major candidates/President’s or Vice Presidents voluntarily releasing college records during their campaigns or their terms of office. I have only checked back roughly 60 years, though (in as many books/articles about election campaigns I could lay my hands on). I even called a few Presidential Libraries and got nowhere.

        People got hold of *some* of a handful of candidates transcripts (Pres. GW Bush, Al Gore and Rick Perry spring to mind) & John McCain’s class place (but no grades/transcript) was revealed in part of his Naval records following a FOIA request, but none of these people stumped up their ‘school records’ themselves. I still get confused about the circumstances in which John Kerry’s came to light, but either way it was not during his campaign, but after.

        It’s the same with your ‘delay’ quibble re the ‘long form’ BC. Obama was the first major candidate to ever release a state certified BC, in June 2008 during his campaign, and as far as I know, no President/Vice President or major candidate had released such a document during his/her campaign before.

        The Hawaii Director of Health, a registered Republican, confirmed Obama’s short form was legit, and that they had the ‘long form’ from which the data on the ‘short form’ was generated. There was no further information on his ‘long form that related to eligibility, so imo the clamor for it was just more ‘papers please’ posturing by birthers.

  2. February 21, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    Bob Quasius,

    You said:

    “Mario Apuzzo is another prominent birther attorney, with a 100% track record of losing birther cases (0 of 9 including appeals). Apuzzo has lost Purpura et al v. Obama, Kerchner v. Obama I, Kerchner v. Obama II, Tisdale v Obama, and Strunk v NY State Board of Elections et al (filed amicus brief). Apuzzo endlessly argues the founding fathers meant for Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to govern natural born citizenship, though there’s hardly a shred of evidence to support that claim, and Minor v. Happersett is the court precedent on natural born citizenship, even though the one translation of Vattel that uses the term “citizen” rather than “natives” was mistranslated AFTER our constitution was written. Minor v. Happersett DOES NOT support Apuzzo’s theory that for one to be a natural born citizen, one’s parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth. Apuzzo has also posted rambling posts on our web site, which you can find here.”

    1. You say that I “endlessly argue” for Vattel’s definition and that “there’s hardly a shred of evidence to support that claim.” You fail to cite, quote, and address, among other evidence that I have produced, evidence that I have put forth that proves that the Founders and Framers used Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural born Citizen.” See The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (all cite and quote Vattel’s /American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”). See also Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) (all of which support Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”); The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all support the conclusion that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth).

    2. You say: “[E]ven though the one translation of Vattel that uses the term “citizen” rather than “natives” was mistranslated AFTER our constitution was written.” This statement makes no sense and is purely your creation. All U.S. Supreme Court (except for Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) who used a translation of Vattel that preceded that of the English translation of 1797) and lower court cases that cite and quote Vattel and his Section 212 definitions of “Les naturels, ou indigenes” translate those words (labels) to mean “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus used “natives, or indigenes.” Regardless of how Vattel’s phrases (labels) were translated into English, all U.S. courts provided the same definition of those phrases (labels), including the exact syntax, i.e., “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (which in French Vattel said: “sont ceux qui sont ne’s dans le pays, de parents citoyens”). See The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (all cite and quote the Vattel’s/American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”). See also Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) ( all of which support such a reading of Vattel and his definition of a “natural born citizen”).

    3. You said: “Minor v. Happersett DOES NOT support Apuzzo’s theory that for one to be a natural born citizen, one’s parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth.” This is another one of your misrepresentations. Minor v. Happersett held:

    “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.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Given similar treatment by prior and subsequent historical sources and court cases, one cannot reasonably argue that this is not the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Also about two citizen parents, throughout our history and only until the Cable Act of 1922, which allowed women to have their own citizenship, in the U.S., a husband and wife always had the same citizenship which was that of the husband. Hence, the citizenship of both the husband and wife always counted to make one a “natural-born citizen.” So without doubt, when Minor, like other U.S. Supreme Court cases like Wong Kim Ark, said “parents,” it meant father and mother. So, we can see that Obama eligibility supporters have misrepresented the meaning of Minor.

    Minor said “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.” But we know that under the English common law, there were no such doubts. So, the Founders’ and Framers’ silence on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” surely could not have been because they chose to use the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. Rather, that silence was because the original public meaning of the clause was understood to be based on natural law and the law of nations which is what Minor used to define the clause. Minor also explained that there was no doubt about the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” as so defined. Hence, there would not have been any debate at the convention on the clause because the Founders and Framers defined the clause under the law of nations and the new American common law which Minor explained presented no doubts rather than under English common law which Minor explained did present doubts.

    4. You attempt to discredit my work by misrepresenting how some lower courts have ruled in my eligibility cases. Your fallacious appeal to what some lower courts have done or not done, with reference to sanctions against me, in place of your own reasoned and logical analysis reveals the weakness of your position.

    First, Kerchner v. Obama was decided on standing. Neither the New Jersey federal district court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reached my argument on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The Third Circuit stated: “We cannot discuss Appellants’ contention that ‘the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father.’ Appellants’ Br. at 18. That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” So as you can see, the Court never reached the merits of the “natural born Citizen” argument that I presented in the legal action.

    Second, the Third Circuit’s reference to “damages and costs” was directed to my appealing to the Third Circuit on the issue of standing, not on what I argued to be the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The Court issued an order that I show why I should not be made to pay the defense “damages and costs” incurred in having to defend against my appeal on the issue of standing. I responded to the Court, showing why the issue of standing in the context of an Article II “natural born Citizen” litigation, with no U.S. Supreme Court decision on the matter, was not as defined as the Court had stated it was. The Court was satisfied that my research and argument on the issue of standing showed that the matter was not as clear cut as the court had represented. The Court discharged its order to show cause and thereby did not require that I pay any damages or costs to the defendants. That you want to use this occurrence to somehow show that your definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct and mine incorrect is intellectually disgusting.

    Third, Tisdale v. Obama and Purpura/Moran v. Obama both relied upon the state case of Ankeny which is bad law. Ankeny does not trump historical sources and cases from our U.S. Supreme Court like, for example, Minor v. Happersett (1875). What our U.S. Supreme Court decides is the law of the land, not what a lower state court decides.

    Fourth, the simple point that you miss is that there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision which demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from any source other than American common law (not English common law) which has always showed and still shows that the clause means a child born in the country to parents who were citizens of the country at the time of the child’s birth. That U.S. Supreme Court definition is settled law and the supreme law of the land. That constitutional law does not get changed by lower federal or state courts as they have attempted to do with Barack Obama or as you are attempting to do with Ted Cruz.

    Fifth, you continue in your comments about “sanctions” against me and other nonsense. I have proven that you have no real argument and must resort to such personal attacks to try to convince the public that you are right.

    5. You said: “Apuzzo has also posted rambling posts on our web site, which you can find here.” I encourage the public readers to read my previous comments to your first article in which you come to the defense of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be President. Your readers will see that my comments are not “rambling posts,” but rather points to which you have failed to have any reasoned and logical response. In short, you lose again, Bob Quasius.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 21, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

      Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.

      Posted by bquasius
      • February 22, 2013 at 12:38 am #

        AND Mario Apuzzo, Esq – YOU have probably already forgotten the link that I POINTED attention to – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/american-christmas-1946 – in that thread on Ted Cruz.

        I’D STRONGLY Suggest, Mario Apuzzo, Esq – that YOU visit this link – ONE MORE TIME – and NOTE – that the author, Raoul Lowery Contreras – a MAJOR and Prolific contributor to Threads AND Comments within this Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – SPECIFICALLY indicates that HE, Raoul IS an American Citizen – even though he, Raoul, was BORN in Mexico OF an American Citizen MOTHER !!!!!!

        READ THAT LINK, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – and TELL US ALL – WHAT YOUR Legal thinking about Raoul’s American Citizenship Status IS !!!!!!

        WITH Raoul’s case in mind, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – BY DEFINITION – this ALSO makes President Obama an American Citizen – his MOM IS an American Citizen – AND – Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – this ALSO Makes Ted Cruz an American Citizen – cuz HIS MOM – IS an American Citizen.

        I may not be a lawyer like you are, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ. – BUT – I STRONGLY believe that Raoul Lowery Contreras IS TELLING THE TRUTH – about being AN AMERICAN CITIZEN – AT BIRTH – IN MEXICO !!!!!!

        Just sayin’ (as ONLY a layman, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ.),

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
      • March 2, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

        Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
        Description of Personal Attack

        A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

        Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual’s characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

        In general, it is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
        Examples of Personal Attack

        In a school debate, Bill claims that the President’s economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying “the freshman has his facts wrong.”

        “This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don’t see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer.”

        “Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that.”

        “That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is.”

        “Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill’s behavior offensive, so I’m not going to vote for Jill.”

        “Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don’t have to listen to her.”

        Bill: “I don’t think it is a good idea to cut social programs.”
        Jill: “Why not?”
        Bill: “Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and…”
        Jill: “You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head.”

        Posted by MichaelN
    • June 17, 2014 at 10:30 am #

      Once again, Attorney Apuzzo is purposefully misrepresenting what Vattel wrote. In that famous, often misunderstood Article 212 Vattel does what most writers often do: first, establish a general principle; then detail the particulars. The general principle is that citizenship is transmitted through blood.

      He expresses it in the following sentence: “Les naturels ou indigenes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays de parens citoyens.” Apuzzo’s willful mistranslation of this sentence ignores two things: one, the word “parens” doesn’t just mean father & mother, but all blood relatives, and “citoyens” is a group plural. What Vattel is saying in simple English is: citizenship is transmitted through blood relations; the very essence of the principle of jus sanquinis.

      Then, Vattel goes on in the very next sentence, to specify which parent exactly is the prime transmitter of citizenship: the father: “…ces enfants y suivent naturellement la condition de leur père” (the children follow the condition of their fathers, or more colloquially, inherit the status if their fathers) and because Vattel is the kind of writer who likes to repeat the same things twice to emphasize his point, he adds in the second next sentence “la patrie des pères est donc celle des enfants” (the father’s homeland shall be that of his children) and again “Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il faut être né d’un père citoyen”(I say that you belong to a country, one must have been born from a father who is a citizen [of that country’).

      One cannot be clearer than that, can one? Not only Vattel never wrote that one must have TWO citizen parents, he explicitly keeps harping (three times!!!) on the fact that it is the FATHER who transmits citizenship to his child.

      Had Vattel wanted to say that two citiozen parents were required to transmit citizenship (and we know that he didn’t shy from stating things three times rather than once!), French syntax would have required him to phrase his sentence differently. He would have said: “de DEUX parents citoyens” instead of using a group plural which simply means EITHER (as in : “only children whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the club may use the swimming pool” meaning EITHER parents, not BOTH).

      The absence of the word “deux” is critical here and simply makes Apuzzo’s interpretation absurd. I have of course challenged Attorney Apuzzo several times to find a single French (or German) source in 200+ years of Vattel scholarship that would agree with his nonsensical interpretation, but he never was able to produce one, because they don’t exist.

      (This is written by a French attorney.)

      Posted by Lupin
      • June 17, 2014 at 2:26 pm #

        You are just making stuff up. You want us to believe that Vattel, when he said “parens,” really meant “blood relatives.” You position is absurd.

        First, we have the words of Vattel himself which proves you wrong. We have this from Vattel, The Law of Nations. Vattel first defines the term, “country” as “the state of which one is a member,” adding that this is the meaning of the term which is to be used in the law of nations. Sec. 122. He further defines “country” as “the state, or even more particularly the town or place where our parents had their fixed residence . . . and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth.” Id. Later, Vattel explains that a nation is made up of its country or countries. In his CHAPTER XIX, entitled “Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it,” he adds that all a nation’s countries make up its territory and that the nation exercises its sovereignty over all its countries and territory. All of a nation’s countries and territories are also subject to the nation’s laws. Vattel stresses the critical importance of “love of country, –a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state.” Sec. 211. He states that a “citizen” is a member of the “civil society” (Sec. 212), which can only mean “country,” for the chapter in which he writes is about “Native Country” and he sets out to “explain several things that have a relation to this subject [country], and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.” Sec. 211. Then he adds that the “natural-born citizens” are those born in the country to parents who were already “citizens” of that country when the child was born. Sec. 212. He states “that each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.” He continues: “The country of the father is therefore that of the children.” Vattel finds it necessary that a child be born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” so that the place where the child is born is not only the place of the child’s birth, but also the country that the child will learn to love, cherish, preserve, and protect with his or her life. He adds that society must desire this if it is to assure itself of its own “preservation.”

        From this, we can clearly see that Vattel was referring to a child’s father and mother and not to some extended blood family. After all, a child is born to his or her father and mother and not to his other blood relatives. Additionally, the citizenship and domicile of which Vattel spoke was that of the father and mother and could not have been that of so many other blood family members, for to rely upon the citizenship and domicile of so many members of one’s blood family, with potentially a diverse array of citizenships and domiciles, would not have produced a united citizenship and domicile for the child to inherit.

        The central point regarding the need for citizen parents in order for a child born to parents in their country to be a natural born citizen is not how citizenship of the parents is obtained, but rather that they are both citizens prior to the birth of their child. During the time when Vattel wrote The Law of Nations, husbands and wives carried the same citizenship. Wives obtained their citizenship from their husbands. That Vattel speaks about the child’s “father” does not mean that just one citizen parent is sufficient for the child to be born a natural born citizen. In his Section 212 definition of a natural born citizen, he first uses the word “parents.” Later he speaks about “fathers” and “father.” He referred to father because at that time, husbands was the means by which wives obtained their citizenship. Vattel only referred to father because wives followed the citizenship of their husbands. The practice of the unity of citizenship of the husband and wife, with the wife taking on that of the husband, continued throughout our history until the Cable Act of 1922 which for the first time allowed wives to have a separate citizenship from her husband. Even Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) only provided for cases in which both parents were either citizens or aliens. So with the parents having just one citizenship and the child inheriting that citizenship by being born to them and in their nation, being a natural born citizen achieved unity of citizenship and allegiance of the child at the time of birth, meaning that the child was in allegiance with only one nation which was the nation of his or her parents and not also subject to any foreign power. This is the birth status that the Framers required in future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military in order for the nation to have the best chance of being lead in those vital positions by someone who was in allegiance, faith, and loyal only to the United States. So, the Cable Act allowed wives to have their own citizenship. But the act did not nor could it amend the natural born citizen clause’s requirement that both parents be citizens prior to the child’s birth to them in their country.

        Second, countless English translators of Vattel’s French text, starting in 1759 down to the present, have translated the French “parens” to the English “parents.”

        Third, all U.S. Supreme Court cases that ever commented on the meaning of a “natural born citizen” have used the English “parents” in place of the French “parens.”

        So, your battle is with the Framers, our Constitution, this history, and case law, and not with me.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • June 18, 2014 at 1:52 am #

          Attorney Apuzzo continues to lie and spin off absurd and mostly irrelevant statements about what Vattel wrote.

          I’ll make my reply short:

          1) the word “parens” (or “parents” as it’s spelled today) DOES mean blood relatives. As simple check in any French dictionary will verify this. Vattel uses it in this ordinary meaning in various places throughout his treatise. Here, it is merely to establish the basic principles of jus sanguinis.

          2) Vattel states unambiguously that it is the FATHER who transmits citizenship, not the father AND the mother. As I explained, the meaning is obvious in French and had he wanted to say otherwise, he would have had to phrase it differently.

          3) Whereas ALL French Vattelian scholars agree with this simple, straightforward reading of Art.212, Attorney Apuzzo has been unable to find a SINGLE scholar in 200 years who agrees with his twisted and frankly absurd contention.

          Posted by Lupin
          • June 18, 2014 at 12:12 pm #

            Well stated. Unfortunately birthers are like the energizer bunny. They keep coming and coming…

            Posted by bquasius
          • June 18, 2014 at 7:56 pm #

            Do you really believe that your comment adds anything of value here?

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  3. February 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    I believe that you have not yet correctly understood my position on what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Assuming the facts and the law as presented by Raoul Lowery Contreras (that he was born in Mexico to a U.S. “citizen” mother who was old enough to extend her U.S. citizenship to him at the time of his birth), I agree that he is an “American citizen” “at birth,” i.e., a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress.

    On the other hand, if Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he would not like Raoul be an “American citizen” “at birth,” i.e., a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress, let alone an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the birth status that he needs under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in order to be eligible to the Office of President. Under the Congressional naturalization act that applied when Obama was born in 1961, Obama would not be recognized as a “citizen of the United States.” That is because his U.S. citizen mother was only 18 years old at the time of his birth when she had to be at least 19 years old. But even if Obama’s mother had been old enough to transmit her U.S. citizenship to him, that would have made Obama only a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” by virtue of a naturalization act of Congress, and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” by virtue of American common law which requires birth in the country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Under this scenario, Obama would fail the “natural born Citizen” place of birth test.

    Finally, even if Obama was born in the United States, he could be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but again not an Article II “natural born Citizen” by virtue of American common law which requires birth in the country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, but not a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails the “natural born Citizen” “citizen parents” test. So, whether Obama is born in or out of the United States, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 22, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

      Thanks, Mario, for answering, partially, my question – although I’m not convinced that your answer musters enough authority to actually win a case at trial.

      Which of course, brings up the issue that Bob Quasius asked you right before I asked you my question.

      Bob Quasius’ question was –

      “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      And, Mario, I noticed in your response to me – that you didn’t say squat about Ted Cruz!!!!!

      Mario, Please answer Bob Quasius’ query – PLEASE !!!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
    • February 22, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

      Mario, parentage means NOTHING when referring to Natural born citizenship. WHERE you are born does.

      If you are born in America, then you ARE a natural born citizen.

      “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009

      Simply put: Any child born on US soil or in a US territory who retains American citizenship is a defacto NBC. PERIOD. Parents status means nothing.”

      Now, your mission, should you have the yambags to accept it, is to focus PRIMARILY on that and try to disprove it. IF you do not answer me PERSONALLY with facts to disprove that, then you are rendered irrelevant

  4. February 22, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    Raoul is not just an American citizen, but a natural born citizen, because he was born a citizen, though one parent was not a citizen and he was not born in U.S. territory. We agree he was born a citizen by statute and not under juis soli (law of the soil) under common law.

    Mario I see you are making the same arguments about natural born citizenship requiring both parents be citizens at the time of birth. Again, please provide a list of recent court precedents. It appears that there are a number of recent precedents where your argument (or similar arguments) about natural born citizenship was rejected by judges:
    Ankeny v. Daniels
    Fair v. Obama
    Farrar v. Obama
    Freeman v. Obama
    Galasso v. Obama
    Jackson v. Obama
    Paige v. Obama
    Powell v. Obama
    Purpura et al v. Obama
    Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections
    Swensson v. Obama Tisdale v. Obama
    Voeltz v. Obama et al
    Welden v. Obama

    Mario, I asked for a list of birther cases you have won with your argument but so far you haven’t responded. It would appear the overwhelming number of court precedents favor the argument Obama is a natural born citizen notwithstanding his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship. No judge has bought the evidence Obama was born abroad either. In the cases I have read both arguments were raised, that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, and even if he was he’s ineligible because both citizens weren’t citizens. In some decisions, Minor v. Happersett was explicitly rejected and the Wong Kim Ark was cited as precedent Obama is a natural born citizen.

    Also, you keep referring to American common law as if it is separate and distinct from English common law. When each of the states of the Confederation of States passed reception statutes embracing English common law, except where it conflicted with state constitutions. English Common law became American common law, and unless a state constitution conflicted or the state passed a statute overriding the prevailing meaning of natural born citizen, it would appear that the English common law interpretation of natural born citizenship continued in the U.S. under American common law. Did any state explicitly embrace Vattel in its constitution or in a statute? It doesn’t appear that’s the case or that argument would have been raised in any one of the 337 birther court decisions lost to date.

    Thus, at the point in time the constitution was adopted, under American common law, natural born citizenship meant birth on U.S. soil regardless of their parent’s citizenship status, or birth abroad via statute, and Congress promptly passed a statute in 1790 explicitly granting citizenship to children of two U.S. Citizens born abroad provided their parents met residency requirements, just as was the case in English law when we won our independence.

    Posted by bquasius
  5. February 22, 2013 at 2:33 pm #

    Bob Quasius,

    St. George Tucker in Tucker’s Blackstone, Note E instructed that “whenever the written law is silent,” and guided by “the nature and circumstances of each case,” we are to look to various sources of law to provide the rules of decision in any given case in which the federal courts otherwise had jurisdiction over the matter. He identified these sources of law and in this order: law of nations, common law of England, civil law, maritime law, general law and custom of merchants, and municipal laws of any foreign nation or of any state in the union. So, depending upon whether the written law was silent and the nature and circumstance of each case, one of those sources of law would provide the rule of decision in any given matter that was within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

    James Madison instructed in Federalist No. 42 how the Founders and Framers defined terms used in the Constitution. In No. 42, Madison explained that “certainty and uniformity” were needed for the Constitution and new federal government. He explained that definitions of terms used in the Constitution were “evidently requisite” for its proper, certain, and uniform application and understanding. With respect to defining “piracies” and “felonies” as used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, he accepted the law of nations as a proper source for defining “piracies,” even though various state municipal codes defined the term. He did not state that the law of nations provided a definition of “felonies.” He said that state laws could not provide the definition of terms used in the constitution due to impracticality when each state provided a different definition and therefore there was no uniform definition provided. He added that English common law and English statutes provided a “loose signification” of the meaning of “felonies” and that in any event, those laws were not to provide the rules of decision in any matter unless those laws were given that force by “legislative adoption.” He further said that using the meaning the individual states gave to the term “felonies” would be “impracticable” as the English common law and English statutes “would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining the constitutional term. Hence, he concluded that the power given to the federal government to define “felonies” was “necessary and proper.”

    Let us apply these principles to defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” and to the question of whether any state’s selective adoption of English common law would provide the rules of decision for its definition. The states were free to apply whatever law they wished when there was no written law (statutory) on the matter. But the laws followed in the states did not bind other states, let alone become the laws that provided the rules of decision on the national level. Some state could have defined its “natural born subject” under the English common law as that character applied to state citizenship, but state citizenship, however defined, by one state did not determine citizenship in other states, let alone define national citizenship. The national government needed uniformity when it came to not only naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) but also national citizenship and letting individual states define citizenship surely was not going to provide that uniformity.

    Article II uses “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject” which is a clause that existed in the English common law. The Founders and Framers were well aware of that law’s use of the latter term, but they rejected that term, both in the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson obliterated the word “subjects” in “our fellow subjects” and replaced it with “Citizens” so as to read, “our fellow Citizens” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html ) and the Constitution. Rather, they chose a clause which did not exist in the English common law, let alone defined by it. See United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 788 (1866) (“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.”). So, surely that law cannot be looked to to define the clause. On the other hand, the law of nations did specifically define a “natural-born citizen.” So, following Madison’s thinking, he would have looked to the law of nations to provide its definition. He would not have allowed the states to provide that definition because the states did not provide uniformity on the matter. Nor would he have allowed the English common law to provide that definition, for there was no “legislative adoption” of that law by the federal government. Moreover, the English common law would have been “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining a “natural born Citizen.” And finally, to whatever degree the English common law or statutory law still exerted any influence on the national level, that law was clearly abrogated by Congress when it passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (consistent with the law of nations rule that children follow the condition of their parents (“partus sequitur patrem”), treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born).

    So, we can fairly conclude that the Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations and not under the English common law which only the states selectively used for their “internal and domestic concerns.”

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 22, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

      Ah, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – it SURE looks to me – that YOU really GET OFF on dealing with – the ABSTRACT !!!

      However, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – when it comes to PRAGMATIC CONCRETENESS – Why, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – it LOOKS Like – you – AGAIN – have FORGOTTEN Bob Quasius’ querry. SO, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – I’ll REPEAT Bob Quasius’ querry –

      “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      Now, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – YOUR CONCRETE ANSWER is – ????????

      Just askin’, – AGAIN – and – AGAIN,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
    • February 22, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

      Several examples of common law reception statutes.

      Nowhere have I read any state embraced common law but took exception to citizenship. Nowhere have I seen where a state passed a statute changing the definition of citizen in accordance with Vattel.

      In fact, many argue that Vattel has been mistranslated, and the term “les naturels, ou indigènes” means natural or indigenes, not citizen, and the one translation that uses the term citizen was done AFTER the constitution was adopted.

      In French, “citizen” is “citoyen”, not “naturels” or “indigènes.” From the French National Album “La Marseillaise”, written in 1792

      Aux armes, citoyens !
      Formez vos bataillons !
      Marchons ! marchons !
      Qu’un sang impur
      Abreuve nos sillons !

      In English:

      To arms citizens
      Form your battalions
      March, march
      Let impure blood
      Water our furrows

      Posted by bquasius
  6. February 22, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

    I’m sorry but I’m fairly new here and I have question for Mr. Apuzzo who worte:

    ‘So, we can fairly conclude that the Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations and not under the English common law which only the states selectively used for their “internal and domestic concerns.” ‘

    I guess I’m wondering that IF “… the Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations and not English common law….” —- why didn’t they?

    Seems that if it were so important for them to make the de Vattel definition the “law of the land” why didn’t they do it when they had the opportunity?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • February 23, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

      Good question, Lawrence, especially since the Framers availed themselves of many terms that originate in English common, such as “eminent domain,” “habeas corpus,” and yes, “natural born.”

      Both Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark readily concede that the definition of natural born is to be found in common law. Not Vattel. Common law.

      Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
      • February 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

        Patrick,

        Bob Quasius, Creater and Moderator of this Blog Space, came up with this interesting Phrase – “It’s obvious she’s factually challenged – in other words a liar” – see thread – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/ann-coulter-insults-naturalized-citizens.

        No Patrick, I’ve had dealings with Ol’ Mario Apuzzo, ESQ! before – and Ol’ Mario let me know – LOUD and clear, that HIS ESQ means – that since I, Bob Allen, DON’T have an esquire to my name (except in quaint Old English), that he, Mario ESQ! – KNOWS, I mean, Really KNOWS, that he, Mario, Knows MORE about Birther Madness – than even ALL of the Judges who have thrown Birther Madness cases out of court – AND – out the window with the Baby STILL WET from the Bath Water !!!! Mario, ESQ! – KNOWS !!!!

        So, Patrict – let me WARN you – that Ol’ Mario, ESQ! – CAN (and IS) rather Vicious at times!!! I’ve RECEIVED some Viciousness (Nasty, Nasty, Oily and Greasy feeling stuff) FROM Mario, ESQ! !!! And it ain’t nice and doesn’t feel good. Smells bad, too !!!!!

        So, Patrick – I would suggess that you MAYBE you might want to use Ol’ Bob Quasius’ phrase – “It’s obvious she’s factually challenged….” when referring to Mario, ESQ! – rather than asserting that Mario, ESQ! IS – “an extreme liar….”

        I’m sure that Mario, ESQ! will be bothered by the word – “extreme” – as I am SURE that Mario, ESQ! will indicate that he is a “mild mannered, low key, low profile lawyer” or something as equally benign.

        Just a warning, Patrick – take it or leave it,

        Robert Allen

        PS – Patrick – I just notice, when reviewing the above, that I left the quote from Ol’ Bob Quasius – just stand there – naked – and pure as the driven snow – “It’s obvious she’s factually challenged….” Patrick – IF you use this phrase when referring to Ol’ Mario, ESQ! – Please, PLEASE – for MY sake – change the “she’s” to a “he’s” !!!!!! I wouldn’t want to give ol Mario, ESQ! an excuse – to accuse me of inducing a gender-identity, anxiety panic attack !!!! Patrick – for MY Sake – IF you use Bob’s Phrase – PLEASE CHANGE the gender wording !!!!!!

        Thanks in advance !!!!

        Posted by boba123
      • February 23, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

        The ABOVE – Should be a reply to Patrick’s comment –

        Patrick,

        Bob Quasius, Creater and Moderator of this Blog Space, came up with this interesting Phrase – “It’s obvious she’s factually challenged – in other words a liar” – see thread – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/ann-coulter-insults-naturalized-citizens.

        No Patrick, I’ve had dealings with Ol’ Mario Apuzzo, ESQ! before – and Ol’ Mario let me know – LOUD and clear, that HIS ESQ means – that since I, Bob Allen, DON’T have an esquire to my name (except in quaint Old English), that he, Mario ESQ! – KNOWS, I mean, Really KNOWS, that he, Mario, Knows MORE about Birther Madness – than even ALL of the Judges who have thrown Birther Madness cases out of court – AND – out the window with the Baby STILL WET from the Bath Water !!!! Mario, ESQ! – KNOWS !!!!

        So, Patrict – let me WARN you – that Ol’ Mario, ESQ! – CAN (and IS) rather Vicious at times!!! I’ve RECEIVED some Viciousness (Nasty, Nasty, Oily and Greasy feeling stuff) FROM Mario, ESQ! !!! And it ain’t nice and doesn’t feel good. Smells bad, too !!!!!

        So, Patrick – I would suggess that you MAYBE you might want to use Ol’ Bob Quasius’ phrase – “It’s obvious she’s factually challenged….” when referring to Mario, ESQ! – rather than asserting that Mario, ESQ! IS – “an extreme liar….”

        I’m sure that Mario, ESQ! will be bothered by the word – “extreme” – as I am SURE that Mario, ESQ! will indicate that he is a “mild mannered, low key, low profile lawyer” or something as equally benign.

        Just a warning, Patrick – take it or leave it,

        Robert Allen

        PS – Patrick – I just notice, when reviewing the above, that I left the quote from Ol’ Bob Quasius – just stand there – naked – and pure as the driven snow – “It’s obvious she’s factually challenged….” Patrick – IF you use this phrase when referring to Ol’ Mario, ESQ! – Please, PLEASE – for MY sake – change the “she’s” to a “he’s” !!!!!! I wouldn’t want to give ol Mario, ESQ! an excuse – to accuse me of inducing a gender-identity, anxiety panic attack !!!! Patrick – for MY Sake – IF you use Bob’s Phrase – PLEASE CHANGE the gender wording !!!!!!

        Thanks in advance !!!!

        Posted by boba123
        • February 24, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

          Thanks for the warning. I’ve had dealings with Mario myself, on other forums. When it gets too hot for him, he runs away.

          As I pointed out before, Mario specializes in accident claims (read: ambulance chaser) and drunk driving. To expect him to be able to weigh in on “natural born citizen” would be tantamount to seeing a dermatologist for pancreatic cancer.

          Mario is completely out of his element here. His “ESQ” after his name is utterly meaningless. (Though I confess I enjoyed watching the young, poised and presumably less experienced Alexandra Hill blow him out of the water, even declining the judge’s offer of time to review Apuzzo’s argument. Nope. She didn’t need it. She had the facts and she presented them. Mario was a JOKE! He said “uh” five times in as many seconds from the time he opened his mouth. “uh, uh, uh, uh, uh…” And listening to Mario ramble on and on and on about what he had to go through to present his driver’s license. Evidently, his strategy was to bore the judge to death. Alexandra had a better idea: point out that ballot challenges in the state of New Jersey cannot be made on the basis of whether or not the candidate is a natural born citizen. She shut down Apuzzo so thoroughly, he should have crawled into a hole out of sheer embarrassment.)

          Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  7. February 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, lying as always: ” (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring)”

    In the Venus, Chief Justice Marshall wrote the DISSENTING opinion. Perhaps you missed his opening paragraph, “…I feel myself compelled to dissent.”

    In fact, the ruling of the Venus, written by Bushrod Washington, described Vattel as “mere elementary writer on the law of nations,” and dismissed as “not much help.”

    “Natural born” originates in common law, NOT Vattel.

    Dred Scott…you’re quoting Dred Scott…a ruling that upheld the abhorrent notion that certain people were inferior and because of this, despite being born here, could not be citizens.

    Dred Scott was overturned, in case you weren’t aware of that fact. It involved a rather messy civil war and three amendments to the Constitution…sorry you didn’t get the memo.

    But whether opinions be concurring, dissenting or separate, it doesn’t matter. NOTHING can create case law or precedent EXCEPT the opinion of the court. You seem to either not know that, or hope your readers don’t.

    You’re an extreme liar and a disgusting human being, Mario. Stop lying to people.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  8. February 24, 2013 at 7:21 am #

    Patrick C.,
    I’m pretty much a fundamental question kinda guy and my experience gained from 30+ years of writing public health policy tells me that if one must write long, laborious thought pieces filled with assumption and supposition then they have little or no fact upon which their position.

    I find my eyes glazing over when I begin to read Mr. Apuzzo’s “explanations” for why the obvious is not obvious. I also wonder if according to Mr. Apuzzo’s somewhat stretched definition of “natural born Citizen” —- would he himself qualify? I would suspect that somewhere in his genealogy there is an ancestor who arrived in the US, lived as a citizen but never became a “naturalized Citizen”. Would this then not “taint” the entire line of descendency? I would think that would be case? After all isn’t that the notion behind the expression “fruit of the poison tree”?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  9. February 24, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

    Rick Bulow,

    Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana conflates and confounds an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. It assumes without demonstrating that a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment is the same as a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. In doing so, it commits grave constitutional error.

    In footnote 14 the court says:

    “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

    Ankeny connects Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen” from the moment of birth to “natural born Citizen” status when there is no such necessary connection. The Fourteenth Amendment does not speak of a “natural born Citizen.” Nor does it speak of a “naturalized citizen.” Rather it only mentions a “citizen of the United States.” Contrary to what Ankeny states, the Constitution does not divide the “citizens” between “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens. Rather, from Article I, II, and other parts of the Constitution, and from Congressional Acts, we learn that there are only two types of “citizens” in the United States, “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” The “natural born Citizens” are those born in the United States to “citizen parents.” This has always been the definition of the clause. So, all “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens” are “citizens of the United States,” not “naturalized citizens.” Ankeny concedes that the Court held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But then without any explanation conflates and confounds that Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.” In other words, it treats the Fourteenth Amendment as though it subsumed, incorporated, or included within it Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. But there is no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment ever repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen” clause and Ankeny simply assumes without explaining that it did. Ankeny erroneously interprets Wong Kim Ark by erroneously reading the Fourteenth Amendment. It reads the amendment to include the clause “natural born” when it only says “born.” It inserts the “natural born Citizen” clause into the amendment when it does not contain the clause, but only says “citizen of the United States.” It also erroneously concludes that the Fourteenth Amendment includes a definition of a “natural born Citizen” when it does not and only includes a definition of a “citizen of the United States.”

    Ankeny says that it is “immaterial” that Wong Kim Ark said Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” rather than a “natural born Citizen.” This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Clearly, the Framers distinguished in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Ankeny itself admits in its own opinion that it is aware of there being in the Constitution “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.” That distinction has to be given importance, but Ankeny totally disregards it.

    To insert the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Fourteenth Amendment, as Ankeny does, would produce this absurd result. The sentence would read: “All persons who are natural 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.” We have to include the word “natural” in the amendment, for the Founders and Framers thought it important enough to include it in Article II, saying “natural born” and not just “born.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that those born before the adoption of the Constitution, a “Citizen of the United States” is eligible to be President. It then adds that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President. In increasing the citizenship standard for future presidents, the Framers did not say “Citizen of the United States” from birth or at birth. Rather, they said “natural born Citizen.” To show the universality of the “natural born Citizen” clause, the they did not even qualify the clause with the words “of the United States,” which they used only with a “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, we can see from the way the Framers used these two clauses that they are absolutely distinct. Hence, “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” are two separate and distinct classes of “citizens.” To read the Fourteenth Amendment the way that Ankeny wants us to read it would merge these two classes of citizens which would in effect obliterate the “natural born Citizen” class and replace it with the “citizen of the United States” class, all without any indication from the framers of the amendment that the amendment was designed to do that to Article II and presidential eligibility.

    So, without any legal or historical authority, Ankeny conflates and confounds an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth and thereby equates a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” By doing so, it, without constitutional amendment, amends the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by changing the requirement of birth in the country to “citizen” parents to birth in the country to “domiciled” parents. So what Ankeny does is amend the Constitution without a constitutional amendment. By doing so, it commits grave constitutional error.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 24, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

      Hey, Hey there, Mario, ESQ! – YOU, yes, YOU, Mario, ESQ! SOMEHOW – I’ll repeat that – SOMEHOW – MISSED Bob Quasius’ Querry – YET AGAIN !!!!!!

      SO, Mario, ESQ! – I’LL Repeat the puppy FOR YOU – ONE MORE TIME –

      “Ah, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – it SURE looks to me – that YOU really GET OFF on dealing with – the ABSTRACT !!!

      However, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – when it comes to PRAGMATIC CONCRETENESS – Why, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – it LOOKS Like – you – AGAIN – have FORGOTTEN Bob Quasius’ querry. SO, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – I’ll REPEAT Bob Quasius’ querry –

      “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      Now, Mario Apuzzo, ESQ – YOUR CONCRETE ANSWER is – ????????

      Just askin’, – AGAIN – and – AGAIN,

      Robert Allen ”

      THAT, Mario, ESQ! – is the end – of ANOTHER REMINDER !!!!!!!!

      MAYBE, JUST, MAYBE – Mario, ESQ! – you can LOWER yourself – to ANSWER Bob Quasius’ Querry.

      THAT’S a MAYBE, Mario, ESQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
    • February 24, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

      Mario, the only constitutional error is you. For you see, if you had read the LAW then you would see that Obama AND Rubio ARE INDEED NATURAL BORN CITIZENS based on a certain US Code.

      you have just proven that you are nothing but an ambulance chaser and a quack who had been schooled by Bob Quasius, Larry M, AND Bob Allen COMBINED. We have done the RESEARCH and have DEBUNKED your false narrative.

      Nevertheless, I am going to be doing a panel on this on my very show in the future. You are welcome to come on and debate this issue if you can

  10. February 24, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

    Poor Patrick J. Colliano and Robert Allen,

    They are so mentally challenged that they actually believe that they are making legal arguments.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  11. February 24, 2013 at 3:18 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo: Msrs. Allen, Colliano, and Quasius have made a valid inquiry and I find myself curious as to the answer. How many cases have you won and where might I find them to read?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  12. February 24, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

    Ah Hem, Mario, ESQ! – since you ONCE AGAIN ATTACK ME – PERSONALLY – for “making a legal argument” – LET me assure YOU, Mario, ESQ! – that since I DON’T have an esquire to my name (except in Old English) – that I have NEVER – NEVER – NEVER – attempted to make a so-called “legal argument”!!!!!!

    I’m just asking YOU, Mario, ESQ!!!!!, to answer Bob Quasius’ Query – about HOW MANY LEGAL CASES – that YOU – HAVING, not Just an esquire to your name – but a REAL ESQ!!!!!!! associated with your name – How many Legal cases of this Birther Thingy, Mario, ESQ! – Have you won.

    Just askin’ (and Please, Mario, ESQ! DON’T attack me again – PLEASE),

    Robert Allen
    PS – Mario – I would think that my use of the word – “thingy” – would PROVE to you that I am NOT, I repeat, NOT attempting to make a legal argument. I can’t think of any legal document where I have ever seen the word – “thingy”!!!!!!!

    Posted by boba123
  13. February 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm #

    What I find vexing about this discussion is that Mr. Apuzzo continues to argue that cases which clearly fall on the opposite side of his theory are irrelevant while he cannot cite one single case in which the finding supports his theory.

    On a policy level, if Mr. Apuzzo worked for me I guess I would find a different advocate.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • February 24, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

      Vexing, indeed, Lawrence. NOT being a lawyer myself – and NEVER attempting to make a legal argument – I find it more that vexing – that either through Short-term memory loss, or through just plain avoidence, Mario, ESQ! appears to see that is below his Dignity (or, whatever) to answer Bob Quasius’ simple query !!!!

      But then, Lawrence – THIS is the way tha LAWYERS Probably deal with everything !!!!! I betcha, Lawrence, that it’s EITHER Short-term memory loss or just plain avoidence that is DRIVING this sequestration thingy in Congress right now !!!!

      So in a way, Lawrence, even though you personally wouldn’t hire Mario, ESQ! for the way that Mario, ESQ! deals with policy – for better or worse – it looks like the American People HAVE Hired this kind of policy work – by paying for all of the LAWYERS within the Congress – to deal with this sequestration thingy

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  14. February 24, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    I’d say, Robert, that you’ve pretty well nailed it in the last paragraph.

    C’mon Mario! Wop to wop — how many cases has your theory been successful in?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • February 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

      “Wop to wop” – Lawrence !!!!!!

      With Out Papers to With Out Papers – why – DON’T papers have anything to do with this Birther Madness ????????

      Reading the way Mario, ESQ! puts it – sure looks to me like A LOT of papers are involved.

      With Out Papers, indeed !!!!!

      Posted by boba123
  15. February 24, 2013 at 4:56 pm #

    Robert Allen and Lawrence F Mazzucchelli (what a fake name),

    If you think that it has all been said in the courts already, then why are you still here trying to convince us that you are right?

    Yes, indeed, the mentally challenged realize they have no legal argument, publicly concede they have no legal argument to make it look like they are not mentally challenged, but then because they are mentally challenged, just repeat the same tripe without making any legal argument.

    Also, Frank, keep dreaming that you could actually have anybody working for you.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 24, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

      Birthers 0 – anti-birthers 337 (last count). How many anti-birther lawyers were sanctioned? Now who’s making frivolous claims and appeals? Hint, not your opposition.

      Lawrence F Mazzucchelli is his real name. I know him.

      All: please address your comments to the issue at hand, not others posting comments here. Let’s keep this debate civil please so all can learn, enjoy the debate, etc.

      Posted by bquasius
  16. February 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    The Apuzzo Strategy: When confronted with a winning and compelling argument that you have a snowball’s chance of defeating — declare it a fake and plunge forward.

    So Mario, here’s you challenge; it has three parts:

    Part 1: Provide us with exactly ONE case in which your theory of natural born citizen has prevailed.

    Part 2: Prove that my surname is a fake.

    Part 3: Provide us with proof that according to YOUR theory YOU are a natural born Citizen.

    And for the record, Frank (Francis Lewis) was my father; his father was Guiseppe Isodoro from Besnate. He had two brothers Felice and, oddly enough, Mario. His mother was Erminia Monti. Shall I continue? Its really very fascinating history as I’m certain your is. Or Mario— are you concerned that based on your theory YOU are not really a Natural born Citizen?

    I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right. I’m trying to get you to provide real proof that you’re right. So far I’d have to say that your track record is woefully inadequate and as far as I’m concerned the question was settled by James Madison.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  17. February 24, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    Frank,

    You and I do not have much to say to each other. You have not been able to seriously discuss the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” You are nothing but a waste of my time.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  18. February 24, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

    And you Mario have been unable to successfully argue your own theory. I’d say that makes you nothing but a waste of your time.

    See, I can throw insults as well you but I think mine is more on point don’t you?

    Wanna have a serious discussion? Fine. Let’s start here:

    Prove that James Madison relied on de Vattel. Show me his writings, any of them in which he wrote something akin to: ” I am basing Article II Section 1 on de Vattel’s theory of jus sanguinis.

    I think that’s fair place to start.

    But if you don’t like that just skip to listing that case that you won so that we can all read it.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  19. February 24, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

    One more thing. If you insist on calling me Frank, I’d much prefer that you use the more ethnically correct Francis. BTW, is Apuzzo spelled correctly? Just curious. So many names were changed at Ellis Island.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • February 24, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

      Ellis Island ???? Are you serious, Lawrence ????

      WHY, Larrence and Mario,ESQ!~!!, in the 1950s – Attorney General Tom Clark – LOVED placing folk in Ellis Island – during his MASSIVE SWEEPS of Communists and other Lefties !!!!!!

      You CAN’T be implying, Lawrence – that Mario, ESQ!’s family – the place where Tom Clark just LOVED to place Commies !!!!!! – (say it ain’t True, Lawrence) – that the Ellis Island that you appear to be associating with Mario,ESQ!’s family – WOULD, or COULD BE – the SAME Ellis that Tom Clark used – to keep Commies – off the streets !!!!!!!!!

      DAMN, Lawrence, No Wonder Mario,ESQ! has a chip on his shoulder – when we’re talking Tom Clark (ALSO an Esq. Lawyer) using Ellis Island for COMMIES – and you, Lawrence, are talkin’ Ellis Island vis-a-vis Mario,ESQ!’s FAMILY !!!

      I think that we all need to follow Bob Quasius’ advice – ” please address your comments to the issue at hand, not others posting comments here. Let’s keep this debate civil please so all can learn, enjoy the debate, etc.”.

      I appologize in advance, Bob, for letting Lawrence’s usage of the phrase – “ELLIS ISLAND”, almost stand out in BOLDFACE for me. You know that I’m writing this book on America’s Architecture of the Cold War – so when I THINK Ellis Island – I can only think ’bout Ol’ Attorney General, Tom Clark – placing of Commies and other Lefties on Ellis Island – as part of an instant replay of a mini-Palmer-style-Raiding-thingy during the mid-1940s onward.

      I’m so caught up in my Book, Bob – that I let the emotional event of the moment – when I read Lawrence referring to Ellis Island – well, I just lost it, Bob Quasius – and that’s just the way it happened, too !!!

      As SPEAKING TO and ABOUT Bob Quasius, Mario,SEQ! – with me ONLY ASSUMING – a Short-term memory loss on YOUR Part, Mario,ESQ! – I’ll repeat Bob Quasius’ Query to you, Mario,ESQ! –

      ““Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      WAKE UP, Mario.ESQ! !!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP !!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  20. February 24, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    Maybe the wrapping has come a bit undone.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 24, 2013 at 9:48 pm #

      DAMN, Mario, ESQ! – YOUR Short-term memory problem – is even WORSE THAN I thought!!!!

      Let’s see, Mario, ESQ! – IF it IS EVEN POSSIBLE – for you to even CONCEPTUALIZE a response to Bob Quasius’ Query –

      “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      It’s a REAL PROBLEM, Mario,ESQ! – when YOUR Short-term MEMORY PROBLEM – actually PREVENTS YOU – from even CONCEPTUALIZING a response to Bob Quasius’ Query !!!

      Try, Mario,ESQ! – TRY !!!!!

      Be like the little engine that could, Mario,ESQ! – “I think I can. I think I can. I think I can” BE, Mario,ESQ! – the little engine that could !!!

      Chearin’ for ya, Maio,ESQ! – to OVERCOME – this Short-term memory problem that you seem to have !!!!!! I certainly wouldn’t want to even entertain the possibity, Mario,ESQ! – that you ARE AVOIDING answering Bob Quasius’ Query !!!!!! That, Mario,ESQ! – WOULD be CHEATING – and I assure you, Mario,ESQ! – if folk within the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – start to think, that YOU, Mario,ESQ! ARE CHEATING …..

      All I can say, Mario, ESQ!@@@!!!! – is – WAKE UP!!!!!! And fly right !!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  21. February 24, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    May I recommend some bed rest.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 25, 2013 at 1:27 am #

      Well, Mario,ESQ! – It’s obviously NOT a Short-term memory loss thingy with you vis-a-vis Bob Quasius’s Query !!!!!

      Obviously, Mario,ESQ! – you are AVOIDING answering Bob Quasius’ Query – because you can’t – SIMPLE as that – and I, out of compassion – HAD be giving YOU, Mario,ESQ! – then benefit of claiming – Short-term memory loss!!

      SO, Mario,ESQ! – FACE it like a MAN – not a mouse – YOU just can’t answer Bob Quasius’ Query !!!!

      Too Bad. So Sad. SO Mario,ESQ! – what a whimp !!!!!!

      Just like a Birther – STILL – and SILENT !!!!!!

      Posted by boba123
  22. February 25, 2013 at 6:50 am #

    Bob A., my family came to America in 1901 well before the events you described which have nothing what so ever to do with my question to Mr. Apuzzo. For the record but I’m certain you knew this. Ellis Island is a place, a very special place and not just a phrase.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • February 25, 2013 at 11:50 am #

      Yeah, Lawrence, I know that Ellis Island is a special place, not just a phrase – and I certainly don’t want to cast any negative things against your family – I just wanted to do some rabble-rousing against Mario,ESQ! and his family.

      I know now that Matio,ESQ! doesn’t have a Short-term memory loss – and that Mario,ESQ! not being able to get it up, so to speak, within a Court of Law (where he and other Lawyers dispute the issues) – that Mario,ESQ! is trying to recapture his lost man-hood, so to speak, and trying to demonstrate – within this Blog Space – that not only can he get it up, so to speak, but, keep it up (and man, Mario,ESQ! REALLY TRIES to keep it up with blather after blather) – but to no avail!!!!!

      Lawrence, I’m convinced, that it takes a certain kind of pre-disposition to laughter, directed at the SELF, for Mario,ESQ! to continue posting his loosing cause within this Blog Space.

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  23. February 25, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

    We have different styles Bob. The importance of my point is that I suspect that if Apuzzo family history is anything like mine there’s a better than even chance that according to his own theory he may not be an NBC. I would hope that he would recognize that and have a serious discussion about the logical extension of his argument.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  24. February 25, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    Mario is getting so desperate that he thinks “citizen of the United States” is a third class of citizen.

    He should be reminded that Virginia Minor was described in those exact terms in the Minor v. Happersett ruling.

    From the opening sentence of the Chief Justice Waite’s opinion of the court: “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”

    Notice, she is a “citizen of the United States.” That is merely a blanket term that includes both natural born and naturalized citizens.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  25. February 25, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

    Interestingly enough, SCOTUS could not create a comprehensive definition of “natural born citizen” even if it wanted to. That power belongs to congress and congress alone. And, in a stunning case of irony, it’s Minor v. Happersett that points this out.

    From Minor v. Happersett: “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ‘that any alien, being a free white person,’ might be admitted as a citizen of the United States…and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”

    Notice, “under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization,” a power that is Congress’s constitutionally protected right, they extended “natural born citizens” to those born outside the U.S. to citizen parents.

    This has been affirmed by subsequent courts, “the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents … [has been left] to be regulated, as it always has been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

    Judge William Alsup of the Northern District Court of California affirmed this right of Congress when deciding the case of Robinson v. Bowen (a birther suit that challenged the eligibility of John McCain).

    The Constitution, Alsup said, “left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth.” He shortly added that “it has always been left to Congress to define who may be a citizen by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter).”

    Why hasn’t Mario Apuzzo been charged with impersonating a lawyer?

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
    • February 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm #

      Thanks Patrick for presenting a LEGAL ARGUEMENT – something that Mario, ESQ! – CONDEMS ME – for not presenting – although I am NOT a lawyer – and DON’T even have an esquire to my name (except in Old English)!!!!

      As I keep trying to SAY – OVER – and Over – and OVER – to Mario,ESQ! – that I have never, ever, ever, ever – attempted to present a Legal Argument – preferring to present – JUST – Logical Arguements!!!!!

      Yet, Mario,ESQ! – insists – yes (in writing even!!!!), insists – that I, Robert Allen – DON’T – yes, DON’T present a Legal Arguement – which gives Ol’ Mario,ESQ! THE Opportunity – to – in a state of MORAL Reich-itness (yes, I admit it, Lawrence, that I beleive, really believe, that lawyers are capable of having Moral Standards and Values) to say. Ol’ Mario,ESQ! then says – that he doesn’t have to speak with me – because I don’t present a Legal Argurment!!!! He, Maio,ESQ!, THEN dismisses EVERYTHING that I have to say!!!! What a POMPOUS ASS thingy for Mario,ESQ! to claim – on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – CREATED and MONITORED – BY – Bob Qausius – the guy who ASKED Mario,ESQ! to ANSWER THIS SIMPLE Query –
      “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      The way I see it, Patrick – NOT being a lawyer myself, I need to change the wording of your last question to Mario,WSQ! – My wording would be –

      Why hasn’t Mario Apuzzo been charge with impersonating a human being????

      The idea – THE VERY idea – that Mario,ESQ! REFUSES to answer a Query – from the guy, Bob Quasius – WHO – Created, Maintains, and Monitors THIS Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – speaks TO an – Arrogance that passes ALL UNDERSTANDING !!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  26. February 25, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    Keep up the good work. What the United States needs is a healthy two party system, with two rational parties, both close to the center, discussing the issues in a reasoned and ration manner.. The birthers, and other haters, do the system no favors.

    Posted by Scott J. Tepper
    • February 25, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

      Well now Scott – I’m not convinced that the United States needs two rational parties “close to the center” – as this close to center orientation actually gets in the way of innovation !!!!!

      For everything else, though Scott, particularly about the “birthers, and other haters” – that YOU Scott, say above – IS Right ON – as we used to say, back in the day – when SOME in my generation spoke up with a strong voice that OUR Country – had sold it’s Soul – to greed and profit – at the expense of liberty and freedom!!!!

      I’m more of a mind, Scott, that two – or more – rational parties – offering a number of choices – away from the middle – IS what keeps America Healthy and Strong !!!!!

      Even us Lefties – still love America – but just don’t like or care for the MANY WRONG PATHS that America has taken over a number of years.

      Just sayin’, with the Spirit of ’76, thrivin’ in my NON-Theistic Soul,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  27. February 26, 2013 at 12:03 am #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    The Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, when referring to U.S. “citizens,” either call them “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” In keeping with those laws, I have therefore only identified two classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizen” class and the “citizen of the United States” class. You are the one that makes up a “naturalized citizen” class, which is a non-existent third class.

    You erroneously conflate the ruling of the Minor Court with the question the parties presented to the Court. In the parties’ question presented in Minor v. Happersett (1875), the parties conceded that Virginia Minor was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But the question presented to the Court by the parties is not the “Minor v. Happersett ruling.” Despite the parties’ question presented, the Court proceeded to show how Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” The Court said that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural-born citizen” were defined by the Constitution which at that time already included the Fourteenth Amendment. It also demonstrated that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be a “citizen.” The Court, to determine whether someone like Virginia Minor was a “citizen” then proceeded to define the “natural-born citizen” class. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that

    “[a]t 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.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (favorably cited and quoted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898)).

    Given this definition (which required parents who were physically present in the United States to be actual “citizens”), we can see that the Court relied upon American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations and not English common law (which treated automatically as “subjects” parents present in the King’s dominion who were aliens in amity). So, the Court relied upon American common law and neither the English common law nor the Fourteenth Amendment to define a “natural-born citizen.” The Court said that at common law all children born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” became not only “citizens” like their parents, but also “natural-born citizens.” The Court did not use the Fourteenth Amendment language of “citizen of the United States.” So, Minor established that at common law, there were “citizens,” who were actually “natural-born citizens,” if they were born in the country to parents who were its “citizens.”

    Minor added that “some authorities” went further by included other children within the “citizen” class. The Court said that these authorities took the position that children “born in the jurisdiction” (clearly a reference to the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause) to alien parents were also “citizens.” Minor said that “there have been doubts” about the citizenship status of this other class of persons, but never about the citizenship status of the first class, i.e., the “natural-born citizen” class. Hence, Minor explained that these U.S.-born children of alien parents belonged to a different class from U.S.-born children of “citizen” parents who it called “natural-born citizens.” Because anyone born in the country to “citizen” parents was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court said that it had enough to hold that any such person was a “citizen.” Minor therefore explained that, given the Virginia Minor birth facts that it had before it, it was not necessary to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment and its “citizen of the United States” class to determine whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “citizen” under that amendment (i.e., a “citizen of the United States”).

    In 1898, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was presented with a different set of facts from those with which Minor was presented. While Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, Wong was born in the United States to alien parents. Now the Court could not rely on the same American common law which Minor used to find that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.” Wong was now compelled to answer the question left open by Minor and to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment and its “citizen of the United States” clause to do so. Relying upon the colonial English common law as an aid of construction, it held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore a “citizen of the United States” at birth. In so holding, Wong Kim Ark distinguished an American common law “natural-born citizen,” who it agreed with Minor was a child born in a country to “citizen” parents, from a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” which it held Wong was.

    So, we have seen that according to the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, American common law is the law which defines a “natural born Citizen.” When we add to the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress and treaties as other sources of American citizenship, we come to the conclusion that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is defined under American common law and a “citizen of the United States” is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, or treaties.

    All this also demonstrates that “citizens” are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” All “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens,” are “citizens of the United States.” “Citizens of the United States” acquire their national character either at birth automatically or after birth through naturalization after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are defined only under American common law. “Citizens of the United States” are defined under the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, or treaties. A “natural born Citizen” also satisfies the definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a).

    President, Barack Obama (allegedly born in Hawaii, but to a non-U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother), Marco Rubio (born in Florida, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents), Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents), and Nikki Haley (born in South Carolina, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents) are all “citizens of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a). But since none of them were born in the United States to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of their birth, none of them are American common law “natural born Citizens.”

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. William Blackstone explained that the English statutes provided that

    “[t]o encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers (or grandfathers by the father’s side) were natural-born subjects, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes” (footnotes omitted) (emphasis on “both,” “fathers,” and “grandfathers” in the original).

    1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354, 357-58, 361-62 (1765). Even giving Cruz the benefit that this law should be interpreted to allow his U.S. citizen mother (Blackstone first emphasized “both” parents and then “fathers” or “grandfathers” by the father’s side) to transmit her U.S. citizenship to him, this law still does not help him. The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents were “considered as natural born citizens.” But the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the words “considered as natural born citizens” and replaced them with “considered as citizens of the United States.” Congress only has naturalization power under the Constitution which does not include the power to make “natural born Citizens.” Congress has understood this and it has never again used in any of its statutes the clause “natural born citizen.” So, Ted Cruz is a “citizen of the United States” at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g). But because he was not born in the United States to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of their birth, he is not an American common law “natural born Citizen.”

    So, you see Patrick, things are no so easy when you are dealing with a person who is not impersonating a lawyer.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 26, 2013 at 12:31 am #

      WELL – HOT DAMN, Mario,ESQ!!!!!! YOU have an Arrogance – that’s not ONLY BIGGER than ALL OUTDOORS – YOU, Mario,ESQ!@!!!! – HAVE an Arrogance that is LARGE ENOUGH to FILL ALL of HELL – with even SOME left over !!!!

      Mario,ESQ! – SEE MY February 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm – Comment above – FOR MY reference to – the OVER-STUFFED Arrogance – that YOU, Mario,ESQ! – SHOW !!!

      “The idea – THE VERY idea – that Mario,ESQ! REFUSES to answer a Query – from the guy, Bob Quasius – WHO – Created, Maintains, and Monitors THIS Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – speaks TO an – Arrogance that passes ALL UNDERSTANDING !!!!”

      Bob Quasius IS ALSO the guy that co-ordinates ALL of the FUNDRAISING for the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space !!!!!

      SO, Mario,ESQ! – like a CHEAP guy wearin’, a CHEAP SUIT – You REFUSE to answer a SIMPLE QUERY – FROM the guy – who LETS YOU, Mario,ESQ! – POST YOUR NONSENSE – on THIS Blog Space – for FREE !!!! AND THEN, Mario,ESQ! – YOU REFUSE to answer Bob Quasius’ SIMPLE QUERY !!!!!!

      YOU, Mario,ESQ! – are an example of – ALL THAT IS WRONG – within the Republican Party !!!!! Cheap guy – Cheap suit – FREE LOADER – and a guy with a lot of Clap-Trap – AND ARROGANCE !!!!!

      SHIT, Mario,ESQ – grow a pair !!!!!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
    • February 26, 2013 at 5:52 am #

      Mario Apuzzo:

      Given this definition (which required parents who were physically present in the United States to be actual “citizens”), we can see that the Court relied upon American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations and not English common law (which treated automatically as “subjects” parents present in the King’s dominion who were aliens in amity).

      Wrong! American common law’s origins lie in English common law, as every state passed a reception statute. A list can be found here. Can you furnish an example of a state statute adopting a different standard for natural born citizen? It’s doubtful, especially since Vattel wasn’t translated from French until AFTER our constitution was adopted! Many of the framers of our state and federal constitutions, such as George Washington, didn’t understand French either, but somehow we’re supposed to presume they read a book in a foreign language and agreed on a completely different definition of natural born citizen than was the practice in the colonies and Confederation of States.

      As for Ted Cruz, Blackstone’s commentaries make clear that birthright citizenship in English common law could be extended by statute, and as we all know statutes can be changed. Originally under the 1790 law both fathers had to be citizens who met a residency requirement. The statutes have changed from time to time, but at the time Ted Cruz was born only one citizen parent – who also had to meet a residency requirement – was sufficient. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, in other words a natural born citizen!

      I read Minor v. Happersett again, and nowhere is “natural law”, or Vattel cited.

      Let’s cut to the chase… kindly provide us a list of cases where the judge agreed that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
      1.
      2.
      3.

      List of cases where the judge held Obama is a natural born citizen:
      Ankeny v. Daniels
      Fair v. Obama (appeal pending)
      Farrar v. Obama (administrative law judge and Secretary of State both found Obama is a NBC)
      Freeman v. Obama
      Galasso v. Obama
      Jackson v. Obama
      Paige v. Obama
      Powell v. Obama
      Purpura et al v. Obama (both ALJ and Superior Court concluded Obama a NBC)
      Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections
      Swensson v. Obama (both ALJ and SOS concluded Obama a NBC)
      Tisdale v. Obama
      Voeltz v. Obama et al
      Welden v. Obama

      thank you,

      Bob Quasius

      Posted by bquasius
    • February 26, 2013 at 6:09 am #

      Mario, the code you mentioned refers to NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. So in a sense you just made our argument FOR us.

      ALSO, I have to remind you of a little something I got in the Pocket Catechism to the Constitution from Liberty Alliance, pages 68 and 69:

      Q. 203. May any person be chosen President of the United States?
      A. Not every person. None may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for fourteen years

      So you see, dear Mario. if you are BORN IN THE UNITED STATES then you ARE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

  28. February 26, 2013 at 6:57 am #

    It is still only February and the gnats are already out and large ones at that.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 26, 2013 at 7:09 am #

      Mario, Only gnat here is you, as Bob Quasius, Bob Allen, Larry M, and I have provided FACTS and EVIDENCE to prove that NATURAL BORN CITIZEN = BORN IN AMERICA. You have been debunked like a boss and yet you keep coming back for more.

      If I did not know any better, I would say you, “dear sir” (and I use that phrase loosely) are a masochist who does not know when to give up.

      Also, you have YET to provide any of your so-called “victories” that you told Mr. Quasius you had. Now, on the other hand Mr. Quasius has provided case after case which shows where Natural born citizen = born IN AMERICA. Now, you will answer him or else you are rendered irrelevant for the second time by me (as you had failed to debunk Ankeny which, oh, BTW, is a RECENT COURT RULING!

  29. February 26, 2013 at 7:01 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    While I find your argument very scholarly, I remain puzzled by the fact that you have yet to show one single instance in which your theory and that is all it is, a theory, has prevailed.

    Apart from that as a matter of scholarship I find you theory deeply flawed. For example it has been clearly shown here that 1) colonies and the states adopted English Common Law with out reference at all to de Vattel’s Law of Nature. 2)While you insist on waving Happersett as your banner of proof it does not, in fact, provide any proof since the Court clearly stated that they did need to address the issue of citizenship in order to render judgement in the case. 3) In your opening paragraph you write about “two classes” of citizen. In point of fact it is not two classes that the constitution describes but rather two pathways for obtaining citizenship. After all one may only be a citizen by virtue of birth or some other mechanism which we now accept as naturalization.

    With respect to citizenship by birth there is no where either in the Constitution or in US code that requires both parents to have been either born on US soil or be US Citizens in order for the offspring born on US soil to be a US Citizen. What you apparent choose to overlook is the added requirement that such parents and their offspring submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the US and reject the jurisdiction of another country.

    For example, let’s consider the great Italian emigration of the early 20th century. EllisIsland.org lists 197 Apuzzo’s who arrived in this country during that period. I would say that upon their arrival most of the Apuzzo’s settled in, raised their children and lived their lives as Americans. I wonder how many of those immigrants went through a legal naturalization process? I wonder how many arrived with infant children who knew no other country and grew up believing that they were US Citizens. I wonder how man arrived here pregnant and assumed that their new born daughter or son was a natural born US Citizen.

    I wonder how many of those 197 Apuzzo’s were your relatives?
    Which begs the question again, Mr. Apuzzo based on your theory are you a US Citizen?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  30. February 26, 2013 at 7:02 am #

    Lurker and first time poster, however when the Putzmeister starts his drivel it’s impossible not to post.

    For your pleasure and ’cause it seems to annoy M le Putz ESQ a little something a far more snarky person than I posted over at CAAFLOG some time ago.

    Here the man who dreams of relevance failed epicaly when he decided to tell a selection of JAG’s and military lawyers how right he was and how wrong tey where during the Lakin courtmartial.

    In addition to the bloviating drivel posted by Mario above, La Putz alas has no discernable sense of humor, he got seriously bent out of shape when this was posted over at CAAFLOG .

    Mario meets The Supremes….

    Justice Alito: Mr Apuzzo, I would….

    Mario: Esquire

    Justice Alito: I beg your pardon

    Mario: It’s Mr Appuzzo Esquire, I’m a lawyer you know.

    Justice Alito: I am fully aware you are a lawyer Mr Apuzzo, you’re here arguing a case.

    Mario: It’s important to get the terminology right, I paid good money for the Esq.

    Justice Scalia: OK already, we get it, the Esq is given lets move on.

    Justice Alito: Thanks Tony, moving on, Mr Apuzzo, your case is one that seeks….

    Mario: I object

    Justice Alito: What ! What do you mean you object, I’m trying to describe your case how can you object to that?

    Mario: They are here !!!

    Justice Scalia: What, what are you talking about, who is here..?

    Mario: Them, those two, over there in the black robes

    Justice Thomas: We all wear black robes, that’s all I’m saying and it’s not dicta.

    Justice Roberts: Sammy, what’s he saying, look can we hurry up, she who must be obeyed has a long Honey-Do list for me for Christmas

    Justice Alito: Mr Apuzzo, just WHAT or WHO are you objecting to?

    Mario: Those two there, (points wildly)

    Justice Alito: From your frenetic semaphore I take it you mean Justices Sotomayer and Kagan

    Mario: Yeah, them two, shouldn’t be here

    Justice Kagan: I got this Sammy, OY, paisan, what’s your problem with me, ’cause I’m a woman, ’cause I use Jewish words or ’cause I’m from Noo Yawk. Well, spit it out, don’t keep me waiting.

    Mario: You didn’t recuse yourselves that’s why AND YOU KNOW WHY !!!

    Justice Kagan: No Joisey, I don’t “know why” why don’t you enlighten Sonia, me and the boys

    Mario: You were nominated by the Usurper so you’re tainted, begone by the power of Vattel vested in me.

    Justice Sotomayer: Vatell…Vattel, what’s he babbbling about, ¦anyone..?

    Justice Kennedy: I seem to remember something from. .no not that’s it ..no…¦Don’t they make childrens toys? Is this a consumer safety case? I thought it was an electoral issue?

    Mario: NO not Mattel, Vattel, Vattel he is the most significant contributor to the Constitution and defined Natural Born Citizen, its’ all in my briefs

    Justice Ginsburg: I remember, part of a pop quiz back in ’56 at Harvard, “Who was cited the LEAST in the Federalist Papers but had a minor input on international relation definitions in the Constitution”, no one got it, we couldn’t even agree how his name was spelled or his nationality. Nasty ideas but a creature of his time.

    Justice Breyer: Oh no..Johnny, he’s a bloody Birther, what in the name of Beelzebubs left nut are we doing with this. We had this chat over 2 years ago

    Justice Kagan: A Birfer…A Joisy Birfer..A Joisy Birfer who things he can tell ME to recuse myself? Sammy, did you set this up?

    Justice Alito: I’m sorry, a friend asked if I could have a look, I owed him a favor, what can I say. Maybe when I saw all the clerks sending his brief around as a punk’d email I should have looked a little closer.

    Mario: I demand they recuse themselves it’s a plot by Soros.

    Justice Scalia: Shut it….Sammy, I get it, I understand but really, Birfoons in the court, we had this out when that Mad Cow Orly was around, no Birfoons except at the Christmas party for light entertainment.

    Justice Alito: Sorry all, I’ll make it up for everyone in the Christmas present

    Mario: But..

    Justice Roberts: Can it “esquire”, frivolous case, inherently valeless, a waste of this courts time, what say you ? Show of hands..OK done

    Mario: But my case..it’s a Konstitutional Krisis.!!

    Justice Roberts: Can it or the sanctions here will make Orly swoon. Bailiff, escort “esquire” from the courts and if he gives you any trouble……

    Mario: (voice receding) Let me FEEEENISH

    Posted by Bovril
  31. February 26, 2013 at 7:17 am #

    Bob,

    I am not going to waste much time on your Washington did not read Vattel and The Law of Nations comment. But here is some information which shows that you know very little about the subject on which you write.

    President Washington consulted The Law of Nations . We know that he had the treatise on in desk on inauguration day 1789 to guide him. This Was New York, the Nation’s Capital in 1789, p.138, By Frank Monaghan, Marvin Lowenthal, Published by Ayer Publishing, 1970, ISBN 0836953371, 9780836953374, 308 pages (“The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President’s scrutiny . . .”).

    Washington even borrowed The Law of Nations from the New York City Library and never returned it. http://www.nysoclib.org/ismap/exhibition_gallery.html. (“I was thrilled to hold the dusty ancient charging ledger and to see the entry where George Washington borrowed The Law of Nations – which he never returned”-Exhibition Gallery Dedication Remarks Jeannette Watson-Sanger March 14, 2008 ).

    John Jay, who made the most-notable reference to George Washington on “natural born Citizen,” and who was also the first Chief Justice, kept a copy of Vattel’s treatise on his desk.

    Indeed, The Law of Nations was widely read and cited in revolutionary America. Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 27 (Random House 2005).

    During the constitutional debates of 1787, Mr. L. Martin read passages from Vattel and other scholars to prove that individuals and States were free in nature. Debates in the Convention of 1787 by James Madison. Produced and edited by Jon Rolan. http://constitution.org/liberlib.htm.

    There were also other intellectuals that were involved in the revolution who read French and Vattel. As only one example and there are many more, Peter Van Schaack, who at first supported the revolution and then became a loyalist, retired to his farm in New York in the winter of 1775-1776 to reread Locke, Vattel, Montesquieu, Grotius, Beccaria, and Pufendorf before giving his opinion of independence. James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870, at 188 (1978).

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • June 17, 2014 at 2:51 am #

      > There were also other intellectuals that were involved in the revolution who read French and Vattel.

      There’s a very simple argument which destroys your “Framers relied on Vattel” claim, and it goes like this:

      1. The Framers didn’t write the Constitution for legal scholars.

      2. The Framers didn’t write the Constitution for people who knew French.

      3. The Framers didn’t write the Constitution for people who heard of Vattel.

      4. The Framers didn’t write the Constitution for people who knew how they (the Framers) secretly translated “les naturels ou indigènes” as “natural-born citizens”.

      5. The Framers didn’t write the Constitution for people who could guess that “natural-born citizen” does not refer to “natural-born subjects” from Common Law but instead their secret alternative meaning from (4).

      6. The Framers didn’t write the Constitution for people who were all of the above.

      7. The Framers wrote the Constitution for the people.

      Apuzzo and other Vattelists want us to believe (6) when instead (7) is obviously correct.

      q.e.d.

      (I add the Framers weren’t pranksters either, nor did they intend some Dan Brownish effort to take place 200+ years later to uncover their “secret”.)

      Posted by The Magic M
      • June 17, 2014 at 9:44 am #

        I would add that Vattel’s book was among the books least cited by the framers. Blackstone’s common law analysis was among the most cited, and it defines natural born subject by place of birth, not parentage, and is quite clear that children born of aliens are natural born subjects. At the time of the constitution, “subject” and “citizen” were often used interchangeably. Also, upon independence each of the 13 colonies embraced English common law except where it conflicted with their state constitutions. Birthright citizenship was defined by common law until superseded by the 14th amendment, which extended birthright citizenship to children born of slaves, who had previously been excluded under common law and especially the Dredd Scott decision.

        Posted by bquasius
  32. February 26, 2013 at 7:24 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, if you’re going to create lies, then try to make them sound lawyerly and not so obviously flawed that even a layman knows you’re full of it.

    You wrote: “The Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, when referring to U.S. “citizens,” either call them “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” In keeping with those laws, I have therefore only identified two classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizen” class and the “citizen of the United States” class. You are the one that makes up a “naturalized citizen” class, which is a non-existent third class.”

    Naturalized citizens are mentioned in the 14th Amendment, as “persons born or naturalized,” and calls them “citizens of the United States.”

    “Citizen of the United States” is a blanket term that covers both natural born and naturalized.

    And if you don’t believe me, then you need only look to the case that you have spent the bulk of your career distorting, “Minor v. Happersett,” when Chief Justice Morrison Waite begins the opinion of the Court.

    “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”

    Notice, Mario, “a woman, WHO IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.”

    But, but, but…”citizen of the United States is a second class of citizen…it’s separate from natural born citizen.” And yet the Supreme Court plainly identifies Virginia Minor as both “a citizen of the United States” and a “natural born citizen.”

    Looking forward to your explanation, Mario.

    “Oh, they just said she was a citizen of the United States, but not a Citizen of the United States. There’s a difference.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  33. February 26, 2013 at 7:36 am #

    Apuzzo writes: “In 1898, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was presented with a different set of facts from those with which Minor was presented. While Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, Wong was born in the United States to alien parents. Now the Court could not rely on the same American common law which Minor used to find that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.” Wong was now compelled to answer the question left open by Minor and to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment and its “citizen of the United States” clause to do so. Relying upon the colonial English common law as an aid of construction, it held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore a “citizen of the United States” at birth. In so holding, Wong Kim Ark distinguished an American common law “natural-born citizen,” who it agreed with Minor was a child born in a country to “citizen” parents, from a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” which it held Wong was.”

    Lie. In section I of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, they said that the Constitution, when defining “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law.” Not the 14th Amendment, not Vattel. Common law.

    And in section II, they proceeded to cite several authorities on English common law, including Alexander Cockburn (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under Queen Victoria) and Albert Venn Dicey, noted British jurist of the day. Not a single reference to any of this American common law. Zero. None. Zip. Nada.

    And the Fourteenth Amendment, in all of section II was not mentioned ONCE. Not ONCE.

    And it established that children born to aliens residing in England were considered “natural born subjects.” Section III then opened with pointing out the fact that the United States observes “the same rule.” And proceeded to cite numerous cases to support this claim. ALL OF WHICH predate the Fourteenth Amendment. ALL OF THEM. And again, not a single reference to the Fourteenth Amendment occurs in section III.

    Thus Wong Kim Ark was deemed a natural born citizen, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. It was decided by English Common law. That is how the U.S. defines “natural born,” based upon the common law definition.

    Game over, Mario. You lost this one, just like you lost to Alexandra Hill. I still laugh at you every time I watch that video. “uh…uh…uh…uh…uh…” You stutter more than the President, Mario.

    Alexandra Hill, in contrast to your nonsensical rambling, was concise and well-spoken…and she totally blew you out of the water. She made you look like a consummate JACKASS!

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  34. February 26, 2013 at 7:40 am #

    But don’t feel too bad, Mario. There’s plenty of birther lickspittles willing to lie for you.

    Here’s one of many such sources which claim that Alexandra Hill “admitted that Obama’s BC is a forgery.” http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/obamas-lawyer-admits-his-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

    She did no such thing. She pointed out that ballot challenges in the State of New Jersey can only be made on the basis of certain flaws with the petition. There is no provision in New Jersey law that can challenge a presidential candidate based upon eligibility.

    Probably the easiest case she ever fought, Apuzzo. And she blew you AWAY!

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  35. February 26, 2013 at 8:21 am #

    Rick,

    Clearly, you have no substantive legal argument to make. So do not waste my time with your sophomoric commentary on the lay of the land.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 26, 2013 at 8:35 am #

      Mario, I had made a legal argument here. On the other hand, you have lost the argument AND the narrative with your baseless, false claims. You had NOT debunked what Ankeny said

      Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009

      Simply put: Any child born on US soil or in a US territory who retains American citizenship is a defacto NBC. PERIOD. Parents status means nothing.

      Ankeny PROVES that a natural born citizen is one born IN AMERICA. It goes on further to day that “Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born
      subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the
      allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”

      Now, you are engaging in liberal SIN because you:

      S hift the subject;
      I gnore the FACTS laid out before you by those MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN YOU; and
      N ame call

      You are playing from the Saul Alinsky rulebook. I am here to ask WHY you believe it as I am playing from the Andrew Breitbart rulebook

  36. February 26, 2013 at 8:23 am #

    Patrick,

    I hope you do not really believe that you make any sense when you write.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  37. February 26, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    Patrick,

    You really have a very low maturity level.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  38. February 26, 2013 at 8:29 am #

    Patrick,

    You have no real legal argument. So you resort to your little pizza parlor teenage talk.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  39. February 26, 2013 at 8:56 am #

    I think Chad is right. Mario Apuzzo spends half the day Goggling himself, and the other half posting replies.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  40. February 26, 2013 at 9:06 am #

    Sorry, Mario, but I’ve seen enough of your posts to realize that your snarky comments come up when you’ve been defeated, but refuse to admit it. Chad posted on my Facebook group that you “mistakenly” believe in three types of citizens. I replied you “mistakenly” believe nothing. You are not guilty of misunderstanding; you are a liar, plain and simple.

    And everything I have said about Wong Kim Ark is the truth and you know it. They resorted to English common law, and quoted noted authorities on the subject, and deferred to English common law in determining what is meant by the term “natural born.”

    Your ridiculous posture would suggest that our Framers are so gosh almighty stupid that they peppered the Constitution with English common law terminology, but resorted to “natural law” on the subject of citizenship, relying on a bad translation of Vattel that hadn’t existed until ten years after the Constitution was written. And such was their stupidity that they didn’t even bother to point out, “Oh, we’re using English common law for terms like ‘habeas corpus,’ ‘eminent domain,’ ‘bill of attainder,’ and ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ but we’re going to use Vattel for ‘natural born.'” Yeah, that’s the ticket, Mario.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  41. February 26, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    Mario, I still have two questions—- actually now I have three:

    1) Where is the one case in which your theory prevailed?
    2) Why didn’t Madison directly state: “A natural born citizen is one who was born in the United States of TWO citizens of the United States?
    3) Are you, according to your theory a natural born citizen of the United States?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • February 26, 2013 at 11:06 am #

      Good questions Lawrence. These cases are all recent and in at least some cases judges explicitedly rejected Minor v. Happersett, which is an old case.
      Ankeny v. Daniels
      Fair v. Obama (appeal pending)
      Farrar v. Obama (administrative law judge and Secretary of State both found Obama is a NBC)
      Freeman v. Obama
      Galasso v. Obama
      Jackson v. Obama
      Paige v. Obama
      Powell v. Obama
      Purpura et al v. Obama (both ALJ and Superior Court concluded Obama a NBC)
      Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections
      Swensson v. Obama (both ALJ and SOS concluded Obama a NBC)
      Tisdale v. Obama
      Voeltz v. Obama et al
      Welden v. Obama
      SCOTUS did not accept any appeals of these cases, apparently finding the petitions unpersuasive.

      Mario, again I ask, can you name a single case where a judge decided Obama is not a natural born citizen?

      Posted by bquasius
    • February 26, 2013 at 11:12 am #

      Mario, ESQ! – JUST another simple question. Have YOU ever won a case that has been tried before a jury? You seem to offend SO MANY Folk – I’m just wondering – have YOU EVER BEEN able to convince a jury – of ANYTHING ????

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  42. February 26, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    “Good questions” Bob, deserve answers.

    Mario, perché senza risposte?

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  43. February 26, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    Bob,

    Critical thinkers want to know why something is, not only that it is. So, would you care to provide for us the rationale and supporting evidence of the cases that you just keep citing in place of providing us with your own reason.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 26, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

      Mario, you continue to cite Minor v. Happersett as case law, and I was pointing out there are numerous recent court precedents, some of which explicitly rejected Minor, that determined Obama is a natural born citizen eligible to run for president.

      I am no Obama fan. In fact I think he’s our worst president in modern history, but that doesn’t mean I buy into anything negative about Obama unless supported by fact, and I don’t find birther arguments persuasive.

      Now birthers are turning on some Republican politicians I admire using some of the same rejected arguments. Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen, and so is Bobby Jindal. Both are prospective candidates for president.

      Posted by bquasius
      • February 26, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

        SINCE Mario,ESQQ!!!!!! IS so HOT to TROT – on the notion that I, Bob Allen, FAIL to present a Legal Argument – WHEN MY CONTENTION IS – that I, Bob Allen ONLY present LOGICAL ARGUMENTS – I FAULT Mario,ESQ!!!!! – for FAILING to respond to and/or present LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

        WE ALL KNOW – that there is NOT necessarily a RELATIONSHIP – between a Legal Argument and a Logical Argument – AS WITNESSNESSED – by the DRED SCOTT case AND Plessy v. Ferguson @!!!!!!@

        BOTH Dred Scott AND Plessy v. Ferguson ARE Legal Argument cases – and BOTH of these Legal Argument cases – MISS what Being Human IS ALL about!!!!!

        In the Dred Scott case – HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Americans – DIED – because of this Legal Argument !!!!!!!!

        So, Mario,ESQ! – WHY are you SO ILLITERATE – when it comes to Logical Arguments ???????? So, Mario,ESQ! – WHY are you SO ILLITERATE – when it comes to Human Beings ??????????????????

        Just askin’,

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
      • February 26, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

        How long Mario will you continue to refuse to answer the simple questions? But it really isn’t fair to keep pounding on the same point is it? After all you and all of us know the answer.

        Your theory has not prevailed in a single court.
        Not one.

        Yet insist on screaming to world that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. I’d say that is a decidedly problematic position for you to stake particularly when you can’t even explain why Madison didn’t make direct reference to de Vattel or natural law?

        Again, I left to wonder Mario if YOU are, in fact, according to your own definition a natural born citizen? Yes or no?

        Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
      • February 28, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

        This is one really really long discussion, but in my unschooled opinion, formed by reading the Constitution and several of the cases that are cited here, primarly The Venus, Ankeny, Minor and Wong Kim Ark, _and_ the fact that Obama is not the first president to have (a) non-citizen parent(s):

        Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.

        Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,

        James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,

        Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.

        Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada.

        — I can’t come to any conclusion but that Obama is NBC under the Constitution.

        Now Mario may state that the above Presidents’ cases are not relevant because their parents became citizens at some point — however, that forces the question: how many generations back do you go to prove jus sanguinis?

        In the end, the question is: Do the Courts of the US find 335 times that born here = NBC? (OK I am exaggerating but you get the point) — and the answer is a hearty yes.

        Mario, you may not agree with these multiple decisions, and you are more than welcome to write to your Congressman and ask that the definition of NBC be changed — but until that is done, you are simply stating your opinion, backing it up weakly and contradictory to what has been found in court after court, and ultimately, just blowing hot air.

        Posted by James Spaith Jr.
        • February 28, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

          Thanks for sharing your perspective.

          Posted by bquasius
        • February 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

          James, I thank you for your point of view on this. The consensus here is that MANY who have common sense (Bob Q, Bob A, Larry, Patrick, myself, and now you) can see that being born here means you ARE a natural born citizen.

          It would seem that the only one who does not have any common sense is Mario, who keeps pounding the same lie and gets rebuffed and refuted by RESEARCH.

          • February 28, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

            I really don’t understand what compels Mario to continue his adamancy regarding his incorrect interpretation of the facts of Natural Born Citizenship. With Orly, it’s easy: she’s a con artist. Arpaio? Media whore. Corsi? Needs to sell books. But what Mario gets out of this, other than the opportunity to write thousands of words, again and again and again, is really beyond me.

            Mario, would you care to explain?

            Posted by James Spaith Jr.
  44. February 26, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    No offense, but that story that birtherism started with Hillary Clinton is patently absurd.

    The Clinton campaign never went birther. Some Clinton supporters on the Internet pushed the birther rumors, but they didn’t start it. Loren Collins, an Atlanta attorney, has the details.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html

    Posted by drconspiracy
    • February 26, 2013 at 8:37 pm #

      To Larry’s point, it’s not relevant where birtherism originated; it needs to end.

      PUMA, a faction of hard core Hillary Clinton supporters, were the first birthers according to several news articles/blogs.
      The ‘Birthers’ Began on the Left

      Investigations for my new book, Wingnuts, revealed that the Birther conspiracy theory was first concocted by renegade members of the original Obama haters, Party Unity My Ass, known more commonly by their acronym, the PUMAs. They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters who did not want to give up the ghost after the bitter 50-state Bataan Death March to the 2008 Democratic nomination. – See more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html#sthash.Sdn98i3V.dpuf

      Accuracy is important here. I updated the blog to clarify birtherism originated with Hillary Clinton supporters, not the campaign itself (though it wouldn’t surprise me if it did).

      Many conservatives have purged birthers, but notably WND has not. Red State purged birthers in 2010. Few prominent Republicans are birthers, except for publicity whores Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio.

      Posted by bquasius
      • February 26, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

        Lawrence – looks like, to me that, you, I, Bob Q., Patrick C., et al – are MORE than willing – for the Birther Madness – Yes, Bither Madness – to END – WITH THIS TREAD – WITHIN the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space!!!!

        NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        The ONE Fart that I know of – who WANTS the BIRTHER MADNESS – to GO – ON – and ON, and ON, and ON – IS Ol’ Mario,SEQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        SHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
      • February 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

        Lawrence – just a heads up – the SEQ in my earlier post tonight – is a little “slight of hand”, so to speak. It stands for Son of an Efficacious Quab !!!!!!!!! SHUSH – I don’t want Mario,ESQ finding out !!!!! SHHHHHHHHHHHHH

        Posted by boba123
  45. February 26, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    It really doesn’t matter who started it. Its time for it to be finished.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  46. February 27, 2013 at 3:29 am #

    Bob A and Larry, I agree that this birther madness needs to end. After all, there are MANY links which debunk all of the birther claims and those with COMMON SENSE can see that. It now seems that there are a few (like Mario) who lack the common sense needed to see the truth. A good friend of mine on FB, Alan Vera, had said this:

    “Thomas Jefferson on interpreting the Constitution…
    “On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson”

    Now, the probable one in which the text in Article 2, Section 1 that I see is that a natural born citizen is one who was born IN AMERICA, as had also been seen in the following quote from the Pocket Catechism of the Constitution put out by Liberty Alliance on pages 68 and 69:

    “Q. 203. May any person be chosen President of the United States?
    A. Not every person. None may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for fourteen years”

    Note in there the answer: “None may be chosen unless he has been BORN IN THE UNITED STATES” (emphasis mine). That should prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that natural born citizen is one who is BORN IN THE UNITED STATES! Anyone who cannot see that lack the common sense and decency to think.

  47. February 27, 2013 at 6:19 am #

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the birthers as a group with Mr. Apuzzo as their lead antagonist (protagonist just doesn’t work here) would be best suited in discussions to determine the precise number of Angels that can dance on the head of pin.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  48. February 28, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

    James Spaith, Jr.,

    From your examples about past presidents, I can tell that you either do not understand or intentionally misrepresent my position on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” At common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, the one and only definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not to be confounded and conflated with a “citizen of the United States,” was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (both confirming the American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”) Under this definition, it mattered not where the parents where born as long as they were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This meant that the parents could be born either in or out of the United States, provided they were “citizens” at or became “citizens” before the time of their child’s birth. After all, the first “natural born Citizens,” including the first generation of “natural born Citizen” presidents, were born to parents who were not born American “citizens,” but became so after their birth by adhering to the American Revolution. So, if individuals were not born “citizens of the United States,” they had to naturalize after their birth before children born to them in the United States could be born as “natural born Citizens.” This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” was by implication confirmed by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, which treated any child born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and therefore not even as a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 changed that and held that children, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, were included as “citizens of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment (not under the American common law upon which the Framers relied when drafting the “natural born Citizen” clause). But these children, not born in the country to “citizen” parents, were just that, “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.”

    You are also mistaken about those “335” cases. Of all those current cases, most of them never reached the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” Of the ones that did reach the question, none of them are U.S. Supreme Court decisions nor can they trump the decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court which define a “natural born Citizen.”

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” You have no evidence that a “natural born Citizen” is any “born Citizen.” On the contrary, there are various “born Citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens,” e.g., “citizens of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Section 1410 et seq., who do not meet the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Given the American common law and Congressional statutory scheme, Chester Arthur, who was born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents, was not a “natural born Citizen.” The American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed and still prevails today. Barack Obama, who may have been born in the United States, was born to a U.S. citizen mother. But he was also born to a non-U.S. citizen father.” Not being born in the country to “citizen” parents, he, too, is not a “natural born Citizen.”

    Since you are highly misinformed about this whole issue, you surely are no credible source on interpreting and commenting on my position regarding a “natural born Citizen.”

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • February 28, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

      Oh, My, Oh, My, OH, MY – Mario,ESQ! – Drama Queen !!!!! – is BACK!!!!!!

      Welcome back, Queeny !!!!!!

      It’s SO GOOD – to see – that Verbosity – is SO RICHLY represented – for the FINE Flair of the pen, so to speak, in this modern day when digital transmissions of Purple Prose – IS SO EASY – for you, Mario,ESQ! – to spread far and wide – like a Lark – spreading Wing – and flitting and flying – from bed post to fireplace end-irons – with such ease and grace – as only YOU, Mario,ESQ! – so Reich-itiously spew forth – from YOUR keyboard – on to the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space !!!!!

      I would have thought, Mario,ESQ!, Old Boy, that seeing what I wrote earlier about YOUR ARROGANCE – WOULD have SHAMED you OFF – forever !!!!!!

      But NO – Mario,ESQ! – YOU’RE BACK – for MORE !!!!!

      SO – Bring it on guys – Maio,ESQ! – IS READY – FOR MORE !!!!!!!!

      a – ha – HA – HA – HA – Mario,ESQ! – ISSSSSSSSSSSSS BAAAAAAAAAAAAACK !!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
      • March 1, 2013 at 7:32 am #

        Thank you for your reply Mario, however, you kind of missed my main point, which is: per settled case law, much of which is admittedly far newer than the original Constitution, a person born on US soil whose parents are not entangled in a foreign government ARE Natural Born Citizens. Once again, you can insist all you want that this is not the correct interpretation of the Founders’ intent — but the Courts and history are firmly against your interpretation.

        Please tell us Mario — what is the point of taking your (presumably valuable) time to create these long diatribes? What is your ultimate goal? Would you somehow negate Chester Arthur’s presidency?

        And if you are right, then why hasn’t any court agreed with you?

        I eagerly await your reply, and fervently hope that you can keep it to under 400 or 500 words.

        Posted by James Spaith Jr.
      • March 1, 2013 at 10:16 am #

        and…..crickets. Sure would like to hear your reply to my questions Mario, and much appreciate some brevity.

        Thanks
        James

        Posted by James Spaith Jr.
      • March 1, 2013 at 11:41 am #

        Mario apparently you only read your own posts. Lawrence and others have posted exacting evidence of the truth of this matter, and your response is either 20,000 words of speculation, or childish retorts like the one above.

        It’s a very very simple question: if you are right, why doesn’t any court decision in history agree with you?

        Posted by James Spaith Jr.
        • March 1, 2013 at 11:55 am #

          AND – Mario,ESQ! – the ARROGANCE that YOU display (as I note above) – here is YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by boba123
      • March 1, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

        Well Mario, thanks for the response and the terse reply. Too bad you didn’t address my question, which I will pose again:

        Lawrence and others have posted exacting evidence of the truth of this matter.

        It’s a very very simple question: if you are right, why doesn’t any court decision in history agree with you?

        Is it because the matter hasn’t been properly presented to a court? I can see making an argument here, although the Wong Kim Ark case is quite clear in its conclusions, as is the reference to it in Ankeny.

        Or is it because, as our friend Orly Taitz is so fond of pointing out, the entire SCOTUS, Congress, and Executive branches, along with every state court, every governor, and every Sheriff save one are all corrupt Communists bent on destroying this country by the illegal appointment of a Marxist homosexual half-breed drug user whose enthronement was planned in the 50s?

        Or is it because your presentations of the matter in the cases you’ve been involved have been full of unprovable conjecture, like your posts here?

        As a side point regarding jus sanguinis, I would add that while the children of non-citizens may not hold this country dear to their hearts, there is no scientific reason to suppose that the children of people who were born here are automatically full of conviction and drive to support the US any more fully than the former.

        Lookie lookie, short, to-the-point, clear writing. I gotta stop now cuz Kardashians are on.

        Not.

        Posted by James Spaith Jr.
      • March 1, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

        Well Mario it was entertaining discussing this with you, and richly satisfying that you, like all birthers when presented with irrefutable facts, simply called names and then left the conversation. Good show. Great lawyering there. You’re on your way to a seat on the SCOTUS, I’m sure of it.

        Posted by James Spaith Jr.
  49. February 28, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

    Sorry, Bo Quasius – sometimes the emotions of the moment just sorta, kinda, GRAB HOLD – and well – posting just kinda happens.

    Robert Allen

    Posted by boba123
  50. March 1, 2013 at 6:16 am #

    Mario, it is impossible to misrepresent your position. We all understand your position and except for you and a handful of others whom you’ve duped with your smoke and mirrors no one is buying it . Not the public and not the courts.

    You bounce between arguing with people using long winded diatribes that defy reason and alternatively telling people that they’re not qualified to debate with you because they don’t make legal arguments.

    We all know that any argument whether its about a matter of law or science or literature relies on fact and logic; those that defy logic and ignore fact fail.

    Your arguments have failed 335 times. Clearly, your logic is flawed and more importantly your facts are in error. While you may be able to correct the logical basis of your argument you will never prevail by reciting the same erroneous facts ad nauseum.

    Its time for you to accept the 15 minutes of fame you’ve already experienced and retire to your villa on the shore or in the country or the city or where ever you think your villa should be. There are far more important battles to be fought that have an actual chance of being won than this one does.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  51. March 1, 2013 at 7:35 am #

    “Lawrence,”

    Your editorial commentary (not a legal argument) does not help you. Hence, your nonresponse says it all. You simply cannot shake off the correctness of my position.

    There are no facts to argue. We know who Barack Obama’s parents were and their citizenship circumstances. And the definition of a “natural born Citizen” has been well settled since July 4, 1776. That definition is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition has never been amended by either a constitutional amendment or the U.S. Supreme Court.

    So, it looks like the only one who should retire from the truth is people like you who just wish you were right, and motivated by selfish political gain or prejudice misrepresent that truth.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 1, 2013 at 1:27 pm #

      Mario, you have NO PROOF that parentage determines natural born citizenship. On the other hand, I have proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that WHERE you are born determines Natural born citizen.

      Now, let me explain one more time since you seem to miss it

      If you are born in AMERICA, then you ARE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

      If you say otherwise, then prove me wrong,. Debunk my facts and figures. COMMON SENSE dictates if you are born in America, then you are without a doubt a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

  52. March 1, 2013 at 8:03 am #

    Mario, your adolescent attempt at insult aside, I am not a lawyer but I do know how to read and I do know how to conduct research and I do know fact from fiction. Your recitation of one fact and the exclusion of others has not gone unnoticed by me or by the courts. Your assertion, and that’s all it is, that the Founders relied on jus sanguinis is without merit or basis. The fact that John Jay told Washington about it and that Washington subsequently checked a copy of de Vattel’s work from library is not proof of your theory. Snippets from arguments that failed historically do not provide a basis for your current argument to be successful.

    There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) to support your theory and there is nothing in the Constitution to support your theory and there is nothing in decided case law or SCOTUS decision to support your theory. The only thing that you have supporting your theory is your theory.

    Such a position as yours is often referred to as ’tilting at windmills'; I prefer the more descriptive ‘pissing up a rope’— when you tilt at a windmill the worst that happens is you hit thin air but when you try to ‘piss up a rope’ you inevitably get some on ya.

    Frankly Mario, you’ve become an irrelevant boor.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  53. March 1, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    “Lawrence,”

    You lie about me not having evidence. You also do not tell us what you have.

    The bore here is you.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 1, 2013 at 11:57 am #

      AND – Mario,ESQ! – the ARROGANCE – that you display (as I note above) here is you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Posted by boba123
  54. March 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    James Spaith Jr.,

    We are discussing a constitutional law problem, i.e., what is the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The proper resolution of the question requires analyzing and commenting upon centuries of history, law, and court decisions. Given the complex nature of the issue and your need for brevity, may I recommend that you switch to a thread that is debating a topic which lends itself to TV advertising- and twitter-like comments.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

      Mario, you have just proven yourself to be a hack just because non-lawyers who do RESEARCH have blown your theory out of the water. your theory does not hold water to the Own The Narrative say it out loud test OR to actual research.

      • March 1, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

        Ah, Mario,ESQ! – you PROVE the observation – Negative Attention IS BETTER than no attention at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Posted by boba123
  55. March 1, 2013 at 1:27 pm #

    Mario—– Why is it that extremists regardless of political bent always resort to calling their opposition “liar” when they lose an argument? But just for the sake of argument, legal or otherwise, let’s assume that you do have evidence. Let’s assume that you have irrefutable evidence that obama, et al. are not natural born citizens.

    If your evidence is SO compelling, so irrefutable —– why have your arguments not prevailed?

    As for the issue of “what I have” well that’s simple. I have law in form of Article II Section of the Constitution of the United States of America and its Fourteenth Amendment, English Common Law, and a host of SOTUS and lower court decisions. And I have history in the form of the plain language of James Madison who made no reference to the theory of jus sanguinis.

    You on the other hand continue to have a theory and not a very good one at that. That rope I talked about is getting wetter and wetter.

    And if you are continuing to have questions about my identity—- try Goggle, others less skilled than you have But then you probably have done that already haven’t you. If your having trouble try the less correct “Mazzuckelli”.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  56. March 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

    It is funny seeing the comments here. You would think that these commenters actually said something.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 1, 2013 at 9:35 pm #

      It’s funny seeing Mario,ESQ!’s comments here – since – contrary what could be expected in a conversation – Mario,ESQ! doesn’t say anything – except his nonsense!!!!!!

      We may all be happy though, because Matio,ESQ! IS ONLY here – once in a while – while Mario,ESQ! actually HAS TO live with himself 24:7, 365 – for the rest of his un-natural days !!!!!!!

      Posted by boba123
  57. March 1, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Rick Bulow,

    You said: “If you are born in AMERICA, then you ARE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

    That is not what James Madison and his Administration thought. Consider this citizenship case from 1811 which the James Madison Administration decided. Remember that James Madison is considered my many scholars as the Father of the Constitution:

    “Publius,” on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 on the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:

    “Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

    James Monroe, Secretary of State for President, James Madison, eventually declared James McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. Monroe wrote: The “Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating ‘that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.’”

    But that was, as the historical record of the James McClure case shows, only because his father naturalized several months after he was born and when his son was dwelling in the United States. If a “natural born Citizen” had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” the Madison Administration would have considered McClure a “natural born Citizen,” for under the English common law he would have been a “natural born subject.” But they did not, even though he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. The James Madison Administration did not even considered McClure a “citizen” at the time of birth and you want us to believe that, without providing any evidence supporting your personal opinion, the Founders and Framers considered any child born in the United States a “natural born Citizen.”

    This historical evidence, from James Madison, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, and others from the James Madison Administration, completely destroys the thesis that the Founders and Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen” the same meaning as the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.” This evidence also destroys your thesis that the Founders and Framers considered any child born in the United States to be a “natural born Citizen.” On the other hand, it completely supports my position that a “natural born Citizen,” under American common law, which had its origins in the law of nations which became national law, is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizen” at the time of the child’s birth.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 2, 2013 at 3:23 am #

      AGAIN, Mario,ESQ! – DRAMA QUEEN – throws out MORE VERBAGE – TO attempt to “Prove a Case” – Yet, Like a TRUE DRAMA QUEEN – CAN’T CITE ONE – JUST ONE- YES – ONE – AND ONLY ONE – CASE – that the Birthers have EVER – ever – EVER – EVER – EVER – WON in a COURT of LAW !!!!!!!!

      ONE would THINK – which obviously Mario,ESQ! appears to be rather challanged in doing – that ONE CASE – CITED – would WIN the argument !!!!!

      SO, Mario, ESQ! – to REPEAT Bob Quasius’ Query –

      “Let’s cut to the chase… kindly provide us a list of cases where the judge agreed that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      SORRY, Mario,ESQ! – THAT was only a variation on a THEME – The REAL QUERY –

      “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
      1.
      2.
      3.”

      WATCH OUT, Mario,ESQ! – WHEN YOU – AGAIN – REFUSE to answer this QUERY – CUZ your ARROGANCE – WILL BW SHOWING – ONCE AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      HA – HA – HA – HA – HA – HA – Mario,ESQ! – DRAMA QUEEN !!!! HA – HA – HA !!

      Posted by boba123
    • March 2, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

      Mario, you misinterpret Madison. He said “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” [Rep. James Madison (circa May 22, 1789)]

      Therefore, IF you are born in America, then you ARE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

      IF you think I am wrong, show your proof. Provide ONE CASE which you have won with this false narrative. You cannot because Natural born citizen is jus soli, NOT jus sanguinis

      Why do you say that Natural born citizen = 2 citizen parents when COMMON SENSE says that parentage has NOTHING to do with it?

  58. March 2, 2013 at 6:24 am #

    Mario — thanks for your cogent and refreshingly brief discussion of the McClure case – you have pulled some interesting points out here, and, if and when the true definition of NBC as something other than “Born on US Soil” should ever be formally addressed by Congress (to my understanding, only the House has the ability to define this term officially), then McClure will certainly be part of the discussion.

    It does remain however for you to respond to two basic questions: 1) Why are you doing this? If you were successful in convincing someone that Obama is not eligible (and by the same lights, neither was Chester Arthur) — well, what? Deposing a sitting president for eligibility is unprecedented. Is the entire Cabinet then moot? Would the House have to have a special election? What about the actions of the Arthur administration? Are they too moot?

    and 2) The jus sanguinis “requirement” has been either dismissed or ignored for well over 200 years. Why is this? I can see only three reasons, as I stated earlier: a) it’s wrong b) people attempting to make this case are going about it wrong or c) Satan put Obama in the White House, bwah-hah-hah!

    I believe I have addressed you repeatedly with respect, and I respectfully request that you give a response to my questions.

    Thanks
    James

    Posted by James Spaith Jr.
    • March 2, 2013 at 8:14 am #

      Vattel was Swiss, and Switzerland follows jus sanguinis, law of the blood as does much of Europe. Jus Soli originated in England, and is common throughout the Americans but uncommon in Europe. In Vattel’s world citizenship was based on parentage.

      Birthers would have us believe our constitution’s framers rejected jus soli, the law of the land for centuries, and adopted jus sanguinis, without a single statute, word in state or federal constitutions, etc. because some of the framers read and occasionally quoted Vattel’s Law of Nations.

      Author John Woodman has written several times about Vattel.

      Posted by bquasius
  59. March 2, 2013 at 6:31 am #

    Mario,

    As I understand the case: James McClure was born in the U.S. in 1785 FOUR YEARS prior to the ratification of the Constitution.His father became naturalized in 1786. THREE years prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

    Some years later James traveled to England to attend school. After finishing school he remained in England and also Holland. After being detained in France at the request of England, James asserted his U.S. Citizenship and this is where the alleged controversy begins.

    And here is where you’ve erred, Mario. Because it is now abundantly clear that you either didn’t really read the Alexandria Herald article by Publius or you simply ignored the facts that don’t fit your narrative. My guess is you simply relied on what you read in the blog:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/.

    Which cherry picked the paragraph that you build your argument on.

    I say this because IF you had read the original article you would have seen these two key sentences that appeared well before your cherry picked passage:

    “In my judgement, however, our Minister has erred in his decision – & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a Citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what the law is.” —- Publius

    http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf

    Further, the circumstance of the Citizenship of James McClure are on all fours with the requirement of Article II, Section 1:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution….”

    You have now included straw grasping in your repertoire of tricks along with the sad ability to piss up a rope.

    Give it up Mario.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  60. March 2, 2013 at 8:55 am #

    Robert Allen,

    You are a dullard for repeating the same question over and over again in light of my presentation here. Do you not realize that it is my position that what I present here amply demonstrates that these current lower court decisions of which you speak are wrong?

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 2, 2013 at 9:25 am #

      At the risk of appearing to be a dullard, let me again ask for a list of recent court cases won by Mario or other birther lawyers:
      1.
      2.
      3.

      Posted by bquasius
  61. March 2, 2013 at 9:15 am #

    Mario, the words of Publius are worth repeating here:

    “We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what it is.”

    Your insults do NOT improve your argument or provide a factual basis to your flawed theory.
    You didn’t read the article. You’re ignoring reality. Your hands are wet from holding the rope.

    Find another hobby because you’re not very good at this one.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  62. March 2, 2013 at 10:08 am #

    James, Mario cannot answer these questions. He’s an ambulance chaser, not a Constitutional lawyer. But I can.

    You wrote: “Deposing a sitting president for eligibility is unprecedented. Is the entire Cabinet then moot? Would the House have to have a special election? What about the actions of the Arthur administration? Are they too moot?”

    Under the de facto officer doctrine, even if Obama were determined ineligible, everything Obama did under the color of office remains in effect.

    Birthers are fond of calling Obama a “usurper.” I don’t know if Apuzzo has used that term, but it’s imprecise. A usurper has a specific meaning. If Obama had walked into the White House during Bush’s term and forcibly ejected him then assumed the Presidency, he would be a “usurper.” Perhaps if he created an office above that of the President, he would also be a usurper. (Don’t ask me how either scenario would play itself out in the United States, but that’s what a usurper is.)

    Obama, by contrast, was elected. Even if ineligible, he was voted in by the will of the people. If some factor, such as eligibility made him unqualified to hold the office, he is a “de facto officer.” As such, even if he was removed from office, everything he did — the bills he signed, the SCOTUS justices he appointed, etc. — remains in effect.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
    • March 2, 2013 at 10:19 am #

      Thank you Patrick for your response about the “mooting” of the Presidency if president should somehow be found ineligible.

      Mario, as Patrick notes, it seems you’re not capable of answering my questions, it would be nice to get an “I’ll get back to you” or “I simply don’t know”, but I am anticipating instead something along the lines of “you’re not a lawyer and I am so I don’t have to respond to you, even though we’re in this public forum and I have been extremely arrogant and sure of myself during this whole conversation, nyah nyah.”

      Getting no response from you whatsoever will cement for me the opinion I have begun to form of you, which is very similar to the ones expressed by others in this thread.

      Posted by James Spaith Jr.
      • March 2, 2013 at 10:56 am #

        Admin – please address the subject at hand, not other posters. Hey Mario,ESQ! Poopsy, Baby – I ONLY REPEAT the same QUESTION – OVER and OVER – BECUASE – YOU, Mario,ESQ! Poopsy – REFUSE – YES – REFUSE – to answer Bob Quasius’ SIMPLE Query – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER – OVER and OVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        GOT IT ???????????????????????????????????

        TRY AGAIN, Mario,ESQ! Poopsy –

        “Mario, let’s cut to the chase. Perhaps in my research I failed to see all the cases you won. Why don’t you provide a list of all birther cases you have won:
        1.
        2.
        3.”

        Posted by boba123
    • March 2, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

      Re: “Usurp”
      verb (used with object)
      1.
      to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.

      Posted by MichaelN
  63. March 2, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

    Admin – no personal attacks please. Please address the subject at hand, not other posters. This means EVERYBODY.You really should be sure that you are correct in your position before you go around insulting and attacking others on some point (or stop your deceitful presentation of historical sources).

    The Alexander Herald article was found by a commenter by the name of xsid who provided the article to Attorney Leo Donofrio. I also received a copy of the article. I read the article as did Mr. Donofrio. Mr. Donofrio wrote a very good blog piece on the great find by xsid. His article can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/. I also wrote at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com , on the McClure citizenship case based on the article provided by xsid and my own reading of that article. I also included a full discussion of the McClure case in my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012 .

    You say that I have not honestly presented the McClure case. You protest that I

    “cherry picked the paragraph that you build your argument on. I say this because IF you had read the original article you would have seen these two key sentences that appeared well before your cherry picked passage:

    ‘In my judgement, however, our Minister has erred in his decision – & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a Citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what the law is.’ —- Publius.”

    Please allow me to help you to correctly read the James McClure citizenship case as reported in the Alexandria Herald article. The Minister to whom Publius referred was General Armstrong and the error that he made was in how he interpreted and applied the Naturalization Act of 1802, which the James Madison Administration ruled granted to McClure the status of a “Citizen of the United States” naturalized after birth (not a “natural born Citizen”). The fact that Armstrong erred does not show that I am mistaken in my presentation of or misrepresented the McClure case.

    The issue in the case was not whether James McClure was a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the issue was whether he was a “Citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth. Even though the American Minister in London issued to McClure a passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.,” the French authorities declared McClure to be a British subject and therefore an enemy of France. They ordered his arrest and General Armstrong refused to come to his aid. In order for him to be a “citizen of the United States,” he had to show what law granted him that status.

    The Minister to whom Publius referred, General Armstrong, on March 16, 1810 wrote to McClure and advised him that he found that he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. McClure’s British father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina on February 20, 1786. Armstrong said that McClure’s birth in South Carolina did not make him a citizen and that his father’s naturalization certificate only proved that the father was a citizen and nothing more. He also said that McClure’s claim to citizenship would be accepted if he were able to show that a South Carolina naturalization statute provided that the naturalization of the father also naturalized his children born before his naturalization. He found that no certificate exited from South Carolina showing that father McClure’s naturalization also naturalized his children who included James McClure.

    Given this state of affairs, Mr. Rodman met with McClure in Paris and decided to intercede on his behalf. He wanted to personally meet with Armstrong, but he had left Paris. He therefore met with a Mr. Russell, Charge d’affaires at Paris, who explained to Mr. Rodman that McClure had to show that he was a citizen either under a U.S. statute or under a South Carolina statute. He explained that with no federal statute providing any help, McClure could rely only upon a state statute. Russell said that Armstrong analyzed the Naturalization Act of 1802. Russell informed Rodman that Armstrong found the Act inapplicable to McClure’s situation. Armstrong found that “dwelling in the United States” did not mean dwelling in the United States at the time of the naturalization of the father. He further found that McClure was not dwelling in the United States either at or after the naturalization act was passed or at the time of claiming to be considered a citizen. Therefore, since McClure was not dwelling in the United States, he could not become a “citizen of the United States” under that federal statute. Russell explained this was the decision of General Armstrong who was his superior and he could do nothing about it.

    Publius then provided the quoted passage that you only partially produced:

    “In my Judgement, however, our Minister has erred in his decision – & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what the law is—–If the case of comes within any of the U.S. Acts, it is the 4th section of the Act of April, 1802—which is in these words:

    ‘The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the U.S. may have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parent’s being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the U. S. be considered as Citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the U.S. be considered as citizens of the U. States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the U. States, &c, &c.’”

    [Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155]

    It is in how Armstrong interpreted the Naturalization Act of 1802 that Publius said he erred. In quoting Publius, you left out of the quote: “If the case of comes within any of the U.S. Acts, it is the 4th section of the Act of April, 1802” and the whole quoted Act. The part that you left out of the quote shows that Publius disagreed with Armstrong in the sense that Publius believed that Armstrong had erred in not finding that McClure was a naturalized “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. Publius did not think, as you suggest, that Armstrong had erred in not finding that McClure was a “natural born Citizen.”

    Publius showed that McClure’s father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina, before any federal naturalization act had yet been passed. (The first federal naturalization act was passed in 1790.) He found that McClure was the child of a naturalized citizen, being under the age of 21 when his father naturalized. He explained that therefore the only issue was whether McClure was “dwelling in the United States.” Publius explained that the issue with that clause was “to what period of time, does the section point?” He ruled that the time period was to be determined by the children to benefit from the law being with the father at the time of his naturalization. Hence the time period meant “at the time of his [the father’s] naturalization.” Under this interpretation, the children that the father left behind in his native country would not benefit from the law, but those with him in the United States would. Publius explained that Benjamin Franklin said that the law said “grace once over them,” which made them “citizens of the United States,” but did not do the same for children left behind in their native country.

    It is then that Publius addressed Rodman’s “hint” that McClure did not need any naturalization act of Congress or South Carolina statute to make him a “citizen of the United States,” because he was born in the United States. Publius stated:

    “Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

    Here we can see that Publius clearly stated that the United States did not adopt any jus soli principle of citizenship. Rather, children followed the citizenship of their parents which principle followed jus sanguinis citizenship.

    Publius also took the opportunity to state “with a considerable diffidence” that maybe the 1802 statute was defective because it did not provide for the loss of citizenship by a person who should become a “citizen of the United States” by naturalization and who should move back to his native country and that it should have granted to a U.S. citizen the right of expatriation.

    Finally, as a show of respect for General Armstrong, Publius expressed that given the complexity of the case, “a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with [Publius] on the occasion.” In other words, he said that he could understand why General Armstrong had found that McClure was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. But still, Publius amply demonstrated how General Armstrong had erred in so ruling.

    So, Lawrence, as we can see, you have misread (or deceitfully presented a false version of) the McClure article and have unjustly accused me of misstating the case as published in the Alexandria Herald. As you can also see, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, passed by many Founders and Framers, prove without any doubt that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not even a “citizen of the United States” at birth, let alone a “natural born Citizen.” May I hear from you how you could have gotten your understanding of the McClure case so wrong.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

      There’s an OBVIOUS REASON – why Mario,ESQ! – argues his LEGAL Case – on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space !!!!!

      EVERY LAWYER KNOWS – that the CHOICE of VENUE to PRESENT a LEGAL CASE – SHOULD be a COURT of LAW – rather than on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space.

      Just Observin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
      • March 2, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

        Mario is welcome to debate here as well as in court. However, it would help if he could provide a list of court decisions in favor of birthers. I’m not aware of birthers winning any court decisions.

        1.
        2.
        3.

        Posted by bquasius
        • March 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

          I just betcha – dollars to donuts – that Ol’ Mario,ESQ! IS a Plessy v. Ferguson kinda guy rather than a Brown v. Board of Education kinda guy !!!!!

          Betcha – dollars to donuts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by boba123
          • March 3, 2013 at 9:39 am #

            boba123 double-posted:
            “I just betcha – dollars to donuts – that Ol’ Mario,ESQ! IS a Plessy v. Ferguson kinda guy rather than a Brown v. Board of Education kinda guy !!!!!

            Betcha – dollars to donuts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            I’m no fan of Apuzzo, but, well, I think you’re going a bit wild on that. ‘Tis easy to nail the man on what he’s actually written and done. Epic failure, sure. His occasional citations of Scott v. Sandford may not have been smart moves, but he thought he could just make the technical point because it was a Supreme Court ruling; he wasn’t actually trying to roll back the clock on that.

            I’ll not accept your bet, but just because there’s no way to resolve it. “A Plessy v. Ferguson kinda guy” is a name you call, not a contest upon which we could settle a wager.

            And your cliche — “dollars to donuts” — it’s going out. Still plays as you mean at my local supermarket, but not at the hotels downtown.

            I sure miss William F. Buckley. He made getting the kooks out of the Republican Party look like fun.

            Posted by NotLinda
        • March 2, 2013 at 8:21 pm #

          I just betcha – dollars to donuts – that Ol’ Mario,ESQ! IS a Plessy v. Ferguson kinda guy rather than a Brown v. Board of Education kinda guy !!!!!

          Betcha – dollars to donuts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by boba123
      • March 2, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

        We all know that the court of law is where it should be argued, but the reality is that the courts (i.e. the courts that matter) have been obstructing the process.

        We also know that if Obama is qualified as he has claimed e.g.on his nomination declaration in Arizona (i.e. claiming to be a natural born citizen) then he would not seek dismissal of the cases nor duck for cover and not front the court when subpoenaed, nor would he hide his past.

        Posted by MichaelN
    • March 3, 2013 at 8:04 am #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “I also included a full discussion of the McClure case in my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania”.

      Yeah, how’d that go?

      Seriously, how, at this point, do you not realize that that was a mistake? The Court did not want your 199 page “brief”, bloated with such irrelevant tangents as the McClure case. Correct me if I’m wrong on this: You submitted it without having been admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and the Court later denied your motion for admission pro hac vice.

      Longer is not better.

      Posted by NotLinda
  64. March 2, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

    Then, you have a bit of a problem, Mario. For all your claims that Wong Kim Ark did not establish natural born citizenship merely by location of birth, Leo Donofrio knows you’re wrong.

    He wrote: “This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark.”

    Leo is admitting that Wong Kim Ark was, in fact, a natural born citizen.

    And since it is the prerogative of the courts to interpret the Constitution, their ruling stands as final, regardless of what Madison may have wanted.

    Nice one, Mario You just defeated yourself. Congratulations. Game over for you.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
  65. March 2, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    Unknown quoted this following passage taken from the Wong Kim Ark case (at Mario Apuzzo’s blog at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=8348440996119592501&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=2

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. (1898)]”

    In reply, here is what I said ….

    The problem you have is that you misunderstand that “born in the allegiance of the King” meant to the 17th century English to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”.

    Justice Swayne was correct, but to apply this principle to the US republic, a native-born child in US would need to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

    That is what Swayne was saying in generalizing (not specific to Wong Kim Ark), and that is why Wong Kim Ark was NOT ruled or held to be a natural born citizen, i.e. because he was not born under the allegiance of a subject.

    Then in support of Justice Swayne’s generalization as to the common principle of native-birth applying to both the children of aliens and subject/citizen parents we have Binney’s statement which also supports Justice Swayne’s generalization,

    i.e.

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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. ”

    One thing which Binney got wrong is that the “right of citizenship” DID DESCEND, via the naturalization acts, here see for yourself….

    1790
    “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.”

    1795
    “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:”

    More important is that the WKA court made no objection to Binney’s statement, i.e.

    “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.”

    The “same principle” was with regard to eligibility for citizenship, and NOT qualification for natural born citizenship.

    Article II “natural born citizen” was NOT an eligibility criteria for citizenship.

    It was the eligibility criteria for a US born citizen to qualify for POTUS.

    i.e. both a child of an alien, if born in the US, was as much a US CITIZEN as the natural born child of a US citizen by operation of the same native-born principle; they were both US citizens by operation of that principle.

    It was the native-birth principle that made both children CITIZEN.

    They were both born citizens.

    The “natural” born citizen had the additional quality of being born to US citizen parents, but said child did not need that quality to be equally eligible for citizenship as the child born to alien parents.

    So maybe you can answer this question now?

    What did Lord Coke mean by this, if it did not mean that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject?

    “…it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”
    ——————————

    I have been asking the pro native-birth-only – will-do-for-POTUS- brigade for a citation/quotation from the English common law where it was ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

    But no one has been able to produce any evidence of such a ruling or holding.

    What I have found is that in Calvin’s case (the commonly accepted land-mark case on the issue of natural born subject and wwhich was cited and relied on by Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case), Lord Coke in his report actually states (see quotation above) that native-birth does NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject, and further that if a native-born child is born to anyone other than a subject, then the child cannot be a subject and would be alien-born.

    Can anyone here show where the 17th century English law ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

    Posted by MichaelNichaelN
  66. March 2, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

    Time, Mario, is of the essence. Not only does that mean a stitch in time saves nine but it also means that despite your lengthy diatribe the fact that James Lynch was born BEFORE the constitution was ratified trumps virtually every thing you wrote.

    Once again I revert to James Madsion: “Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what the law is.”

    And later, AFTER the passage you cite, Madison (Publius) writes: “His father was a Citizen of the State of S. Carolina BEFORE (emphasis added) any act was passed by the United States on that subject.”

    Now why is that important? Its important because James McClure was born in 1785 the year BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. Therefore, there is no question that Article II Section 1. governs. Namely:

    “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 THE PRESIDENT.”

    The only doubt is whether James and his father were living in the United States at the time of ratification of the Constitution. Clearly the answer is yes. The remaining question is whether James renounced his U.S. Citizenship upon leaving the United States. Clearly he did not.

    Mario. This debate has been long over. It has not prevailed in court and it has not prevailed in public opinion.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • March 2, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

      Article II “natural born Citizen” is the term to describe eligibility criteria for a US born citizen to be President of the United States.

      It is NOT an eligibility requirement to be a US citizen.

      There are two means to be a US citizen, i.e. native-birth and naturalization.

      Putting aside the naturalized citizen,the native-born US citizen is a born citizen.

      The Article II eligibility criteria is aimed at ONLY born citizens.

      The word “natural” is something EXTRA to being a born citizen.

      Posted by MichaelN
      • March 2, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

        That extra quality can only be US citizen parents.

        This principle is consistent with English law, where Lord Coke per Calvin’s case expressly held that a native-born child must be born “under the ligeance of a subject” and if not born under the ligeance of a subject, then such a child could not be a natural born subject, and would be alien-born.

        Posted by MichaelN
        • March 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

          Wrong. Here’s what Blackstone says about natural born subjects, AKA natural born citizens:

          The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.
          . . . . .
          Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.

          Blackstone said nothing about born under a king’s protection AND born of subject parents. In fact, he’s quite clear else where that a child born of alien parents is a natural born subject.

          The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

          France, like Switzerland, the home of Vattel, followed jus sanguinis (law of the blood) and thus in writing about citizenship Vattel of course refers to the citizenship practices of Switzerland, not of England and the colonies. Birthers are using the fact that some of the framers of our constitution read and sometimes quoted Vattel, although the quoted Blackstone 16X as often.

          Each of the states embraced English common law with reception statutes shortly after independence. Not one passed a statute rejecting birthright citizenship under common law in favor of Vattel’s jus sanguinis!

          Your argument about the 1790 and 1790 statute language is off base. The passages refers to children born abroad of citizens. Under English common law, the juis soli (law of soil) principle did not cover children born abroad unless their parents were diplomats, and England passed statutes recognizing them as natural born subjects if their parents were both subjects and met a residency requirement. The 1790 Naturalization Act is almost identical to the law in effect when America won its independence, and no doubt was intended to cover this situation.

          Posted by bquasius
          • March 3, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

            I know you WISH I was wrong, but the reality is that I am correct.

            Blackstone was writing on the subject of the laws of ENGLAND.

            Furthermore what I said was CORRECT!

            Lord Coke trumps Blackstone and was the prominent English jurist with his report of Calvin’s case as cited by Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case.

            Now here is what Lord Coke said in his report of Calvin’s case, where he expressly rejects native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject. (verbatim, and not a commentary or opinion by others)

            “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”

            What Blackstone failed to mention and what many have also failed to see, (probably due to blindly following as if he was a pied-piper), is that in 17th century England, to be born in the allegiance of the King, actually meant to be “born under the ligeance of a SUBJECT”.

            That is, the friendly alien-born visitor to England was a SUBJECT due by local ligeance, BECAUSE he was a subject, then his native-born child would be a natural born subject.

            Here’s what Lord Coke had to say on that matter. (again verbatim ,and not a commentary or opinion by others)

            (it is completely irrelevant as to how or why the alien-born father was a subject, or how or why other alien-born visitors were not subjects)

            “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King.”
            http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

            It doesn’t get any clearer than that!

            As you can see, straight from the horse’s mouth, that native-birth did NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject and a native-born child by necessity must have been born UNDER THE ALLEGIANCE OF A SUBJECT, otherwise the child could not be a subject and would be alien-born, yet born native.

            The English embraced all friendly alien-born visitors as subjects.

            Unlike the English, the US didn’t and still doesn’t embrace all friendly alien-born visitors as citizens.

            So if the Framers did take guidance from the English laws, particularly Lord Coke, then for a native-born child to be a US natural born citizen, that child must by necessity be born under the allegiance of a US citizen to be a natural born citizen.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 3, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

            The common law of England became the common law of America when each of the 13 states passed reception statutes explicitly embracing common law except where it conflicted with their new constitutions. I challenged Mario to produce a state or federal statute embracing Vattel’s supposed notion of natural born citizen, but like other challenges (like a list of birther cases won) he’s ducked that as well.

            Let me repeat for emphasis, the common law of America at the time our constitution was adopted, was NO DIFFERENT than the common law of England with regards to birth citizenship. A natural born subject under English common law is one and the same as natural born citizen under American common law.

            Posted by bquasius
          • March 4, 2013 at 12:40 am #

            bquasius said…..

            “Let me repeat for emphasis, the common law of America at the time our constitution was adopted, was NO DIFFERENT than the common law of England with regards to birth citizenship. A natural born subject under English common law is one and the same as natural born citizen under American common law.”

            Response:

            The you might answer this question, in light of the existence of the 14th Amendment and with the SCOTUS clearly stating that nowhere does the US Constitution define a natural born subject, given that the 14th Amendment was a part of that US Constitution.

            What “common law” was it that the US Supreme Court justices, in the Minor v Happersett case, were referring to, which (without resort to the 14th Amendment) recognized a US native-born child to US citizen parents as a natural born citizen, yet introduced (not by the litigants, but by the justices) doubts stating that a native-born child to alien parents might not be a citizen at all (let alone a natural born citizen), the justices then acknowledging that the doubts had merit by stating that the issue of whether a native-born to aliens parents was a citizen or not was yet to be legally resolved.

            Don’t you think that if the SCOTUS had believed that native-birth in the US sufficed to make a natural born citizen, then the court would not have introduced the mention of the doubts at all, nor give any merit to the doubts needing to be legally solved?

            How do you explain Lord Coke’s ruling/holding that a native-birth did not suffice to make a natural born subject and his ruling/holding that a native-born child must be born under the ligeance of a subject to be a natural born subject or else the child would not be a subject at all?

            Posted by MichaelN
  67. March 2, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    I am amused by those who presume that because THEY find error in a ruling that the ruling is wrong.

    I know its trite but in this case it applies. With respect to a decision by a U.S. : It is what it is until its overturned.

    In this instance its 335 for upholding the common understanding of “natural born Citizen” and 0 (zero) against upholding it.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  68. March 2, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    MichaelN —————– poppycock.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  69. March 2, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

    Your arguments make no sense and do not deserve any response. You are just making stuff up that has no connection to the points of the argument. Do you really believe that you can bluff your way through this thing?

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  70. March 2, 2013 at 8:35 pm #

    Admin note: please stick to addressing subject at hand, not others. Keep it civil. Thank you. I have seen dullards in my day. The guy hangs out on Cafe Con Leche and then takes issue with a guy who comments on Cafe Con Leche.

    The guy would do better to sticking to writing ransom notes.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  71. March 2, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

    WHY is Mario’s comment – about – ransome notes – NOT deleted ????

    Posted by boba123
  72. March 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    WHY – is Mario ALLOWED to lable Lawrence’s comment – as making no sense – and that Lawrence is just making stuff up ?????

    WHY – is Mario’s comment NOT deleted ??????

    Posted by boba123
    • March 2, 2013 at 8:48 pm #

      I’m asking everyone to chill out. Please address comments to the subject, not other posters. I gave Mario the same feedback. Your recent post was nearly 100% attacking Mario and that’s why it was trashed.

      There’s plenty of substantive information to debate and personal attacks detract form the civility of this forum, and won’t be tolerated from anyone.

      Posted by bquasius
  73. March 2, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    Rick Bulow,

    You would have us define an Article II “natural born Citizen” based on James Madison saying during the 1789 David Ramsay-William Smith Congressional debate that, in the United States, place of birth “is the most certain criterion” of allegiance.” Your reliance on the Madison quote is misplaced for the following reasons.

    (1) You have not given us Madison’s complete quote. Here it is: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” You left off from the end of his quote, “his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” They leave the “ancestor” part of the quote out because it goes to recognize that Madison did not only look to place of birth but also to parentage. Hence, Madison did not only look to place of birth, but also to parentage.

    (2) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides “natural born Citizen” and “citizen” of the United States as two separate tests for eligibility. These are separate and distinct terms which must be given their own meaning. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. Madison’s soil criterion was used by our nation only to establish the status of “citizen of the United States” for the first generation of Americans into which Smith fell. These were those the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called “Citizen[s] of the United States,” at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” As David Ramsay eloquently explained, birthright citizenship for those born after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of the citizens. This fact is confirmed by, among other historical sources, St. George Tucker and the Congressional and judicial activity which followed the Founding. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a “natural born Citizen,” not whether he is a “citizen” of the United States.

    Madison was speaking in 1789 about the definition of a “citizen of the United States” which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. We know from Article II itself that such a “citizen” is not necessarily a “natural born Citizen.” The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Representative William Smith had been a “citizen of the United States” for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Madison concluded that at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Smith, being a minor and being born into the society which after the declaration of independence became the new American society, still owed primary allegiance to that new society, no longer owed secondary allegiance to the British government, and was therefore a “citizen of the United States” and that he did not lose that status at any time thereafter by any neglect or over act. But at the time of the Declaration of Independence, no minor or adult in being of the Founding generation was a “natural born Citizen.” Only children who were born after July 4, 1776 could be “natural born Citizens.”

    (3) In the Ramsay-Smith debate, Ramsay had maintained that William Smith had not been a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years under Article I, Section 2 because he stayed in Britain while the Revolution was going on and only came back to the United States when it was over and thereby not being present and residing in revolutionary America for the needed 7 years. The House did have an investigation on the matter. During the debates, William Smith argued that he was a “citizen.” Smith did not refer to the English common law to show that he was a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years. Rather, he cited Emer de Vattel for support and said he did not have enough money to come back to America. In his own defense William Smith quotes Emer de Vattel as follows:

    “The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: ‘The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.’ I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.”
    Smith was able to convince the House that he was a 7-year “Citizen of the United States” and so he prevailed.

    (4) Madison did not make any reference to the English common law. South Carolina did not have any law that provided an answer on the matter and so he just gave his personal opinion on the issue. We also know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison, who called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution, would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    (5) Anything that James Madison said about U.S. citizenship relative to the William Smith debate was abrogated by Congress’s Naturalization Acts passed in 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. In 1790, our First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. Of the seventy-nine members of the original Congress, twenty had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Remember that Smith was born before July 4, 1776 in South Carolina and his case was decided in 1789, or one year before the 1790 Act was passed. In any event, Smith was also declared a “Citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.”

    So any English common law rule notwithstanding, the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed only one year after, abrogated in the United States any jus soli rule under the “jura coronae” and English common law in the United States. So that put an end to place of birth as the sole criterion for citizenship.

    In fact, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1855, and any other Congressional Acts up to the time Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts show that Congress, since 1790 and up to the time Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, adopted jus sanguinis citizenship and not jus soli citizenship.

    The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws. Congress first exercised that power in 1790. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that “the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided “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,” etc.

    The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: “That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to consider children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendents.

    As we see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children who were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens. See Secretary of State Blaine, February 1, 1890 (he drew no distinction between the children born in the U.S. and those born out of it if they were born to alien parents). For Congress, it was the citizenship of the child’s parents that controlled and not the place where the child was born. Congress did not even give controlling effect that the child might be born in the U.S., considering that child an alien if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens and allowing that child to naturalize at the moment the parents naturalized if done before that child reached the age of majority and independently on his or her own if done thereafter or never done.

    (6) We know what James Madison thought about the citizenship of those persons born in the United States after July 4, 1776. See the James McClure citizenship case of 1811, which the James Madison Administration resolved by interpreting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 to James McClure who was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 and whose British father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina on February 20, 1786. The James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, even though born in the United States in 1785, was a “Citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth under the Naturalization Act of 1802, only because his British father had naturalized after his son’s birth and when his son was dwelling in the United States. This clearly shows that the United States did not adopt any jus soli principle of citizenship, but rather adopted jus sanguinis citizenship or that which provided that children followed the citizenship of their parents.

    (7) As to how certain soil allegiance is, that is a debatable point. Most of what I have read from the past suggests that it is parents and not soil that is a better gauge for allegiance.

    Even Lord Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608) recognized and confirmed that neither climate nor soil make a “natural born subject.” He proclaimed in Calvin’s case: “Neither the climate nor the soil but ligeantia (allegiance) and obedientia (obedience) that makes the subject born.”

    A military draft was proposed in 1862 because of the Civil War. Under this law, there was a section called “Aliens.” Under this section, the following persons were exempt from having to serve in the armies of the United States: “(1) All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized; (2) All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens.” Papers relating to foreign affairs, 1862, p. 288 (cited in Breckenridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution? Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146, p. 220 (1916)[Charles Evans Hughes]. We can see that Congress exempted both children born in the United States and out of the United States to alien parents from the draft the same way that Congress exempted them from citizenship. It looks like Congress did not trust children born to aliens when it came to military matters even if they were born on U.S. soil.

    If soil is such a great measure of allegiance, why were “citizens of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment born in the U.S. to Japanese parents along with their alien parents put in concentration camps during WWII? See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In Korematsu, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents have double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights and obligations. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. See also Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). These cases show what our U.S. Supreme Court before, during, and shortly after World War II said about the loyalty of children born in the United States to alien parents.

    A “natural born Citizen” (not a “native” or “native-born citizen” as those words came to be confusedly used by our courts following Wong Kim Ark (1898)), as recognized and accepted in the U.S. since our Founding and confirmed in numerous cases of our U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. see Minor v. Happersett (1875)) and lower courts and as implicitly stated in all our citizenship and naturalization Acts of Congress, needs both birth in the U.S. and birth to U.S. citizen parents, for neither territory nor parentage are the “most certain criterion” alone when it comes to the eligibility requirement to be President. Satisfying just one of these conditions, a person is still born with dual allegiances (with the other allegiance gained by jus soli or jus sanguinis), creating a split allegiance at birth and giving the person the right to choose, based on loyalty, affiliation, and sympathy, between two allegiances. Such birth circumstances also obligate two or more nations to have to give their protection to that individual. How certain is anyone’s allegiance under such circumstances? We can tolerate such a scenario for ordinary citizens. Should we as a nation tolerate it for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military, who unilaterally possesses great civil and military power? Or should we demand as the Founders and Framers did when they wrote the Constitution that, because of the critical nature of the offices, the person to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military be “naturally a part of the Government under the jurisdiction of which he happened to be born?” Charles Evans Hughes.

    Hence Madison’s place of birth as “the most certain criterion” of allegiance quote does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” You are using his quote out of context. His statement only applies to those born before July 4, 1776 who become “Citizens of the United States” by birth in the colonies and adhering to the American Revolution, not to those born after July 4, 1776 who were to be born “natural born Citizens.”

    Reliance upon Madison’s quote for a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore misplaced.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 3, 2013 at 3:39 am #

      Mario, it is apparent with your comment that you lack the common sense, the decency, and the knowledge of which you speak.

      Let a simple peon educate you

      From The American Thinker article (Mayhap you have not heard of it because it for Americans who THINK) entitled The good news: Rubio’s eligible:

      “he good news for us is that Sen. Marco Rubio is eligible to be elected president in 2012. And so are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley. There’s been a lot of attention devoted to the original meaning of “natural born citizen of the United States,” the governing phrase from Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. Happily, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution resolves this question for us.

      Clearly, says this respected source, what the Founders sought to avoid was foreign intrigue, or intriguers, becoming president. Wise Founders. (Too bad they didn’t also say “Marxists need not apply.”)

      The Guide cites the estimable John Jay, our first Chief Justice, who during the Constitutional Convention wrote to George Washington in 1787 to urge that “a strong check [be included] to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” (Don’t you love how Jay capitalizes Citizen?)

      Do you have to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to be such a citizen? No, said the Founders. The Heritage Foundation’s Guide shows how the First Congress in 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born.” This was our first naturalization statute (1 Stat. 104). This Congress contained many Members, notably James Madison himself, who had just framed the Constitution in Philadelphia.

      To provide a further check on foreign intrigue, the Founders specified that a person must have been “fourteen years a Resident within the United States.” Why was that necessary?

      Author David McCullough provides the answer — although that was not his purpose-in his latest smash bestseller, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris. McCullough describes John Singer Sargent, the famous American painter. Sargent had been born in Rome to American expatriate parents. Young Sargent lived in Europe and never visited the U.S. until 1876. His wealthy mother brought him to the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia when he was 19 years old.

      Could such an expatriate “natural born Citizen” become president? Not unless he returned to the U.S. and lived here 14 years, the Founders wisely provided. John Singer Sargent painted the powerful portrait of Theodore Roosevelt that today hangs in the White House, but he could not have run for the office himself.

      The Founders were serious about American identity and the integrity of republican principles. It was an incredible blessing to us that George and Martha Washington had no children of their marriage. Washington had referred to this fact in the first draft of his Inaugural Address. There would be no danger of monarchy here, he said, because he had “no child for whom I could wish to make provision — no family to build in greatness upon my country’s ruin.”

      Now, consider Marco Rubio. His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “all persons born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.” This “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause shows why Rubio is — and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not — a “natural born citizen of the United States.”

      We should be very careful in discussions of the Constitution to avoid the impression that we are an anti-immigrant party. To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future. Surely, that is not what we want.

      Let’s remember Ronald Reagan’s beautiful Farewell Address. He spoke of Vietnamese Boat People in the South China Sea.

      … the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.”

      Today, Marco Rubio is a freedom man. So are Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley a freedom man and woman. We should be proud to have any of these children of exiles as our president.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_good_news_rubios_eligible.html#ixzz2MT4LqMoP
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • March 3, 2013 at 3:47 am #

      And then there is this from Human Events (Granted it might not be too conservative, but at they know FACT and TRUTH when they see it):

      “Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.

      Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!

      The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in Georgia to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.

      The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.”

      http://www.humanevents.com/2012/04/26/marco-rubio-is-a-natural-born-citizen-just-like-john-fremont-and-chester-arthur/

    • March 3, 2013 at 3:52 am #

      Amd of course, there is Byron York, a respected contributor at Fox News and a columnist at the Washington Examiner, with the article :Obama, Rubio birthers should read the law:

      “The Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but it does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen.

      The law uses the phrase “citizens of the United States at birth” and lists categories of people who fit that description.

      First, there are people born inside the United States. No question about that; their citizenship is established by the 14th Amendment.

      Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.

      Since they are all “citizens of the United States at birth,” the question is, does that also mean they are “natural born citizens” in the constitutional sense?

      “My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen,” says Theodore Olson, the former Bush solicitor general who defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father served in the U.S. Navy there. Even though the area was under American jurisdiction and both McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens, some Democrats alleged McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain won the case, if not the presidency.

      The law is really quite lenient, especially for those born outside the United States. If a child were born today in, say, Kenya, to a Kenyan father and an American citizen mother who had lived in the United States for at least five years, at least two of them over the age of 14 — that child would be a “citizen of the United States by birth” and be eligible for the White House.

      But what about Rubio? What about a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents? “I am not aware of anyone who has contended that someone could be born in the United States and be a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment and nevertheless still not be a natural-born American citizen,” says Washington lawyer Matthew McGill, who worked with Olson on the McCain case and did extensive research into the law and history of citizenship. “If he is born in the United States, his parentage is not of consequence.”

      But some do contend that Rubio is not eligible for the presidency. (The eligibility requirement for vice president is the same as president.) “Rubio is, quite simply, not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the accepted legal, English-language standard as it has been known throughout American history,” wrote WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah in February. “He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents.”

      But according to the law, Rubio is a “citizen at birth,” and the most reasonable reading of the law and the Constitution is that an American is a natural-born citizen if he or she is a citizen at birth. There might be complaints about that in coming months, but that’s the way it is.”

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-rubio-birthers-should-read-the-law/article/1312051#.UKfJoYbNl3g

    • March 3, 2013 at 3:56 am #

      Sorry Mario, but when your theory is put through the Own the Narrative Say It Out Loud test as well as THOROUGH RESEARCH and digging, what you say fails to withstand the truth.

      How does it feel to have not one, not two, not three, but FOUR peons armed with RESEARCH and FACTS debunk you on every turn?

    • March 3, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

      Thank you Mario, for your extremely thorough research and comprehensive and truthful work on this topic.

      Hopefully the blog-master here will continue to maintain civility and good behavioral practices, by keeping ad hominem attacks out of the debate/discussion.

      Posted by MichaelN
  74. March 2, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo – I DO BELIEVE – that the Birther Thingie has BEEN applied to President Obama – for WELL OVER FOUR YEARS – AND Counting !!!!

    I DO Believe that President Obama – IS STILL the President of the U.S. of A.

    I DO Believe that NOT a SINGLE COURT CASE – Brought forward the the Birther-type lawyers (like you, Mario) has REMOVED Obama FROM the Office of President!!!!

    SO – WHY – Mario Apuzzo has NO CASE – to Date – on this Birther Madness (THE title of this thread – thus the usage of the title of this thread – SHOULD – be allowed in usage – without CENSORSHIP!!!!) REMOVED President Obama FROM Office ?????????????????

    THIS QUESTION – SHOULD be seen BY YOU, Mario – AS a LEGAL QUESTION – DEALING with the LEGAL HISTORY – of OVER FOUR YEARS – of Obama REMAINING IN OFFICE – during ALL of this HISTORY – of OVER FOUR YEARS!!!!!

    HOW – Mario – do YOU EXPLAIN – this LEGAL HISTORY ????? THAT – Mario – IS a LEGAL QUESTION !!!!!!!!!!

    Just askin’,

    Robert Allen

    Posted by boba123
  75. March 3, 2013 at 7:29 am #

    Mario,
    Here is your continuing problem; you, contrary to Madison’s admonition, want the law to be something other than what it is and to do that you make everything fit your theory and elevate even the most mundane words to a place of importance that they simply do not deserve.

    The Alexandria Herald COMMENTARY by Publius (Madison) —- is precisely that, a commentary and nothing more. It most certainly is not “….the James McClure citizenship case..” report as you describe it.

    Was Madison a party to any of the legal proceedings in McClure?
    No.

    Does his view of the McClure case carry more weight than the decision in the McClure case? No.

    Does his view of the McClure case carry more weight than the Decision in either Lynch v. Clarke or The U.S. v Wong Kim Ark?
    No.

    You alternately engage us in debate and chastise us for not presenting a “legal” argument. But Mario, you know as well as I that as one proceeds up the judicial food chain the arguments become more fundamental and speak to the core principals and philosophies that support the law.

    So let’s look at one of those. Let’s look at the purpose of jus sanguinis and how the Founders actually viewed that theory based on their actions.

    There is but one purpose behind jus sanguinis; the maintenance of establishment and maintenance of monarchy and its subjects.

    Having fled Europe, often to escape a monarchy and having fought a horrible war of revolution to shed a monarchy. Why would the founders adopt the one principle that would re-establish a monarchy in America and bind them forever to a king?

    Clearly, the answer is they wouldn’t and they didn’t. Given the choice between choosing a monarchy and a republic, they chose a republic.

    Given the opportunity which the Founders had, to establish citizenship based on blood lines they chose place, for the sole purpose of rejecting foreign influence AND a monarchy.

    How do I know that? Very simply, because given numerous opportunities to establish jus sanguinis in the Constitution and in subsequent U.S. Code, they did not.

    And despite your desire for it to exist, there is no ambiguity in the founders intent. Why do I say that? Because, it would have been so very simple for Madison to have made a clear statement of “blood” being essential to being a “natural born Citizen”. Instead, he wrote:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, BUT IN GENERAL PLACE IS THE MOST CERTAIN CRITERION; IT IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES; IT WILL THEREFORE BE UNNECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE ANY OTHER.”

    And that is it Mario.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  76. March 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    NotLinda,

    I see the Obots have invaded Café Con Leche Republicans. First, you have some nerve telling us that the word of the James Madison Administration on the meaning of citizenship is an “irrelevant tangent[].” James Madison was intimately involved in the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution. He was one of the writers of the immensely important, The Federalist Papers, writing as Publius. He was also a Representative in the Second Congress. In fact, he was the architect in rewriting the Naturalization Act of 1790 to say in the Naturalization Act of 1795 that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were to be “considered as citizens of the United States,” and not to “be considered as natural born citizens.” He is considered by many historians as the Father of the Constitution.

    Furthermore, the opinion of James McClure’s citizenship was also rendered by U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William Johnson. Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) confirmed the common law maxim that existed in the colonies and during the Founding. That maxim was “partus sequitur patrem” or children follow the condition of their father. “Partus” is defined as “child” or “offspring.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1010 (5th ed. 1979). “Sequitur means to follow. “Patrem” means the father. Justice Johnson in his dissent in Shanks further confirmed it when he explained that a “leading maxim[] of common law” then prevailing was “proles sequitur sortem paternam.” “Proles” is defined as [o]ffspring; progeny; the issue of a lawful marriage. In its enlarged sense, it signifies any children.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979). “Sequitur” means to follow. “Sortem” means the fate. “Paternam” means paternity. Hence, the maxim means children follow the condition of their fathers.

    Second, you also need to get your facts straight if you are going to be of any use here. If you read my Pennsylvania brief properly, you would know that I wrote the Kerchner brief in Pennsylvania and that Attorney Karen L. Kiefer, who is admitted in Pennsylvania, filed it with the court. The court ruled it did not have any jurisdiction to decide the matter of whether Obama was a “natural born Citizen” or whether his name should appear on the Pennsylvania primary ballot, and so it did not utter one word about the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    So, please, NotLinda, may we have something from you that actually addresses the topic at hand here, the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” rather than your irrelevant Obot tripe which you put forth in place of any reasoned argument.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  77. March 3, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

    James Madison was intimately involved in the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution. He was also a Representative in the Second Congress. In fact, he was the architect in rewriting the Naturalization Act of 1790 to say in the Naturalization Act of 1795 that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were to be “considered as citizens of the United States,” and not to “be considered as natural born citizens.” He is considered by many historians as the Father of the Constitution.

    In interpreting the Constitution, our U.S. Supreme Court gives great weight to sources close to the writing and ratification of the Constitution to show what the public understanding was of clauses in the Constitution. The McClure citizenship case is important because it shows what the public understanding of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” was generally during the early years of our republic and specifically within the James Madison Administration. Lynch v. Clark (1844), a New York state case regarding property and inheritance rights which were the subject of state common law, and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” case and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” case, came much latter, and on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” to whatever degree the case actually dealt with that issue so as to take its statements thereon out of the realm of dicta, are only as good as the sources upon which they relied.

    You have it backwards regarding jus soli and jus sanguinis and the perpetuation of titles of nobility. In America, no one could be a citizen unless one renounced all titles of nobility and foreign allegiance. The original citizens became such through The Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, all of which naturalized them from English “natural born subjects” to “Citizens of the United States.” The Treaty of Peace of 1783 between the United States and Great Britain confirmed such a state of affairs. Their children born in the United States inherited the same condition, no title of nobility or foreign allegiance, and so on through the generations. On the other hand, with jus soli, parents could be foreign nobles or simply foreign subjects or citizens. Upon birth in the United States, there would be nothing stopping their children from inhering the same titles of nobility and/or foreign allegiance and citizenship. Hence, the Founders and Framers opted for jus sanguinis and not jus soli and so provided in how they defined a “natural born Citizen” and how Congress provided for statutory citizens.

    Regarding your Madison “criterion” quote, you simply repeat it here. I have already demonstrated that your reliance upon Madison’s quote to provide a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is misplaced for many reasons. You simply repeat the quote without addressing my refutation.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  78. March 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

    Sorry Mario but your revisionist version of my comments simply fails.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  79. March 3, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

    Once again, I ask that all commentators address the topic, not other commentators. It is a lot easier to keep this debate civil that way.

    Bob Quasius

    Posted by bquasius
    • March 5, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

      Because I haven’t proved that I am not an axe murderer it does not imply, suggest, infer, mean or prove that I am.

      In short, Mario your arguments are nothing more than an never ending repetition of: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

      You wrote:

      “So there is no actual evidence that the Founders and Framers used a “natural born citizen” in place of a “natural born subject” …..”

      Yes Mario, there is. And here it is. Again.

      “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

      It’s a foolish game you play Mario. It doesn’t work in the physical sciences (except, perhaps among the man made climate changers), it doesn’t work in epidemiology, and it still does not work in the law.

      Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
      • March 6, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

        What’s this? Vattel’s ranking in terms of quotes is #30?
        http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

        Posted by bquasius
        • March 6, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

          It hasn’t take me long to observe the sagaciousness of Bob Quasius’ Censoring of my earlier comments dealing with the relevancy of the Pragmatic consequences of Birther Madness within the 21st Century. I can easily see that the conversations within this thread are FAR MORE Civil (Bob Quasius’ goal) because Bob Censored my earlier postings – which dealt far too much with personalities rather than with the topic of this thread – Birther Madness. The remainder of this posting will reveal that with a little help from my friend, Bob Quasius, I have seen the errors of my evil ways – stand corrected – and carry on!!!!

          My bias holds that Birther Madness has had a number of Significant, Pragmatic, Consequences – thus I wish to keep my comments, largely within the parameters of the 21st Century. Naturally, short forays into various areas of American History will be necessary to be able to place 21st Century Pragmatics into a proper context. MOST IMPORTANTLY – my Bias also holds that – Birther Madness IS an Ideological Orientation!!!! ALSO, Most Importantly – EVERYONE contributing to this thread – HAS AN IDEOLOGICAL BASE – from which the Pragmatics of WHAT they WRITE – and HOW they write WHAT they write – IS PART and PARCEL of Every Person’s PERSONAL IDEOLOGICAL orientation!!!!

          EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY – the Pragmatic Issues of Pragmatic Happenings vis-à-vis Birther Madness within the 21st Century – ARE A (and not the only) SUBJECT for the CONVERSATION for this thread – NOT the Personhood of various participants (each with their OWN Ideology) within the conversation within this thread.

          This means that although Ideologies may indeed be a part of the conversation within the thread, the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS of the conversation – ARE the Pragmatic happenings that find discussion – NOT personalities!!!!! Bob Quasius – IS WISELY monitoring this thread – to elicit the greatest opportunities for conversation and discussion – without having the interactions degrade into Personality One-Ups-man/woman-ship!!!!

          I do believe that, for over the past few Centuries – until Obama came along – and with the sole exception of Kennedy – that the Presidency of the United States has been held – by a WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant!!!! Obama is obviously an exception to this White-only (dare I label it “separate – but equal”?) orientation. I also believe that Birther Madness ONLY came about because Obama – obviously violated this WASPish old-boys club. I don’t seem to remember any previous National Presidency campaigns ever having a question of Birther Madness arise – until Obama – and I’m 65 years old – with a fairly good memory. Someone – Please correct me if I’m wrong on this issue!!!!

          Anyhow – Let’s start with this one of many Pragmatic Orientations within this 21st Century – that Obama (excepting Kennedy) Challenges the WASPish old-boys club – of the American Presidency!!!!!

          NOW – for a start of the disclosure of MY Ideological Orientations – which naturally affects the ways that I look at the Pragmatics – of Birther Madness within the 21st Century. As some of you are aware, I am currently writing a book on America’s Architecture of the Cold War – with a working title of “The Times of Freedom Flashing”. By Bias in this work is basically that America sets up the Cold War – with the Commies basically in a position of reacting to American provocations – but now and again – adding their own unique provocations into the mix. A great deal of the initial American positioning within this Architecture happens during the Truman Administration – the Truman Doctrine, Interim Aid, the Marshall Plan, and NSC-68 – being major provocations. Eisenhower, with the Dulles Bothers – John Foster as Secretary of State; Allen as Director of the CIA – covers MOST of everything that happened within American Foreign Policy – Overtly through the State Department – Covertly through the CIA!!!!

          I’ve sent Bob Quasius a copy of the Preface, and Parts 1 and 2 of the Truman Doctrine part of the book – in part – to show Bob what a Leftist critique of Harry Truman looks like. I have described to Bob Quasius that in my own personal political orientation (disclosed in some earlier thread on the Café Con Leche Republicans Blog Space) – that I am as Far to the Left of Communism – as Communism IS to the Left of Winston Churchill. This means – that with me on the Left – and Churchill on the Right – that the Communists – ARE the MIDDLE GROUND.

          As we continue this conversation of Birther Madness – I trust that ALL – will stick to the Pragmatic issues of the Discussion – and not dwell on any person’s Political Ideology – that they bring to the table!!!!

          I have been Chastised by Bob Quasius (in private email outside of this Blog Space) – for violating his admonition against attacking Personhoods. I have also had a number of my Postings within this thread, within the Café Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – Censored and Removed by Bob Quasius.

          I FULLY support the way that Bob Quasius MONITORS – ALL of the Postings within the Café Con Leche Republicans Blog Space. We are ALL – FORTUNATE – to have Bob Quasius Monitor this Blog Space. Thanks, Bob Quasius !!!!!

          Posted by boba123
          • March 7, 2013 at 8:12 am #

            Mario Apuzzo wrote:

            “NotLinda,

            I see that you cannot make any legal argument based on the text and structure of the Constitution, historical sources, Acts of Congress, U.S. Supreme Court cases, reason, and logic and must in its place resort to just some general fallacious talk that proves nothing other than that you have no real argument.”

            Those arguments have all be made by each of us here who oppose your baseless theory. The only person that I’ve seen here that is resorting to some “…general fallacious talk that proves nothing other than that you have no real argument.” is you,
            Mario.

            Simple question time.

            1)Have any of your theories prevailed in any court? If yes, please provide the citation(s)

            2)Has any one else who has tried these or similar theories prevailed in court? If yes, pleas provide the citation(s).

            3)Please provide a PRIMARY source in which any of the following specifically and directly stated that only those born of U.S. Citizens can be considered natural born citizens of the United States:
            The Federalist Papers
            The Constitution of the United States and its Amendments
            U.S. Code
            Any U.S. Court decision (note: minority opinions don’t count).

            When providing these PRIMARY sources it should be done in a manner that allows us to locate and to read the material in its entirety.

            4) Given the extensive private debate during the Constitutional Convention and the public debate presented in the Federalist Papers—– why did the Founders not directly state at any time —- that a natural born citizen could only be one whose parentS (not simply parent) were BOTH citizens of the United States at the time of the individuals birth?

            Note Bene: “I have no clue and it makes no sense.” IS an acceptable answer.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 7, 2013 at 10:25 am #

            Lawrence F Mazzucchelli,

            What is ironic is that I have met the evidence standards which you ask me to meet, but you have not met those standards.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • March 7, 2013 at 11:55 am #

            It DOESN’T appear that ANYONE disputes the observation that I made above – that one of the consequences of Birther Madness that happens in the 21st Century – IS that Birther Madness appears – when Obama, with the exception of Kennedy, Challenges the Old-boys network of ONLY having WASPS – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants – as Presidents of these United States.

            So – with Birther Madness happening within the 21st Century – as a response to Obama Challenging the WASPish aspects of the Old-boys club of American Presidents – let’s continue with the Consequences in the 21st Century – of this Challenge – to WASPish Presidents!!!!!

            THE QUESTION that MUST be posed to the Birther Madness within the 21st Century IS – WILL BIRTHER MADNESS CONTINUE to go after NON-WASPs – as the way to keep the American President – PURE – for WASPs ONLY?????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 8, 2013 at 12:05 am #

            The question which the Obamatized useful idiots are afraid to answer is….

            What “common law” was it that the Minor court was speaking of, which gave the court reason to first introduce mention of doubts whether a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen, and gave the court good reason to recognize that the doubts had merit, by stating that the doubts had yet to be legally resolved?

            What common law was it? ………………… you are afraid to give a straight answer, right?

            Just askin’

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 8, 2013 at 12:30 am #

            Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision told us that the Minor opinion was using the English Common Law.

            “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”

            “In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

            There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. 124 U.S. 478.”

            He then expounds on the English Common Law for the next 1200 words and ends by saying, “The same rule [jus soli] was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 8, 2013 at 1:11 am #

            CEHUGHES said ….
            “Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision told us that the Minor opinion was using the English Common Law.

            “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.” ”

            Response:

            There’s nothing in your quote at all about English common law.

            Would you like to run that again?

            If the SCOTUS in the Minor case believed that English common law held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject (which it clearly doesn’t), and that the Framers followed such a principle, then why did the SCOTUS in Minor give merit to doubts if a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen at all (let alone a natural born citizen)???????

            Furthermore, after all Justice Gray’s expounding on the English common law for however number of words, the decision was that Wong Kim Ark was only a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment and NOT a natural born citizen.

            The native-birth of Wong and the circumstances of his parents as permanent domiciled residents were sufficient to give birthright citizenship, but not sufficient to give natural birthright citizenship, that’s why Wong only got “citizen of the United States”

            How do YOU know, from a reading of Minor v Happersett, that the Minor court was referring to the English common law and what precisely in the Minor court gives you that impression?

            I am not asking what all your cut and paste opinions of others did or said in other cases.

            Try again.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 8, 2013 at 2:06 am #

            Maybe I should have included more of the Wong opinion for you:

            “…it [the Constitution] 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. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. 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 Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

            “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in…”

            [skip]

            ” It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

            “III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

            Justice Gray starts out saying the Constitution must be interpeted by the common law and cites Minor and then he quotes the Minor opinion resorting to the “common law” to determine the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”, then immediately quotes Justice Matthews that the “interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” And then Justice Gray explains what it means to be natural born under English Common Law and that the same rule applied in the colonies and the United States.

            Justice Gray draws no distinction between the “common law” of Justice Waite, Justice Matthews or Justice Blackstone, the English Common Law. And he never mentions any other common law as being cited in the Minor decision or anywhere else.

            Justice Gray did not have to declare Wong a “natural born citizen” as he already explained that the children of aliens born in the United States were “natural born” just as the children of aliens born in England were “natural born”.

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 8, 2013 at 3:50 am #

            @CEHughes

            I have taken what you posted on board and will respond to it, but first you have this to answer.

            If the SCOTUS in the Minor case believed that English common law held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject (which it clearly doesn’t), and that the Framers followed such a principle, then why did the SCOTUS in Minor give merit to doubts if a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen at all (let alone a natural born citizen)???????

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 8, 2013 at 4:24 am #

            CEHUGHES quoted this from the decision of the Wong Kim Ark case….

            “” It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

            “III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

            This part (below) of Gray’s opinion is consistent with what I have observed in Calvin’s case, in pertinent part…

            “aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign”

            The commentator (Gray?) here fails to report that the “aliens” which he refers to were actually SUBJECTS of the sovereign by local ligeance, and as such their native-born children were natural born subjects, because those children were born “under the ligeance of a subject”.

            This is why you and many others have been confused on this point, you have been led and probably prefer to believe that alien+native-born child = natural born subject, but you obviously have been lazy or too trusting in other people’s commentaries, and have failed to go to the source for accurate information.

            Notwithstanding, the Wong Kim Ark court ruled correctly when it decided that Wong Kim Ark was merely a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen”, as “he was not born under the ligeance” of a US citizen.

            Here are a couple of verbatim quotes from Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, where in the former excerpt it is plain to see that native-birth was rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject and further that if a native-born child “was not born under the ligeance of a subject’, then that child could not possibly be a subject at all, but would be an alien-born.

            In the second verbatim excerpt it shows that there are at least “three incidents to a subject born” and not merely native-birth to an alien as you mistakenly believe.

            Now if you say that the essence of the following verbatim quote is different to what I have pointed out, then YOU show, using the very same case (i.e. Calvin’s case) where it was ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, and that a child born outside the ligeance of a subject was a natural born subject.

            Here you go……

            “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

            and

            “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
            2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
            And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;”

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 8, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

            Your interpetation of the Calvin’s Case is certainly unique. And by that I mean no one from 1608 until now has put such an interprtation forward. So if we’ve been lied to, it was by virtually every legal scholar and member of the Founding generation right up until today.

            I would suggest you contact Professor Price at Emory University about your theory. Her 1997 treatise on birthright citizenship and the Calvin’s Case is considered one of the most authoritative on the subject.

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

            Meanwhile – back in the 21st Century – the Birther Madness folk sound like a bunch of Old-Time Calvinist Preachers – BLAIMING the Children – for the SINS of their Parents – the SINS being – that for whatever reasons – even before the Children were conceived and BORN – the Parents where NOT “natural born American Citizens” themselves!!!!!!!

            AND – IN THE INFINATE WISDOM of the Founding Fathers of this GREAT NATION of ours – we find in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – of OUR Constitution –
            “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

            YUP – the INFINATE WISDOM of AMERICA’S FOUNDERS – the 3/5 Person expression –
            OBVIOUSLY – coming out of the English Common Law, Blackstone, and American Commin Law – WHICH JUST GOES to SHOW – that the INFINATE WISDOM of the WRITERS of OUR CONSITUTION – LACKS – I say – LACKS – BOTH – COMMON Decency and MORAL REASONING !!!!!!!

            SO – for the Bither Madness – to HANG their HATS – on the INFINATE WISDOM of the WRITERS of OUR CONSTITUTION – as far as the HERE and NOW of the 21st Century goes – the Birther Madness – hanging this hat on INFINATE WISDOM – show a great lack of MORAL STANDARDS – IN this 21st Century !!!!!!!

            Here’s HOPING for BETTER MORAL STANDARDS in the 21st Century – than where present in the 18th Century !!!!!!!!

            Just observin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 8, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

            CEHUGHES said ………….
            “Your interpetation of the Calvin’s Case is certainly unique. And by that I mean no one from 1608 until now has put such an interprtation forward. So if we’ve been lied to, it was by virtually every legal scholar and member of the Founding generation right up until today.

            I would suggest you contact Professor Price at Emory University about your theory. Her 1997 treatise on birthright citizenship and the Calvin’s Case is considered one of the most authoritative on the subject.”

            Response:

            So I take it that you agree with what I have shown Lord Coke to be saying, i.e. that native-birth did not suffice to make a natural born subject and that to be a natural born subject a native born child had to be “born under the ligerance of a subject”.

            It’s not my “interpretation” nor is it my “theory”, it is clearly what Lord Coke held, but which has not been clearly explained or pointed out by the “experts” and authoritative commentators.

            If you or anyone else thinks that Lord Coke is saying otherwise, then please do point it out from within the body of the source i.e. Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case.

            You might need to re-look at all those commentators’ opinions which you have relied on now, in light of what I have pointed-out, and you might find that for the most part they are in agreement with what I have shown Lord Coke to have said, except most commentators did/do not tell all.

            Then you might find that my “interpretation of Calvin’s case” is not so unique at all, and you haven’t really been lied to by so many as you think, although I have no doubt there are those who have deliberately misrepresented what was actually stated by Lord Coke and those who blindly and ignorantly followed and of course there are those who got it right, but their own words got in the way of the true gist from being clearly expressed, or they took it that others already understood the principles and so they didn’t elaborate so much on that point, probably much like the Framers when they didn’t provide a definition of “natural born Citizen”, they assuming everyone already knew what it meant.

            When one considers that the Framers were influenced by many authorities, not limited to the English laws and principles, e.g. Vattel’s Law of Nations for one, and consider also the Framers’ imperative to protect the office of POTUS as much as possible from foreign influence, and now that one can see that the English principle and Vattel’s principle are really in agreement with regard to the parents subject/citizen status, it’s not so difficult to get the picture.

            Only those who have a political agenda do and will deny the truth of this matter, and refuse to accept the source English law case as the most reliable authority, opting to believe whatever in the ensuing commentators’ Chinese whisper that might suit their mission to water-down the national security of the USA at all costs.

            Take William Blackstone’s commentary for example, where the latter paragraph (below) has been used on the part of those with political agenda to promote the alien+native-birth = NBS doctrine, but Blackstone was “generally speaking” and omits to mention or point out that the local allegiance of the alien makes him a temporary SUBJECT, and it this SUBJECT status which provided for his native-born child to be “born under the ligeance of a SUBJECT”.

            Lord Coke was clear on this, when he said that a child to a non-subject e.g. an enemy invader, could not be a subject because “he was not born under the ligeance of a SUBJECT”

            Blaackstone…….
            Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship)
            Document 1
            “Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from THE SUBJECT, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.

            The children of aliens, born here in England, are, GENERALLY SPEAKING, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

            I have already (approximately a year ago) left a message on Polly Price’s web-page/blog pointing out what Lord Coke held as regards this matter, but I did not receive a reply, then when I went back to the page/blog, my comment had been removed, so I suspect it is not “convenient” Polly Price to acknowledge the truth on this matter.

            The point is though, that it is true in 17th century English law, that for a native-born child to be a natural born subject, that child must necessarily be “born under the ligeance of a subject”.

            One need only be able to read to find this is so.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 8, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

            AND – Just like a bunch of Ol’ Calvinist Preachers – the Birther Madness folk WOULD PREFER – to talk about things – CENTURIES OLD – rather than deal with the Here and Now – of the 21st Century !!!!!!

            AND – Still like a bunch of Ol’ Calvinist Preachers – the Birther Madness folk – STILL – want the CHILDREN – to PAY – for the SINS of the Parents !!!

            WHY DON’T the Birther Madness folk – want to address the MORAL EVIL found within the INFINITE WISDOM – of the writers of OUR Constitution ?????

            SO – Birther Madness folk – BLAIMING the Children – for the SINS of their Parents.

            AND – Birther Madness folk – PRAISING the ACROSS the BOARD – INFINITE WISDOM AND MORAL virtues of the writers of OUR Constitution !!!!!!!!

            Yup – that’s WHAT we folk have to SUFFER WITH – IN THIS 21st Century – from Birther Madness folk, like a bunch of Calvinist Preachers – buried in Centuries PAST !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 8, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

            “So I take it that you agree with what I have shown Lord Coke to be saying, i.e. that native-birth did not suffice to make a natural born subject and that to be a natural born subject a native born child had to be “born under the ligerance of a subject”.”

            Oh no, I don’t agree with you, I find your interpetation to be completely unique to you and to history. I suspect Professor Price didn’t take your interpetation as serious scholarship and treated it as such.

            BTW, have you read John Rastell’s 1527 lexicon of legal terms (Expositiones terminorum):

            “Alyon is he of whome the fader is born and he hymselfe also borne out of the elegiance of our lord the kyng, but yf an alyon come and dwell in England whyche is not of the kynges enemyes and here ad issu this issu is not alion but englysh, also if an englysh man go over the see with the kyngs lycence and ther ad issu this isu is not alyon.”

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm #

            @CEHUGHES

            “So I take it that you agree with what I have shown Lord Coke to be saying, i.e. that native-birth did not suffice to make a natural born subject and that to be a natural born subject a native born child had to be “born under the ligerance of a subject”.”

            Oh no, I don’t agree with you, I find your interpetation to be completely unique to you and to history. I suspect Professor Price didn’t take your interpetation as serious scholarship and treated it as such.

            BTW, have you read John Rastell’s 1527 lexicon of legal terms (Expositiones terminorum):

            “Alyon is he of whome the fader is born and he hymselfe also borne out of the elegiance of our lord the kyng, but yf an alyon come and dwell in England whyche is not of the kynges enemyes and here ad issu this issu is not alion but englysh, also if an englysh man go over the see with the kyngs lycence and ther ad issu this isu is not alyon.”

            Response:

            No I had not read Rastell’s 1527 lexicon of legal terms.

            Upon reading it I find that it is the same a Lord Cokes rule.

            i.e. that the child of an alien who is a subject i.e. because he is not an enemy and is therefore with local ligeance, is not an alien and would therefore be a subject.

            It is the place, i.e. dominion of the king that governs the alien visitor’s subject status, albeit local and temporary.

            But it is both by being born in the dominion of the king, whilst in the actual possession of the king, and being born “under the ligeance of a subject” that makes the child of that alien-born subject, a subject born (aka a natural born subject.

            Lord Coke – Calvin’s case…..

            “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
            1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
            2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
            And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;”

            and…

            “The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.”

            and

            “This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King,”

            To say that a native-born child of an alien makes a natural born subject, is simplistic and only partially true and it is misleading, as it omits to mention crucial qualities that are essential to make the native-born to an alien, a subject born, and that is that the child must be “born under the ligeance of a subject”.

            The friendly alien parent gains subject status simply by being in the dominion of the king whilst the king is in actual possession by way of local ligeance; his child gains natural born status by being born in the same place that his father is a subject and because his father is a subject, the child is born under the ligeance of the subject.

            If the child is born to an alien who has no local ligeance and is thus not a subject, then the child cannot be a born subject, because as Coke says “he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”.

            The US, unlike 17th century England, did not and does not embrace friendly alien visitors as subjects/citizens, they must go through a naturalization process which includes making an oath of allegiance, so If it were true that the Framers of the USC adopted the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen, that child would need to be “born under the ligeance” of a US citizen/subject parents.

            In light of this and with the popularity of Vattel’s definition of citizenship of a republic, the fact that the Framers used the term “natural born Citizen” as eligibility for high office of president and not as eligibility for mere membership of the general body of citizens, and especially given the imperative to protect the office of president from the least possible foreign influence, allegiance, persuasion or claim, it is an absurd notion that in the Framing period with royalists, tories, etc of dubious allegiances still not easily identifiable that the Framers would be satisfied with mere native-birth to alien non-citizen parents to suffice as eligibility for the high office of POTUS.

            Basically the entire argument in favor of native-birth as sufficient to make a US natural born Citizen has it’s foundation on this absurdity and clearly smacks of an agenda to water-down the security measure put in place by the very wise and highly educated Framers.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 8, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

            Well – HOT DAMN – MICHAELN – FROM MY 21st Century Perspective – I believe that YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE – Clearly demonstrates MY CONTENTION – that some the THIS Birther Madness stuff – SOUNDS – like a bunch of Ol’ AMERICAN Pietistic Calvinist Ministers – Steeped within the Westminster Catechism – “Completed in 1647, it was presented to the Long Parliament on 14 April 1648.” – see Wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Shorter_Catechism – AND SEE – http://www.opc.org/lc.html.

            AND – AGAIN – I don’t see ANYONE WITHIN THIS THREAD – WHO CONTEST – the Contents of the OPENING Statement of THIS THREAD (by Bob Quasius) – on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – offer ANY DISAGREEMENTS – of ANY KIND – with ANY of my recent Posts – that look at this Birther Madness Thingy – FROM a 21st Century Perspective !~!!!!!~!

            So, Michaeln – WHAT do YOU think – about the Birther Madness thingy – as VIEWED FROM – a 21st Century Perspective ??????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 9, 2013 at 12:26 am #

            BobA123 said ….

            Well – HOT DAMN – MICHAELN – FROM MY 21st Century Perspective – I believe that YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE – Clearly demonstrates MY CONTENTION – that some the THIS Birther Madness stuff – SOUNDS – like a bunch of Ol’ AMERICAN Pietistic Calvinist Ministers – Steeped within the Westminster Catechism – “Completed in 1647, it was presented to the Long Parliament on 14 April 1648.” – see Wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Shorter_Catechism – AND SEE – http://www.opc.org/lc.html.

            AND – AGAIN – I don’t see ANYONE WITHIN THIS THREAD – WHO CONTEST – the Contents of the OPENING Statement of THIS THREAD (by Bob Quasius) – on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – offer ANY DISAGREEMENTS – of ANY KIND – with ANY of my recent Posts – that look at this Birther Madness Thingy – FROM a 21st Century Perspective !~!!!!!~!

            So, Michaeln – WHAT do YOU think – about the Birther Madness thingy – as VIEWED FROM – a 21st Century Perspective ??????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Response:

            Well – hot damn – Bob, things aren’t always what they seem – and that’s been the case for thousands of years – and will most likely be the case for a long time yet.

            In closing, it’s not necessarily mad to study, debate and discuss history.

            There is no “birther madness”, it’s merely an invented term used as a psychological weapon by a group of traitors to the very sound and well reasoned national secuirty measures found in Article II of the USC, and aimed at wounding and killing the calls of those who seek the truth to be known.

            just sayin’

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 9, 2013 at 1:43 am #

            Since you, Michaeln, are SO enamered with “Article II of the USC” – you, Michaeln, SHOULD also be enamered with the REST of the USC that the FOUNDING Fathers ALSO wrote – JUST BECAUSE- it TOO – IS Part of the USC !!!!!

            AS I wrote above, Michaeln –

            “Meanwhile – back in the 21st Century – the Birther Madness folk sound like a bunch of Old-Time Calvinist Preachers – BLAIMING the Children – for the SINS of their Parents – the SINS being – that for whatever reasons – even before the Children were conceived and BORN – the Parents where NOT “natural born American Citizens” themselves!!!!!!!

            AND – IN THE INFINATE WISDOM of the Founding Fathers of this GREAT NATION of ours – we find in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – of OUR Constitution –
            “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

            YUP – the INFINATE WISDOM of AMERICA’S FOUNDERS – the 3/5 Person expression –
            OBVIOUSLY – coming out of the English Common Law, Blackstone, and American Common Law – WHICH JUST GOES to SHOW – that the INFINATE WISDOM of the WRITERS of OUR CONSITUTION – LACKS – I say – LACKS – BOTH – COMMON Decency and MORAL REASONING !!!!!!!

            SO – for the Bither Madness – to HANG their HATS – on the INFINATE WISDOM of the WRITERS of OUR CONSTITUTION – as far as the HERE and NOW of the 21st Century goes – the Birther Madness – hanging this hat on INFINATE WISDOM – show a great lack of MORAL STANDARDS – IN this 21st Century !!!!!!!

            Here’s HOPING for BETTER MORAL STANDARDS in the 21st Century – than where present in the 18th Century !!!!!!!!”

            YUP, Michaeln – THAT’S – Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – of OUR Constitution!!!!!!! GREAT MORAL REASON writing there, eh, Michaeln !!!!!

            Just sayin’, Michaeln,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 9, 2013 at 7:24 am #

            MichaelN,

            How is it that you expect the “truth to be known” when you insist on calling those who disagree with you “traitors” when you have failed time after time after time to provide positive proof for your theory?

            Again, I have to ask in how many courts has your theory or any part of your theory prevailed?
            Again, I must demand that it is your burden to prove that your theory trumps the well established and most commonly understood meaning of natural born citizen and not my burden or the burden of others to prove that the law is correct.

            Show us the words of the Founders in the Federalist Papers that support your assertion.
            Show us settled law that supports your position.
            Show us a majority opinion that supports your position.

            Note bene: A discussion arriving at an opinion is not the opinion and a minority opinion is simply that and offers only fodder for discussion.

            Simply because the Founders failed to say “We thought about jus sanguinis and rejected it.” is not proof that they accepted it and based Article II on it.

            Please stop insisting that the absence of a thing is proof of its existence.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 9, 2013 at 12:08 am #

            CEHUGHES said ….

            “Oh no, I don’t agree with you, I find your interpetation to be completely unique to you and to history.”

            Response:

            I really don’t see any other way to interpret what Lord Coke has said; I would describe what I have pointed out not as interpretation, but rather observation.

            In fact the observation I have made appears to be consistent with most if not all of the authoritative commentators that are most often quoted, except that those commentators have failed to point-out what I have observed was actually said.

            What Coke said speaks for itself, it doesn’t require any commentary to be able to understand what was being said.

            You should have no difficulty interpreting “correctly” the following verbatim excerpts from Calvin’s case, and explaining what is really meant, seeing as you don’t agree with my “interpretation”.

            You already know my “interpretation”, so what’s the correct “interpretation of this? ….

            “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”

            and this?….

            ” for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King”

            Please spare me the cut and paste of other opinions, just YOU explain from the source case what Coke is saying, if it is other than what I have observed and pointed out.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 9, 2013 at 7:31 am #

            MichaelN wrote:

            “The US, unlike 17th century England, did not and does not embrace friendly alien visitors as subjects/citizens, they must go through a naturalization process which includes making an oath of allegiance, so If it were true that the Framers of the USC adopted the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen, that child would need to be “born under the ligeance” of a US citizen/subject parents.”

            Please show us where this is specifically stated by the Founders IN ANY FORUM,
            and where it exists in U.S. Code.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

            @CEHUGHES

            I ask again.

            How do YOU “know”, from a reading of Minor v Happersett, that the Minor court was referring to the English common law and what precisely in the Minor court gives you that impression?

            I am not asking what all your cut and paste opinions of others did or said in other cases.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 10, 2013 at 4:58 pm #

            OH, My, My, My, MY, MichaelN – I see – that YOU are STILL REFUSING to address the issues that I raise – about Birther Madness – from a 21st Century orientation !!!!!!!

            WHAT-SA-MATTER, MichaelN – did you get COLD FEET – after your FIRST VENTURE in dealing with my 21st Century Perspective ???????

            Too Bad. So Sad. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MichaelN !!!!!!!!!!

            Cat’s got your tonge, eh???????

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

            MichaelN,

            You may direct your comment at whom ever you wish but the one and only fact of Happersett that is worth noting is that it is totally and completely irrelevant to the issue of natural born citizen.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 12, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

            @Lawrence F Mazzucchelli

            Actually it was and still is very relevant, I am aware that you wish it wasn’t because it demolishes your absurd argument.

            When the SCOTUS in the Minor V Happersett case gave merit to the reasonable doubts
            if native-birth to alien parents sufficed to make an ordinary “citizen” at all, stating that the doubts had yet to be solved, then not only did the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett virtually state that a native-born to aliens was definitely NOT a natural born citizen and possibly not a citizen at all, but the SCOTUS virtually said that a native-born child to alien parents was an alien-born until such time as the doubts were solved (if ever)

            i.e. it is impossible for the SCOTUS in the Minor court to have viewed native-birth to alien parents as sufficient to make a natural born citizen.

            If at the time it was already settled law, that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born citizen, ow come the SCOTUS didn’t immediately recognize the native-born to alien parents as a natural born citizen???????????

            I’ll tell you why………

            Because the child was not born “under the ligeance” of US citizen parents.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

            Ah, MichaelN – I see that you STILL REFUSE – to continue the discussion from MY 21st Century perspective – which, in no doubt due – to YOU, MichalN realizing – that you are NOT able to deal with my observations!!!!

            TOO Bad. So SAD. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MichaelN !!!!!

            Posted by boba123
          • March 13, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

            @ Boba123

            I didn’t even begin to discuss your “21st Century perspective”, so it’s hardly the case that I might “continue”.

            It should be obvious to you by now, that I have no intention of entering into any further dialogue with you.

            You do know they don’t flog dead horses in the 21st century?

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 13, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

            Well, MichaeN – SINCE YOU refused to answer these THAT POST of mine – AND continue to come up WITH EXCUSES as to WHY you WON’T answer that post – I’ll just repeat the post – to give you a second change –

            The Post that YOU, MichaelN – REFUSE to deal with –
            “AND – Just like a bunch of Ol’ Calvinist Preachers – the Birther Madness folk WOULD PREFER – to talk about things – CENTURIES OLD – rather than deal with the Here and Now – of the 21st Century !!!!!!

            AND – Still like a bunch of Ol’ Calvinist Preachers – the Birther Madness folk – STILL – want the CHILDREN – to PAY – for the SINS of the Parents !!!

            WHY DON’T the Birther Madness folk – want to address the MORAL EVIL found within the INFINITE WISDOM – of the writers of OUR Constitution ?????

            SO – Birther Madness folk – BLAIMING the Children – for the SINS of their Parents.

            AND – Birther Madness folk – PRAISING the ACROSS the BOARD – INFINITE WISDOM AND MORAL virtues of the writers of OUR Constitution !!!!!!!!

            Yup – that’s WHAT we folk have to SUFFER WITH – IN THIS 21st Century – from Birther Madness folk, like a bunch of Calvinist Preachers – buried in Centuries PAST !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen”

            NOW, MichaelN – Maybe even you can answer the post, rather than dodge the post – MAYBE !!!!!

            Posted by boba123
          • March 12, 2013 at 4:24 pm #

            MichaelN,

            I’ve been over this same argument with Apuzzo. The notion that the court “gave merit to the reasonable doubts….’ regarding who is and is not a natural born Citizen is patently false and absurd. This is what the Court wrote:

            “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.” . 88 U. S. 167

            It is as clear as the day is long that the specifically stated that they 1) did not need to resolve the issue and that 2) they had no intent of resolving the issue.

            Happersett was, is, and will always be irrelevant to the determination of “natural born Citizen.”

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 12, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

            Lawrence F Mazzucchelli,

            You said when commenting on Minor v. Happersett (1875): “It is as clear as the day is long that the specifically stated that they 1) did not need to resolve the issue and that 2) they had no intent of resolving the issue.”

            The problem with your understanding of Minor v. Happersett (1875) is that when you say “the issue,” you do not really understand what “the issue” means. You erroneously assume that “the issue” is “natural-born citizen.” Minor confirmed “the issue” of who was a “natural-born citizen.” Minor did not resolve “the issue” of who was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. That was done by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). You fail to appreciate this critical constitutional distinction. Consequently, not understanding that the two classes of citizens are constitutionally different, you conflate and confound an Article II “natural-born citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen.” Because of this defective understanding on your part, you come to the erroneous conclusion that Minor did not confirm who was a “natural-born citizen” and is therefore irrelevant in that regard and that Wong Kim Ark did and is therefore relevant in that regard. But the truth of the matter is that Minor is highly relevant on the definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that Wong Kim Ark did not change what Minor said about that definition.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • March 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm #

            Mario,
            “But the truth of the matter is that Minor is highly relevant on the definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that Wong Kim Ark did not change what Minor said about that definition.”

            The citation by Justice Gray of the Minor opinion was not to highly the “definition” of natural born but rather to highlight the fact the Minor opinion refused to resolve the issue of US born children of alien parents.

            The paragraphs preceeding the Minor citation begin with Justice Gray citing justice Miller’s opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

            “Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:”

            “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. 16 Wall. 73.”

            [Justice Gray quotes the passage from Justice Miller’s opinion that states that the children of aliens born within the US are not citizens]

            “This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities …but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. [citations omitted]”

            [Justice Gray explains that Justice Miller’s statement was in passing and an aside]

            “In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:”

            [Justice Gray cites Chief Justice Marshall’s discussion of dictum in Cohens v. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheat. 264, 399. Justice Gray use it to explain why Justice Miller’s statement in the Slaughterhouse Cases was not binding and only dictum.]

            “That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship), …[cites Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.]”

            [Justice Gray states that none of the justices who took part in the Slaughterhouse Cases was committed to the idea that US born children of aliens are not citizens because only two years later in the Minor decision, they chose not to resolve the issue.]

            “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

            [Justice Gray states the decision in the Minor opinion – note he doen’t say that Virginia Minor is a natural born citizen but only a citizen of the United States]

            BTW, Chief Justice Marshall’s statement on dictum in Cohens v. Virginia applies to the Minor decision. Here it is again.

            “It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”

            The statements in the Minor decision about “natural born” citizens “may serve to illustrate” the decision “but their possible bearing on all other cases” was not “completely investigated.”

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 13, 2013 at 2:17 am #

            @ CEHUGHES said….

            ““The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

            [Justice Gray states the decision in the Minor opinion – note he doen’t say that Virginia Minor is a natural born citizen but only a citizen of the United States]

            Response:

            Justice Gray had no need to say Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen, the US Supreme Court in the Minor court had already determined that, the Minor court also dteremined that Virginia Minor was a “citizen of the United States” …… so?

            Do you also note that Justice Gray did not say or rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen?

            What about in the Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Grays’ citing to Horace Binney?

            “”The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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. ”

            Here we have Binney making a clear distinction between the two types of born citizens.

            In Binney’s comment, both types of born citizens are such due to “right of citizenship”, “by operation of the same principle” i.e. “born in the country”; but one of the two types of born citizens, he calls ” the natural born child of a citizen” .

            The reason Binney calls one type of the born citizens a “natural born” is because of the US citizen status of that child’s parents.

            Justice Horace Gray had no problem with Binney’s comment and opinion.

            The final upshot was that the decision which was written by Justice Gray affirmed that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” and NOT a natural born citizen, and it is easy to see why, i.e. Wong Kim Ark did not have US citizen parents, “he was not born under the ligeance” of US citizen parents, he was NOT (as Binney put it) “the natural born child of a citizen”, but rather he was “the child of an alien”, “born in the country”.

            It was a stretch of the 14th Amendment on Justice Gray’s part to even get Wong past the line as a citizen. i.e. it was mostly due to Wong’s parents long time domicile and business input into American society, that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” became a factor.

            The Minor court would no doubt have ruled Wong to be alien-born.

            How, using the decision of the case, do you explain the Minor court’s reference to “common law” wherein the court found and gave merit to reasonable doubts if a native-born child to alien parents was a US citizen at all, given that it were true that the Minor court was supposed to already believe that such a child was a US natural born citizen of the US and that the Framers got that definition from the English comm law?

            By recognizing the difference between Virginia Minor as a natural born citizen and a native-born child of aliens who was not recognized by the SCOTUS as a citizen at all, the Minor court virtually excluded such a child from being a citizen and thus alien-born, until such time as the doubt was resolved.

            How could it possible that the SCOTUS judiciary in Minor v Happersett believed that native-birth to aliens made a natural born citizen?

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 13, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

            CEHUGHES said …

            “BTW, Chief Justice Marshall’s statement on dictum in Cohens v. Virginia applies to the Minor decision. Here it is again.

            “It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”

            BTW, Chief Justice Marshall’s statement on dictum in Cohens v. Virginia applies to the Minor decision. Here it is again.

            “It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”

            The statements in the Minor decision about “natural born” citizens “may serve to illustrate” the decision “but their possible bearing on all other cases” was not “completely investigated.”

            Response:

            Then the statements in the Wong Kim Ark decision about “natural born” subjects “may serve to illustrate” the decision “but their possible bearing on all other cases” was not “completely investigated.”

            The decision in the Wong Kim Ark case was……… “citizen of the United States” and NOT natural born citizen, which is THE DECISION which has a “bearing on all other cases” and WAS “completely investigated”.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 13, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

            Poppycock.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 13, 2013 at 9:05 pm #

            March 13, 2013 at 8:27 pm
            Poppycock.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli

            Response:

            You wish.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 13, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

            MichaelN,

            No, I don’t wish. What I do wish is that you had something of relevance to say that would advance the conversation and or understanding of the subject. Sadly, that is not the case.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 13, 2013 at 9:32 pm #

            “Then the statements in the Wong Kim Ark decision about “natural born” subjects “may serve to illustrate” the decision “but their possible bearing on all other cases” was not “completely investigated.””

            [So you agree that per Chief Justice Marshall’s criteria the Minor statement of “natives or natural born citizens” is dicta.]

            “The decision in the Wong Kim Ark case was……… “citizen of the United States” and NOT natural born citizen, which is THE DECISION which has a “bearing on all other cases” and WAS “completely investigated”.”

            [Justice Gray begins the holding of the case by summarizing the 14th Amendment:]

            “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

            [He then goes on to explain the effect of the amendment on the US born children of aliens]

            “The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “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.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides”

            [In this passage Justice Gray explains that in the US an alien has a local and temporary allegiance to the US. And that allegiance is “strong enough to make a natural subject”, the aliens child born in the US is natural born. Binney is not describing two types of citizens – but the same type. That is clear and unambigious from Justice Gray’s statement. In this part of the holding Justice Gray declares Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.]

            [And this part of the decision comes after the citations to Minor and its meaning is so clear that even Chief Justice Fuller in his dissenting opinion says that the ruling would make someone like Wong eligible to be President.]

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

            AND, MichaelN – HERE’S an EVEN better post – that YOU, MichaelN- REFUSE to discuss – but rather, dismiss!!!!

            Here’s the post –
            “Since you, Michaeln, are SO enamered with “Article II of the USC” – you, Michaeln, SHOULD also be enamered with the REST of the USC that the FOUNDING Fathers ALSO wrote – JUST BECAUSE- it TOO – IS Part of the USC !!!!!

            AS I wrote above, Michaeln –

            “Meanwhile – back in the 21st Century – the Birther Madness folk sound like a bunch of Old-Time Calvinist Preachers – BLAIMING the Children – for the SINS of their Parents – the SINS being – that for whatever reasons – even before the Children were conceived and BORN – the Parents where NOT “natural born American Citizens” themselves!!!!!!!

            AND – IN THE INFINATE WISDOM of the Founding Fathers of this GREAT NATION of ours – we find in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – of OUR Constitution –
            “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

            YUP – the INFINATE WISDOM of AMERICA’S FOUNDERS – the 3/5 Person expression –
            OBVIOUSLY – coming out of the English Common Law, Blackstone, and American Common Law – WHICH JUST GOES to SHOW – that the INFINATE WISDOM of the WRITERS of OUR CONSITUTION – LACKS – I say – LACKS – BOTH – COMMON Decency and MORAL REASONING !!!!!!!

            SO – for the Bither Madness – to HANG their HATS – on the INFINATE WISDOM of the WRITERS of OUR CONSTITUTION – as far as the HERE and NOW of the 21st Century goes – the Birther Madness – hanging this hat on INFINATE WISDOM – show a great lack of MORAL STANDARDS – IN this 21st Century !!!!!!!

            Here’s HOPING for BETTER MORAL STANDARDS in the 21st Century – than where present in the 18th Century !!!!!!!!

            Just observin’,

            Robert Allen”

            HERE’S YOUR SECOND CHANCE at this even better post, MichaelN !!!!!

            Posted by boba123
          • March 14, 2013 at 6:43 am #

            QED

            Again.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 14, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

            Lawrence F Mazzucchelli said

            “Whereas Justice Gray wrote:

            “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such rule was “in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

            Response:

            Do you really know what your argument is?

            Do you just cut and paste stuff here to run interference.

            Here’s the quote verbatim (i.e. without the window dressing or omissions which are deliberately designed to make what was actually said appear to say something else)

            Here’s the plain truth on this matter.

            From the Wong Kim Ark decision…..

            “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

            Justice Gray was speaking about the English rule ONLY and how it applied to English subjects in the English colonies and continued to operate for English subjects in the US.

            This passage has NOTHING to do with US citizenship at all.

            Justice Gray even points out as Lord Coke did in Calvin’s case, that a native-born child was only a natural born subject if the parents were subjects with local ligeance, then gives examples of visiting aliens who were not subjects and whose native-born children were excluded from being natural born subjects, because as Lord Coke put it, they were “not born under the ligeance of a subject.

            Your argument is flawed and an epic failure.

            The Binney comment, which was quoted by Justice Gray demolishes your argument, where not only did Gray introduce Binney’s comment, he also had no objection to it, where Binney said that there were TWO TYPES of born citizens of the US.

            1) “the child of an alien,if born in the land”

            2) “the natural born child of a citizen”

            It was the child born to US citizen parents who was described as “natural born”, so the word “natural” was tied to PARENTS and not to native-birth.

            So Justice Gray along with the majority of the Wong Kim Ark court, ruled Wong a “citizen of the United States” and deliberately NOT a natural born, when they could easily have if they believed it was true.

            Even after all the talk of natural born this and natural born that Wong got “CITIZEN”.

            And you run around the shop trying to convince people that the US Supreme Court really meant to say natural born citizen when they said “citizen”.

            You are delusional.

            Well it’s game, set and match Lawrence, the Wong Kim Ark case held that there are TWO TYPES of born citizens of the US.

            Continue in your denial and your desperate opinionated verbal acrobatics all you like, if nothing else, it’s amusing in a sad, pathetic kinda way.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 15, 2013 at 6:42 am #

            How can you possibly misread Gray’s statement so badly? You’ve spent more words constructing an alternate universe surrounding Grays one statement than are in that statement.

            But again, let us assume for sake of folly that you’re view is the prevailing view. If that is the case why do states not issue multiple kinds of birth certificates?

            In other words, according to your notion, states should have:1) The Natural Born Citizen birth certificate for those born to the parents of two U.S. Citizens. 2) The Born Citizen birth certificate for those born to the parents of resident aliens. 3) The Could Be if You Want to be a U.S Citizen via Naturalization birth certificate and 4) The No Way In Hell birth certificate for those born of officials of other nations or visitors of other nations. And I suppose we could also establish a whole series of birth certificates based on ones birth in a foreign nation of either one or two U.S. natural born or naturalized citizens.

            I could go on because it is an amusing exercise but life is too short to waste on absurd

            Keep insults flowing. They provide humor and light on an otherwise cloudy day but they certainly do not strengthen your argument nor do they reverse your sides record of 0 – 337.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 16, 2013 at 9:51 am #

            Lets just say Mr Norris’ reading and comprehension skills have been lacking for years. Still thinks a syllabus is the actual decision probably and likes to bet on horse that have no chance of winning.

            Posted by Iz
          • March 17, 2013 at 12:52 am #

            @ IZ who, is afraid to use his/her real name and appears to get some twisted kinda thrill by vexatiously revealing to the world my real surname and who is afraid also to even hazard entering into the argument.

            You obviously still maintain your warped thinking that an ad hominem attack has some valid place in this argument and that by your feeble flogging the dead horse by expose of my last name will make your dead horse come back to life again.

            My surname has been on display or has been/is easy to find for anyone who cares to find out.

            The fact is that the traitors’ and their useful idiots argument that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, or US natural born citizen has been exposed for the lie that it is and how it’s based on absurdity and is really politically driven to water-down the security measures for the office of POTUS.

            Your deceit ridden argument has been demolished and is in a heap, all you have is your pathetic resort to vexatious ad hominem.

            You need to go back to school, here’s an appropriate lesson for you.

            Description of Ad Hominem

            Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

            An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

            Person A makes claim X.
            Person B makes an attack on person A.
            Therefore A’s claim is false.

            The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
            Example of Ad Hominem

            Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
            Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
            Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
            Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

            Back to the topic.

            TWO TYPES OF BORN US CITIZENS were recognized by Horace Binney and agreed to by Justice Gray and the majority of the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case, this is shown by the fact that there was no challenge or objection to Binney’s comment and it was reflected in the decision of the court, when Wong was ruled a CITIZEN and NOT a natural born citizen.

            The TWO TYPES of born US citizens were/are:

            1) “the child of an alien, if born in the country”

            2) “the natural born child of a citizen”

            Wong was, as Binney put it, “the child of an alien, if born in the country” and NOT a “natural born child of a citizen”, that’s why after all the exhaustive talk and analysis of English and US common law the court ruled Wong “citizen” and NOT a natural born citizen.

            This is really simple stuff, and plain to see that BOTH Binney AND the majority of the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case believed and held that the word “natural” within the context of the term “natural born” was TIED to the PARENTS and had NOTHING to do with place.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 17, 2013 at 2:08 am #

            Well – HOT DAMN, MichaelN – aren’t YOU some KIND of sanctimoneous little butter-ball of self-Reichtious FLUFF!!!!!!! The way, MichaleN – that YOU, of ALL people – go about ATTEMPTING to put down Iz – reveals a great deal about your own insecurities vis-a-vis this Birther Madness thingy!!!!!!!!

            I see, MichaelN – that you STILL refuse to discuss the MERITS of that 18th Century MORAL STANDARD – of 3/5 Person – that the WRITERS of OUR Constitution – ACTIVELY PUT INTO the Constitution – found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3!!!!!

            HAS it EVER occured to you, MichaelN – that ALL of the Writers of OUR Constitution – where WHITE guys – who PLACED that 18th Century MORAL STANDARD of 3/5 Person – MERELY reflecting – their OWN SENSE of RACIST MORAL STANDARDS – into OUR Constitution!!!!

            SINCE YOU, MichelN – REFUSE to DEAL with this 18th Century MORAL STANDARD of 3/5 Person – I’m starting to believe, MichaelN – that YOU as a WHITE guy – ACTUALLY EMBRACE this 18th Century MORAL STANDARD of 3/5 Person – to KEEP the Presidency of OUR United States of America – SACRED – FOR – WHITE GUYS ONLY!!!!!!

            It MUST have REALLY PISSED you off, MichaelN – that the Birther Madness – was NOT STRONG enough – to KEEP Obama FROM becoming PRESIDENT of OUR United States of America!!!!!

            Did YOU, MichaelN – EVER THINK – that the 18th Century MORAL STANDARD 0f 3/5 Person – that the WHITE Writers of the U.S. Constitution ACTUALLY PUT INTO Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, into OUR Constitution – MIGHT ALSO HAVE been put into Article 2 – of the U.S. Constitution – AS a WAY – to keep the Presidency a WHITES ONLY Presidency – because – HOW COULD a 3/5 Person – EVER meet the requirements – of a “natural born citizen”?????

            I betcha, MichaelN – that this has NEVER occured to YOU – CUZ – you’re a WHITE guy – SUPPORTING that 18th Century MORAL STANDARD – of 3/5 Person!!!!!!!!

            Damn, MichaelN – YOU have a lot of damn GULL – to be enamored of this 18th Century MORAL STANDARD – of 3/5 Person!!!!!!!!

            YOU, MichaelN – are a TRAITOR – to Human Decency!!!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 28, 2013 at 8:50 am #

            Oooops!

            Native-born in US to alien parents but NOT a natural born citizen, but rather a naturalized citizen?????

            At Mario’s blog,

            http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=2111932174402297120

            thalightguy said…

            “Alfred Pierre Jacob was BORN IN PHILADELPHIA, PA on July 10, 1855 of FRENCH PARENTS, his father registered him in the French consulate as a Frenchman; in 1884 the U.S. Dept. of State in correspondence with France explained to them that Mr. Jacob became a NATURALIZED U.S. citizen on December 2, 1874 as a result of his father’s formal naturalization.”

            The correspondence can be read here, Pages 29-31:

            http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/joshua-rose/pattern-makers-assistant-embracing-lathe-work-branch-work-core-work–goo/page-29-pattern-makers-assistant-embracing-lathe-work-branch-work-core-work–goo.shtml

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 28, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

            Hey, MichaelN – I see that YOU too, just like Mario – ARE running out of Steam, here on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – MAINLY Because – BOTH YOU and Mario, MichaelN – are getting BEAT – by a WHOLE BUNCH of folk – HERE – on this Blog Space.

            I CERTAINLY, understand, MichaelN – WHY – you place links to OTHER blog Spaces!!!! YOU, MichaelN – REALIZE – that BOTH YOU and Mario are LOOSING HERE – on THIS Blog Space – so, MichaelN – YOU want to DIRECT FOLK – ELSEWHERE!!!!!!

            NICE try at diversion, MichaelN – but it WON’T WORK!!!!!

            YOU, MichaelN – AND YOUR SULLY Arguments – JUST CAN’T WIN – HERE !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • March 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

            Lawrence F Mazzucchelli said …..

            “MichaelN,

            I’ve been over this same argument with Apuzzo. The notion that the court “gave merit to the reasonable doubts….’ regarding who is and is not a natural born Citizen is patently false and absurd.”

            You are WRONG and again demonstrating your dishonesty!

            You seem to be deliberately misleading by not acknowledging and reporting accurately what was actually said by the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case.

            The SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case raised the doubts and gave merit to those doubts, i.e. if a native-born child to alien parents was a CITIZEN at all (not a natural born which Virginia Minor was already recognized to be, and in the very same paragraph)

            Here’s the text, verbatim…….

            “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.”

            What the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case effectively said was that native-born children to alien parents were alien-born, until such time as the doubts as to whether they might be CITIZENS was solved.

            There was NOTHING said at all by the SCOTUS that “natural born citizen” status was doubtful in the case of a native-born to alien parents, it was whether such a child would be a CITIZEN.

            Horace Binney was quoted by Justice Gray in the WKA case, where Binney made a clear distinction between the TWO types of born citizens, i.e. one being “the child of an alien if born in the country” and the OTHER being “the natural born child of a citizen”.

            Justice Gray had no problem with Binney’s comment and the resulting DECISION of the WKA court was that Wong was “the child of an alien if born in the country”, i.e. a born “citizen” and NOT the OTHER type of born citizen which was “the natural born child of a citizen”.

            Justice Gray obviously read the part of Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case where Lord Coke rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and thus after committing to such a lengthy tribute to Calvin’s case had no other option than to rule Wong as a CITIZEN ONLY, because as Lord Coke had put it (and must have been ringing in the ears of Justice Gray) Wong “was not born under the ligeance of” US citizen parents.

            I know it is difficult to be honest when you know by doing so it would totally demolish your absurd argument………….. but you might sleep better at night if you did, and there would be nothing lost really, in fact the US would be a better place, if the highest possible allegiance of a POTUS born in the land to US citizen parents were properly observed instead of what you have now.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 13, 2013 at 9:14 pm #

            MichaelN,

            Dishonest? Really? I will keep this brief because your comment deserves no more.

            You may cut and paste from Mario from now until Hell freezes over but it will not change this one simple fact: Minor is irrelevant to the question of natural born Citizen.

            The Court in Minor dispatched with the entire discussion of what a natural born citizen is for the simple fact that it was irrelevant to the issue of suffrage. How do I know this? Because the Chief Justice said so. He did not raise doubts about the subject He simply noted that they had been expressed by others and then said but it doesn’t matter to this case. The language is clear.

            Name calling does not improve your argument or impart logic where none exists and arguing that Minor says something other than what it says is the only dishonesty I’ve seen.

            Your argument has failed more than 330 times. It is failing again. It will fail in the future.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
          • March 10, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

            @MichaelN, – “I am not asking what all your cut and paste opinions of others did or said in other cases.”

            How about the cut and paste opinion of Justice Waite and Justice Field?

            In 1877 (two years after the Minor decision) the same Justice Waite wrote the opinion in the case of Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113 (a question of power of the state of Illinois to regulate commerce). In deciding the case, he uses the common law and cites cases from the common law.

            “Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that, when private property is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only.” This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg.Law Tracts 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since.”

            “In Aldnutt v. Inglis, 12 East 527, decided in 1810, it appeared that the London Dock Company …Upon this point, Lord Ellenborough said (p. 537):

            [skip]

            “We have quoted thus largely the words of these eminent expounders of the common law because, as we think, we find in them the principle which supports the legislation we are now examining. ”

            And in his dissenting opinion Justice Field writes:

            “There were also recognized in England, by the ancient common law, certain privileges as belonging to the lord of the manor, which grew out of the state of the country, the condition of the people, and the relation existing between him and his tenants under the feudal system.”

            And further,

            “No prerogative or privilege of the crown to establish warehouses was ever asserted at the common law. The business of a warehouseman was, at common law, a private business, and is so in its nature.”

            So MichaelN, what common law are Justice Waite and Justice Field referring to in Munn v. Illinois?

            And how is the common law cited in Munn v. Illinois different from the common law cited in Minor v. Happersett?

            Provide proof that the common law in Minor v. Happersett that “the framers of the Constitution were familiar” with, is different from the English common law cited by the same justices in Munn v. Illinois.

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 11, 2013 at 1:48 am #

            CEHUGHES said ….
            “So MichaelN, what common law are Justice Waite and Justice Field referring to in Munn v. Illinois?

            And how is the common law cited in Munn v. Illinois different from the common law cited in Minor v. Happersett?

            Provide proof that the common law in Minor v. Happersett that “the framers of the Constitution were familiar” with, is different from the English common law cited by the same justices in Munn v. Illinois.”

            I am not concerned with references to common law that you might dig-up from matters to do with inheritance, etc..

            You are muddying the water and in denial of simple facts that don’t fir with what you wish was the case.

            Lord Coke made it abundantly clear that if a native-born child was “not born under the ligeance of a subject”, then that child could not be a subject.

            Coke….

            “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

            It doesn’t get much clearer than that i.e. born in the land does not make a natural born subject; born under the ligeance of as subject does.

            It was the subject status of the PARENTS that was THE decisive factor.

            The point is that the SCOTUS in the Minor V Happersett case, in reference to a “common law”, rejected the notion that native-birth sufficed to make a citizen (not natural born, just “citizen”) due to the fact that it was NOT SETTLED LAW that native-birth to alien parents was sufficient, i.e. it was yet to be solved.

            Now IF it were true that the Framers used the English law rule with regard to the qualities that make a US natural born citizen, and the English law held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then what the hell was the Minor Court thinking when it held that it was doubtful that native-birth to alien parents might qualify for ordinary citizen, let alone natural born citizen???????

            i.e. it must have been some other “common law” and not the English law, if it were true that in English law native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

            What is amusing is that you are prepared to read into things, because it suits your agenda, that which is not there, e.g. the Wong Kim Ark case where you say the court held that he was a natural born citizen, when the decision was “citizen of the United States”; but when you are presented with things which are there, clear as the nose on your face, if they don’t fit with what you wish, you go into denial and try to pretend otherwise.

            If you seriously believe that Calvin’s case was the source for the notion that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then rather than cut and paste opinions and commentaries from the line of Chinese whisperers, show straight from the SOURCE, where in Calvin’s case it was ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

            Posted by MichaelN
          • March 7, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

            The Massachusetts acts, the work of Zephaniah Swift, William Rawle, the Delaware legislature, the states of Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware (which drafted the English Common Law into their state constitutions), the laws of Virgina and Connecticut (which were based on the concept of jus soli) indicate that the understanding of the Founding generation was that “natural born citizen” was synonymous with the term “natural born subject”.

            ====================================================================

            “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Former President of the United States William Howard Taft, in Ex Parte Grossman 1925

            ===================================================================

            “…we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.” Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller

            Posted by cehughes
          • March 7, 2013 at 8:25 am #

            Well done.

            Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
      • March 7, 2013 at 1:25 am #

        Here is more evidence:

        The Massachusetts Acts of Naturalization. These were acts passed by the Massachusetts legislature between 1785 and 1791. The acts use the same language, in the same context and interchangeably use the terms natural born subject and natural born citizen.

        For example:

        July, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“

        March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        There are about 13 of these acts that use the terms NBC or NBS. The last one in 1791 used NBS.

        There is also the Delaware legislature which in 1788 passed a naturalization act that allowed foreigners to become “a natural born subject of this state and shall be thenceforth entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges of a natural born subject of this state”.

        Finally, there is the 1795 legal treaties by Congressman Zephaniah Swift (he later became Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court) writing about the laws of Connecticut:

        “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

        Posted by CEHughes
      • March 8, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

        @ Lawrence Mazzucchelli

        You should have no problem answering this then?

        If the SCOTUS in the Minor case believed that English common law held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject (which it clearly doesn’t), and that the Framers followed such a principle, then why did the SCOTUS in Minor give merit to doubts if a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen at all (let alone a natural born citizen)???????

        and this…..

        What did Lord Coke in his report of Calvin’s case mean by this,if it did not mean that native-birth was rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject?

        “And it is to be observed, that IT IS nec coelum, nec solum, NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia THAT MAKE THE SUBJECT BORN”

        Posted by MichaelN
    • March 8, 2013 at 11:22 am #

      Mario Apuzzo
      You wrote:

      “You continue to demand that we meet a standard of evidence that you yourself do not and cannot meet.”

      Here’s the way it really works, Mario.

      When a person makes an allegation the burden of proof is placed on them. It is not my job to prove that I, the Founders, The Constitution and its Amendments, SCOTUS and US Code are all correct.

      HOWEVER, it is your task to prove that they are wrong.

      So, yes Mario, I can continue to demand that you and your colleagues meet a standard of evidence of such sufficiency that your theory prevails in any U.S. Court and is not subsequently overturned by higher court.

      Not only that, Mario, you’ve failed to answer any of the four very simple questions I posed to you none of which require a “standard of evidence”.

      Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  80. March 3, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

    Rick Bulow,

    The 1790 Naturalization Act does not prove that a child born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents is a “natural born Citizen.” First, the fact that Congress saw the need to declare to by naturalization act raises great suspicions. Second, the First Congress only said that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Such language, like deemed as, for all intents and purposes, etc., is language which connotes naturalization. Third, the Third Congress, lead by James Madison, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Of course, Madison and that Third Congress new very well that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 only grandfathered “citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be president for those born prior to the adoption of the Constitution and that for those born after its adoption, they had to be “natural born Citizen.” This is iron clad proof that Founders and Framers, as reflected by the First Congress, were, assuming they did not use “natural born citizen” in error, at best only willing to naturalize persons born out of the United States to citizen parent to be “natural born citizens,” and then later, through the Third Congress, changed their mind and decided that such persons could at best be only “citizens of the United States,” but not “natural born citizens.”

    The Fourteenth Amendment’s text contains the clause “citizen of the United States.” It does not contain the clause “natural born Citizen.” The amendment’s debates contain no mention of the “natural born Citizen” clause being redefined by the amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment therefore did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. It therefore defines a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Your appeal for Republicans not to give the impression that they are the anti-immigrant party is a non sequitur. Defining a “natural born Citizen” correctly has nothing to do with immigration.

    You provide the Vietnamese boat people example. Your appeal to noble causes cannot replace the need to define a “natural born Citizen” based on historical sources, U.S. Supreme Court cases, reason, and logic.

    You again bring up a straw man argument, putting forth the argument that the “birthers” demand that a “natural born Citizen” not have any parents who are “foreign-born.” This is a blatant lie that is often repeated by those who want to hide from the public the true “natural born Citizen” argument. Again, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. The parents can be “citizens” from birth or after birth. So, it does not matter if the parents were “foreign-born,” provided they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of their child’s birth. This means that the parents can also be “citizens of the United States” by way of naturalization after birth.

    You are conflating “natural born Citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” Congressional statutes such as 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 do not define a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, a plain reading of its text shows that it defines a “citizen of the United States.” The clause “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the statute. Also, not only this statute, but all of Congress’s statutes do the same, i.e., define a “citizen of the United States,” and not a “natural born Citizen.”

    Under its constitutional powers to make uniform the naturalization laws, Congress can be lenient when it comes to defining who may be a “citizen of the United States,” but it has not power to define, let alone be lenient regarding defining, a “natural born Citizen.” The Constitution speaks of “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” From the Constitution, we also can see that naturalized citizens are not included in “natural born Citizens,” but they are included in “citizens of the United States.” Under the Constitution, the only power that Congress has over citizenship is to make uniform the laws of naturalization. This means that Congress can define “citizens of the United States,” but it cannot define “natural born Citizens.” In keeping with this prohibition, other than the 1790 Naturalization Act which was repealed, Congress has never included the term “natural born Citizen” in any of its Acts, treaties, or even in the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, we can see that Congress always distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” It always defined the latter but never the former. And every citizenship definition ever provided by Congress provided all combination of factors involving place of birth and the citizenship status of the parents except a birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. So we can logically conclude that only the type of citizen that Congress never defined by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, treaty, or Act of Congress, because it does not have the power to do so, is a “natural born Citizen.”

    A “citizen of the United States” at birth is not the equivalent of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Founders and Framers chose their words carefully when they inserted them into the Constitution. They chose “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” “Natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause that cannot be defined by its parts, but rather by its whole. There is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” and Minor v. Happersett (1875) informs that it is the one that existed under American common law (national law) with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution which provided that 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. On the other hand, with Congress having broad naturalization powers, it can provide many different definitions of a “born Citizen.” Clearly, the two clauses cannot and do not mean the same and a “born Citizen” is therefore not necessarily a “natural born Citizen.” Only those “born Citizens” who meet the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” (born in the country to citizen parents) are “natural born Citizens.” If they do not meet that definition, then they are either Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act “citizens of the United States” at birth, but not American common law “natural born Citizens.”

    Finally, the opinion of the Heritage Foundation Guide, Human Events, and Byron York on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is only as authoritative and sound as the sources they cite to support their definition. They provide no such sources. Hence, there really is not much weight to be given to their personal opinion.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

      Sorry Mario, but you fail to recognize history and FACT. Therefore, your argument fails the Own The Narrative say it out loud and eyeball tests.

      Let me try this on you as well. The CONGRESSIONAL: RESEARCH SERVICE also proves that Natural Born Citizen = born in America. And another peon proves it in her work here:

      http://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2012/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_20.html – Marco Rubio IS eligible to be Vice President

      TO which she had referenced this:

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf – Qualifications for President and the “natural born” citizenship eligibility requirement from the Congressional Research Service

      Now, I think you do not deserve the ESQ as you have lost the argument to RESEARCH done by normal people, or as you had implied peons.

      Now, you are rendered to have lost not only in the Supreme Court and in other circuit courts, but you have lost in the biggest court of them all. That being the Court of Public Opinion

      • March 3, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

        Well spoke, Rick. Being a member of Public Opinion – I agree with your orientation, Rick, that Mario has lost it within the Court of Public Opinion.

        You’ll also notice, Rick – that I NO LONGER use the ESQ when referring to Ol’ Mario – and I agree with you, Rick – that Mario does “not deserve the ESQ as you have lost the argument to RESEARCH done by normal people, or as you had implied peons.”

        Great post, Rich.

        Posted by boba123
  81. March 3, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    The Constitution was written in 1787. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that we are to look to era sources in our quest to define it.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 7, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

      Robert Allen said…………………..

      “The Constitution was written in 1787. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that we are to look to era sources in our quest to define it.”

      Response:

      Robert, do you suppose the following quotes suffice to demonstrate that the US Supreme Court did look to “era sources” in the quest and did define “it”.

      WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court

      SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

      88 U.S. 162
      Minor v. Happersett
      Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875

      “Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] 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, [n4] 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 [p167] 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. [n5]

      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.

      Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

      The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

      “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”

      What “common law” was it that the court was speaking of, which gave the court reason to first introduce mention of doubts whether a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen and gave the court reason to recognize that the doubts had merit by stating that the doubts had yet to be legally resolved?

      What common law?

      Posted by MichaelN
  82. March 3, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo,

    In the 21st Century – President Obama – IS STILL – President Obama – dispite OVER FOUR years – of BIRTHER MADNESS !!!!

    Posted by boba123
  83. March 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    The issue is what is the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not who has been the president for the last four years.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 3, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo,

      And here, I always thought, that the Raison d’être OF the BIRTHER MADNESS – is that of keeping President Obama FROM BEING – President Obama !!!!!

      From the way that you tell it, Mario – it looks like BIRTHER MADNESS is NO LONGER CONCERNED about something – that BIRTHER MADNESS WAS CONCERNED with a little over four years ago. Easy come, easy go.

      Since, Mario (as you tell it), BIRTHER MADNESS is NO LONGER CONCERNED with keeping President Obama from being President Obama – just because BIRTHER MADNESS appears to be an on-going thingy – it looks like BIRTHER MADNESS – IS STILL FOCUSED – on what happens within the 21st Century !!!!

      Posted by boba123
  84. March 3, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “I see the Obots have invaded Café Con Leche Republicans. First, you have some nerve telling us that the word of the James Madison Administration on the meaning of citizenship is an ‘irrelevant tangent’.”

    If you have Madison on the meaning of the term at issue, you should have quoted that instead of the irrelevant tangent.

    What instances can you cite where a person was held to *not* be a natural-born citizen, while being a citizen from birth? Those are the cases you need in order to distinguish the two terms. You have over 200 years of American history to work with. McClure doesn’t help, so you’re at zero so far.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “So, please, NotLinda, may we have something from you that actually addresses the topic at hand here”

    Did you forget where you are posting? The topic at hand here is an article titled “Birther Madness!”. You mentioned the Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge, so I pointed out how that actually went for you.

    I should clear up one thing:The successful opposition to Apuzzo’s motion to appear pro hac vice was not based on his brief, as I may have mistakenly suggested, but rather his failure to disclose that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had found his appeal of Kerchner v. Obama to be frivolous.

    Posted by NotLinda
    • March 3, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

      OH, NotLinda – a Mario legal appeal – “frivolous” – say it ain’t true !!!!

      Posted by boba123
  85. March 3, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    NotLinda,

    (1) You said: “If you have Madison on the meaning of the term as issue, you should have quoted that instead of the irrelevant tangent.”

    You have failed to grasp the meaning of the James McClure 1811 citizenship case. The question is whether the Founders and Framers considered a child born in the United States to alien parents a “natural born Citizen.” The James McClure case, decided by the James Madison Administration, demonstrates that they considered that child alien born and in need of naturalization after birth in order to become a “citizen of the United States.” At best, that child could become a “citizen of the United States” by naturalization after birth. That means that such a child was neither a “natural born Citizen” nor even a “born Citizen.” The conclusion to be drawn from that state of affairs is that according to the Founders and Framers, a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a “natural born Citizen.”

    (2) You said: “What instances can you cite where a person was held to ‘not’ be a natural-born citizen, while being a citizen from birth?”

    Your argument begs the question that all citizens from birth are “natural born Citizens.” Actually, your assumption is erroneous. It is fallacious to conclude that all “born citizens,” assumed by you not to be “naturalized,” are “natural born Citizens.” You have no evidence that a “natural born Citizen” is defined as simply any child who is a U.S. citizen from birth. On the contrary, the evidence is that just being a “citizen of the United States” from birth does not necessarily make on a “natural born Citizen.”

    First, Wong Kim Ark held Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien and resident parents to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though it found that he was a “citizen from birth,” the Court did not hold that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen” by virtue of common law.

    Second, there are “born citizens” who are “naturalized” at birth. Both U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) confirm that persons who are made “citizens of the United States” at birth by a Congressional Act are naturalized at birth. Even Jill A. Pryor in her, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988), recognized these statutory “citizens” as “naturalized born citizen.” She advocates making these “naturalized born citizens” the equivalent to “natural born Citizens.” There she states: “Section II demonstrates that Congress’ naturalization powers under the Constitution enable it to naturalize citizens from birth. Section III marshals textual and structural support for the alternative ‘naturalized born’ approach, which reads the clause to require that the presidential candidate be a citizen at the time of birth. Under that approach, Congress has the power to define which classes of people will be citizens upon birth, but it may not declare any person a ‘citizen at birth’ retroactively.” Read the rest of her article at page 893, “The ‘Naturalized Born’ Approach,” which clearly explains that there does, indeed, exist naturalization “at birth” under our laws and that she proposes allowing the “naturalized at birth” to be considered “natural born Citizens” and therefore eligible to be President.

    Third, all “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are “citizens.” There is only one way to make a “natural born Citizen,” and that is that all required circumstances (birth in the country to citizen parents) occur at birth. There are two ways to make “citizens of the United States.” One is that all required circumstances (prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment and/or Congressional Acts) occur at birth, which we have seen above naturalization statutes may be relied upon to deem those circumstances to have occurred at birth. Surely, anyone who is naturalized at birth to be a “born citizen” cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” There is a general notion that being declared a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be naturalization. I submit that in essence, it still is naturalization because the amendment removes alien-parent inherited alienage from a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. But regardless of whether we accept that amendment’s born citizenship as being citizenship by naturalization or not, the person still has to satisfy the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The other way to make a “citizen of the United States” is after birth, which is accomplished by Congressional Act naturalization. And also with these “citizens of the United States, becoming so after birth, we have always accepted that they are not “natural born Citizens” and not eligible to be President.

    Hence, just being a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act does not determine whether one is a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that one can become a “born citizen” through statutory or amendment naturalization at birth. Even if we do not accept that Fourteenth Amendment “born citizens” may be naturalized by the amendment itself as such by naturalization at birth, they still have to satisfy the definition of a “natural born Citizen” which exists outside the amendment and which definition the amendment never repealed or amended. Under the Minor/Wong Kim Ark settled national common law definition of the clause, only a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth can be a “natural born Citizen.” All the rest of the “citizens” are “citizens of the United States, either at birth (under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act) or after birth (under a Congressional Act).

    (3) You said regarding Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge: “I should clear up one thing: The successful opposition to Apuzzo’s motion to appear pro hac vice was not based on his brief, as I may have mistakenly suggested, but rather his failure to disclose that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had found his appeal of Kerchner v. Obama to be frivolous.”

    First, the pro hac vice motion was not made by me, but rather by Attorney Karen L. Kiefer.

    Second, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals discharged it Order to Show Cause which ordered me to defend my reasons for filing the appeal on the issue of standing.

    Third, the Pennsylvania court did not find the Kerchner/Laudenslager action to be frivolous. Rather, it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to keep Obama off the primary election ballot or to decide whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Fourth, you concede that you were just making stuff up the first time around. Do you think that by admitting that you made stuff up the first time we are supposed to let you get away with making stuff up the second time which is what you have done? If I am wrong, then you will be able to provide us the decision of the court, by including citation and quotes from the judge (not argument of counsel), showing that he denied my admission to the proceedings because as you allege “the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had found [my] appeal of Kerchner v. Obama to be frivolous.” You simply will not be able to because the judge never gave any reason for his decision. Prove me wrong, NotLinda, that you are not again making stuff up.

    NotLinda, your arguments are not only wrong, they are also shameful.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 4, 2013 at 1:20 am #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “You have failed to grasp the meaning of the James McClure 1811 citizenship case.”

      If it said anything on meaning of “natural-born citizen”, I assume you would have cited it by now. I think your reading that article is ludicrous. The article shows that in a state of the United States, the state’s law, not federal, was the authority on birthright citizenship at the time. The rules on birthright citizenship in South Carolina were different from those in Virginia.

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “Your argument begs the question that all citizens from birth are ‘natural born Citizens’.”

      Wrong. It points out that in over 200 years of American history, you can find no counter-example.

      Can I meet my own standard there? The counter-examples to your claim of what a natural-born citizen is would be cases where American courts have called US-born children of aliens natural-born citizens. Would you like to challenge me to produce such citations?

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “Even Jill A. Pryor in her, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988), recognized these statutory ‘citizens’ as ‘naturalized born citizen.'”

      To see that Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are eligible, you need only read as far as the first two sentence of Pryor’s paper: “Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution has never been completely understood. It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “Fourth, you concede that you were just making stuff up the first time around.”

      You are not telling the truth. In this case I noticed that a plausible reading carried an unintended implication; that’s what, “as I may have mistakenly suggested,” means. Sometimes I do get things flat-out wrong, and even then a correction is in no way an admission of fabrication.

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “Do you think that by admitting that you made stuff up the first time we are supposed to let you get away with making stuff up the second time which is what you have done? If I am wrong, then you will be able to provide us the decision of the court, by including citation and quotes from the judge (not argument of counsel),”

      No, if you’re wrong I’ll be able to support what I wrote, which was: “The successful opposition to Apuzzo’s motion to appear pro hac vice was not based on his brief, as I may have mistakenly suggested, but rather his failure to disclose that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had found his appeal of Kerchner v. Obama to be frivolous.” Here is the memo in opposition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83119321/PA-2012-08-28-Kerchner-Obama-Memo-of-Law-in-Oppos-to-Motion-for-Admission-Tfb Here is that opposition proving successful: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83254610/PA-2012-02-29-KERCHNER-Order-Denying-Motion-Tor-Apuzzo-Pro-Hac-Vice-Tfb

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “You simply will not be able to because the judge never gave any reason for his decision. Prove me wrong, NotLinda, that you are not again making stuff up.”

      I had cited the point to your opposition, and have now backed up what I wrote. Your turn. Show me citing it to the Court. Or were you just making stuff up?

      Posted by NotLinda
  86. March 3, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

    Rick Bulow,

    Jack Maskell, in his Congressional Research Memo, provides the death knell to his own argument and conclusion that a child born in the United States to alien parents is included as a “natural born Citizen.” This is what he stated in his Summary as the beginning of his memo:

    “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.’ 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.”

    Jack Maskell, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Congressional Research Service, November 14, 2011. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf .
    What destroys Maskell’s argument is the contradiction that is contained in his argument. The contradiction exists between the statement,

    “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”

    and the statement,

    “[s]uch 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.”

    The contradiction is that Maskell presents these statements as being both true. The problem with Maskell’s position is that the truth of his second statement destroys the truth of his first statement. The historical evidence shows that the Founders and Framers treated a child born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and requiring the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.” Hence, by Maskell’s second statement, such a child could not be a “natural born Citizen,” which contradicts his first statement that such a child could be a “natural born Citizen.” Here is the evidence of Maskell’s contradiction.

    The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 provide that evidence that the truth of Maskell’s second statement destroys the truth of his first statement. These acts show that a child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.” Hence, since such a child was alien born and needed to go through naturalization after birth to become a U.S. citizen, Maskell’s first statement cannot be true. Early Congress treated a child born in the United States to alien parents as alien born. Congress provided in those acts that that child could naturalize and become a “citizen of the United States” after birth upon the naturalization of the child’s parents if done during the child’s minority and if dwelling in the United States or upon the child’s own naturalization petition when becoming an adult. See the James McClure 1811 citizenship case which I have written upon in previous comments here. In that case, the James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, even though born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, was alien born and in need of naturalization in order to become a “citizen of the United States.” That Administration ruled that McClure become under the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which contained the same operative language as those of 1790 and 1795) a “Citizen of the United States” only because his British “natural born subject” father naturalized on February 20, 1786 when his son was still a minor and dwelling in the United States. The 1811 newspaper articles on the McClure case that were printed in the Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer may be found at: http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf and http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/oct-1-1811.pdf . Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

    These early naturalization acts are conclusive evidence on resolving the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” These early naturalization acts, which were passed by early Congress whose many members were Founders and Framers, are dispositive in demonstrating that the Founders and Framers considered only a child born in the United States to parents who were its citizens to be a “natural born Citizen.” One can arrive at this conclusion by a process of elimination. All other children, whether born in the United States or out of the United States, were or could be subject to Congress’s naturalization powers and could become a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. But the only child that was not so subject to Congress’s naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Such child needed no such positive law for his or her “natural born Citizen” status. And it is that child who is a “natural born Citizen.”

    So, Jack Maskell himself provides the proof that he errs in concluding that any child born in the United States who is born a citizen, even one born to alien parents, is a “natural born Citizen.” In his second statement he concedes that a “natural born Citizen” “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.” Hence, since under the early naturalization acts any child born in the United States to alien parents was “born an alien” and needed to be naturalized, as Maskell concedes, the Founders and Framers would not have considered such a child a “natural born Citizen.” Given his second statement, Maskell admits that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural born Citizen.” But then such concession and admission demonstrates that he errs in his first statement in which he concludes that such a child is a “natural born Citizen.”

    Maskell’s own words prove that he errs in concluding that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to alien parents.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 4, 2013 at 4:32 am #

      Mario, way to spin things that are not in there.

      Diane Sori, who wrote the aforementioned entry (http://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2012/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_20.html – Marco Rubio IS eligible to be Vice President) has researched this argument, like I and many others had, and have proven you wrong on MANY occasions. You claim you are right. Name one case (All I ask for is JUST ONE) that you have won based on your false narrative. I bet you that you cannot name one case where this has come out on top. AS someone here had posted before, birthers have lost ALL 340 cases in the courts where Obama was deemed eligible based on Article 2, Section 1 of the constitution. And I would wager that if I were to look through them carefully, I would imagine I would see your name scattered in there somewhere as well.

      Now, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide proof that Miami, where Marco Rubio was born, is not a part of the United States. And, oh, BTW, the first two conditions of the code describing Nationals and Citizens at birth, 8 USC § 1401, deal specifically and primarily to Natural Born Citizens. Now, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to provide proof positive that Miami, Florida, where Marco Rubio was born, is not a part of the United States of America. After all, if you are born in America, then you are a Natural Born Citizen REGARDLESS of where your parents immediately came from. No ifs, ands, or buts (or words from someone who does not deserve the title Esq.) about it.

      Natural Born Citizenship in America is on the basis of jus soli (by the soil) not jus sanguinis (by the blood) English Common Law dictates it, and common sense proves it. For every time Vattel was mentioned, there have been 16 times in which Blackstone had been mentioned. So Blackstone trumps Vattel.

  87. March 3, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    Bob Quasius,

    I do not dispute that the states continued to selectively apply the English common law until abrogated through their legislatures. The point is that the Constitution did not incorporate the English common law and it did not provide rules of decision on the national level on matters of national citizenship. And it is on the national level where we define a “natural born Citizen” which is the standard for eligibility for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the Republic.

    Read St. George Tucker at Volume 1, Note E. He explains how the states continued to selectively use the English common law. But then he understands that whether that English common law was also to be applied on the national level was a completely different concern and issue. He goes through the Constitution, analyzing the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, looking for the English common law as providing rules of decision and jurisdiction for our government and found none. That includes defining eligibility and “natural born Citizen” for the executive branch.

    Tucker explains that the “maxims and rules of proceedings” of the English common law can be used to interpret the Constitution “whenever the written law is silent, in cases of similar, or analogous nature.” Tucker also states that it is “absurd” to contend that the English “common law” is to be applied in all cases of interpreting our Constitution simply because in some other case it may have been so used. Compare Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark justifying using the English common law to define U.S. citizenship because of the Alabama v. Smith decision which had nothing to do with national citizenship but rather was a case involving a statute issue in which the defendant-appellant argued that the State of Alabama did not have the power to pass a statute regulating his operation of a passenger train.

    The people of the United States when they adopted the Constitution specifically adopted the law of nations into the Constitution. The law of nations defines a “natural born Citizen.” Our U.S. Supreme Court has specifically defined a “natural born Citizen” using the law of nations definition.

    Our Congress passed the Naturalization Acts in 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which without any doubt provided our own American rules of decision on the matter of citizenship. Those Congressional Acts followed the teachings of the law of nations and not the English common law. These acts show that we adopted the jus sanguinis rule of citizenship of the law of nations and not the jus soli one of the English common law. The English common law did not provide any rules of decision for national citizenship, but these national acts abrogated whatever English common law may have still applied on the national level on matters of national citizenship.

    Furthermore, we developed our own U.S. Supreme Court American “common law” which shows that we rejected the English common law as providing the rules of decision to define a “natural born Citizen.” I have already cited these cases one of which is Minor v. Happersett (1875). Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” exactly under our own American “common-law” and not the English common law.

    So, our entire historical and legal record shows that the English common law simply is not to be relied upon to define our national citizenship (not to be confused with states which may have continued to apply the English common law to define their own state citizenship).

    Of course, we have the Fourteenth Amendment which as interpreted by our courts one of which is Wong Kim Ark has allowed the children of domiciled and resident aliens born in the United States to be declared “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth. But the Founders and Framers did not write Article II with the Fourteenth Amendment in mind. Nor did the Fourteenth Amendment repeal or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” clause which is used for presidential eligibility.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 4, 2013 at 12:12 am #

      AND AGAIN – THE bottom line – IS what happens – IN the 21st Century. Mario has already admitted that the issue is “not who has been the president for the last four years.” THUS, Mario indicates that the BIRTHER MADNESS is NOT directed any longer at – keeping Obama from BEING – President Obama.

      SO – with the FOCUS STILL in the 21st Century – and Obama – NO LONGER the TARGET of BIRTHER MADNESS – that means that the NEW 21st Century TARGET – MUST be someone – IN the 21st Century !!!!!!

      SO – WHO, Mario – IS the NEXT – yes, NEXT BIRTHER MADNESS TARGET – in the 21st Century ???????

      CERTAINLY – it CAN’T be TOO SOON – to come up with a TARGET !!!!

      CERTAINLY – the BIRTHER MADNESS Target will NOT be a WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant !!!!! MALE or FEMALE !!!! Probably NOT a WHITE CATHOLIC either!!!! CERTAINLY NOT an ATHEIST !!!!!!

      SO, WHO, Mario – IS the NEXT BIRTHER MADNESS TARGET ??????

      WHO, Mario ????

      Just askin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  88. March 4, 2013 at 5:45 am #

    Thank you BQUASIUS, I see no need for rhetoric more extreme than the position staked out by Mr. Apuzzo.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  89. March 4, 2013 at 6:11 am #

    Mario,
    You offered this comment to Bob Allen:

    “The Constitution was written in 1787. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that we are to look at era sources in our quest to define it.”

    And in another comment you made reference to The Declaration of Independence, clearly an “era source”.

    As we all now the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to lay forth the grievances of the Colonies concerning the King’s treatment of it own Citizens. And it is in that list of grievances where we discover the importance of English Common Law to them:

    “For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.”

    Let that roll around in your mind for bit Mario.

    The Founders were clearly dismayed and willing to go to war with the King BECAUSE he was on the verge of abolishing English Common Law in the Colonies.

    What further evidence do you need, does anyone need, that the Colonists embraced English Common Law so tightly that they were willing to mutually pledge to each other their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor?

    Surely there can be no greater “era source” of how the Founders felt about English Common Law than their own words written in The Declaration of Independence.

    And again we are reminded of one other “era source” which simply cannot be undone or revised or taken to mean other than its plain language meaning:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” — James Madison

    Mario, once again, by your own hand, you are undone.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  90. March 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

    NotLinda,

    (1) You said: “If it [the James McClure citizenship case] said anything on meaning of ‘natural-born citizen’, I assume you would have cited it by now. I think your reading that article is ludicrous. The article shows that in a state of the United States, the state’s law, not federal, was the authority on birthright citizenship at the time. The rules on birthright citizenship in South Carolina were different from those in Virginia.

    (a) But the McClure case does tell us a lot about the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the case excludes a child born in the United States to alien parents as being not only not a “natural born Citizen,” but also a citizen at all. The case holds that a child born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution to alien parents was alien born and in need of naturalization in order to become a “citizen of the United States” after birth.

    (b) You said: “I think your reading that article is ludicrous. The article shows that in a state of the United States, the state’s law, not federal, was the authority on birthright citizenship at the time. The rules on birthright citizenship in South Carolina were different from those in Virginia.”

    The only ludicrous reading of the article is that done by you. Publius explained that James McClure was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, to a British subject father. James McClure’s father naturalized under the law of South Carolina on February 20, 1786. McClure remained in South Carolina until 1795, when he went back to Great Britain. His father also returned to Great Britain. Publius explained how General Armstrong examined both the statute law of South Carolina and of the United States. Publius wrote that General Armstrong found controlling that the South Carolina statute under which the father naturalized did not provide that his children already born at the time of his naturalization also became citizens. He also explained that General Armstrong examined the Naturalization Act of 1802 and found it not applicable to McClure’s case. Hence, Armstrong ruled that McClure was not a “Citizen of the United States,” but, having been born in the United States to a British subject father, himself a British subject. Publius then showed how Armstrong erred in how he interpreted and applied the Naturalization Act of 1802. That Act specifically recognized any state naturalization that had been done prior to 1790 which is the year the first federal naturalization act was passed. General Armstrong had erroneously concluded that that federal statute did not apply to James McClure because in his opinion James was not “dwelling in the United States” when his father naturalized. Publius explained that the federal statute was to be interpreted to mean that “dwelling in the United States” meant at the time that the father naturalized in the United States. Since McClure was still a minor when his British father naturalized on 1786 and he was dwelling in the United States at that time, the naturalization of the father automatically naturalized McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States” after his birth. What is critically important is that the James Madison Administration did not accept a child born in the United States to alien parents to be a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, it found that such a child was alien born and needed naturalization in order to become “Citizen of the United States” after his birth. With such a child being naturalized after his birth, such a child could not be a “natural born Citizen.”

    James Madison was intimately involved in drafting and in the ratification of the Constitution. He is considered by many historians as the Father of the Constitution. When serving as a member of the House of Representatives in the Third Congress, he was the head of the Congressional committee in that House whose task it was to amend the naturalization acts and who produced the Naturalization Act of 1795. The James McClure citizenship case demonstrates how the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 are to be correctly interpreted. It shows that the acts, indeed, applied to children born in the United States. It also shows that any child born in the United States to alien parents was alien born and needed naturalization in order become a “citizen of the United States” after birth.

    That is pretty strong evidence coming from the James Madison Administration and U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson against the notion that Barack Obama, born in the United States to an alien father, is a “natural born Citizen.” The James McClure citizenship case also applies to Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley, all of whom were born in the United States, but to alien parents, and disqualifies them also from being “natural born Citizens.” Ted Cruz presents a different situation, for he was born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Unlike John McCain, his parents were not out of the United States because they were serving the national defense of the United States, which fact made McCain reputed born in the United States. Rather, a naturalization act of Congress naturalized Cruz at birth to be a “citizen of the United States,” at birth. Jill A. Pryor would consider him a “naturalized born citizen.” See (3) below. Such a statutory naturalized citizen is not an American common law Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    (2) You want to provide me with cases (I presume pre-Obama) which have “called” children born in the United States to alien parents “natural born Citizens.” You know that those cases are not dispositive, for none of them are from the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, those cases have no value whatsoever, for the best that those cases can do is just “call[]” someone, which is nothing more than an assumption that someone is, a “natural born Citizen” as part of the presentation of facts in the case, rather than present focused legal analysis based on historical and case law evidence from the U.S. Supreme Court showing why that person is a “natural born Citizen.” So why do you not prove me wrong and present your list of pre-Obama cases so we can all see just what cases they are and examine what they say.

    (3) The Jill A. Pryor article is no source upon which you can rely as you state. She only mentions by mere introduction that “‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.’” Those “native-born” children were not the purpose for which she wrote her article. Hence, she did not focus her attention on them. Rather, the focus of her article was to make persons born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “natural born Citizens,” by having them declared “naturalized born citizens.” The concept is self-contradictory, for she concedes that those children are naturalized and that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 calls for “natural born Citizen.” Hence, her argument simply falls apart through contradiction, for someone who is a “citizen” by naturalization at birth or after birth cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”

    (4) Regarding the Kerchner/Laudenslager Pennsylvania ballot challenge, you continue with your made up stuff and in your failure to tell the truth. You did not simply “suggest” that the court denied my participation in that case because of my brief. You said that was the reason. Then you said that it was because I did not tell the court that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had found my Kerchner appeal on the standing issue to be frivolous. I responded by telling that you are again making stuff up. First, the Third Circuit had discharged its Order to Show Cause directed toward me regarding its frivolous finding. Second, neither the judge’s oral order issued in open court nor his written order denying Attorney Karen L. Kiefer’s motion gave any reason for his decision to refuse my participation. So, there is no way for you to say why he denied the motion. You try to buffalo us by producing Obama’s opposition to Ms. Kiefer’s motion. You do that even though I told you that argument of counsel is not the reason of any court. Now you even have the nerve to produce the judge’s order, which proves that I am correct in that it does not say why the judge denied the motion. The order, which is not even signed by anyone, simply says: “Now, February 29, 2012, upon consideration of objectors’ amended motion for admission pro hac vice for Mario Apuzzo, Esq., the motion is denied.” You think that you can fool people by just providing links. Well, people can read and it is quite evident that you have failed in every one of your assertions from A to Z.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 7, 2013 at 12:48 am #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “(2) You want to provide me with cases (I presume pre-Obama) which have ‘called’ children born in the United States to alien parents ‘natural born Citizens’. You know that those cases are not dispositive, for none of them are from the U.S. Supreme Court.”

      Dispositive of what? You already lost your cases. We’re not retrying your cases in court. I’m debunking you on the Internet. You can find such citation on Dr. Conspiracy’s “Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages”: at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “””(3) The Jill A. Pryor article is no source upon which you can rely as you state. She only mentions by mere introduction that “‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.’””””

      No, I quoted her accurately. She says, with emphasis added here, “It is *well settled* that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” I’m not aware of any controversy, any disagreement with her claim. I can find no sources from Barack Obama’s lifetime saying that the native-born child of a foreign parent does not qualify under the Article II NBC requirement.

      Of course that changed, I think in October or November of 2008, when birthers needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. But the Vatellist birthers cannot even cite themselves holding their position until Obama became their issue. They’re not contrarians defending an unpopular stance on principle. They’re cheaters who only started telling the rules different when they didn’t like who was winning.

      Posted by NotLinda
  91. March 4, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    ”’What destroys Maskell’s argument is the contradiction that is contained in his argument. The contradiction exists between the statement,

    “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”

    and the statement,

    “[s]uch 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.”

    The contradiction is that Maskell presents these statements as being both true. The problem with Maskell’s position is that the truth of his second statement destroys the truth of his first statement. The historical evidence shows that the Founders and Framers treated a child born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and requiring the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.”
    ”’

    That’s nonsense on multiple levels. First, when you add in your own beliefs to get a falsehood, that’s not a “contradiction that is contained in [Maskell’s] argument”. Contradicting your losing arguments is not a defect in Maskell’s work.

    What’s more, even the combined Apuzzo + Maskell argument isn’t contradictory, at least not in the way you think. Even if there were at one time some people born in the United States and under its jurisdiction that were not granted citizenship at birth, that doesn’t refute Maskell on what “natural-born citizen” means. Before 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, there was no uniform agreement on whether the native-born were automatically citizens.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 provide that evidence that the truth of Maskell’s second statement destroys the truth of his first statement.”

    That has already been thoroughly debunked. The early naturalization acts say *nothing* about the citizenship of the native-born. The first one utterly refutes your notion that *only* children born in the U.S. to two citizen parents are considered natural-born citizens: “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 […]”.

    Mr. Apuzzo, all you have going for you is quantity. You throw out so much text, repeat so many errors so many times, that no one can afford the effort to take it all down point-by-point. What you are doing is closer to filibuster than argument. Such a massive volume of codswallop is somewhat difficult to debate, but that is not a point in its favor.

    Posted by NotLinda
  92. March 5, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    Rick Bulow,

    I have not spun anything. Rather, I have just provide my understanding and commentary on the text and structure of the Constitution, early Naturalization Acts, historical sources, and U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases.

    I read the Diane Sori article. I respect how Diane presents herself and her opinion. She appears to be a very decent person. But I must respectfully disagree with her given that she leaves so much out of her article that is relevant to the question of what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    I do not know where you get this number of 340 cases. But in any event, only a very small percentage of post-Obama cases have actually reached the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” I have been involved in only five cases, with two of those cases never reaching the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    I do not dispute that Marco Rubio was born in Florida. The problem is that being born in the United States is necessary to be a “natural born Citizen,” but it is not sufficient. One must also be born to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

    8 U.S.C. Section 1401 defines a “citizen of the United States” at birth, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The clause “natural born Citizen” does not appear in that Congressional Act. Nor should it given that Congress does not have constitutional power to define a “natural born Citizen” any differently than how the Founders and Framers defined it which they did under American common law. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time the child was born.

    You said: “After all, if you are born in America, then you are a Natural Born Citizen REGARDLESS of where your parents immediately came from. No ifs, ands, or buts (or words from someone who does not deserve the title Esq.) about it.” You continue to misstate my position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” I never said that the child’s parents have to be born in the United States. I have only said that they have to be “citizens,” which can be “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States,” at birth or after birth by naturalization.

    I have provided many sources which show that our national government (not to be confused with the states) did not adopt jus soli citizenship, but rather jus sanguinis citizenship. For example, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 and the James McClure citizenship case of 1811 convincingly prove this.

    Finally, during the Founding, William Blackstone was one of the authorities on English common law which only the states selectively adopted and only until abrogated by their legislatures. Emer de Vattel was the authority on natural law and the law of nations. The Founders looked to Vattel for justification for the Revolution and in writing the Constitution, not to Blackstone. The law of nations made it into the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. The English common law did not. The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was added to the Constitution in 1791, but these amendments did not bring the English common law into the Constitution, but rather only selected concepts that had also existed in the English common law, none of which involved citizenship. The Founders and Framers also looked to the law of nations, which when adopted became American common law, for the rules of decision on national citizenship, not to the English common law which was only used for local state issues dealing with contracts, property, inheritance, torts, etc. All U.S. Supreme Court cases that came before U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that addressed the subject of national citizenship quoted and cited Vattel and not Blackstone. Read the words of our unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett and you will find expression of natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law or Blackstone in the Court’s discussion on the origins and development of U.S. citizenship. The Court used Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” (“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”-Section 212 of The Law of Nations), saying that the “common-law” which which the Framers were familiar provided that definition. This definition expressly contradicts Blackstone when he said: “the children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.” 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 374 (1765). So we can see that the Court accepted Vattel and rejected Blackstone on matters of national citizenship.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “I have been involved in only five cases, with two of those cases never reaching the definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

      Wow. *Only* five cases. *Two* never reached the definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.’ Five minus two, that’s three, right?

      Quite a thing to write in a post beginning, “I have not spun anything.”

      Posted by NotLinda
  93. March 5, 2013 at 7:11 am #

    The Founders, prior to the Declaration of Independence, Considered themselves Subjects of the Crown, and therefore, English Common Law.

    Prior to The Declaration of Independence all the children of colonists who were born in the colonies were by birth subjects of the crown.

    The Declaration of Independence, in the mind of the Founders and most of the Colonists, severed that relationship.

    Among the grievances the Founders listed in The Declaration of Independence was their expressed concern that the King would suspend English Common Law in the Colonies and subject them to a dictatorship. Clearly, the Founders desired continuation of English Common Law. They relied on English Common Law. They understood English Common Law. They never expressed negative views of English Common Law.

    Simply stated, the Founders embraced, intimately, English Common law.

    Following the Revolution the Founders met to form a “more perfect Union”. We know that the founders examined and discussed systems of government and law beginning with the Bible. We also know through the Federalist Papers and other essays and letters why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. And yes, we know that the Founders were aware of de Vattel’s theories of governance and citizenship which clearly reflected the situation in most of Europe in which people became subjects of the monarchy to which their parents owed allegiance.

    But is that how the Founders addressed Citizenship? Clearly not.

    A mere six months before the Constitution was ratified, James Madison wrote:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    Notwithstanding the legal process of naturalization, no where in The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution or in any law of any state was there any expression at any time that citizenship was derived solely from parents who were already Citizens.

    If the new Americans believed in jus sanguinis they never would have continued to view themselves as subjects of the Crown and never would have separated from the King the first place. In fact, we know that there existed a significant proportion of Royalists in the Colonies who rejected the effort to form a new nation precisely because of that and either returned to England or joined voluntarily joined the British forces during the Revolution.

    If the new Americans believed in jus sanguinis as careful as they were to be precise in languge and to debate every word —— does it not make sense that they would have clearly and unambiguously stated so in the Constituion? But they did not.

    Article II is a clear expression of the Founder’s desire to ensure that the United States would be free of the influence of the King and any other foreign government— not only at the time of writing the Constitution but in the future as well. The only way they had to ensure that was to make citizenship attainable in only one of two ways: Birth on U.S. Soil OR through a legal process of naturalization.

    Had the Founders intended for de Vattle’s theory in the Natural Law of Nations to prevail it would have completely undone their reasoning for Article II Section 1 and would have left the new nation vulnerable to the potential return of the Royalists and their legal re-subjugation to the King simply through a majority vote.

    All of these things are undeniable EXCEPT among those who insist on proof of the non-existent.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • March 5, 2013 at 7:37 am #

      Well stated Lawrence. I would mention also that Vattel’s Law of Antions is a treatise, or work of philosophy, about international law, different than a commentary on any particular system of laws, as with Blackstone’s commentaries on common law. Of course the framers would have taken interest in Vattel’s Law of Nations as international law would certainly have been relevant in drafting a constitution.

      Also, Vattel was from Switzerland, which like many European nations observed jus sanguinis. Just as Common law was foundational for the framers, the legal system of Switzerland was foundational for Vattel.

      Posted by bquasius
  94. March 5, 2013 at 7:17 am #

    P.S. —- I had to look up “codswallop”. I love learning new stuff. :)

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  95. March 5, 2013 at 7:42 am #

    Thank you Bob.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  96. March 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

    You argue that the Founders and Framers were very fond of the English common law. Even if that statement were true, it does not prove that they specifically defined a “natural born Citizen” under that law.

    We know from the historical evidence from the Founding that while the English common law continued to have a limited application in some states until abrogated by state legislatures, that law had no application on the national level or to provide the rules of decision for defining national citizenship. See letter of 1787 from Madison to Washington in which he states the English common law was not incorporated into the Constitution; See also Federalist No. 42 in which James Madison states that the English statutes and common law would have been a “dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining the meaning of piracies and felonies in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10; George Mason (in 1788 during the Virginia ratifying convention said “The common law of England is not the common law of these states”); U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (in 1791 in defining citizenship told us that a citizen did not have the same meaning as a “natural born subject” and a citizen could come into being if not the child of a citizen by naturalization, or if the child of a citizen just by reaching the age of majority). In fact, as I have explained numerous times, the English common law was abrogated on the national level as providing the rules for defining citizenship implicitly by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and explicitly by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855.

    I have more than adequately shown you that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) relied upon American common law and not English common law in its decision in which it 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. Someone would be in great denial to suggest that Minor’s discussion on U.S. citizenship is based on the English common law. Apart from how the Court defined a “natural-born citizen,” an examination of the Court’s word choice shows its discussion on citizenship was grounded on natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel and not the English common law. And how the Court defined the term is consistent with the founding principles of our nation.

    So, there is no actual evidence that the Founders and Framers simply used a “natural born citizen” in the place of a “natural born subject,” giving to the former the same meaning which the latter had in England and in the colonies. In fact, Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark thoroughly reviewed the English and colonial English common law and not once did he say that a “natural born citizen” had the same meaning as a “natural born subject.” So, to argue that a “natural born citizen” has the same meaning as a “natural born subject” is nothing more than “linguistic mythology known as folk etymology,” or better known as “tosh, twaddle, claptrap – nonsense.” http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/nonsense%20nine.html.

    You keep repeating the Madison “established maxim” quote. I have already shown that your reliance on that quote to define a “natural born Citizen” is misplaced. You have not addressed my refutation.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  97. March 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    NotLinda,

    (1) Regarding the Jack Maskell contradiction, you say that “when you add in your own beliefs to get a falsehood, that’s not a ‘contradiction that is contained in [Maskell’s] argument. Contradicting your losing arguments is not a defect in Maskell’s work.”

    Again, I said that Maskell’s contradiction exists between his statements,

    “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”

    and

    “[s]uch 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.”

    Again, by Maskell’s own words any person who falls under the description stated in the second statement is excluded from being a “natural born Citizen.” I have amply demonstrated that the James Madison Administration, based on the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which mirrored the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 on the relevant language), considered a child born to alien parents, even if born in the United States, to be “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.” Hence, such a child born in the United States to alien parents could not be a “natural born Citizen” according to Maskell’s second statement. If such a child could not be a “natural born Citizen” according to Maskell’s own statement, than Maskell is mistaken when he says that a “natural born Citizen” could be any “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.” Again, according to early Congress as expressed in its early naturalization acts and the James Madison Administration, no child, even if born in the United States, who was born to alien parents could be a citizen from the moment of birth. Rather, such a child was alien born and in need of naturalization which by Maskell’s second statement excluded that child from being a “natural born Citizen.”

    (2) You submit that the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark save Maskell from defeat from his own very words. You suggest that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” changed because of the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. First, the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was fixed when the Constitution was adopted and ratified. That meaning can change only through a constitutional amendment or U.S. Supreme Court decision. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, it was well settled that according to the common law with which the Framers were familiar at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution, a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth was a “natural-born citizen.” Minor v. Happersett (1875). On the other hand, before the amendment and under the amendment itself, there had been doubts whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents was even a “citizen.” Id. The amendment, as is evidenced from its plain text, which does not use the clause “natural born Citizen,” and its legislative history, which contains no references to amending Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause, neither repealed nor changed the common law definition of a “natural-born citizen.” It did not increase the class of people who were to be included as “natural born Citizens.” Minor informed that the Constitution, which included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, what the amendment did was, as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held, through its “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, allow children, who were born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents (replacing “citizen” parents), to be considered as having been born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore included as “citizens of the United States” at birth, but not to be included as “natural born Citizens,” who had always been defined under American common law and which definition was never repealed or amended. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 answered the question left open by Minor. It said that such a child is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” It arrived at its holding by saying that by the fact of being born in the country, the child of alien parents was just as much a “citizen” as the natural born child of citizen parents. Here is the actual quote from the Court: “‘[t]he 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 [birth in the country]’” (bracketed information supplied). So neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark ever changed the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, they do not remove the contradiction which is fatal to Maskell’s entire thesis and CRS memo that he wrote for Congress.

    (3) Regarding the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, you make the following arguments:

    (a) You maintain that they “say ‘nothing’ about the citizenship of the native-born.” First, a plain reading of the acts shows that you are wrong. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that “the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided “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,” etc.

    The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: “That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to consider children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendants.

    As we see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children who were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens. See Secretary of State Blaine, February 1, 1890 (he drew no distinction between the children born in the U.S. and those born out of it if they were born to alien parents). For Congress, it was the citizenship of the child’s parents that controlled and not the place where the child was born. Congress did not even give controlling effect that the child might be born in the U.S., considering that child an alien if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens and allowing that child to naturalize at the moment the parents naturalized if done before that child reached the age of majority and independently on his or her own if done thereafter or never done.

    Second, the James Madison Administration does not agree with you. We saw in the James McClure citizenship case of 1811 that simply being born in the United States after July 4, 1776 was not sufficient for one to become a “citizen.” Rather, for one born in the United States, to be a “citizen” from the moment of birth, one had to also be born to “citizen” parents. If such a child was born in the United States to alien parents, that child was considered alien born and in need of naturalization after his birth.

    So, on the early naturalization acts, you are wrong based on the plain reading of their text and on how those acts were interpreted and applied by authorities such as James Madison and his Administration which included U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson who ruled that McClure became a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in the United States, but because of “the laws and usage of the United States, which Publius explained was the Naturalization Act of 1802 and how its “dwelling in the United States” clause was to be correctly interpreted.

    (b) You also maintain that the 1790 Act shows that I am mistaken in saying that “only” children born in the United States to two citizen parents can be “natural born Citizens.” It is true that the 1790 Act provided that “the children of citizens of the United Sates that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the united States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” But first, this act only said that such persons “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This language connotes naturalization by Congress, i.e., Congress naturalized these children to be for all intents and purposes from the moment of their birth “natural born Citizens,” but they were not really “natural born Citizens” by virtue of their birth alone. And second, the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the language “shall be considered as natural born Citizen” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” And what could be more authoritative than that it was James Madison himself, as a U.S. Representative, who led the way to make this change which was needed because the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 had inadvertently used “natural born Citizen” rather than “citizen of the United States.”

    So, NotLinda, the “so many errors,” and “codswallop” are all yours.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 6, 2013 at 12:14 am #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “You submit that the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark save Maskell from defeat from his own very words. You suggest that the meaning of a ‘natural born Citizen’ changed because of the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.”

      Completely, totally, utterly wrong. I suggest no such thing, nor have I heard anyone else say that the Fourteenth Amendment changed the meaning of ‘natural-born citizen’.

      Here it is: “Natural-born citizen” means citizen from the moment of birth. That’s what it meant at the time of the founding; what it meant shortly before the adoption of the 14’th Amendment; and what it means today. That’s my position and that’s what Maskell was explaining. I don’t see what is so hard to grasp, but since you seem to be having difficulty…

      In a nation that grants citizenship upon birth to all and only the offspring of citizen fathers, the natural-born citizens are exactly the children born to citizen fathers. In a nation where birthright citizenship exclusively follows the mother’s citizenship, the natural-born citizens are exactly the children born to citizen mothers. If a nation changes its laws concerning citizenship, the meaning of “natural-born citizen” does not change, but the class of newborns who qualify may.

      Algorithm to determine if you are a natural-born United States Citizen. Let X be the number of seconds of your life, from your birth to the present instant, that you were *not* a United States citizen. If X equals zero, you are a natural-born citizen of the United States. If X is greater than zero, you are not.

      U.S. citizenship criteria for federal offices: House of Representatives — seven years. Senate — nine years. President or Vice President — one’s age in yoctoseconds.

      Mr. Apuzzo, I hope the idea is now clear enough that you never again have to write that nonsense about Maskell contradicting himself, nor that I “suggest that the meaning of a ‘natural born Citizen’ changed because of the Fourteenth Amendment”, nor a variety of other absurdities based on your apparent previous misunderstanding of this straightforward position.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • March 6, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

        NotLinda.

        Article II “natural born Citizen” was NOT an eligibility requirement to make a “citizen of the United States”.

        It was/is an eligibility requirement for a person who is already qualified as a born citizen, to qualify for presidential office.

        There are at least two means by which a person may become a “citizen of the US”, they are as you know, by native-birth and by naturalization.

        For a “citizen of the US” to be eligible for presidential office, that citizen must be native-born, i.e. a born citizen of the US, with an additional quality to meet with the imperative to reduce as far as possible the influence of any foreign influence, persuasion, coercion, allegiance, loyalty or claim.

        To require a child be born in the US, to US citizen parents was and is the best means to minumize the foreign influence issue and achieve the highest possible allegiance (remember NBC was not eligibility for “citizen”, it was eligibility for a born citizen to be something more)

        For the native-born “citizen of the US” (those born to non-citizen parents), the eligibility bar for mere “citizen of the US” was not set so high as the eligibility bar for POTUS, all they needed was to be native-born.

        To be a “citizen of the United States” without the need to naturalize, one only need be native-born, i.e. a born US citizen.

        To be a born US citizen who would be eligible for POTUS, one needed to be native-born i.e. a born US citizen, as well as a natural one at that, which doubtless was to be born to US citizen parents, bearing in mind the imperative to exclude as much as possible any foreign influence.

        Whether or not the Framers followed the English common law in part or wholly as regards natural born subject is debatable and unresolved, but there is NOWHERE in the well cited bench-mark English court case i.e. Calvin’s case, where native-birth was accepted to make a natural born subject, and it is clear per Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, that native-birth was rejected as being sufficient to make a natural born subject, and THE MOST ESSENTIAL requirement to make a natural born subject was for a native-born child to be “born under the ligeance of a subject” or else the child could not be a subject, although native-born.

        If the Framers had followed the 17th century English common law, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen, that child would have to be born under the allegiance of US citizen parents.

        If you suppose that native-birth was all that was required, then it should not be difficult to show precisely where in the English court it was ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

        Please don’t come back with stuff about what other people might have said on this matter, show precisely an English court ruling or holding if one exists.

        Here is what you are up against….

        Lord Coke per his report of Calvin’s case
        “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”

        Posted by MichaelN
    • March 6, 2013 at 12:46 am #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “””It is true that the 1790 Act provided that “the children of citizens of the United Sates that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the united States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” But first, this act only said that such persons “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This language connotes naturalization by Congress, i.e., Congress naturalized these children to be for all intents and purposes from the moment of their birth “natural born Citizens,” but they were not really “natural born Citizens” by virtue of their birth alone.”””

      This new learning amazes me. So I went and looked it up. The first usage could find of the “shall be considered as” language by a U.S. Congress was in “An Act for establishing an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs” of 1789. The relevant paragraph reads:

      “If an original paper is of such nature as cannot be safely transmitted without cyphers, a copy in cyphers, signed by the Secretary for the department of foreign affairs, shall be considered as authentic, and the ministers of the United States at foreign courts may govern themselves thereby, in the like manner as if the originals had been transmitted.”

      The second was in “An Act to provide for the Government of the Territory North-west of the river Ohio” of 1789:

      “It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States, and the people and States in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit: […]”

      The third was phrased in the negative, in “An Act for Registering and Clearing Vessels, Regulating the Coasting Trade, and for other purposes” also of 1789:

      “such ship or vessel shall not be deemed and considered as a ship or vessel of the United States.”

      Mr. Apuzzo, if the “shall be considered as” language connotes naturalization, could you please explain the concept of naturalizing papers, compacts, and ships?

      Near as I can tell, the meaning of the “shall be considered as” language is the plain reading: the law directs us to consider them to be such. When applied to cases where status is defined by law, “shall be considered as” is as strong as “shall be”.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • March 6, 2013 at 7:39 am #

        The Naturalization Act of 1790 only serves to underline that our framers meant to follow the practice that prevailed under English law. Under jus soli, anyone born within the territory of the nation was a natural born citizen. However, children born abroad of citizens were not natural born citizens under jus soli. The English parliament passed a statute making children born abroad of English subjects natural born subjects provided their parents met a residency requirement. Congress followed this tradition by extending natural born citizenship to children born abroad of citizen parents, provided the parents met a residency requirement. The 1790 should not be interpreted as negating natural born citizenship of those born in America, but rather extending it to those born abroad of American parents.

        Posted by bquasius
        • March 7, 2013 at 12:01 am #

          BQUASIUS said…

          “The Naturalization Act of 1790 only serves to underline that our framers meant to follow the practice that prevailed under English law. Under jus soli, anyone born within the territory of the nation was a natural born citizen.”

          Wrong!

          Nowhere in the English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, the fact is that native-birth was expressly rejected as being sufficient.

          There was no such “practice that prevailed under English law” where native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

          Lord Coke per his report on Calvin’s case (the bench-mark case on the matter of natural born subject)

          “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia THAT MAKE THE SUBJECT BORN: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King.”

          The “practice that prevailed under English law” to make a natural born subject, was jus sanguinis.

          Posted by MichaelN
  98. March 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    Mario, You either misread, misunderstood or intentionally distorted what I wrote. In any event as NotLinda has stated previously, the time it would take to correct your errors is simply time wasted. Your continued and logically flawed return to Happesett simply doesn’t change the fact that it has no bearing on the issue at all.

    Once again Mario you support your opinion with opinion and not fact. You insist because a thing wasn’t said then it must most certainly be the truth and the thing that was said could only be a confused mistake. Your view defies logic and the facts.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  99. March 5, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

    Your comment is not a response.

    You keep repeating the Madison quote which does not prove your point. I have already addressed it in detail and shown why your reliance on the quote is misplaced.

    You have nothing left.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  100. March 6, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    bquasius said….. (this is a second posting, as I have not received a reply or answer to my questions)

    “Let me repeat for emphasis, the common law of America at the time our constitution was adopted, was NO DIFFERENT than the common law of England with regards to birth citizenship. A natural born subject under English common law is one and the same as natural born citizen under American common law.”

    My response:

    The you might answer this question, in light of the existence of the 14th Amendment and with the SCOTUS clearly stating that nowhere does the US Constitution define a natural born subject, given that the 14th Amendment was a part of that US Constitution.

    What “common law” was it that the US Supreme Court justices, in the Minor v Happersett case, were referring to, which (without resort to the 14th Amendment) recognized a US native-born child to US citizen parents as a natural born citizen, yet introduced (not by the litigants, but by the justices) doubts stating that a native-born child to alien parents might not be a citizen at all (let alone a natural born citizen), the justices then acknowledging that the doubts had merit by stating that the issue of whether a native-born to aliens parents was a citizen or not was yet to be legally resolved.

    Don’t you think that if the SCOTUS had believed that native-birth in the US sufficed to make a natural born citizen, then the court would not have introduced the mention of the doubts at all, nor give any merit to the doubts needing to be legally solved?

    How do you explain Lord Coke’s ruling/holding that a native-birth did not suffice to make a natural born subject and his ruling/holding that a native-born child must be born under the ligeance of a subject to be a natural born subject or else the child would not be a subject at all?

    Posted by MichaelN
    • March 6, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

      You are misquoting Coke. Here’s what he said

      “…which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue [that is, a child] here, that issue is a natural born subject.”

      Posted by bquasius
      • March 7, 2013 at 1:00 am #

        bquasius said….

        You are misquoting Coke. Here’s what he said

        “…which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue [that is, a child] here, that issue is a natural born subject.”

        Response:

        NO, I am not mis-quoting Lord Coke, I have quoted Lord Coke verbatim.

        You either fail to understand what Lord Coke said, or refuse to accept the truth of the matter.

        Local ligeance or obedience was the means by which friendly alien visitors were considered to be subjects. (did you notice how the Frenchmen being spoken of was indicted for treason and that only subjects could be so indicted?)

        By the way, it was the Frenchman (whom Coke was using as an example), who was the “natural subject” that the local obedience was strong enough to make him so; the local obedience was not on the part of the child he might have had.

        Getting back to the matter at hand ……..
        It is because the alien-born father, visiting England was a subject via local ligeance, that his native-born child was a natural born subject.

        If the alien-born father had not been a subject, say by being an enemy invader, then the child would not be a subject, because the child would not be born under the ligeance of a subject.

        Here are some excerpts from Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case which show that:

        1) a friendly alien-born, visiting the realm was a subject via local allegiance.
        2) that “obedience” is another way of saying “ligeance”
        3) that native-birth was expressly rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject.
        4) that if a child was native-born to a non-subject then such a child would not be a subject and would be alien-born.

        Lord Coke….

        “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the SUBJECT due to his Sovereign.”

        “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances”

        “The third is ligeantia localis wrought by the law, and THAT IS WHEN AN ALIEN THAT IS IN AMITY COMETH INTO ENGLAND, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore SO LONG AS HE IS THERE, HE OWETH unto the King A LOCAL OBEDIENCE OR LIGEANCE, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.”

        “Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in TREASON against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a LOCAL OBEDIENCE, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is STRONG ENOUGH TO MAKE A NATURAL SUBJECT; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:….”

        “……..And it is to be observed, that IT IS nec coelum, nec solum, NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia THAT MAKE THE SUBJECT BORN: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King.”

        “This word LIGEANCE is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. SOMETIME IT IS CALLED THE OBEDIENCE or obeysance of THE SUBJECT to the King”

        “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) THREE incidents to a subject born.
        1. That the PARENTS be under the actual OBEDIENCE of the king.
        2. That the PLACE OF HIS BIRTH be within the king’s dominion.
        And 3. the TIME OF HIS BIRTH is chiefly to be considered”

        “The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but ANY PLACE WITHIN the king’s dominions WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT.”

        “[151. ][Ed.: AN ALIEN BORN is of foreign birth OR FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE”

        If it were true that the Framers did follow English law principles, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen, such a child would by necessity have to be “BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE” of US citizen parents.

        I reckon the Framers took some guidance from the English law and were more strongly influenced by Vattel’s guidance as regards the task nation building of a republic and what constituted freeman members, with rights of sufferage and rights to expatriate, etc.

        Notwithstanding all of the above, it is an absurd notion that the Framers in the framing period, in times when they were extremely concerned with allegiance and loyalty, would have been derelict in their duty and imperative to protect in the best possible way the high office of the president of their new republic from any foreign influence, persuasion, coercion, allegiance or claim.

        Posted by MichaelN
  101. March 6, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity… [N]o person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen; the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” — William Rawl (1759 – 1836) agreed with Kent. In 1791, Rawle was appointed by George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania. William Rawle served as chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar from 1822 until his death.

    “Now, allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign [government] under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience . . . of the sovereign.”
    Story continued:
    “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
    Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Joseph Story (1779 – 1845).

    “The Court rules the only standard existent [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

    Lynch v. Clarke


    “In reference to the argument that the United States should establish a rule on proper principles, and which shall be just to other nations, it may be said that this is purely a matter of municipal regulation, in every country. Vattel treats it as being legitimately within the control of each nation acting for itself. The rule of the common law is not unjust to other nations, in claiming as citizens those who are born here under the protection of our institutions and government.” — Vice Chancellor of New York, Sanford in Lynch v Clark

    And also from Sanford:

    “It was assumed to be an indisputable proposition, that by the international or public law, she [Julia Lynch] was an alien; for that by the public law, the child follows the political condition of the parent. It is evident that this rule, without very important qualifications, might lead to the perpetuation of a race of aliens; for if no one of the successive fathers effected his naturalization during the minority of the next in succession, generation after generation would continue in a state of alienage.”

    —–

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  102. March 6, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

    Not just 30th but tied for last at 0.5% —- which for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  103. March 7, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

    Regarding William Rawl: he is all alone in what he says; his personal opinion was trumped by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., at 167-68). Rawle disagreed with John Locke on his consent-based doctrine of citizenship that rested upon the citizenship of the parents and so he put forth his definition of a “natural born Citizen” which did not depend upon the citizenship of the parents. But the evidence demonstrates that the Founders and Framers and our U.S. Supreme Court followed Locke and not Rawle.

    Regarding Justice Story: he made such jus soli English common law statements in his minority opinion in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); the majority in Inglis explained that with the American Revolution we no longer applied the English common law rules of broad allegiance in the United States, rejected the English common law jus soli rule of citizenship, and accepted the jus sanguinis rule as expressed by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations; Story changed his mind on how to define citizenship in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830), a case that he decided after he wrote his minority opinion in Inglis and where he espoused the jus sanguinis rule put forth by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations and by the majority in Inglis (“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 Story in Shanks).

    Regarding Lynch v. Clarke: Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844) is only a state law case on real estate and inheritance rights in New York. It does not control on the constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Lynch recognized the existence of the early naturalization statutes. But it chose, without reasonable explanation, to ignore them as applicable to children born in the United States. The reasoning that the court gave for its interpretation of those statutes has no merit. Lynch was not able to come to grips with the early naturalization acts.

    There the court said regarding the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804 that even though Congress did not say that the clause regarding the children born to aliens becoming naturalized when their parents so naturalize applied only to children born abroad, the general language chosen by Congress was over inclusive and not necessary. Hence, the court simply ignored what Congress wrote. I guess Lynch court knew better than Congress what language it should have chosen.

    The Lynch court even went further. It said that the meaning of the text of these earlier naturalization statutes relating to children would be decided by how Congress dealt with widows in citizenship statutes in 1804. The Lynch court justified its finding that the naturalization statutes meant to apply only to children born abroad by arguing that Congress in 1804 did not distinguish between U.S. citizen widows and alien widows so therefore there should not be a distinction between children born in the U.S. and children born abroad. The court continued that it should be presumed that these earlier Congresses were referring only to children born abroad just like the 1804 Congress meant to refer only to alien widows who would also have been born abroad. But on what reasoned basis are we to bind Congress in 1790, 1795, and 1802 when addressing children with what Congress did in 1804 for widows? Additionally, the Lynch court failed to address the doctrine in 1804 that wives took on the same citizenship as their husbands. The old doctrine of unity of husband and wife provided that whatever citizenship the husband had, his wife had. If the husband was an alien, the wife would also be an alien. And if the husband was a U.S. citizen, his wife would also be a U.S. citizen. There was therefore no need for Congress to distinguish in its statutes between U.S. citizen widows and alien widows, for a widow simply had the same citizenship status of her deceased husband. So the Lynch court gave a completely invalid argument for how it interpreted the early naturalization statues passed by Congress. And now you, following in the footsteps of the Lynch court, give a completely invalid argument for how to interpret Jefferson’s citizenship statutes.

    The Lynch decision could have had force within New York to resolve the inheritance issue with which the court was faced, but it surely was not any binding authority on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”

    Furthermore, the Lynch decision was even overruled by the New York legislature. At that time, New York did not have any statute that defined citizenship and so the court applied the old English common law. The New York Legislature in 1860 overruled Lynch:

    Political Code of the State of New York (1860)

    Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:
    1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
    2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.

    Lynch’s parents were “transient aliens.” Hence, under this statute, Lynch would not have been a citizen of New York. If the children of transient aliens were not even considered citizens of a state, they surely would not have been considered “natural born” Citizens of the United States.

    Finally, Lynch’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen was also overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which said that a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. Lynch had said that parental citizenship was not relevant. The last time that I looked, the U.S. Supreme Court trumps a state court decision. So it looks like Vattel was right and Lynch was wrong.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  104. March 7, 2013 at 1:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. also wrote:
    “””This is iron clad proof that Founders and Framers, as reflected by the First Congress, were, assuming they did not use “natural born citizen” in error, at best only willing to naturalize persons born out of the United States to citizen parent to be “natural born citizens,” and then later, through the Third Congress, changed their mind and decided that such persons could at best be only “citizens of the United States,” but not “natural born citizens.”
    “””

    The way Mr. Apuzzo tells it, the change from “shall be considered as natural born Citizens” in 1790, to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” in 1795, was to fix a mistake; either the early Congresses used “natural born Citizens” inadvertently, or within a few years approximately the same body reconsidered and changed their minds.

    We have only to read those first two naturalization acts to see that Mr. Apuzzo is, once again, not telling the truth. The earliest, the 1790 act, seems to equate citizenship upon birth with natural-born:

    “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 […]”

    The most similar sentence in the 1795 act reads:

    “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,[…]”

    Why the change from “natural born Citizens” to “citizens”? Well, obviously, because those are correct terms. Contrary to Esquire Apuzzo’s assertions, there’s no sign of mistake or change of mind. In the sentence from the 1790 act, the subject is children granted citizenship upon birth, and in that case Congress used “natural born Citizens”. In the sentence from the 1795 act, the subject is both citizens upon birth and children who acquire citizenship later, up to the age of 21, so in that case they used the term “citizens”.

    How clearer could it be? The set of people granted citizenship upon birth are considered “natural born Citizens”. The set of people granted citizenship either upon birth or later are “citizens”.

    Note how perfectly the language of the first Congresses comports with the recent alaysis by the Congressional Research Service: “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'”.

    Posted by NotLinda
    • March 7, 2013 at 6:48 am #

      Mario Apuzzo Writes:

      “Regarding William Rawl: he is all alone in what he says; his personal opinion was trumped by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) (“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. ” (sic).

      Here is the rest of the statement from Happersett:

      “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.” . 88 U. S. 167

      Again Mario, as Madison wrote: ‘The law is what the law is and not what we want the law to be.’

      I find it odd that you dismiss settled case after settled case that does not comport with your theory because it is but one opinion of one judge or a minority opinion or a lower court case or because you choose to cherry pick other cases ALL while you have not one case of your own or won by anyone else that supports your theory supported theory.

      Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  105. March 7, 2013 at 7:22 am #

    NotLinda,

    I see that you cannot make any legal argument based on the text and structure of the Constitution, historical sources, Acts of Congress, U.S. Supreme Court cases, reason, and logic and must in its place resort to just some general fallacious talk that proves nothing other than that you have no real argument.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  106. March 7, 2013 at 7:31 am #

    NotLinda,

    I read your interpretation of the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts’ plain and simple language. Are you joking me?

    And your attempt to tie the Acts in with Jack Maskell, that is a bigger joke.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  107. March 7, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    CEHughes,

    Those Massachusetts Acts and Swift’s statement do not help the eligibility supporters. Those are naturalization acts passed by Massachusetts. Those alien born persons, having naturalized under the laws of Massachusetts, were considered to be in Massachusetts as either “natural born citizens” or “natural born subjects.” The point is that they were naturalized as such. We know that, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, the Founders and Framers did not consider any person who became a “Citizen of the United States” after his/her birth to be a “natural born Citizen.” To do so would simply render the “natural born Citizen” clause a nullity.

    Swift also does not help. Swift was defining citizenship in the State of Connecticut, which could define state citizenship as it pleased. In fact, Swift used the old English common law clause “natural born subject” rather than the constitutional clause that applied to national citizenship, “natural born Citizen.” Additionally, Swift also only “considered as natural born subjects” those children born in Connecticut to alien parents. We know that he saw those children born to alien parents as a separate class because he said that they had the “same rights with the rest of the citizens.” If those children were by nature “natural born subjects,” there would not have been any need for Swift to say they had the same rights as the rest of the citizens, for they would in fact be those citizens.

    Also, the Constitution gave to Congress the exclusive power to naturalize “citizens of the United States.” So, Massachusetts and Swift could have provided who could be considered as “natural born subjects” or “natural born citizens” in Massachusetts and Connecticut, but those children were not “Citizens of the United States,” unless they also satisfied Acts of Congress on naturalization. And we know Congress, in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. Hence, those persons in Massachusetts could not become “Citizens of the United States” unless they satisfied Congress’s naturalization acts and those children born in Connecticut could not become “Citizens of the United States,” unless their parents naturalized during their years of minority and when dwelling in the United States. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut realized that Congress had, since 1790, the exclusive authority to naturalize persons to become “Citizens of the United States” and so did not put forth any more of such naturalization laws. This is not to say that states did not have the right to define who were its citizens, provided that they were not naturalizing those persons to be “citizens of the United States.”

    Finally, note that Massachusetts, referring to persons who had been aliens from birth and Swift, referring to children born in Connecticut, albeit to alien parents, both referred to those persons as “considered as natural born subjects” or “considered as natural born citizens.” They used the same language for two different types of persons, those born out of the United States and those born in Connecticut. If Swift believed that jus soli citizenship prevailed in Connecticut as a matter of nature and not as a matter of positive law, we would expect Swift to have used more affirmative language (e.g., such children are “natural born citizens”), given that he was addressing children actually born in Connecticut. But that he did not use such language, but rather chose the same type of language that Massachusetts chose (“shall be considered as . . .”), demonstrates that regardless of birth in Connecticut, given that those children were born to alien parents, the most that Swift saw those children to be was “considered as natural born subjects,” but not “natural born subjects” by nature alone.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  108. March 7, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    Mario,

    Your response to my Four Simple Questions, is non-responsive.
    Please provide appropriate responses.

    If you choose not to be responsive I am compelled to conclude:

    1) Your theory concerning “natural born citizen” or its underlying theories has never prevailed in a U.S. Court in any case that you have brought forth.

    2) Your theory concerning “natural born citizen” or its underlying theories has never prevailed in a U.S. Court in any case brought forth by any other person in the U.S.

    3) None of the primary sources listed below specifically and directly state that a person MUST be born of TWO U.S. citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    -The Federalist Papers
    -The United States Constitution and its Amendments
    -U.S. Code
    -Any U.S. Court decision.

    Therefore, it is clearly NOT a requirement.

    4) Given the extensive opportunities the Founders had for expressing and touting the theory of jus sanguinis in either the Federalist Papers or The Constitution they intentionally chose NOT to do so and instead touted jus soli. This is most poignantly proved by James Madison a mere six months prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” —- J. Madison

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  109. March 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    NotLinda,

    Given that Bob Quasius in his article mentions that the Birthers have lost 350 cases, I thought it would be only fair to state that I have been involved with only five of them, and that of those five, two of them did not reach the question of what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” I do not understand why that should upset you so much. But then may I do.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 7, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

      There IS something PATHETIC – about the Birther Madness – which IS a political movement of the 21st Century – that arises – to keep Obama – from breaking up the Old-boy network (excepting Kennedy) of KEEPING the American President a PURE WHITE MALE – WASP – with the Birther Madness – FAILING – right out of the shoot !!!!!!

      Talk about LOOSING Causes – there’s nothin’ like the Birther Madness – when it comes to FAIL !!!!!!

      Just observin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  110. March 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    Mario,

    QED.

    In the world of FaceBook that would be

    PWNED

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  111. March 7, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Lawrence F Mazzucchelli,

    Regarding your Madison “criterion” quote, you like, Rick Bulow, simply repeat it here again and again. I have previously informed Rick Bulow that I already demonstrated that reliance upon Madison’s quote to provide a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is misplaced for many reasons. You simply repeat the quote without addressing my refutation. I must therefore conclude that you, like Rick Bulow, missed my memo and I will therefore repeated it here:

    You would have us define an Article II “natural born Citizen” based on James Madison saying during the 1789 David Ramsay-William Smith Congressional debate that, in the United States, place of birth “is the most certain criterion” of allegiance.” Your reliance on the Madison quote is misplaced for the following reasons.

    (1) “William Smith was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on 2 October 1758, the fifth child and third son of Benjamin and Anne Loughton Smith. His mother, who died less than two years after his birth, was descended from several generations of South Carolina legislators and minor colonial officials. His father’s lineage was more varied, representing the union of a prestigious Carolina planter family and a clan of Boston merchants and sea captains. Smith was never close to the New England roots of his family tree, whose branches included his grandfather’s first cousin, Abigail Smith Adams. The Smith family fortune was established on an astute accumulation of interests in plantations, the slave trade, commerce, and banking. Benjamin Smith’s personal influence was augmented by several honorific and political offices, including provincial Masonic grand master, and colonial Assemblyman and Speaker.” http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=fcsmith .

    So, we can see that Smith was born before July 4, 1776 and only had to be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years to be eligible for the Office of U.S. Representative. The definition of a “natural born Citizen” had nothing to do with William Smith. What Madison said on May 22, 1789 regarding citizenship of those born in the colonies before the American Revolution and political separation from Great Britain applied only to persons born before July 4, 1776 and who already adults by the time of that date. For those persons who had already reached adulthood by the time of July 4, 1776, we know that parentage could not hold any controlling weight in determining their allegiance and citizenship. But for those born before July 4, 1776 who were minors, the rule was proles sequitur patrem. (children followed the citizenship of their parents) See Inglis; Shanks; and Minor. The same rule continued to prevail for those born after July 4, 1776, as David Ramsay so eloquently explained in his dissertation, Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States (1789) , http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html , (“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 4th of July, 1776.″) and as our early Congress confirmed in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. See also The Venus (Chief Justice Marshall concurring), Inglis, Shanks; Dred Scott (Justice Daniels concurring); and Minor.

    (2) You have not given us Madison’s complete quote. Here it is: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” You left off from the end of his quote, “his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” You left off the “ancestor” part of the quote because it goes to recognize that Madison was not only looking to place of birth as the “only” criterion of allegiance and therefore citizenship. Here we can see that Madison did not only look to place of birth but also to parentage (“ancestors”).

    (3) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides “natural born Citizen” and “citizen” of the United States as two separate tests for eligibility. These are separate and distinct terms which must be given their own meaning. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. Madison’s soil criterion was used by our nation only to establish the status of “citizen of the United States” for the first generation of Americans into which Smith fell. These were those the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called “Citizen[s] of the United States,” at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” As David Ramsay eloquently explained, birthright citizenship for those born after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of the citizens. This fact is confirmed by, among other historical sources, St. George Tucker and the Congressional and judicial activity which followed the Founding. Hence, the issue with Obama, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, and Cruz is whether they are “natural born Citizens,” not whether they are “citizens of the United States.”

    Madison was speaking in 1789 about the definition of a “citizen of the United States” which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. We know from Article II itself that such a “citizen” is not necessarily a “natural born Citizen.” The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Representative William Smith had been a “citizen of the United States” for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Madison concluded that at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Smith, being a minor and being born into the society which after the declaration of independence became the new American society, still owed primary allegiance to that new society, no longer owed secondary allegiance to the British government, and was therefore a “citizen of the United States” and that he did not lose that status at any time thereafter by any neglect or over act. But at the time of the Declaration of Independence, no minor or adult in being of the Founding generation was a “natural born Citizen.” Only children who were born after July 4, 1776 could be “natural born Citizens.”

    (4) In the Ramsay-Smith debate, Ramsay had maintained that William Smith had not been a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years under Article I, Section 2 because he stayed in Britain while the Revolution was going on and only came back to the United States when it was over and thereby not being present and residing in revolutionary America for the needed 7 years. The House did have an investigation on the matter. During the debates, William Smith argued that he was a “citizen.” Smith did not refer to the English common law to show that he was a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years. Rather, he cited Emer de Vattel for support and said he did not have enough money to come back to America. In his own defense William Smith quotes Emer de Vattel as follows:

    “The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: ‘The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.’ I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.”

    Smith was able to convince the House that he was a 7-year “Citizen of the United States” and so he prevailed.

    (5) Madison did not make any reference to the English common law. South Carolina did not have any law that provided an answer on the matter and so he just gave his personal opinion on the issue. We also know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison, who called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution, would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    (6) Anything that James Madison said about U.S. citizenship relative to the William Smith debate was abrogated by Congress’s Naturalization Acts passed in 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. In 1790, our First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. Of the seventy-nine members of the original Congress, twenty had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Remember that Smith was born before July 4, 1776 in South Carolina and his case was decided in 1789, or one year before the 1790 Act was passed. In any event, Smith was also declared a “Citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.”

    So any English common law rule notwithstanding, the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed only one year after, abrogated in the United States any jus soli rule under the “jura coronae” and English common law in the United States. So that put an end to place of birth as the sole criterion for citizenship.

    In fact, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1855, and any other Congressional Acts up to the time Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts show that Congress, since 1790 and up to the time Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, adopted jus sanguinis citizenship and not jus soli citizenship.

    The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws. Congress first exercised that power in 1790. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that “the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided “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,” etc.

    The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: “That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to consider children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendants.

    As we see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children who were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens. See Secretary of State Blaine, February 1, 1890 (he drew no distinction between the children born in the U.S. and those born out of it if they were born to alien parents). For Congress, it was the citizenship of the child’s parents that controlled and not the place where the child was born. Congress did not even give controlling effect that the child might be born in the U.S., considering that child an alien if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens and allowing that child to naturalize at the moment the parents naturalized if done before that child reached the age of majority and independently on his or her own if done thereafter or never done.

    (7) William Smith was born on October 2, 1758. This was before July 4, 1776. We know what James Madison thought about the citizenship of those persons born in the United States after July 4, 1776. See the James McClure citizenship case of 1811, which the James Madison Administration resolved by interpreting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 to James McClure who was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 and whose British father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina on February 20, 1786. The James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, even though born in the United States in 1785, was a “Citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth under the Naturalization Act of 1802, only because his British father had naturalized after his son’s birth and when his son was dwelling in the United States. This clearly shows that the United States did not adopt any jus soli principle of citizenship, but rather adopted jus sanguinis citizenship or that which provided that children followed the citizenship of their parents.

    (8) As to how certain soil allegiance is, that is a debatable point. Most of what I have read from the past suggests that it is parents and not soil that is a better gauge for allegiance.

    Even Lord Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608) recognized and confirmed that neither climate nor soil make a “natural born subject.” He proclaimed in Calvin’s case: “Neither the climate nor the soil but ligeantia (allegiance) and obedientia (obedience) that makes the subject born.”

    A military draft was proposed in 1862 because of the Civil War. Under this law, there was a section called “Aliens.” Under this section, the following persons were exempt from having to serve in the armies of the United States: “(1) All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized; (2) All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens.” Papers relating to foreign affairs, 1862, p. 288 (cited in Breckenridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution? Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146, p. 220 (1916)[Charles Evans Hughes]. We can see that Congress exempted both children born in the United States and out of the United States to alien parents from the draft the same way that Congress exempted them from citizenship. It looks like Congress did not trust children born to aliens when it came to military matters even if they were born on U.S. soil.

    If soil is such a great measure of allegiance, why were “citizens of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment born in the U.S. to Japanese parents along with their alien parents put in concentration camps during WWII? See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In Korematsu, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents have double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights and obligations. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. See also Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). These cases show what our U.S. Supreme Court before, during, and shortly after World War II said about the loyalty of children born in the United States to alien parents.

    A “natural born Citizen” (not a “native” or “native-born citizen” as those words came to be confusedly used by our courts following Wong Kim Ark (1898)), as recognized and accepted in the U.S. since our Founding and confirmed in numerous cases of our U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. see Minor v. Happersett (1875)) and lower courts and as implicitly stated in all our citizenship and naturalization Acts of Congress, needs both birth in the U.S. and birth to U.S. citizen parents, for neither territory nor parentage are the “most certain criterion” alone when it comes to the eligibility requirement to be President. Satisfying just one of these conditions, a person is still born with dual allegiances (with the other allegiance gained by jus soli or jus sanguinis), creating a split allegiance at birth and giving the person the right to choose, based on loyalty, affiliation, and sympathy, between two allegiances. Such birth circumstances also obligate two or more nations to have to give their protection to that individual. How certain is anyone’s allegiance under such circumstances? We can tolerate such a scenario for ordinary citizens. Should we as a nation tolerate it for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military, who unilaterally possesses great civil and military power? Or should we demand as the Founders and Framers did when they wrote the Constitution that, because of the critical nature of the offices, the person to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military be “naturally a part of the Government under the jurisdiction of which he happened to be born?” Charles Evans Hughes.

    Hence Madison’s place of birth as “the most certain criterion” of allegiance quote does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” You are using his quote out of context. His statement only applies to those born before July 4, 1776 who become “Citizens of the United States” by birth in the colonies and adhering to the American Revolution, not to those born after July 4, 1776 who were to be born “natural born Citizens.” Reliance upon Madison’s quote for a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore misplaced.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  112. March 7, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

    MichaelN,

    Thank you for confirming the only thing in Happersett we need to know:

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
    • March 7, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

      @ Lawrence F Mazzucchelli, who said ….

      “Thank you for confirming the only thing in Happersett we need to know:

      “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

      Response:

      I suppose that’s good for you that the Minor court didn’t need to solve the doubts if native-birth sufficed to make a citizen at all, as the court differentiated such a native born child (doubted to be a citizen, based on native-birth, by the court) to another native born child, who was born to US citizen parents and who the court held to be a natural born citizen which was “never doubted”.

      Dumbing it down, the court in Minor held……

      native-birth and US citizen parents = without any doubt a natural born citizen, nothing more to be solved

      native-birth and alien parents = doubted to be a citizen at all, still to be solved, but not necessary, because not relevant to Virginia Minor.

      Now let’s see if you can “confirm” something I might need to know.

      What “common law” was it that the Minor court was speaking of, which gave the court reason to first introduce mention of doubts whether a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen, and gave the court reason to recognize that the doubts had merit by stating that the doubts had yet to be legally resolved?

      What common law was it? ………………… you are afraid to give a straight answer, right?

      Posted by MichaelN
  113. March 7, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Mario, you have met no standards that I can think of. Not evidence standards, because you have failed to meet them. And not even conventional standards of human decency. I just read an response of yours in which you claimed that the “Constitution as originally established” referred to in United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a reference to the Articles of Confederation.

    To say that you ought to be ashamed of yourself for forwarding such an obvious lie would be a massive understatement. You’re starting to convince me that you’re merely conducting experiments on birthers to find out just how much obvious lies they’re willing to accept.

    I actually hesitate to rebut such an obviously dishonest argument, because it dignifies that response by elevating it to a legitimate position to take. Even the most fundamentally flawed arguments of birthers have more legitimacy than the idea that the “Constitution as originally established” refers to the Articles of Confederation.

    But I would point out that each and every reference cited by the Supreme Court occurs after the Constitution was adopted, hence the Supreme Court can only be referring to the Constitution. Nowhere, but nowhere, will you ever hear the Articles of Confederation referred to as any sort of Constitution. The Constitution is the Constitution and the ONLY Constitution. The articles of Confederation are the articles of Confederation.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
    • March 7, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

      Patrick,

      That’s an interesting thought that you have there – that there’s on ongoing experiment with Birthers – to determine roughly HOW MANY Birthers can be roused up, in a Born-Again kind of way – to actually BELIEVE – the Reified Constructs that they are feed with, similar on content and style, to a large number of Mario’s postings within THIS THREAD !!!!!

      Patrick – even IF there is no such experiment actually going on – you, Patrick have given me a THOUGHT EXPERIEMENT to pounder.

      Never forget Patrick – that Ol’ Eistein and Neals Bohr – used THOUGHT EXPERIEMENTS – MANY TIMES – while exploring the ramifications of the various Mathamatical formulations they used – in CONSTRUCTING a “Picture of the Universe and HOW it Operates”, so to speak.

      Thanks, Patrick – for the Thought Experiment !!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
      • March 7, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

        You’re most welcome.

        I actually found the article on the Obama Ballot Challenge website. (And after seeing their ridiculous video “The American People WAKE UP…,” I had come to the rather uncharitable opinion that out of all the birther groups out there, the Obama Ballot Challenge were the most gullible and the most misinformed.

        This page actually praised this same article by Apuzzo, for his ability to “smack down Obots,” and they posted this very same response of Apuzzo, in which Apuzzo claimed that the Constitution as originally established in the Wong Kim Ark decision was actually a reference to the Articles of Confederation.

        http://obamaballotchallenge.com/attorney-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-ehancock-on-natural-born-citizen

        Which made me wonder not only how much B.S. were birthers willing to accept, but whether Mario Apuzzo was conducting an experiment to find out just how much B.S., how obvious of lies, would birthers be willing to accept.

        You’d probably have to say something like “Obama was actually born on Ganymede” (the largest of Jupiter’s moons) before these people start crying “BS!”

        Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
        • March 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm #

          Patrick,

          I’d recommend the phrase – Reified Construct – rather than, the SO mundane, “B.S.” or “Lies”.

          Bob Quasius would probaby also prefer the phrase – Reified Construct – because within OUR current 21st Century Culture – Reified Construct – has no KNOWN Perjority flavor – nor does – Reified Construct – degrade a conversation into the gutter – of the “Human, OH so Human”, as Fred Nietzsche would put it.

          Just sayin’,

          Robert Allen

          Posted by boba123
          • March 7, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

            Well, perhaps, but keep in mind, in one instance I was speculating at what the intellectually challenged folks at the Obama Ballot Challenge would say when confronted with a reified construct of such magnitude that even they would notice it, regardless of their feelings toward Obama. I don’t believe they would cry “Reified Construct! Reified Construct!” No, the good folks at OBC would cry, “BS!”

            Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
          • March 7, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

            You’re absolutely fuckin’ right ’bout that, Patrick !!!!!

            Note to Bob Quasius – Ya see, Bob, I try my BEST – to ELEVATE the conversation about the Birther Madness – and forces, almost beyond my control, get the better of my Elevatin’ efforts – and just get me utterin’ plain, down-home, gutter language.

            I TRY, so HARD, Bob – but I too, am JUST “Human, OH SO Human”!!!!!!

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
  114. March 7, 2013 at 4:22 pm #

    Lawrence F Mazzucchelli,

    Regarding Minor v. Happersett (1875), you emphasized: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” You want to imply that Minor left open the question of what is a “natural-born citizen” when it did not such thing. The question that Minor left open is whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. That child belonged to a different class of persons, not the class which Minor defined to be the “natural-born citizens.”

    Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is binding precedent and not dicta. Not knowing whether the Court would agree with her that voting was a privilege or immunity granted to “citizens” by Article IV of which the state of Missouri, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, could not deprive her, Virginia Minor had to first make the threshold showing that she was a “citizen.”

    The parties, in their question to the Court, assumed that Virginia Minor was a “citizen of the United States” under the then-new Fourteenth Amendment. The question that they presented for resolution was that given that she was a “citizen,” did she enjoy a voting right under Article IV of which the state of Missouri could not deprived her. If she did, then Missouri’s constitution and statute, allowing only men to vote, were unconstitutional, and Missouri could not deprive her of the right to vote.

    The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court did not assume Virginia Minor’s citizenship status as the parties did. It set out to first convince itself that she satisfied the threshold question of whether she was a “citizen.” In answering that question, it said that she did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to acquire that status. The Court then set out to prove that Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” It explained what is meant to be a “citizen,” saying that it meant no more than membership in the nation. The Court then showed how Virginia Minor was a “citizen” by first defining a “natural-born citizen.” It stated that the Constitution, which already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a “natural-born citizen.” It then said that its definition could be found at “common-law” with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. It then provided the law of nations (Vattel’s Section 212) definition of the clause and not the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject,” when it said:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. 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.’”

    Minor, at 167-68.

    So, by the court defining a “natural-born citizen,” the Court explained that children who were born in the country to “citizen” parents were not only “citizens” like their parents, but because they were born in the country to “citizen” parents, also “natural-born citizens.” So, knowing that Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, which made her a “natural-born citizen,” and concluding that all “natural-born citizens” are necessarily “citizens,” the Court had no problem finding that she was a “citizen.” Hence, the Court informed that all “natural-born citizens” are necessarily “citizens,” but not all “citizens” are necessarily “natural-born citizens.”

    The Court also raised on its own the question of whether children “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents were “citizens.” Note that the Court said “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens.” The Court again on its own said that despite what “some authorities” had concluded, that, unlike one being for sure a “citizen” if one belonged to the class of persons who were “natural-born citizens,” “there have been doubts” whether anyone who belonged to that other class of persons was even a “citizen.” Since Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, the Court said it was not necessary for it to resolve those doubts and that it could hold that Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” which is the only status that she needed to pierce the citizenship threshold of being able to argue that she was entitled to Article IV privileges and immunities and Fourteenth Amendment protection of those rights from state deprivation.

    The Court’s thoughtful and careful explanation of American citizenship and specifically its definition of a “natural-born citizen” is part of the ultimate holding of the Court and not obiter dictum. To come to these conclusions about American citizenship, the Court engaged in a focused and reasoned analysis of the historical development of American citizenship, starting with the American Revolution and how it created the original citizens, explaining what the Framers relied upon to define their future birthright citizenship which they called “natural-born citizen” (relying upon American national law which it called “common-law”), commenting on how more “citizens” could be made by Congress through its naturalization powers, and explaining the role of the Fourteenth Amendment. In that process, the Court confirmed the one and only definition of a “natural-born citizen” which existed at “common-law” with which the Framers were familiar. It said that that definition was “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” The Court did not in any way indicate that the Fourteenth Amendment changed that definition in any way. In fact, the Court even said that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen.” It reflected carefully upon what it set out to do and how it defined what it found. The Court had to first define a “natural-born citizen” before it could determine if Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” It had to determine if she was a “citizen” in order to apply Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. The conclusions that the Court reached are all part of the ratio decidendi of its ultimate holding which was that being a “citizen” did not bring with it the right to vote, which resulted in it finding that Missouri, despite Virginia Minor being a “citizen,” could through its constitution and statutes still deny a woman like Virginia Minor the right to vote. Hence, defining citizenship and specifically a “natural-born citizen” were part of the reason for its decision, making those rulings binding precedent and not obiter dictum.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) answered the question left open by Minor, holding that Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled and resident parents, was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that he was a “natural-born citizen” by virtue of common law which Minor informed was the law upon which the Framers relied when they drafted the “natural-born citizen” clause into the Constitution. Wong Kim Ark also distinguished a child born in the country to alien parents from a child born in the country to citizen parents, saying that only the latter was a “natural born” citizen.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 7, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

      Mario, you could really solve a lot of doubts about your position by providing us a list of recent court cases where the judge ruled Obama is not a natural born citizen. So far all cases I’ve seen that ruled on that aspect found Obama is a natural born citizen.

      Posted by bquasius
  115. March 7, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    Mario wrote in part:

    ‘You would have us define an Article II “natural born Citizen” based on James Madison saying during the 1789 David Ramsay-William Smith Congressional debate that, in the United States, place of birth “is the most certain criterion” of allegiance.” ‘

    Actually Mario, that again is a false premise. James Madison’s statement made just six months before the ratification of the Constitution is but one piece of evidence.

    On the other hand Mario, you have failed yet again to answer the four most basic questions regarding this issue that exist.

    Mario, you have failed here AS YOU HAVE FAILED IN A US COURT to have your theories accepted.

    Let it suffice to say that your spin presented in your item 2) is absurd beyond all recognition.

    It simply does not square with Madison’s words.

    The rest of your rant is is simply not worth comment.

    I (we) have on our side The letters and essays of the founders, the Federalist Papers, the US Constitution, State court Decisions, SCOTUS decsions, and the U.S. Code.

    You, on the other hand, Mario—- have nothing but theory.

    Have a good night.

    Posted by Lawrence F Mazzucchelli
  116. March 7, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    Justice Gray, in Wong Kim Ark said:

    “III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” You have chastised me for suggesting that Justice Gray could have been referring to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. You add that I should be ashamed of myself for saying such lies.

    The historical record shows that the Constitution “as originally established” was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and that the Constitution adopted in 1787 was our second Constitution. The Second Continental Congress wrote a constitution to create a new national government. The Continental Congress approved the Articles of Confederation, which took effect in 1781 during the Revolutionary War. “The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777, but the states did not ratify them until March 1, 1781.” http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/Constitution/Pages/default.aspx “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America. Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 131 ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3 (stating that “Madison, along with other Americans clearly understood” the Articles of Confederation “to be the first federal Constitution.”). Indeed, the Articles of Confederation are considered “[t]he first constitutional government of the United States.” http://quizlet.com/3015192/ap-us-chapter-9-flash-cards/ .

    The movement for a new constitution was fueled by Shays Rebellion in 1786 which raised the fear of anarchy and disorder among wealthy conservatives. On September 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the new U.S. Constitution was signed by 38 of 41 delegates to the convention. The process to ratify the new Constitution by state conventions was not an easy one. The Articles of Confederation could only be amended by a unanimous vote of all the states. However, all thirteen states, with Rhode Island signing last in May 1790, ratified the new Constitution. The Continental Congress, on September 13, 1788, voted affirmatively on a resolution to put the new Constitution into effect.

    So, if James Madison, the “Father of our Constitution,” considered the Articles of Confederation to be our first Constitution, I do not think that there is anything wrong with me saying the same. Now, whether Justice Gray referred to the first or second Constitution is as good a guess as guessing what historical sources exist which support his statement that the English common law jus soli rule survived the American Revolution at the national level of the United States. So, it looks like the only ones conducting any experiments around here are you and that Robert Allen.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  117. March 8, 2013 at 12:01 am #

    The question which the Obamatized useful idiots are afraid to answer is….

    What “common law” was it that the Minor court was speaking of, which gave the court reason to first introduce mention of doubts whether a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen, and gave the court good reason to recognize that the doubts had merit, by stating that the doubts had yet to be legally resolved?

    What common law was it? ………………… you are afraid to give a straight answer, right?

    Posted by MichaelN
  118. March 8, 2013 at 4:33 am #

    MichealN writes: “The commentator (Gray?) here fails to report that the “aliens” which he refers to were actually SUBJECTS of the sovereign by local ligeance, and as such their native-born children were natural born subjects, because those children were born “under the ligeance of a subject”.”

    It is indeed Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion. However, there is no confusion on our part. Aliens were not subjects. The two terms were mutually exclusive. They did not voluntarily place themselves within the jurisdiction of the King, they were there by sojourning into England, whether they liked it or not.

    This is why Gray also noted that ambassadors, who have what we call “diplomatic immunity,” were excluded. A child born to a diplomat (or a hostile invader) is not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Everyone else is, however. Even if they cross the border illegally, they are bound to obey our laws and are subject to penalties if they do not. A child born in the U.S., even to aliens, is “under the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and is therefore a natural born citizen.

    Posted by Patrick J. Colliano
    • March 9, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

      Patrick J. Colliano said …..
      “It is indeed Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion. However, there is no confusion on our part. Aliens were not subjects. The two terms were mutually exclusive. They did not voluntarily place themselves within the jurisdiction of the King, they were there by sojourning into England, whether they liked it or not.”

      Response:

      That is nonsense Patrick.

      First off, every friendly alien visiting the realm was a subject due to local ligeance.

      There is no doubt of that, and I am not going to go over all the evidence again which proves this is the case, you will have to properly read Calvin’s case or you can view the verbatim quotes which I have posted here in this forum.

      It will suffice to post this verbatim quote from Calvin’s case once again which will save you the time…………

      “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

      As you can read, native-birth was rejected as being sufficient to make a natural born subject, and in the case of a native-born child who was “not born under the ligeance of a subject”, that child was no subject. (how or why the parent was or was not a subject is irrelevant)

      In the US Supreme Court case of Minor v Happersett the doubts as regards a native-born child to alien parents, were not if the child was an alien, the doubts were whether the child should be included as a citizen.

      (nothing to do with natural born)

      The Minor court judiciary not only rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born citizen, they also by way of unsolved doubts, rejected native-birth as sufficient to make an ordinary citizen for the time being.

      The judiciary in Minor considered a native-born to alien parents as one who (at that time) was not included as a citizen, leaving the unsolved contest between the authorities who sought to include him and those who doubted he was eligible for inclusion, for another time, thus the Minor court virtually left the native-born to alien parents as alien-born, until such time as the contest in that matter was solved.

      One who has yet to establish US citizenship is not necessarily a citizen until they are proven alien ………………. rather they are alien until proven citizen.

      Posted by MichaelN
  119. March 8, 2013 at 6:24 am #

    MichaelN wrote:

    “Dumbing it down, the court in Minor held……

    native-birth and US citizen parents = without any doubt a natural born citizen, nothing more to be solved

    native-birth and alien parents = doubted to be a citizen at all, still to be solved, but not necessary, because not relevant to Virginia Minor.

    Now let’s see if you can “confirm” something I might need to know.

    What “common law” was it that the Minor court was speaking of, which gave the court reason to first introduce mention of doubts whether a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen, and gave the court reason to recognize that the doubts had merit by stating that the doubts had yet to be legally resolved?”

    Actually, Michael you’ve answered your own question.” native-birth and alien parents = doubted to be a citizen at all, still to be solved, but not necessary, because not relevant to Virginia Minor.”

    And if the citizenship of a person born of alien parents is not relevant to this case then this case is not relevant to either Barack Obama or any other natural born Citizen who’s parents were born in another coun