Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?

Ted Cruz

Natural Born U.S. Citizen Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz has just been sworn into office, and already rumors of a presidential run are swirling. Pundits are questioning if Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible to run for president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 of an American citizen mother and Cuban father. Although Ted Cruz was born in Canada, he is indeed a natural born citizen.

Due to misinformation propagated by birthers, many incorrectly assume one has to be born in a U.S. state or territory of two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, but the term “natural born citizen” refers to citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization. The 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under the McCarran-Walter Act, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services summarizes the laws in effect when Ted Cruz was born:

Ted Cruz natural born citizen

Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Natural born citizen defined

Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen at birth.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

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.

However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). 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 were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

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.

####

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Discuss: “Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?”

  1. January 10, 2013 at 5:17 pm #

    Given what the settled American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” when the child was born (Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)), the correct question is not whether Ted Cruz is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, but whether he was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when he was born. Being a citizen at birth is not a prescriptive definition, but rather only part of a description of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is only a necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen.” That consequence does not define what the definition’s necessary and sufficient conditions are for producing the status of being a “natural born Citizen” or even just a “citizen” at birth for that matter. The consequence itself does not provide any conditions for producing the consequence itself, let alone a prescription for being a “natural born Citizen” or even a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Again, the conditions to be a “natural born Citizen” are (1) birth in the United States (2) to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when the child was born.

    Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any existing Congressional Act (even if it could which it cannot) has amended Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. Both the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts produce “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth of those children who meet their requirements for that status. But because this amendment and these statutes provide a different standard than does the American common law which provides the only standard that applies for defining a “natural born Citizen,” these birth citizens do not necessarily satisfy the two requirements of being a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, if they do not satisfy the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” they are “citizens of the United States” from birth, but they are not “natural born Citizens” and consequently not eligible to be President or Vice President. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (a “Citizen of the United States” is eligible to be President only if he or she had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution and for those born after that adoption, only a “natural born Citizen” is so eligible).

    So do not fall for the fallacious reasoning (a tautology and fallacy of affirming the consequent) that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” of the United States or any person who is a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. Rather, a “natural born Citizen” is a child who satisfies the elements of the American common law definition of the clause which are born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” when the child was born.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • January 12, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

      Author John Woodman has done an excellent job of debunking the claim that Minor v. Happersett (1875) proves natural born citizens must have two citizen parents. Rather than ‘reinvent the wheel’ in debating you on this case, I will provide links to a series of articles John Woodman wrote about Minor v. Happersett (1875).

      Did Minor v Happersett Set a “Binding Precedent” as to the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen?”
      Minor v Happersett Gave No “Definition” for “Natural Born Citizen.”
      Plain English Says the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett Never Claimed That Citizen Parents Are Required to Make a “Natural Born Citizen.”
      The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett Never Claimed That Citizen Parents Are Required to Make a “Natural Born Citizen.”
      At Least One Court Has Very Specifically Ruled that Minor v Happersett Says No Such Thing as What Birthers Claim.

      U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) proves just the opposite, that a child born in the U.S. of two non-citizens is a natural born citizen. Although the U.S. Supreme Court was not asked to rule on whether Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, since eligibility to become president was not an issue at hand, SCOTUS quotes numerous cases stating that children born of non-citizens are natural born citizens (natural born subjects in England).

      John Woodman has also written an excellent analysis of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and I agree with him. Link: In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court Set a Binding Precedent as to Who Is a Natural Born Citizen

      Posted by bquasius
      • August 8, 2013 at 11:18 am #

        I have read over John Woodmans claims and find that he squeezes hard to make some points on omissions which he doesn’t want to talk about. Over all, he makes a great case, until one goes back and triple checks his reasoning.

        In the end, when you rely in error to create the truth, everything that you create is still error.

        Posted by js03
      • June 14, 2014 at 5:55 pm #

        John Woodman like everybody else has failed to account for WOMEN. The correct case law? It only existed when I created it. Who controls legal publishing? The very same men who do not want this case heard in open court ever. To depend and rely upon old case law that doesn’t account for women and that doesn’t distinguish the two powers, presiding aka liberty aka legal power versus commanding aka will aka moral authority makes for bad legal theory! You’re using imperfect cases in order to make a perfect point of law; it’s like you’re attempting to play an infinite game within a finite game when that can’t be done. You’ve missed the point by a mile as why are men so hot to accord the birthright belonging to women to other men thereby stripping it from them before its ever been accorded to them? ‘Cause: No unjust man wants a woman making a life or death decision over his own life as he has unlawfully done to her! Too bad:

        I overturned old, flawed case law and set brand new precedent. I? I wrote law by defining a previously undefined process. Think of In Re Susan Herbert I, 07-9804, like a missing federalist paper…In Re Susan Herbert II is a vote being wielded as an Executive Order; it was executed as such. I conferred the legal power upon a filing clerk and he lawfully accepted it in accordance with due process. I myself heard him stand all other clerks including the Chief Clerk down. He said, ‘I’m filing this case; it’s being returned and nobody is to touch it except me.’ Voila! Direct filing occurred. All I did? Prove we can rise from the ashes unlike any other formerly great government; for us? There’s hope. Madison asked an absolutely brilliant question when he asked, “We know what exists at the death of any formerly great government but what exists at the founding of any formerly great government?” I fell out! Madison asked a brilliant question that’s so simple it’s rocket science. He was it so he couldn’t name it; he was way too close to it! Jefferson told me that no matter how many times he informed Madison that Madison didn’t get it. Madison’s ‘small group of educated men’? Incorrect. Hey, who elected Madison? Nobody!!! Madison volunteered like I did. Like me he was ‘elected’ ex post facto, lol. So I screamed, “JAMES MADISON THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS SELF AWARENESS SO EXTREME IT’S CREATOR AWARENESS!”

        Ted Cruz is not qualified. Being a citizen does not automatically lend itself to “natural born”.

        If you understand that you inherit the birthright so both of your parents must be citizens and you must be born here – in the US – then you realize the THIRD GENERATION of any naturalized immigrants would be “natural born”. It’s why we tell 3rd generation jokes such as “What does it take to go from tailor to Supreme Court Justice? Three generations.” You inherit the right to vote from your mother but the birthright from your father. It’s closest to the proximity of blood and primogeniture that you find in the Scottish Declaration of Independence not the French-German jus soli, jus sanguinis or lex sanguinis.

        “Citizen” doesn’t automatically qualify you…COLB’s? Read mine (it’s the original) as it clearly states that it serves to support your age and your citizenship but not qualification as natural born.

        To test the clause? THE IDEAL TEST IS A WOMAN WITH SONS. I know as I’m the person who caused the US to default for the first time ever. If all you do is look at case captions you’ll discover the answer, the test, is WOMAN WITH SONS as she then meets every single element as long as she can prove every named right was violated – not once was US Law enforced in her case – and that she can and did produce genius original intellectual property. She represents her own self then in order to represent you as…she’s the first non-lawyer to file and win in SCOTUS. All other cases were brought by lawyers and all other women petitioners had daughters. Not one acted pro se and not one had injured minor sons. One of my sons? A legal unborn person as certified by Florida who is now 18. Woo hoo!!!

        Your mistake? PAPER PROVES NOTHING; AT BEST PAPER IS EVIDENCE. In American only life is absolute proof. The person making the case is the proof. Take Brown V Topeka. You know why Earl Warren told you that you’d have to be insane to deny the equality of black men (Brown is a man standing for his daughter; it has been applied to black men only)? As Thurgood Marshall the man is the proof or else he wouldn’t be standing in front of nine white male Justices making the case, would he? Thurgood’s films of little black girls choosing children not their own by choosing white dolls was evidence only. To be proof they had to appear in person but they did not. With his films Thurgood Marshall warned you but you allowed BVG to go unchallenged and you then unlawfully installed Obama. YOU ARE CHOOSING CHILDREN NOT YOUR OWN! It’s as if you’ve been brain damaged like Thurgood’s little girls.

        What we need is a definitive court ruling (order not opinion like Brown I & II) that defines “natural birth” at long last as it’s also the means to establish equality for women…it resolves all of the outstanding EP&DP issues like abortion, gay rights, third party intervention in creation, foreign adoption, SCOTUS interference in Presidential elections etc. etc.

        The “key” is: EQUAL BUT DISTINCT AND THEN UNIQUE.

        The case is active within US Claims right now…it’s listed on PACER but no other place that I know of…Justia will not list it and places like Cornell tell you to go to PACER. The reason everybody is driven to deny reality? Easy as I proved that the exactly named Creator exists and that a woman can be a natural born genius so now men can no longer justify their discrimination and prejudice and their unethical, immoral behavior. What man can claim that he helped me? He can’t as none did. Neither can any lawyers male or female. A lot of people have to scrap their belief systems and begin again as currently they do not believe in a metaphysic and/or they do believe that women are less than human.

        Did you know SCOTUS is a “lawyers only” club that caused the oligarchy to rise as Jefferson predicted? Jefferson despised lawyers and this is partly why as nobody but nobody needs a lawyer to make this case and lawyers? They aren’t anybody’s right in CIVIL court. Not even Obama has the right to outside or paid legal rep in CIVIL court. So ask yourself this question:

        If Obama and McCain and now Cruz and before them Bush, Gore and Clinton are what they say they are and did not violate exactly worded US Law then how come all of them REFUSED to meet little old me in federal court in order to make their own case? If they have a defense why not mount it? Obama claims to be a professor of constitutional law among other things so I’d think this would be simple, simple, simple for him.

        The form to file in SCOTUS is six pages long; there are six questions or headings that you answer such as “What is your federal question?” How do you file directly like I did? You ask, “Is it ever my right to file in SCOTUS and directly so or is it merely a privilege as SCOTUS employees would have me believe?” There IS one instance in which it is your right, if you’ve never been accorded protection of the law, if every right has been violated and if you can and will directly challenge a case of original jurisdiction that is bad theory only as it began life as Gore V FL…Bush V Gore? A TRICK! As BVG was heard only in SCOTUS then it’s your right as the good, actual math causes BVG to be a tie no matter how you count it due to the difference between absolutes and wholes as it’s a Presidential election. You break the tie by calling it in your favor…you make your own case, get it? Another way to say it is this way: THE DOOR TO SCOTUS WAS NEVER LOCKED. All anybody had to do is write it down, place it in an envelope, affix the seal by putting a first class stamp on it and hand it off to a mailman – a uniformed federal officer charged with the duty to deliver commissions – as the only person who does have tenure in office is the post master general.

        John Marshall said in Marbury that if the denial of the paper became the denial of the right to come on back and SCOTUS would give you the paper so I did and sure enough I secured the paper docket. First one back to the bar did win! Let the Chief Clerk make false entries on it as we all know that SCOTUS never answers on behalf of the US as all they do is referee the fight. Once you see that zero response came from the US then logic should tell you that there should be a Motion to Compel. If there isn’t? And no answer came when it was due on November 5th, 2008 the day after the general election? THEN YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WON THE CASE AND THE WHOLE TRUTH IS BEING KEPT FROM YOU DELIBERATELY. As much as I’d like to cop an excuse like “crazy b*tch” or “sucky mathematician” I can’t as crazy b*tches who are sucky mathematicians and who have no case as they can’t reason law are not filed in SCOTUS directly; they don’t send the entire US fleeing.

        C’mon! Didn’t you hear Paul Stevens say ‘These lawyers are lying’ in regards to BVG??? Alan Dershowitz went nuts when Stevens said this as he knew the jig, at least for lawyers, was up. Nothing about BVG is good. What, none of you thought it was strange that a man who knows different, William Rehnquist, voted three times while the other Justices voted twice? Who told you a Justice gets to cast more than one vote??? Where does it say that a power of SCOTUS is “installing the Executive”??? And why cite all those exacting numbers if the only number that counts is one??? What’s a Justice gotta do, spell it out for you??? THEY DID!

        So then: Go file in SCOTUS as filing your case on websites doesn’t count.

        Or you can join Clemons et al V the US #1:14-cv-00287-CFL (4/11/14), whichever is more convenient. Complaintant #56 is named as “X, Y and Z” for reasoning. The other action you can and may take? As long as the US is in default you can write a check made out to the IRS in the amount of zero and staple the SCOTUS docket reflecting default in Petition 08-6622 to your tax form. As your vote is equivalent to an Executive Order write “President and Commander in Chief” or “Chief Justice” in the job title heading on your tax form. It’s perfectly legal and you’ll be able to support it in any court. I’m not your boss anymore than Obama is; it works like this: Equal but somebody’s gotta make the decision; I’m ‘first among equals’ so you too can wield your vote as an Executive Order. Subpoena me and I’ll serve as your absolute proof. One citizen? HE WROTE MY NAME IN THE BLANK SPACE ON HIS BALLOT & THEN GAVE ME THE BALLOT ID NUMBER. I’ll appear in order to prove his vote is good, that it’s rightful and lawful.

        What’s the worst thing that’ll happen if you make the attempt? Nothing. Think the IRS wants you to reason it out of existence? The IRS isn’t stupid enough to open that door which is the actual reason they target certain political groups. Like the IRS can stop you! Puh-leez….not only have they been found out but an RN just won against the big bad IRS all by her lonesome self within their private court. If she and I can then you can. No dead institution is bigger and more powerful than you are.

        Law is the rule of this universe; justice will forever prevail. All justice needs to defeat injustice? A single willing person. Imagine if 300 million of us were willing.

        If you stop paying tribute to criminally corrupted office holders they’ll volunteer to go home. They’re only hanging around as they keep profiting as long as you keep failing to act! Just stop paying them or: Do you like being their willing victim?

        Ted Cruz: Any day, any time, any place. I’ll meet you and make the case as while a courtroom and a gavel are handy none of us needs the dead institutions in order to preserve, protect and defend the living Constitutions aka The People beginning with our own selves. Are you willing to act pro se and pro bono or are you going to run away like all of the other manipulators I know? The problem you, Ted Cruz, have? I notified you years ago and you pretended you did not know, lol, not even when the US Senate changed its official website to say that SOME cases can and may enter SCOTUS directly. Ted Cruz: you always knew and I then made you consciously aware – I snail mailed notice of suit and notice of default to you – so what’s your excuse now? I’ll tell you what I told a federal claims judge: “In this case? Ignorance isn’t an excuse but is the reason.”

        Posted by SusanConstant
    • April 2, 2014 at 2:05 am #

      It’s not at all clear that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution and later statute. Not at all. There is plenty of question about it, based on his foreign birth, and fuzziness about his parents prior residency in the US. No doubt a Republican competitor for the pres nomination will take this issue to federal court, if Cruz should run. And, the issue should be taken to court, and the court should take jurisdiction, not duck this important issue…

      Posted by snarkk
      • April 2, 2014 at 8:40 am #

        Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she resided in the U.S. for more than ten years prior to his birth. Since she attended both high school and college in the U.S., clearly more than five years after the age of 14 were spent in the U.S. as required by the statute in effect at the time. There’s no doubt Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore is a natural born citizen.

        Posted by bquasius
        • April 2, 2014 at 12:14 pm #

          Bob,

          The Article II clause is “natural born citizen,” not born citizen. Why do you act as though the Constitution uses the latter and not the former? You have to provide us with the definition of a natural born citizen as used by the Framers when they adopted the Constitution. Just telling us that Senator Ted Cruz is a born citizen does not get you there.

          Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 informs us that the Framers distinguished between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Hence, the definition of a citizen cannot be used to define a natural born citizen. So, while all natural born citizens are citizens, not all citizens are natural born citizens.

          We have evidence from the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that your truncated definition of the clause which only defines a citizen is not the definition of a natural born citizen that the Framers used when they drafted the Constitution. Minor said that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. It said that its definition could be found in the common law. The Court said that under the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was not only a citizen like the parents, but also a natural born citizen. The Court provided no other definition and even added that under that common law all other persons were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be made citizens by Acts of Congress. The Court even added that “there have been doubts” whether children “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents were even citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) resolved those doubts and held that a child born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was a citizen from the moment of this birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark did not hold that such a child is a natural born citizen under the common law relied upon by the Framers.

          So, pursuant to both Minor and Wong Kim Ark, today the definition of a natural born citizen is a child born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This definition excludes from being a natural born citizen any child not born in the United States or any child born in the United States to one or no U.S. citizen parents.

          President Barack Obama was allegedly born in the United States. But while he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen. He does not satisfy the common law definition of the clause and is therefore not a natural born citizen. Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. He also does not satisfy the common law definition of the clause and is therefore also not a natural born citizen. Both Obama and Cruz are therefore not eligible to be President.

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  2. January 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm #

    Mario,
    Nice theory on “natural born” clause. Do you have a single case that backs you up? My guess is NO.

    Posted by Elliot Fladen
    • August 6, 2013 at 5:19 pm #

      He doesn’t. And Mario Apuzzo knows good and well that a natural born citizen simply means anyone who gains citizenship at birth. Black’s Law Dictionary defined “natural born citizen” as “someone born within the jurisdiction of a government.” And since there are NUMEROUS cases which prove that even illegal aliens are under U.S. jurisdiction, such as Plyler v. Doe, anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

      According to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, “natural born” comes to us from English common law, like many terms that are found in the U.S. constitution, but are not expressly defined (e.g. habeas corpus, high crimes and misdemeanors, militia, ex post facto, and others). And what they determined by citing the work of noted British jurist Albert Venn Dicey is that a “natural born” simply means acquired their citizenship at birth. This would be distinct from “naturalized,” someone who must jump through legal loopholes to gain their citizenship.

      And Apuzzo has lost every case he has ever tried on this subject.

      One final point I wish to make is that Mario Apuzzo should be not be regarded as “misinformed,” or perhaps “challenging the traditional definition.” Mario Apuzzo is a liar, plain and simple, and should be shunned appropriately.

      • August 6, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

        Patrick J. Colliano,

        You say that “‘natural born’ simply means acquired their citizenship at birth.”
        First, if you put your reading glasses on you will plainly see that the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen.”

        Second, so you think that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were dullards like you are that they wrote “natural born Citizen” when they could have just written “born citizen.”

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • August 6, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

          Good point, Mr. Appuzo. In the US Const., words mean something, every word and yet when it actually comes to what the word, “natural” mean in the idiom: natural born Citizen, they never seem to have and answer.

          But to me, the most important aspect of the idiom: ‘natural born Citizen’, and the one that is not even written in the idiom itself, and that is US Citizen. So how does one become a US Citizen, and, more importantly now, how does one become a natural born United States Citizen?

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by davidfarrard
          • August 6, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

            Actually, the better question would be, “Why doesn’t this phantom class of citizen that acquires citizenship at birh NOT have the word ‘natural’ in it?”

            “Natural” simply refers to their nation. “Natural” to the United States. It is their home, their land, their stomping ground. Some are “natural” to the United States by virtue of their birth. They are “natural born.” Others are not born citizens of the U.S. and must be “naturalized,” or “made natural” to the United States.

            Nothing complicated about it.

            Stop lying, David. Seriously. Just stop lying.

          • June 15, 2014 at 5:47 pm #

            So the word “natural”, means a person who is a natural US citizen at birth; would this be your understanding, Pat?

            Posted by davidfarrar
          • June 15, 2014 at 6:05 pm #

            David,

            Every US citizen is a natural US citizen—there are those who were born natural (natural born citizens) and those who were made natural later in life (naturalized citizens).

            Posted by Slartibartfast
          • June 15, 2014 at 6:56 pm #

            SLARTIBARTFAST,

            So those who are born natural, these ‘natural born US citizens'; how did they acquire their US citizenship at birth without statutory provision?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by davidfarrar
          • June 15, 2014 at 9:07 pm #

            David,

            Some of them received their citizenship under statute (as the foreign-born children of Americans) and others through the 14th Amendment (which merely codified the law that existed under the Constitution as originally written).

            Posted by Slartibartfast
          • June 18, 2014 at 12:53 pm #

            @ BY SLARTIBARTFAST
            JUNE 15, 2014 AT 9:07 PM #

            SLARTIBARTFAST said:

            “Some of them received their citizenship under statute (as the foreign-born children of Americans) and others through the 14th Amendment (which merely codified the law that existed under the Constitution as originally written)”

            So some received US citizenship at birth under color of statute, and some via an amendment….which one of these two would you consider US citizenship to be “naturally” bestowed at birth?

            An important part of the US naturalization process is the applicant’s pledge to support and abide by the US Const. In your view, how is this transfer of alliance accomplished at birth in order to acquire US citizenship?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by davidfarrar
        • August 6, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

          Mario, stop lying. Seriously. Just stop lying. Obama is President, and will remain so for the next three and a half years, so get over it.

          Here is the link to ruling of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as recorded on Cornell University’s website. And I encourage you all to do something Mario Apuzzo has not done, nor will he ever do, nor does he want YOU to do: read it.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

          And here is a brief summary of the ruling. And I defy anyone to disprove a single word of what I’ve said regarding this ruling.

          Wong Kim Ark is a 52-page ruling, and is divided up into sections, six in all.

          The first section establishes that the Constitution uses the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen of the United States,” but does not define the terms. Since the Constitution doesn’t explain these terms, the court (as it has done innumerable times in the past), resorts to English common law for the meaning of the terms. Not Vattel. English Common Law. (Vattel, incidentally, is not mentioned even once in the ruling of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. He is mentioned in the dissenting opinion, written by Chief Justice Fuller, but the dissenting opinion carries no judicial weight.)

          Now this is where Mario’s lies comes into play. He not-so-cleverly tries to confuse his readers by insisting that “common law” is a reference to American Common Law, which supposedly originated in Vattel’s Law of Nations. This is a lie, plain and simple, as is readily seen in one of the references used by the Supreme Court, used in this ruling, Smith v. Alabama:

          “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.”

          Notice, this ruling, upheld by the Supreme Court, plainly states that Common Law in the U.S. is derived from the Common Law of England. So, when Mario tries to pull his B.S. about how “common law” refers to Vattel, please call him a liar, for that is what he is.

          Having established that the meaning of the term “natural born” is derived from English common law, the second section cites noted authorities on English common law, including Alexander Cockburn, who was the first chief justice of the British Supreme Court, appointed by Queen Victoria, and noted British jurist of the day, Albert Venn Dicey.

          Two points are significant here. From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

          “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

          Notice, every person born within England, whether of foreign parents or native parents became an English subject at the moment of birth.

          Now, Mario Apuzzo, being a liar, would pounce on this point, and claim that a subject at birth is not the same thing as a natural born subject.

          But he lies, as always.

          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

          “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth. Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”

          Notice, a “natural born British subject” means anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth.

          Now, we see that the Supreme Court has established that the definition of “natural born” is to be found in English Common Law, and according to English Common Law, it means anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth.

          See where this is headed?

          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “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.”

          Notice, that every child born in England, even to aliens was a “natural born subject,” unless born to an ambassador in service to England or to hostile invaders. And the U.S. has always observed “the same rule.”

          It is on this point that Mario Apuzzo has resorted to one of his more embarrassing lies. There are times when I’m utterly convinced that Apuzzo is interested in birtherism solely to found out how much bullshit he is able to perpetrate before even his sycophantic followers say, “Okay, even WE don’t believe that.”

          Mario has tried to claim that the “Constitution as originally established” was a reference to the Articles of Confederation.

          Yes, he did actually try to do this. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/attorney-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-ehancock-on-natural-born-citizen

          From his ridiculous article: ” It might be true that the English “common law” rule of jus soli prevailed in colonialAmerica, and that it continued to prevail after the Declaration of Independence, and up to the time of “Constitution as originally established,” which was the Articles of Confederation, but it did not survive our second Constitution adopted in 1787.”

          It is at this point where I cordially invite you to laugh at Apuzzo for trying to perpetrate such an obvious lie, and his unbelievably stupid sycophants for actually falling for it.

          The Supreme Court has NEVER referred to the Articles of Confederation as anything BUT “The Articles of Confederation.” And the “Constitution as originally established” refers to the Constitution as it existed before the addition of any Amendments.

          And to prove this point, EVERY reference that the Supreme Court uses to support this point was when the U.S. was under the Constitution. Not ONE of them was written during the brief period when the U.S. was under the Articles of Confederation.

          And again, I challenge each one of you to read the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and PROVE ME WRONG about a single thing I’ve said about it. You won’t do it.

          Having established that Supreme Court ruled that everyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, the citizenship of the parents being irrelevant, I’ll deal with the remaining sections expediently.

          Section IV actually underscores the point that the citizenship of the parents doesn’t matter to someone born in the U.S. And while Congress has made laws that extend natural born citizenship to those born OUTSIDE the U.S. to parents who are U.S. citizens, that does NOT apply to those born IN the U.S.

          Section V affirms that while European nations have changed their laws to adopt Roman Law (i.e., the citizenship follows the parents, rather than the place of birth) that does NOT apply in the U.S. In fact, as the Supreme Court notes, the Fourteenth Amendment actually AFFIRMS that the rule of citizenship by place of birth still applies in the U.S.

          Section VI examines whether Wong Kim Ark might be deprived of citizenship due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which is the very act which prevented his parents from becoming U.S. citizens. The answer was, according the Supreme Court, “NO!” Congress cannot, with an ordinary act of legislation, overturn a Constitutional Amendment.

          They also dispensed with the question of whether Wong Kim Ark’s parents might removed their son’s U.S. citizenship. But the idea that they even COULD, if they wanted to, according to SCOTUS was “at least doubtful.”

          (This question, by the way, is addressed more thoroughly in the SCOTUS decision, Perkins v. Elg. Parents CANNOT renounce U.S. citizenship for their minor children. This, by the way, would serve to answer those birther idiots who claim that Obama lost his citizenship when he was supposedly adopted by his step-father. Horsefeathers! Parents canNOT renounce citizenship for their children, period!)

          Again, I challenge each one of you to do something Mario Apuzzo hasn’t done, and doesn’t want YOU to do: read the ruling for yourselves, and prove me wrong on a single point!

          I promise you, it will not happen.

          • June 15, 2014 at 6:02 pm #

            There is no such entity as a natural born citizen in English common law, much less a natural born US citizen.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by davidfarrar
          • June 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm #

            David,

            The SCOTUS has said (in Minor v. Happersett) that “citizen” and “subject” mean the same thing—in other words, what is defined as a “natural born subject” in English common law is the same thing that is referred to as a “natural born citizen” in the US Constitution.

            Posted by Slartibartfast
          • June 15, 2014 at 8:10 pm #

            Well, I can’t see that particular construct. I am sure if some of these judges had stomped around on the battle fields of the American Revolution they would most certainly have not seen themselves as subjects, or that “citizens” in a constitutional republic means the same thing as subjects to an English king. For one thing, as far as I know, subject don’t have the right of expatriation, as do citizens. Cave known the difference between a natural born subject of the English realm and a new, natural born US Citizen.

            Dr. Ramsey especially, not being a trained lawyer and perhaps not as conversant in English common law as the others were, knew the difference, as he points out in the opening paragraphs of his, “A DISSERTATION On THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES”:

            “A citizen of the United States , means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by revolution, the political character of the people also changed from subjects to citizens.The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio , and means one who is under
            the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty”

            itizens have the right to “consent” to citizenship. Subjects are born in perpetual allegiance. And yes, John Jay, James Wilson, Dr. David Ramsey, and most of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention would h

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by davidfarrar
          • June 15, 2014 at 9:02 pm #

            David,

            Do you ever do any research before making up nonsense? The US didn’t formally recognize the right of expatriation until the passage of the Expatriation Act of 1868 and there was no legal way for a person to renounce their citizenship until the Expatriation Act of 1907 was enacted. Your misunderstandings, like the evidence your lawyer presented in court, has no probative value.

            Posted by Slartibartfast
        • August 7, 2013 at 12:04 am #

          I did not say that, dishonest one. The Supreme Court did. But you already know that.

          Let me respectfully ask all the posters here to do something Mario Apuzzo has not done, never will do and doesn’t want you to do: read the Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark for yourselves.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

          I will give a synopsis here and I challenge ANYONE on this forum (or anywhere else) to disprove a single thing I say about this ruling here.

          First, this ruling was to settle the citizenship of a person who was born in the United States to parents who were not citizens of the United States.

          The ruling itself is neatly divided into six sections, each section dedicated to a different aspect of the case:

          Section I established that while the Constitution uses employs the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen of the United States,” it does NOT define the meaning of these terms. Therefore, the Court reasoned, the meaning of these terms are derived from English common law. Since the framers of the Constitution were British subjects prior to the Declaration of Independence, and of the 55 delegates to the Convention, 35 were lawyers, they were naturally familiar with common law terminology.

          From the United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.’

          “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words,… In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

          It is here that Mario attempts to confuse his readers, with his ridiculous claim that the reference to “common law” refers to American common law, supposedly adopted from Vattel’s Law of Nations.

          This is why I strongly encourage you to read it for yourselves, and NOT to listen to serial liars like Apuzzo. Because anyone who reads this ruling will discover this, which puts the lie to Apuzzo’s “American common law” claims.

          From Wong Kim Ark:

          “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.'”

          Notice, the Supreme Court has upheld the opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Alabama (1888), that American common is derived from English common law. NO REFERENCE TO VATTEL is found ANYWHERE in decision of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. (Yes, he IS mentioned in the dissenting opinion, but that carries NO judicial weight.)

          Having established that “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” are to be found in English common law, Section II deals with the opinions of two noted authorities on English common law, Alexander Cockburn, first Chief Justice of the British Supreme Court (appointed by Queen Victoria) and Albert Venn Dicey, noted British jurist and Constitutional theorist of the day.

          Two points will be extremely relevant here:

          From United States v Wong Kim Ark:

          “Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

          “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

          Notice, every person born in England, even to alien parents, was considered a subject of the Crown from the moment of birth. Now, some will undoubtedly pounce upon this by saying that it doesn’t specifically call them “natural born subjects.”

          However, this is where Albert Venn Dicey comes in.

          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

          “Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

          “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth. Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”

          Notice, according to Alexander Cockburn, a child born in England is a British subject from the moment of his birth, and according to Dicey, a “natural born subject” is someone who is a subject at birth.

          Perhaps you can now see where this is going?

          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “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.”

          Notice, a child born in England, even to aliens, was considered not just a subject, but a “natural born subject.” And the U.S. has always observed “the same rule.”

          On this point, Mr. Apuzzo has resorted to what is perhaps his most ridiculous lie yet. When I saw this, I actually began to think that Mario Apuzzo’s interest in the birther movement was solely to see just how much B.S. he could say before even the credulous, dishonest and rather stupid birthers would say, “Okay, even I don’t believe THAT.”

          Mario Apuzzo has actually claimed that “the Constitution as originally established” referred not to the Constitution, but to the Articles of Confederation.

          Yes, he did actually say this: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/attorney-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-ehancock-on-natural-born-citizen

          From his article: ” It might be true that the English “common law” rule of jus soli prevailed in colonialAmerica, and that it continued to prevail after the Declaration of Independence, and up to the time of “Constitution as originally established,” which was the Articles of Confederation, but it did not survive our second Constitution adopted in 1787.”

          It is at this point that I do not know whether to be disgusted with Apuzzo for perpetrating such a lie, or weep for his mindless sycophants who actually believe such a pathetically stupid thing.

          Because nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, has the Supreme Court (or anyone else, for that matter) referred to the Articles of Confederation as anything BUT the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution as the Constitution. I challenge ANYONE to prove me wrong on this.

          More to the point, the sources relied upon by the Supreme Court to support their claim were ALL written under the Constitution, NOT the Articles of Confederation.

          I will dispense with the last three sections, as I have already established that a child born in the U.S., even to alien parents, is considered a natural born citizen.

          Section IV simply points out that the Roman law (i.e. that citizenship follows the parentage rather than the place of birth) has never applied to someone born on U.S. soil, and while Congress has extended natural born citizenship to those born abroad to citizen parents, that rule has never affected anyone born in the U.S.

          Section V addresses whether the practice since the inception of the U.S. While European countries have attempted to make a transition to citizenship following parentage rather than place of birth, what other countries do has no bearing on U.S. law. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment AFFIRMS that citizenship by birth on U.S. soil is still very much in effect.

          Section VI addresses the question as to whether Wong Kim Ark might be deprived of his natural born citizenship due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, the same law that prevented his parents from becoming U.S. citizens. The answer, as the Supreme Court ruled, was NO. An ordinary act of legislation cannot overturn a Constitutional Amendment.

          Had it been otherwise, as the Supreme Court sensibly noted, Congress could simply undo the Fourteenth Amendment merely by passing laws that disallowed black people from becoming U.S. citizens, which would have defeated the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.

          And as to whether Wong Kim Ark’s parents might have somehow relinquished their son’s citizenship, the Supreme Court stated that whether they COULD do such a thing, even if they wanted to, was “at least doubtful.”

          (That question is more thoroughly covered in the Supreme Court decision Perkins v. Elg, and it makes it very clear, parents canNOT dispossess their minor children of their U.S. citizenship. Which is a good answer to those who claim that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when he was supposedly adopted by his stepfather. The Supreme Court has made it clear, you CAN’T relinquish citizenship on behalf of your children.)

          Again, I urge you ALL, please read the United States v. Wong Kim Ark for yourselves. And attempt to prove me wrong on a single point.

          You won’t do it. I guarantee it.

          • August 7, 2013 at 8:36 am #

            Wait. Doesn’t the first sentence in the preamble to the 1789 US Conts. state: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union“…this implies there was a “constitution” prior to the 1789 constitution, and that the reason for this second constitution is to make it more a perfect Union?*

            Again, the issue here is what is a US Citizen? Without a firm understanding of what a US Citizen is from the very beginning, we are not going to arrive at the correct answer.

            As I have mentioned, since the very beginning of this country, after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, a US Citizen was anyone living in one of the 13 colonies who supported l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, or, at least didn’t oppose it. With the revolution won and the US Const. adopted, again, US Citizenship required a free choice being made to support and abide by the US Constitution.

            In the case of infants, the only free individual with the authority to speak for the child is its parents, unless, as you seem to think, this child, born of two free individual US Citizens, has not the natural political right to inherit US Citizenship, naturally, from its US Citizen parents, but is deemed by the state to be a citizen, in the same was as a natural born subject of the English realm.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar
            *I think this is a point Mr. Appuzo has made in the past.

            Posted by David Farrar
          • August 10, 2013 at 4:47 am #

            In no way does this imply that there was a Constitution prior to this one. That statement is utterly absurd. They might say the same thing had the Articles of Confederation never existed.

            I challenge anyone to find a source that refers to the Articles of Confederation as “the Constitution as originally established,” or “a Constitution” at all.

            The Articles of Confederation were the Articles of Confederation. There is no authority that has ever called it a “Constitution” of any kind.

          • August 10, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

            St. George Tucker’s Blackstone Commentaries (1803):

            “Fifthly …. That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.”

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • August 11, 2013 at 11:22 am #

            And no one is suggesting that it the common law of England is to be the common law of the United States, you dissembling shyster. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the common law of England is the source material for terms found in our Constitution that have not been defined. Terms such as “habeas corpus,” “ex post facto,” “bill of attainder,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “militia,” and yes, “natural born.”

            The Court quite correctly deferred to English common law when determining what was meant by “natural born.” And cited several cases as precedent for doing so, including (ironically enough), Minor v. Happersett.

            Moreover, even Chief Justice Fuller, author of the dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark, realized that the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, and the consequently the citizenship of the parents doesn’t matter.

            A dissenting opinion, of course, carries no judicial weight, and unless it cited as influential in a future court decision, its only value is posterity. But Mario Apuzzo already knows this, despite the fact that he relies upon a dissenting opinion when referring to The Venus case, and upon a concurring opinion of Dred Scott v Sandford when making his argument. Yes, you heard right. Mario tries to argue his case with a concurring opinion of a SCOTUS decision that helped instigate the Civil War and was overturned by no less than THREE amendments to the Constitution.

            However, Chief Justice Fuller’s opinion does lend us his perspective on the decision of the majority.

            He writes: “… I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency…”

            Look at that. He objects to the idea a person born in the U.S., even to foreigners merely passing through the country were called “natural born citizens” and “eligible to the Presidency.”

            Game over, Apuzzo. And you lost.

            But thank you for posting that excerpt from Blackstone, which clearly distinguishes the Articles of Confederation from the Constitution and does not call the Articles a “constitution.”

        • September 4, 2013 at 12:59 am #

          Very true, Mario!

          The idea that “natural born citizen” might equate to merely “citizen”, of even born a citizen (“born citizen”) conflicts entirely with a fundamental principle of constitutional construct.

          In Marbury v Madison Chief Justice Marshall indicated that:

          “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended
          to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

          The fact that the Constitution is not “form without substance” entirely kills the claim that “born citizen” might be the same as “natural born citizen”. In Justice Marshall’s own words, the claim that “born citizen” might be a natural born citizen is entirely “inadmissible”.

          In fact “natural” does not refer to “nation” at all, nor is it an adjective referring to “born”. Rather “natural” is an adjective referring to citizen, referencing a self-evident citizenship status wherein the offspring cannot possibly be a citizen of any other nation at birth due to having no other allegiance upon birth.

          As much as I like Ted Cruz’s conservative outlook, he cannot possibly be a natural born citizen because he has two strikes against him upon birth: the allegiance of where he was born, and the allegiance conveyed by his father’s nationality at the time of that birth.

          Posted by Sentient Storm
          • September 4, 2013 at 1:38 am #

            Hey there Sentient Storm – when you say – “allegiance conveyed by his father’s nationality at the time of that birth” – it looks like you’re sayin’ – that ALLEGIANCE IS a GENETIC thingy – and that ONCE BORN – with this genetic thingy – you HAVE this Allegiance – for life – sorta like havin’a Right Hand – and havin’ a Left Hand.

            That ALLEGIANCE genetic thingy – IS SURE Some power-full stuff – Right Sentient Storm ???

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • September 4, 2013 at 1:42 am #

            So – how come, Sentient Storm, Ol’ Mario has NEVER WON a Court Case ?????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
  3. January 13, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    Bob Quasius,

    John Woodman has not debunked one thing that I have said. Woodman likes to state conclusions which do not follow from the sources he cites and the arguments he presents. He just inserts his own words into the mouth of courts or authorities so that he can arrive at the conclusion he needs. He then simply in broad brushes dismisses the arguments of others, stating that he has proved them wrong, but without actually demonstrating it.

    Woodman misrepresents not only our constitutional history as it applies to defining a “natural born Citizen,” both also Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

    I. Our Constitutional History

    Woodman claims that the Founders and Framers defined Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause under the English common law when they did no such thing. Rather, they defined the clause under natural law and the law of nations which they incorporated as national common law. The only definition of a “natural born Citizen” was already used during the time the Framers inserted the clause in the Constitution as a means to assure the survival and preservation of the new nation as a constitutional republic. That national common law definition was a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens when the child was born, with parents meaning father and mother under the doctrine of unity of citizenship and allegiance of the husband and wife flowing from the husband. Hence, the event of natural birth had both place of birth and citizenship of parents tied to it. It was this natural unity of birth circumstances that allowed the event of being born a citizen to be characterized as “natural” and not brought about by any positive law. This type of birth citizenship needed no positive law to create it. This was a definition that existed since time immemorial as part of the law of nature and incorporated into the law of nations. See 1 J. J. Burlamaqui, Principles of Natural And Politic Law Ch. 5, § 9, at 213 (Thomas Nugent trans., Boston, John Boyle, Benjamin Larkin & James White 4th ed. 1792) (1748) (endorsing jus sanguinis citizenship); 4 Nathan Dane, A General Abridgment And Digest Of American Law Ch. 131, art. 2, § 8, at 700 (Boston, Cummings, Hillard & Co. 1824) (same); 2 Samuel Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae Et Gentium Libri Octo 994 (C.H. Oldfather & W.A. Oldfather trans., 1934) (1688) (same); Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Conflict Of Laws § 48, at 59 (Boston, Hilliard, Gray & Co. 5th ed. 1857) (similar); Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); and 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, And of the Commonwealth of Virginia app. at 152 (St. George Tucker ed. William Young Birch & Abraham Small publishers Phila. 1803) (“The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights. These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens. *** [Id. at Chapter the First, 43, 3] Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.” Id. at Chapter the Tenth, 12. No U.S. Supreme Court case has ever changed this national common law definition. The Fourteenth Amendment also did not change that definition. Rather, what has changed is how through positive law we have defined a born “citizen of the United States,” not how we have defined a “natural born Citizen.”

    In the British colonies each colony decided for itself who would be admitted as a “natural born subject.” These “natural born subjects” included both those who were born in the colonies and those who were naturalized there. Hence, the English common law did not distinguish in name between their ‘natural born” and naturalized, calling them both “natural born subjects.” But the Framers in Article II did distinguish between “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States.” They expressed that the former were naturalized neither at birth nor after birth, while the latter could be either.

    When the Framers created the Constitution, they decided that our naturalization laws would be made uniform and gave Congress the power to do that in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Through the “natural born Citizen” clause, they also made uniform who would be given the privilege of being eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To accomplish the goal of uniformity, the law of nations was incorporated into the “Laws of the United States” which along with the Constitution and treaties made up our federal laws. See Article III, Section 2. The law of nations was even expressly referred to in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. Hence, the “natural born Citizen” definition became part of American federal common law and the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875) confirms this fact. Hence, the matter of federal citizenship became a federal issue, and not a state issue, although the states were still free to make laws as to who would be considered citizens of their respective states.

    But by using the word “natural,” the Framers gave Congress no power to define a “natural born Citizen” through the only power that it was given over citizenship, the power to naturalize. So, while Congress could use its naturalization powers to created “Citizens of the United States,” both at birth and after birth, it could not create a “natural born Citizen.”

    The national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” was confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 120 (1830); Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); and both the majority and dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898). These lower court cases also confirmed it: Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (not a Supreme Court case but persuasive); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1860), aff’d, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863); and United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). This definition was also confirmed by Congress by a process of elimination through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, all of which were jus sanguinis based (only children born in the United States to citizen parents were not covered by Congress’s naturalization reach, not covered by these acts, and therefore implicitly recognized to be “natural born Citizens).

    Through the years, there was confusion, debate, and doubt as to what a “citizen” was, but never as to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which only defined a “citizen of the United States.” The act was then replaced with the Fourteenth Amendment which still only defined a “citizen of the United States.” In so doing, the amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Rather, the amendment in its text confined itself to defining a “citizen of the United States” and made no mention in either that text or in its debates that it was designed to define or alter the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” There is simply no evidence that the framers of the amendment intended to or did constitutionalize a new meaning for the “natural born Citizen” clause. On the contrary, given the expansive application that the amendment has been given by both the courts and some scholars, granting birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens, it is hard to imagine that the Founders and Framers would have extended the right to be President to such children. There was also debate about whether a citizen of a state automatically made one a “Citizen of the United States.” The amendment also said that if one is a “citizen of the United States” one is also a citizen of the state in which one resides. Hence, it was confirmed that our citizenship is defined by national law and not by the common law or statutes of any one state.

    II. Minor v. Happersett (1875)

    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 a 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, said “parents,” it meant father and mother. So, we can see that John Woodman has misrepresented the meaning of Minor.

    III. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    John Woodman has also misrepresented Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark confirmed:

    “‘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 [680] 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 679-80 (citing and quoting Minor, at 167-68). Wong Kim Ark also continued: “Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: . . . ‘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.’ [666] p. 22, note.” Id. at 666-67.

    Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that a child born of citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen” and that a child born in the country of alien parents is a “citizen,” but not a “natural born Citizen,” although just as much a “citizen” as a “natural born Citizen.” So, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark told us that there are “natural born citizens” (the national common law definition confirmed by Minor) and there are “citizens” (the Fourteenth Amendment definition provided by Wong Kim Ark). But then we know that after the adoption of the Constitution, today only a “natural born Citizen” has the privilege of being eligible to be President.

    John Woodman concedes that in Wong Kim Ark, “the U.S. Supreme Court was not asked to rule on whether Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, since eligibility to become president was not an issue at hand.” So, Woodman admits that Wong Kim Ark was not itself a case regarding what a “natural born Citizen” is. But he wants to use the decision as precedent that someone in Wong’s situation is a “natural-born citizen.” And he wants to accomplish that despite the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor clearly informing us in 1875 what a “natural-born citizen” is, which definition does not allow him to arrive at his conclusion. On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark was a Fourteenth Amendment case, not an Article II case. Minor informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, it explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” comes from common law with which the Framers were familiar. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court did not hold that a child born to two non-U.S. citizens was a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of that common law. Rather, it held that such a child was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The last time I looked, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 still says that “Citizens of the United States” today are not eligible to be President and that today ‘[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Second, there is no such thing as “numerous cases stating that children born of non-citizens are natural born citizens.” As to any case that in some way said so, Minor would have overruled the New York state case of Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844), which stated otherwise in dicta. Lynch had rejected jus sanguinis as the basis of U.S. citizenship and Minor shows that Lynch was wrong.

    So we can see that John Woodman has debunked nothing that I have said. On the contrary, he simply misrepresents our constitutional history and U.S. Supreme Court cases in order to drive his political agenda.

    For a full analysis and discussion of the cited other sources which confirm that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country, see, among other sources such as the various briefs that I have filed with the courts in New Jersey (Kerchner v. Obama; Purpura and Moran v. Obama), Pennsylvania (Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama), Virginia (Tisdale v. Obama), and Vermont (Paige v. Obama), and the many articles that I have written at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ , Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html (wherein I demonstrate that a “natural born Citizen” has always been defined in our nation as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of the country and that that definition has never been changed by constitutional amendment or by the U.S. Supreme Court and that a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark is not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born Citizen”) and Mario Apuzzo, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html (where I show how some lower courts and Obama eligibility supporters have engaged in fallacious logical reasoning in how they have defined a “natural born Citizen”).

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  4. January 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, I read the two cases you cited, and agree with Woodman.

    By the way, could you provide us with a complete list of birther cases you have won? Were you sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases, or just scolded a few times?

    Posted by bquasius
    • August 6, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

      Its funny, but just saying “I agree with some guy who has his head up his duff” doesn’t exactly appeal to the intellectual debate here.

      Sorry, but you lost when you failed to support your own case and relied on Woodward, who has ignore more facts on the NBC issue than he created.

      Posted by js03
  5. January 13, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

    I guess I was mistaken about you. You are not about honest and open debate on this issue. You are a phony.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • January 13, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

      Sorry Mario, but I find John Woodman’s arguments a lot more credible. I read the same two cases you cited in your first comment and they clearly don’t support your position. In fact, I’d say U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark supports the position that children born of two non-citizen parents on U.S. soil are natural born citizens.

      Your claims that natural born citizenship as envisioned by the authors of our constitution is logically inconsistent with the facts:
      1. Common law for many centuries before the constitution consistently held that children born of aliens on English territory were natural born subjects.
      2. All thirteen colonies passed reception statutes embracing common law.
      3. The constitutional convention did not see a need to define natural born citizen in the constitution, indicating the meaning of the term was clear. Surely a dramatic departure from centuries of precedent would elicit a definition?
      4. One year after the constitution goes into effect, in 1790 Congress passed a naturalization law specifying that children born abroad of citizen fathers are natural born citizens, which directly contradicts your position that natural born citizens must be born in the U.S. of two citizen parents.

      Now, about those birther cases you won…still waiting.

      Posted by bquasius
      • August 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

        “Woodman likes to state conclusions which do not follow from the sources he cites and the arguments he presents”

        The smart move is to analyze how Mario debunked Woodman and to figure if Woodman does what Mario Claims.

        If it is true, that Woodman base’s his analysis upon faulty information, and that same systematic fault is also found in the Courts that you site, then the entire block of jurisprudence on this issue is faulty, judicial error, and regardless of what they say, is not law. Instead, you jump to conclusions and refuse to do your own work, refuse to analyze the issue, piece by piece, as Mario is adept at, and you assume he is in error.

        No respect for that mentality… Its trash can logic.

        Posted by js03
    • January 14, 2013 at 4:40 am #

      Mario, I’ve asked several times for birther cases you’ve won, but received no direct response. This is relevant because in your first comment you stated:

      Given what the settled American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” when the child was born (Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)), the correct question is not whether Ted Cruz is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, but whether he was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when he was born.

      I decided to help you about your cases…and I found the cases below. Help us out here…tell us how you ‘won’ since it appears you ‘lost’?
      Kerchner v. Obama

      OPINION OF THE COURT
      Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter “Appellants”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President․” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4.1 Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. 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.

      Patrick Galasso v. Barack Obama

      Based upon the above I CONCLUDE that the petitioners have failed to meet their burden to establish that Barak Obama failed in any obligation to prove to theSecretary of State that he is qualified to hold the Presidency and that he is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America, as required by the United StatesConstitution. The petitions challenging his petitions are DISMISSED.

      Tisdale v. Obama – Rejected citing Indiana case Ankeny v. Governor

      [b]ased 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.

      I could not find any cases that were won with the natural born citizen argument. Help us out here…apparently my research must be faulty since you told us this was settled law, but it seems this was settled by a court in Indiana, rejecting the same argument you are using.

      Posted by bquasius
  6. January 13, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    bquasius,

    There is no need to apologize for your ignorance.

    You make conclusory statements about Minor and Wong Kim Ark without any argument.

    As to your four points:

    1. You have not demonstrated that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, Minor said they used common law which could only be American common law given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” the Court provided.

    2. The reception statutes passed by the new states (not the colonies as you state) only applied to state matters, e.g., contracts, torts, property, inheritance, matrimonial, etc., not to national matters such as national citizenship and naturalization. In any event, Congress abrogated any states laws on citizenship when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by those of 1795, 1802, and others, pursuant to its exclusive naturalization powers under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

    3. 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. The Naturalization Act of 1790 only said that such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents shall be “considered as natural born citizen.” Those children were not in fact “natural born Citizens.” After all, Congress could not through a naturalization statute make “natural born Citizens.” Furthermore, the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States” which totally proves my point that birth in the country was necessary to have a “natural born Citizen.”
    So, you lose on all the points.

    Now, how about an argument from you that has any merit. . . still waiting.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  7. January 14, 2013 at 1:22 am #

    I’m just a tad confused here, Bob. Your point 4 of your 1/13/13 point indicates – “children born abroad of citizen fathers….”. Yet, Bob, in Raoul’s assertion of American Citizenship at birth when he was born in Mexico from an American Citizen mother – and your follow-up to my questions of “What would birthers think about that” – you, Bob, indicated that because he had one parent (his mom) who was a citizen at the time of his birth in Mexico – Rauol indeed is an American citizen. See – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/american-christmas-1946 – for this conversation.

    I have no reason to question either you, Bob, or Raoul on this – but I am confused about the point 4 that you make dealing with a law passed in 1790 – that you indicate explicity indicates “fathers” rather than “father or mother” or “mother”.

    Where would a “mother” fit into this 1790 law?
    Just askin’,

    Robert Allen

    Posted by boba123
    • January 14, 2013 at 2:42 am #

      There is the common law concept of jus soli, where anyone born in a nation’s territory and subject to its juristiction (nearly everyone but diplomat families and Indians not taxed) is a citizen. The 14th amendment superceded common law and made former slaves, etc. birthright citizens.

      Raoul and Ted Cruz are not birthright citizens because they weren’t born in the U.S., but they were born citizens by statute, with their status derived from their citizen mothers. The statutes have changed over time. I mention the 1790 statute in my piece because it reflects the thinking of the era. Under the articles of confederation, the states controlled immigration policy, and every one of the states passed a statute embracing English common law except where it conflicted with their constitutions (obviously anything about a monarch was out!).

      Mario Apuzzo claims natural born citizen means born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, but clearly in 1790, one year after our constitution went into effect, Congress had a different view of the term natural born citizen than Mario Apuzzo claims.
      Mario’s definition of natural born citizen: born in U.S. of two citizen parents
      Ted Cruz and Raoul: born outside of U.S. of one citizen parent

      Blackstone’s commentary also specifically mentions extending by statute the common law concept of jus soli (law of the soil) to include natural born citizens born outside England:

      To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). 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 were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes

      Posted by bquasius
      • January 14, 2013 at 10:19 am #

        Thanks, Bob for again, clarifying my question. I’m absolutely sure, from the great number of threads that Rauol has started within this Blog Space, and his orientations over all, that he, Raoul, IS a 100% American Citizen – even though he was born in Mexico!!!!

        With that in mind, Bob, again, there would be NO Question of Ted’s American Citizenship either, dispite the legal mumbo jumbo that Mario is throwing around.

        So, Mario – I trust that you followed the link to Raoul’s thread that I cite in my question to Bob Quasuis – and trusting this, Mario – I ask you – WHY did the birthers get SO MUCH press over the Barack’s MOTHER – being an American Citizen, at the time of Barack’s birth???????

        Just askin’,

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
        • January 14, 2013 at 10:51 am #

          Robert Allen,

          I guess your intellectual powers are not up to speed for this job, calling what I wrote “legal mumbo jumbo.”

          It also looks like you do not understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.”

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • January 14, 2013 at 11:20 am #

            Apparently your lawyering skills are not up to the job of birther attorney, because your arguments are unpersuasive with judges. Can you name a single birther lawsuit you have won?

            It’s a good think that Judges Sloviter, Barry and Hardiman let you slide on the proposed sanction for frivolous appeal. I’m sure you were hoping you wouldn’t get socked with a $20,000 fine like Orly Taitz received.

            Posted by bquasius
          • January 14, 2013 at 12:18 pm #

            I appologize, Mario, for using the expression “legal mumber jumbo” – because, I’m not a lawyer, while you are.

            With this in mind, though, Mario – I’m ALWAYS reminded of the Lawyer, John Mitchell – ALSO the Attorney General of the U.S. of A – WHO SHOULD of KNOWN BETTER – as a LAWYER – that it’s NOT LEGAL – to BREAK the Law.

            Take THIS entry from the Wiki, Mario – start of quote –

            “On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the “White House horrors”. The sentence was later reduced to one year to four years by United States district court Judge John J. Sirica. Mitchell served only 19 months of his sentence, at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, a minimum security prison, before being released on parole for medical reasons. Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic Party’s national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested.” – end of quote.
            Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

            SO, Mario – JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS a lawyer – DOESN’T MEAN – that they WON’T break the LAW. It also DOESN’T mean that WHAT they SAY – means anything other – THAN JUST EXPRESSING a Personal Opinion!!!!

            Just expressing a personal opinion,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • January 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

            Robert Allen,

            It is fallacious to ascribe any degree of truth to any statement merely because of who says it.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • January 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm #

            I would think, Mario, that lawyers as a whole, particularly a lawyer who becomes the Attorney General of this great nation of ours, WOULD have a vested PROFESSIONAL interest – in NOT BRINGING SHAME upon the profession!!!

            However, as we all know, Ol’ John Mitchell – AS A LAWYER – not ONLY brought shame upon the profession – but ALSO BROUGHT SHAME – upon the President of the U.S. of A. – as the guy who appointed him as Attorney General.

            HERE’s hopin’ that ALL LAWYERS will STRIVE to bring HONOR to their Profession,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
        • January 14, 2013 at 11:35 am #

          Bob Quasius,

          You continue with your ignorance. 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 shows your character. That is why I said you are a phony.

          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 (which you call Patrick Galasso v. Barack 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 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 supreme 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 our comments about “sanctions” against me and other nonsense. I have proven that you are a waste of time and have outed you as a phony.

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • January 14, 2013 at 11:39 am #

            Mario, in your very first comment you asserted your argument was long settled case law. You’ve made the same arguments in court several times now and it appears you lost every case, so perhaps this isn’t long settled case law after all! In fact, I understand over 100 birther cases were lost, many for lack of standing but a significant number for unpersuasive arguments.

            I’ve asked you to name birther cases you’ve won but so far all I’ve heard is the ‘sound of crickets.’

            Posted by bquasius
          • January 14, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

            Bob Quasius,

            Like I said, you are a waste of time and a phony. You keep repeating the same tripe. The only “sound of crickets” that I hear is you not being able to make a reasoned and logical argument.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • August 6, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

          1- Children are born with their parents allegiance. They are naturally loyal to the country of their parents. This is a simple thing we all can agree upon. It is the natural heritage, a hereditary right, and it is a natural descent of citizenship. No nation denies the children born within its own borders or traveling in foreign lands citizenship. So it is by natural descent.

          2- Children born in foreign lands to parents that are aliens to that land are still citizens of the parents country. This also is a simple thing, there should be no dispute about this. It is the same natural heritage, the hereditary right, of all children to that natural descent of citizenship. To deny this would be like saying the children of illegal immigrants in the USA would have no right to the Mexican citizenship of their parents. That in itself would be a grievous insult to the national sovereignty of Mexico itself. The Children of Citizens of Mexico, born in the United States, do not lose their natural right to Mexican citizenship.

          3- Compounding 2, above, is that foreign nation which grants the child of foreign nationals born within its borders, citizenship. So, when the natural parents and the child return to their homeland, the child literally holds 2 citizenships. One being the natural citizenship passed to the child by natural law, and the second being, the naturalization of the child to a foreign citizenship which exists only by latchet of man made law. Should the parents remain in the foreign nation, those conditions still exist, whether the parents naturalize as citizens or not, the condition of the child at birth, does not change.

          The topic that this post addresses is the establishment of natural born citizenship (NBC) as a qualification, to become the President of the United States (POTUS) as the term was understood by our founding fathers, at the time that they established our Constitution. The term natural born citizen itself is not explained in the Constitution. This is agreed to by all, and that its definition is what divides so many of us.

          The intent of the founding Fathers is what we need to figure out. Why did they make NBC a requirement to become the POTUS. In order for us to establish the reason, we need to study the cause. The point cant be argued that the meaning of NBC could not contradict that reason, so if we establish the reason, documented in the writing of the founding Fathers, then we can logically rule out anything that contradicts that meaning to establish a high probability of their intent.

          That meaning cannot contradict anything we know that the Constitutional Convention was disputing or debating when we first see the term used. The Founding fathers intent was to insure that the security of our nation would not devolve to anyone with loyalties other than to the USA. This point is well established in historical documents. At the time these issues were at hand, is when we find the term “Natural Born Citizenship” inserted into the Constitutional Conventions draft copies, replacing the use of “citizen” as a qualification to become POTUS. The phrase made it all the way through, without challenge and became a requirement for any person to become POTUS. So it is safe to assume that the founding Fathers understood the term NBC as they used it, to preclude the qualification of any person who was born with any loyalty to any nation, other than the United States of America.

          Based on this intent, the founding Fathers established that, at birth, if the child holds loyalties to any foreign nation at birth then that person is not qualified to become POTUS. It doesn’t matter if later on in life that the Childs loyalty to the USA is an unbreakable bond and the child is a hero and saves the lives of a thousand of his countrymen. The time, at the birth, and the condition, loyal to no nation other than to the USA, is all that we need to know. This definition is in full agreement with the writings of the founding Fathers, as well as, with the Law of Nations, to which they were familiar with, as well as the fact that it does not contradict natural law, which is the natural descent of citizenship of children following the citizenship of their parents. Dual citizenship is no different than if the child had no US citizenship at all. When it comes to qualification to become POTUS, as understood by the Founding Fathers, we must reject any child born with any loyalty to any foreign nation, and to be a dual citizen at birth is to have an allegiance to a foreign nation.

          Case closed.

          The SCOTUS cannot contradict the Constitution, and when all the laws come together, there are none that can stand up as law if they do. No person, who was born with a loyalty/allegiance to any nation other than to the United States to include any dual citizenship condition “at the time of their birth”, is qualified to become POTUS.

          Posted by js03
          • September 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

            >>Children are born with their parents allegiance. They are naturally loyal to the country of their parents. This is a simple thing we all can agree upon. <>Compounding 2, above, is that foreign nation which grants the child of foreign nationals born within its borders, citizenship. So, when the natural parents and the child return to their homeland, the child literally holds 2 citizenships. One being the natural citizenship passed to the child by natural law, and the second being, the naturalization of the child to a foreign citizenship which exists only by latchet of man made law. Should the parents remain in the foreign nation, those conditions still exist, whether the parents naturalize as citizens or not, the condition of the child at birth, does not change.<<

            ALL laws are man-made! There's no such thing as a "law of nature" that binds children to a nation, which is a human concept. Nature made tracts of land, but humans gave them names and established borders.

            The rest of your argument is based upon at least two flawed premeses, therefore your conclusion is at least suspect.

          • September 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

            “Patrick J. Colliano,”

            You are really on a roll. You just said:

            “ALL laws are man-made! There’s no such thing as a “law of nature” that binds children to a nation, which is a human concept. Nature made tracts of land, but humans gave them names and established borders.”

            Tell such nonsense to the American Indians and John Locke.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
      • May 2, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

        NOWHERE in 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, i.e. a native-born in England by necessity had to be “born under the ligeance of a subject” to be a natural born, otherwise the native-botn child was an alien born because as Lord Coke ruled in Calvin’s case “he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”.

        Blackstone’s commentaries did not change this English rule, Blackstone merely concured with Lord Coke, but said it in a way that could be mischievously misrepresented and so those who engage in spreading the lie, i.e. that “alien parents + native-born child = natural born citizen child”, selectively use the Blackstone wording to deliberately misrespresent what the English law actually ruled.

        English law clearly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and required a native-born to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”, for the child to be a natural born subject.

        The majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case favorably and without objection cited to Horace Gray’s recogniton of two types of born US citizens i.e.

        1. “the child of an alien, if born in the country”

        2. “the natural born child of a citizen”

        Clearly the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case held that the wording “natural born” pertained exclusively to parents.

        As a consequence, Wong was ruled to be “the child of an alien, if born in the country”, it was impossible for Wong to be the only other option i.e. “the natural born child of a citizen”

        The Wong Kim Ark majority knew that Wong could only be one or the other, hence Wong was ruled to be a “citizen of the United States”, which is the original term used in the USC for those citizens who were NOT eligible for the office of POTUS after the ratification of the USC.

        It is proven fact that the English law NEVER ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

        To cherry-pick Blackstone’s re-wording of Lord Coke’s holding of English law, and to assert that the English rule was other than what Lord Coke (who Blackstone referred to) said, is deliberately dishonest and deceitful.

        Lord Coke – Calvin’s case, as was relied on by Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case where Lord Coke stated….

        “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 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.”

        IF the Framers of the US Constitution did follow the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen of the US, that child would by necessity have to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”/US citizen father.

        Kindly save your ad hominem and use of other fallacies, as no amount of citing to the number of people who have got it wrong or have been lying about what the English law actually ruled, will ever change the clear and simple truth that English law NEVER, EVER held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

        Posted by MichaelN
  8. January 14, 2013 at 9:57 am #

    Bob Quasius,

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided in pertinent part: “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.”

    First, Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution without duly passed amendment. Hence, Congress cannot give by statute a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that is different from what the Founders and Framers intended it to be. This is not to say that what the early Congresses did does not give us insight into what the Founders and Framers intended the definition to mean. In fact, the statutory scheme presented through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born) demonstrates that early Congress, and therefore most probably the Founders and Framers, defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens when the child was born.

    Second, the First Congress used the clause “natural born citizen” through inadvertence, caused by its members examining as a model to emulate the English naturalization act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773)) which used the clause “shall be considered as natural born subjects.” A naturalized alien is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. With no presidential eligibility requirement such as existed in the United States, the English treated anyone naturalized at birth or after birth as a “natural born subject.” Congress knew that a “natural born citizen” was not the equivalent to a “natural born subject” and realized the mistake that it had made. Furthermore, Congress knew that the national character of being a “natural born citizen” was one of the presidential eligibility requirements of the Constitution. The Third Congress, with James Madison being on the Congressional Committee that proposed the needed correction so as not to give a wrong inference as to who may be eligible to be President, took corrective action and in 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.” The same corrected language was repeated in the Naturalization Act of 1802 and 1855. This action by our early Congress not only reveals what the meaning of a “natural born citizen” is, but also demonstrates how careful Congress and the Founders and Framers were in distinguishing between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” and now serious they took the “natural born citizen” clause as it applied to presidential eligibility.

    Third, using these Acts to give us clues as to what the Founders and Framers meant by “natural born citizen,” notice in these Acts, the reference is to “children of citizens.” This means father and mother.

    William Blacktone in Blackstone’s commentary addressed the matter of English naturalization statutes treating children born to subject parents out of the King’s dominion “to all intents and purposes” as “natural born subjects.” He stated:

    “To 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 were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain” (emphasis on “both” and “fathers” in the original).

    We can see that in their naturalization acts even the English required that “both” the father and mother be English subjects. The parent requirement was relaxed to require only a subject father so as to encourage commerce, but for all intents and purposes also meant that the mother was a subject. But the U.S. Congress did not adopt the same relaxed parent standard. It did not like the English use the same explicit language that “fathers” be citizens. Rather, it wrote “children of citizens,” meaning that the child’s parents be “citizens” (in the plural).

    Moreover, in the United States, it was the law and practice during the Founding and until the Cable Act of 1922 that a wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband. Hence, U.S. citizen fathers and mothers had to have just one allegiance and citizenship which was that of the husband. The point is even made in the 1790 statute itself when it later focuses on the “fathers” as having had to reside in the United States in order to give to his child his U.S. citizenship at birth. So, when Congress meant to say “both” father and mother, they used “citizens” and when they meant to say just one parent, they used “fathers.” But that they used “fathers” does not mean that a mother’s allegiance and citizenship was not required, for mothers followed the allegiance and citizenship of fathers. Furthermore, Congress knew that a “natural born Citizen” had to be born in the United States. That is the reason that it attempted to clothe a child born out of the United States to citizen parents with the character of a “natural born citizen,” using the language “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” But Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution without constitutional amendment duly passed under Article V. Hence, Congress cannot give by naturalization statute a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that is different from what the Founders and Framers intended it to be and which our U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed as existing in national common law. Recognizing the mistake it made, the Third Congress removed the reference to “natural born citizens.” Congress never again in our history and until the present day ever made the same mistake and therefore has never again attempted to define who may be a “natural born Citizen” in any of its statutes.

    Fourth, the Cable Act of 1922 and its replacements did not nor could they amend Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. The settled national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” still required birth in the country to a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother as it always had and as it still does today. If we want to change this constitutional definition today, we can only legally do so through constitutional amendment or through a new interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • March 9, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

      I do not consider it at all credible that the Congress in 1790 used the words “natural born citizen” through inadvertence. The bill is less than one handwritten page long. Surely they had time to read and comprehend it. James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution was in Congress at that time, and George Washington, the President of the Federal Convention of 1787, signed the bill into law. Further I should remind that in England, the Nationality Act in force at the time made the children of British subjects born overseas “natural born subjects.”

      There has only been one meaning of “natural born” in the English language, and that is having a specified position or character by birth” (Oxford English Dictionary). The 1790 Act made the children of foreign-born American fathers citizens at birth, and therefore by the plain understanding of the term, they were “natural born citizens.”

      The debates in the Federal Convention all tied fitness and loyalty to office to length of time as a citizen. There is no amendment of Article II; it plainly means a citizen at birth, and Congress has the power to say who are citizens at birth.

      • August 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

        Yet, the US Constitution does not cite English Common law one time.

        It does cite the Law of Nations however, and the term natural born citizen does, in fact, have a meaning giving natural born citizenship a basis in the Law of Nations.

        Nothing in the Federalist papers contradict that, nor any other of the founding fathers writings. As a matter of fact, by the 17th century, French was known as the language of diplomacy and international relations throughout the world. Making conclusions that melting pot of Europe strictly adhered to the terms found in English Common Law is an insult to the founding fathers, who had just gone through a bloody war with the English. Over 50 thousand Patriots gave their lives to make America happen, and to assume that the survivors of that war would insult those Patriots who died by cleaving to English Common Law is the suggestion of a fool.

        Posted by js03
      • September 3, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

        The preamble of the 1790 law said “natural born citizens” ,but if you read the actual law, it says “citizens”. Are you implying that the preamble supercedes the language in the specific clauses of the law?

        Posted by Darwin
        • September 4, 2013 at 12:23 am #

          Great question there, Darwin!!!!

          And JUST LIKE your name-sake – you are throwing a question at a bunch of Conservative Birther Madness madness folk – who just WANT to BELIEVE – that they ARE RIGHT (in more ways than one) – that they HAVE GOD on their side – but are JUST PISSED OFF that a guy, of the same ETHNIC upbringing as Trayvon Martin – IS THE President of the U.S. of A. – THE LEADING Democracy of the FREE WORLD.

          HOT DAMN, Darwin, WE ARE SO DEMOCRATIC in America – that we ALL are about to start BOMBING the Hell out of Syria – in a repeat of OUR Viet Nam Experience – where America DESTROYED towns and villiages – JUST to make SURE – that they Commies wouldn’t be able to infiltrate those destroyed towns and villiages. WE SHOWED those Commie M***** F****** that America doesn’t sluff off on something THAT IMPORTANT.

          AND – America IS goina show those folk in Syria – that what we did to those rotten Commies in Viet Nam – we CAN and WILL do to them TOO !!!!!!

          USA; USA; USA; USA; USA…..

          Posted by boba123
      • September 4, 2013 at 12:23 am #

        What you find credible is irrelevant. There is reason to question that the 1790 Naturalization Act ever intended that the children born overseas of American parents (not fathers) ever be “made” natural born citizens, given the fact it was repealed in its entirety by the 1795 Naturalization Act. This specific and deliberate repeal occurred despite the fact that the 1795 act was a nearly verbatim of the 1790 Act, yet absent any reference to natural born.

        In truth it was a common method of pro forma argument in the 18th century to employ SIMILE, the comparison of two unlike conditions, to argue in favor of a position. One does not have to stray far from Vattel’s definition of Natural Born in §212 of Law of Nations to find such an employ of simile in § 217, Children born in the armies of the state. That section indicates that children born out of state, in the armies of the country, “are reputed born in the country:” Quite obviously it does not mean those children were actually born in the country, as that would be contrary to fact. It simply means they are treated the same as if their parents had never left the country, but does not imply that those children were born on American soil, or native born, and certainly not natural born as a result of that “reputed”. The above application of “reputed born” is the same application as “considered as” natural born citizens in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and was never intended to confer natural born status upon those born overseas.

        The 1790 Naturalization Act was doing nothing more than what naturalization law legitimately does – recognizing mere citizen status, specifically for those born overseas. It would be unreasonable, and even irrational, to believe the founders were altering natural born citizen status by statute, before the ink was barely dried on the Constitution.

        “Natural born citizen” is a term of art in Natural Law, which is by definition entirely outside of man-made Positive Law, and thereby not subject to statutory definition.

        Posted by Sentient Storm
        • September 4, 2013 at 12:48 am #

          I beg to differ. The 1795 act changes the naturalization requirements, but says nothing about natural born citizenship. Nothing in the 1795 act says anything about repealing the 1790 act.
          Text

          Posted by bquasius
          • September 4, 2013 at 12:58 am #

            Again, Bob Quasius, you KNOW your stuff – and are far better than I a writing short comments.

            Right On, Bob Quasius

            Posted by boba123
          • September 4, 2013 at 1:31 am #

            bquasius, you’re being nothing but obtuse. It would helpful for you to actually reference the 1795 Naturalization Act, rather than the 1790 Naturalization Act, unless you imagine that 1790 Act would somehow have to state something about its own repealing.

            That 1795 Naturalization Act begins with, “CHAP. XX. — An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.(a)”

            And the 1795 Naturalization Act concludes with: “Sec 4. And it be further enacted, That the act instituted ” An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety (1790), be, and the same is hereby repealed.”

            Even the Wikipedia reference begins by stating that 1795 Act “repealed and replaced” the 1790 Act, in the very first sentence, making your claim nothing but sub-par scholarship.

            Posted by Sentient Storm
          • September 4, 2013 at 9:21 am #

            SO, Sentient Storm – TELL ME – HOW MANY CASES HAVE the Birther Madness madness folk EVER WON (particularly, Ol’ Mario’s cases) IN COURT – where it REALLY COUNTS ??????

            YOU, Salient Storm are OUT TO WIN – within this Blog Space – and I KNOW that the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space IS a REAL COOL BLOG SPACE – but it AIN’T the SAME – as WINNING in a COURT of LAW – in this GREAT NATION of OURS !!!!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 4, 2013 at 2:34 am #

            @ BQUASIUS

            That 1795 Naturalization Act begins with, “CHAP. XX. — An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.

            And the 1795 Naturalization Act concludes with: “Sec 4. And it be further enacted, That the act instituted ” An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.”

            You might actually link to that 1795 Naturalization Act, unless you imagine that the 1790 Act should have information of its own repeal. Even WIKI’s first sentence indicates that the 1795 act “repealed and replaced” the 1790 Act.

            Posted by Sentient Storm
          • September 4, 2013 at 4:20 am #

            @ Sentient Storm – the Problem with the phrase – Natural Born Citizen – IS that the writers of the Constitution – Just FORGOT – to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within OUR Constitution – because, they were – Human, OH SO Human – as Fred Nietzsche would put it!!!!!

            It looks like, Sentient Storm – that you have MISSED this Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

            “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

            The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

            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.[1]

            The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

            So, Sentient Storm – the writers of OUR Consitution – were – Human, OH SO Human – and they Just FORGOT to DEFINE the phrase – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!

            It’s as SIMPLE as that, Sentient Storm !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • September 4, 2013 at 7:35 am #

            The 1795 Act didn’t repeal common law definition of “natural born citizen.”

            Posted by bquasius
          • September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am #

            Right On, Bob Quasius !!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
  9. March 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm #

    I agree with the Congressional Research Service’s conclusion cited in the article, but it should be noted that the CRS qualifies its findings with the phrase: “[t]he weight of legal and historical authority.” I think this is consistent with the view of most authorities that while Mr. Cruz is almost certainly eligible, there is at least some room to legitimately argue otherwise. This is in contrast to the case of Mr. Obama, about which there is no legitimate argument.

    • August 6, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

      Mr Cruise was born to a Cuban Father on Canadian Soil. His mother was a US Citizen, but had established a permanent residence in Canada, as well as permanent work. Yes, Mr Cruise was entitled to be a naturalized US Citizen at birth, by the authority of Congress, and Congress does have the power to naturalize citizens, but they cannot create a natural born citizen. Congress does not hold the power to define who a natural born citizen is.

      Mr Cruise was born with his father citizenship, so he was also born as a citizen of Cuba. This is international law. Nobody has the power to remove the sons citizenship, which in naturally inherited by the children of citizens of every nation.

      Funny though, not many people are born with 3 citizenships. Canadian law awarded citizenship to Mr Cruz at birth as well. The fact that his parents were on indefinite work visa’s, and had established permanent residence in Canada, at the time Mr Cruz was born, makes Mr Cruz a Canadian Citizen.

      Now, the weight of history tells us that the purpose that the Founding Fathers created the Natural Born Citizenship Clause was to severely restrict foreign influence at the highest level our Government, namely to the Office of President. Claiming a person born with 3 Citizenships, where the US Citizenship is literally the weakest of the 3, is qualified to become PoTUS, is a direct contradiction of the Constitution.

      Posted by js03
  10. May 1, 2013 at 9:39 am #

    Sorry but he was NOT a citizen of the United States when he was born and each can add their own spin to the meaning BUT after all the craziness of the “Birthers” regarding President Obama does anyone really think this would not wind up in the Supreme Court to be decided? That would be if Cruz, who is despised by his own party, even made it though a primary for the highest office in the land. Sorry folks but 9% of the population never elected a President, Thank God.

    Posted by Deanna Grissom
    • May 2, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

      Sorry, but Ted Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen per the statutes in existence at the time, anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. Regardless of the facts, if Ted Cruz does run for president some day, no doubt birthers will dog him with constant baseless allegations of ineligibility, and sadly some believe their nonsense.

      Posted by bquasius
      • May 2, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

        Bob Quasisus,

        Only the unique and singular all-powerful constitutional civil and military office of the President and Commander in Chief, which carries with it a requirement of the highest allegiance of any other constitutional office, requires that today any person wanting to occupy those offices be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “citizen of the United States.” Having to be a “natural born Citizen” means one cannot be alien born and in need of naturalization. At common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, the only child that was not alien born and in need of naturalization at birth or after birth was a child born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875) (confirmed this American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” and said that any other person who did not meet this common law definition was born an “alien or foreigner”). See also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (using the colonial English common law, which naturalized at birth the children of a foreigner born in the King’s dominion to friendly, non-diplomatic alien parents to be a “natural born subject,” held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment [not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born Citizen”], and also found that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are subject to the naturalization powers of Congress and under that power are by a naturalization act of Congress naturalized at birth to be “citizens of the United States” at birth). This American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” became the supreme law of the land when the people ratified the Constitution and has never been amended or altered, including by the Fourteenth Amendment which only defines a “citizen of the United States” and Wong Kim Ark which interpreted and applied that amendment.

        Ted Cruz does not satisfy the constitutional common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Ted Cruz was not born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of his birth. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father. Being born in a foreign country and to a non-U.S. citizen father, he was born with alienage (a jus soli citizen of and allegiance to Canada at birth and a jus sanguinis citizen of and allegiance to Cuba at birth) and therefore alien born and in need of naturalization. Minor. He was not born a U.S. citizen under American common law, but rather an Act of the U.S. Congress naturalized him at birth to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Wong Kim Ark. But being alien born and naturalized at birth by an Act of Congress, and therefore lacking sole legal, political, and military allegiance to the United State from birth, which is what the Constitution requires of all future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military, he is not nor can he be a “natural born Citizen.” Minor; Wong Kim Ark.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • May 3, 2013 at 7:37 am #

          Ah, Mario – YOU and MichaelN – BOTH sure LOST Big-Time in that OTHER Lengthy Thread on – Birther Madness – SO, Mario, Poopsey, I see that YOU are attempting – AGAIN – to raise those LOSING arguments from THAT thread – in THIS thread!!!!!!!

          Mario, Mario, Mario – SINCE YOU see yourself as WINNING the Birther Madness arguement – You OBVIOUSLY ARE – the Leader – or as they pronounce it in Italian – Il Duce!!!!!!!!!!!!

          AND, Mario – Since YOU see yourself AS – Il Duce – and see yourself as WINNING the Victory of this Birther Madness thingy – I say to you, Mario – Hail Victory – or as they pronounce it in German – Sieg Heil !!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by boba123
      • May 2, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

        NOWHERE in 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, i.e. a native-born in England by necessity had to be “born under the ligeance of a subject” to be a natural born, otherwise the native-botn child was an alien born because as Lord Coke ruled in Calvin’s case “he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”.

        Blackstone’s commentaries did not change this English rule, Blackstone merely concured with Lord Coke, but said it in a way that could be mischievously misrepresented and so those who engage in spreading the lie, i.e. that “alien parents + native-born child = natural born citizen child”, selectively use the Blackstone wording to deliberately misrespresent what the English law actually ruled.

        English law clearly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and required a native-born to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”, for the child to be a natural born subject.

        The majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case favorably and without objection cited to Horace Gray’s recogniton of two types of born US citizens i.e.

        1. “the child of an alien, if born in the country”

        2. “the natural born child of a citizen”

        Clearly the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case held that the wording “natural born” pertained exclusively to parents.

        As a consequence, Wong was ruled to be “the child of an alien, if born in the country”, it was impossible for Wong to be the only other option i.e. “the natural born child of a citizen”

        The Wong Kim Ark majority knew that Wong could only be one or the other, hence Wong was ruled to be a “citizen of the United States”, which is the original term used in the USC for those citizens who were NOT eligible for the office of POTUS after the ratification of the USC.

        It is proven fact that the English law NEVER ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

        To cherry-pick Blackstone’s re-wording of Lord Coke’s holding of English law, and to assert that the English rule was other than what Lord Coke (who Blackstone referred to) said, is deliberately dishonest and deceitful.

        Lord Coke – Calvin’s case, as was relied on by Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case where Lord Coke stated….

        “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 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.”

        IF the Framers of the US Constitution did follow the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen of the US, that child would by necessity have to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”/US citizen father.

        Kindly save your ad hominem and use of other fallacies, as no amount of citing to the number of people who have got it wrong or have been lying about what the English law actually ruled, will ever change the clear and simple truth that English law NEVER, EVER held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

        Posted by MichaelN
        • May 3, 2013 at 7:44 am #

          Ah, MichaelN – JUST like Clock-work, when Ol’ Il Duce, Mario – weighs in – but ONLY AFTER Mario weighs in (JUST like in that Birther Madness thread) – YOU, MichaelN – CHIME in with a – ME TOO – ME TOO – Look at ME TOO!!!!!!

          Great Job, MichaelN – for being a Patsy for Mario – AFTER Mario serves as a Patsy for WASPs (See that Birther Madness thread, MichaelN, for what I me about Mario being a Patsy for WASPs!!!!) !!!!!

          WHAT a Team – Mario and MichaelN – Just like Mutt and Jeff – Laurel and Hardy – Step and Fetchet!!!!!!

          Posted by boba123
      • August 6, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

        The statutes, not the Constitution.

        The Statutes are not able to create a Natural Born Citizen. Congress is only given the power to naturalize citizens, and only an amendment to the Constitution can change that.

        Posted by js03
  11. June 1, 2013 at 8:38 pm #

    This doesn’t answer the question of when his father became a citizen of the United States.

    Posted by Michael Anderson
    • June 2, 2013 at 11:36 am #

      The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.

      Posted by bquasius
    • June 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm #

      ALSO,Michael Anderson, IF you had been paying attention to earlier comments within this thread – you would/should/could notice that I asked Bob Quasius about Rauol Lowery’s American Citizenship on Jan. 14 (see Rauol’s earlier thread – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/american-christmas-1946) with Rauol born in Mexico of an American Citizen Mom!!!!

      Bob Quasius indicated that Rauol is indeed an American Citizen – at Birth – even though Rauol was born in Mexico. Rauol is a Regular and Prolific contributer of many thread within the Cafe Con Leache Republicans Blog Space.

      Just noting, Michael Anderson, that you appear to have missed my question to Bob Quasius on Jan 14 and also missed Bob’s answer to my question.

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
      • August 6, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

        So what. Because his mother was married to a Mexican National, she also was a Mexican Citizen under Mexico’s Laws.

        By definition then, statutes can only award citizenship to children of US Citizens living in foreign nations based on specific criteria…and then, because the power to naturalize people is the only power Congress has, the person can never be a natural born citizen.

        Posted by js03
    • August 6, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

      Cruz’ father became a US Citizen in 2005

      Posted by js03
  12. July 19, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    ted cruz is not a natural born citizen! He derived citizenship from his mother if she filled the citizen requirements from the United States! INS Act 1952!

    Posted by santiago
    • July 21, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

      Ah Santiago (which of course reminds of ol’ TV shows from my childhood – where the sidekick says – “Ah Cisco” [referring to the Cisco Kid] and Cisco responds, “Ah Poncho” – and the rest is Kiddie Time TV from my youth),

      I JUST Checked out this “INS Act 1952!” that you mention – and see at the Wiki – they say this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952. This “INS Act 1952!” that you mention, Santiago – is AKA the McCarran–Walter Act !!!!

      Santiago – I’m about 5/6 of the way through David Caute’s GREAT work – “The Great Fear” – and this McCarren Act – initially VETOED by President Truman – DEMOCRATS over-road the Veto – and this McCarren Act came into the LAW of the Land !!!!

      A GREAT NUMBER of folk – even slightly left of center – found that they were PROSECUTED under this McCarren Act – during the McCarthy HEY DAYS – and on through-out the remainder of the 50s and into the 60s. A LOT of Immigrant Deportations happened – just for KNOWING someone with Leftist beliefs – WERE DEPORTED !!!!!!

      I’m GLAD, Santiago – that you bring UP – this NOTORIOUS McCarren act – so that NOW folk can go back and LOOK AT the NUMEROUS MIS-carriages of justice committed under this Act!!!

      By the by, Santiago – IF you have followed this and the Birther Madness thread – YOU, Santiago make very LAME legal arguments in your post – PARTICULARLY when compared to good Ol’ Mario Puzzo !!!!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  13. August 4, 2013 at 10:30 am #

    In order for Sen.Cruz to believe himself to be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, he would also have to believe children born in this country of illegal aliens are also Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Posted by davidfarrard
    • August 4, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

      Ted Cruz was against repealing birthright citizenship before he was for repeal. He was also for immigration reform before he was against it, and he was against expanded quotas for legal immigration before he was for it.

      Posted by bquasius
      • August 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

        Please cite your source.

        Thank you.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        Posted by davidfarrard
  14. August 4, 2013 at 5:39 pm #

    AND, David Farrard – IF you even bothered to read MY comment that appears right before yours – you WILL NOTICE that BOTH you and Ol’ Santiago have appeared to MISS – all of the legal arguments that Ol’ Mario Puzzo MADE in THIS thread and ALSO the Birther Madness thread!!!! I’d STRONGLY advise you, David Farrard, to go back and REVIEW ALL of Mario Puzzo’s Legal Arguments in BOTH threads – BEFORE you go about spouting a Legal Argument yourself!!!! Ol’ Mario Puzzo IS a lawyer – AND has ACTUALLY brought Birther Madness cases INTO COURTS of Law !!!!! Mario Puzzo’s Legal arguments ARE MUCH better than your Legal arguments, David Farrard!!!!

    Needless to say, David Farrard – Ol’ Mario Puzzo LOST all of the ACTUAL cases that he brought into court!!!! AND, David Farrard – Bob Quasius, and I have made MINCE MEAT out of Mario Puzzo’s comments in THIS THREAD – AND – Bob Quasius, Patrick J. Colliano, Lawrence F Mazzucchelli, and I made MINCE MEAT out of Mario Puzzo’s Comments in the Birther Madness thread – http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/birther-madness-2/.

    Just sayin’ David,

    Robert Allen

    Posted by boba123
    • August 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

      I have read your argument and Mario’s, and can find nothing that would dispute the fact that there are only two ways to become a US citizen by reason of birth: naturally, by natural law, using the cloak of allegiance of the citizen-father, and by positive law. Sen. Cruz is a US citizen by positive law, and is not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen,

      Since the US Constitution did not create any law defining a US citizen by reason of birth, in the absence of positive law, natural law applies….that’s why it’s called natural law.

      Moreover, when Congress did see a need to define what a US Citizen was by reason of birth abroad, they used de Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ definition*. In later revisions, they changed it to US Citizen at birth.

      Again, in order for Sen. Cruz to believe himself to be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, he would have to support birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country. Are you suggesting that Sen Cruz does, indeed, support the birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      Posted by davidfarrard
      • August 5, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

        Ah David – this WIKI article – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen – BEGINS –
        (Start of Quote)
        “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

        The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

        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.[1]

        The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.”
        (End of Quote)

        So, David – SINCE Ol’ Mario Puzzo IS a Lawyer who HAS ACTUALLY brought Birther Madness cases into court – and LOST those cases – ONE WOULD THINK – that Ol’ Mario Puzzo WOULD HAVE Presented YOUR rather simple Legal Argument in AT LEAST ONE of those LOST cases !!!!

        David, Ol’ Mario Puzzo DOES USE YOUR simple legal argument – along with MORE COMPLEX Legal Argument than yours – in this AND the Birther Madness thread ( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/birther-madness-2/).

        So, David – it does NOT APPEAR – that Reading Comprehension is one of your NATURAL BORN Abilities !!!!!

        Just sayin’ (in English rather than Latin),

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
      • August 6, 2013 at 12:46 am #

        You’re confusing “natural law” with “natural born citizenship.” The constitution doesn’t define the term “natural born citizen” because it was widely understood under common law at the time, as was birthright citizenship. Under the English Common law that became American common law, anyone born a citizen was a natural born citizen. Under English law via statute, not common law, those born abroad of English subjects were considered natural born subjects provided their parents met residency requirements. The U.S. continued the practice after Independence, but birth abroad to citizens was provided by statute, not common law.

        Posted by bquasius
        • August 6, 2013 at 10:16 am #

          bquasius,

          You said: “You’re confusing ‘natural law’ with ‘natural born citizenship.’ The constitution doesn’t define the term “natural born citizen” because it was widely understood under common law at the time, as was birthright citizenship. Under the English Common law that became American common law, anyone born a citizen was a natural born citizen. Under English law via statute, not common law, those born abroad of English subjects were considered natural born subjects provided their parents met residency requirements. The U.S. continued the practice after Independence, but birth abroad to citizens was provided by statute, not common law.”

          These statements are incorrect as applied to defining an Article II “natural born citizen.” Following the American Revolution, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers never adopted the English common law as national law. This is critically important to understand because the “natural born citizen” clause is a national concept. Presidential eligibility could be determined only by a uniform standard that was national in scope and that applied equally to all the states. Note that Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers also made our national naturalization laws uniform by removing from the state the power to naturalize anyone after birth and giving that power exclusively to Congress.

          On the other hand, most of the new states selectively adopted the English common law, but only until abrogated by their legislatures. The states also continued to naturalize persons under their state statutes, but only until Congress passed the first naturalization act in 1790.

          State laws, which were based on the English common law or which were naturalization acts, were used to define a “citizen of the United States” before the adoption of the Constitution and before Congress passed its first Naturalization Act in 1790. But after that date, a “citizen of the United States” could come into being only by satisfying national law which was passed by Congress. This means that before the adoption of the Constitution, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, anyone becoming a “citizen of the United States” as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution by whatever means available, i.e., becoming a “citizen” of one of the states at birth under the English common law as adopted by any state, by naturalization after birth through the force of and adherence to the American Revolution (applicable to our early Presidents), or under state naturalization statutes (used to make more “citizens” after birth), was eligible to be President. But for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, only those satisfying the national and uniform definition of a “natural born citizen” could be eligible to be President.

          And regarding a “natural born citizen,” the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, for children born after July 4, 1776, used the law of nations which they incorporated into American national law for their definition of the clause. That definition was a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. See The Law of Nations, Section 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898). This national scheme of U.S. citizenship was confirmed by our early Congresses in the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born. By the express wording of these naturalization acts we can see that Congress never saw the need to nor did it ever act upon children born in the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents.

          The Founder, Framers, and Ratifiers did give Congress the power to naturalize any child that was born out of the United States. In 1790, through the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress naturalized at birth children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as “natural born citizens.” Congress repealed that law in 1795 through the Naturalization Act of 1795, which treated such children as “citizens of the United States.” By seeing the need to naturalize such children, and further by changing their naturalized birth status from that of a “natural born citizen” to that of a “citizen of the United States” (under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, children born after the adoption of the Constitution who were “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens” were no longer eligible to be President), our early Congress clearly signaled that such children were not only not “natural born citizens,” but were also not eligible to be President. Congress to this day has never again used the clause “natural born citizen” in any of its naturalization acts and also not even in the Fourteenth Amendment. This can only mean that Congress has seen children born U.S. “citizens” under such laws as “citizens of the United States,” but not as “natural born citizens.”

          So, you are incorrect in your position that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers defined a “natural born citizen” under English common law, for they did not do any such thing. Rather, they defined a “natural born citizen” under American common law which had its origins in the law of nations. And that definition was a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent as in being born out of the United States to parents serving the national defense) to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Under this definition, and even under early Congress’s naturalization acts, any child born in the United State to alien parents was alien born and in need of naturalization. Such child was not and could not be a “natural born citizen.”

          You are also incorrect in your position that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents who are not serving the U.S. national defense (like Senator Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a Cuban father) are “natural born citizens.” The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers saw any child born out of the United States, even to U.S. “citizen” parents, as being naturalized at birth, at first as a “natural born citizen,” but then as a “citizen of the United States.” Naturalizing him or her as such at birth and also eventually treating such child only as a “citizen of the United States,” they did not see such a child to be a “natural born citizen.”

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • August 6, 2013 at 11:15 am #

            Oh, My, MY – Ol’ Mario Puzzo IS Back – again, and again, and again – SPOUTING OFF – as usual – with the SAME OL’, same ol’ – that HAS LOST HIM the Legal Cases that he has brought fourth in front of ACTUAL JUDGES in ACTUAL Courts of Law !!!! Mario – YOU have LOST ALL of those Actual Cases in front of Actual Judges – which BEGS the Question – HOW can ALL of these Judges be Wrong – with YOU, Mario, a Hero in your own mind, being RIGHT (in more ways than one, what with your extreme Right political views) ????

            Mario, the guy, like David, with a NATURAL BORN Reading Comprehension Disability (RCD) – obviously MISSED this Wiki Link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen – which I have cited in just a few comments before Mario’s latest spouting off.

            Mario – after ALSO LOSING BIG TIME – in this thread, as well as the Birther Madness thread – appears to NEVER recognize himself as the LOOSER that he really is!!!!!

            You LOOSE in COURT, Mario – you LOOSE in this thread and the Birther Madness thread – and you REPEAT the SAME LOOSING argument – once again!!!!!

            There’s gotta be somethin’ within your person-hood, Mario, that is able to stand this kind of punishment.

            TOO Bad. Soooooooooooo Sad. So Mario Puzzo.

            Just saying (for David – in Latin – dicens iustus),

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • August 6, 2013 at 11:19 am #

            boba123,

            You are a non-entity in any of this.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • August 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

            So says the LOSER – in Court and within this and the Birther Madness threads within this Blog Space!!!!

            So, Mario, Putzi – How goes your world?????

            Posted by boba123
          • August 6, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

            Robert Allen,

            Try saying something that has any value in the public debate on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • August 6, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

            Ah, Mario – it STILL Looks like YOU continue to suffer from RCD – Reading Comprehension Disorder!!!! IF YOU BOTHERED, Mario, to follow this link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen – YOU WOULD realize that Article II FAILS to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen. HOWEVER, Mario – AS YOU DISCOVERED – FROM the JUDGES that TOSSED YOUR Natural Born Citizen case OUT OF COURT – the CURRENT LEGAL definition IS FOUND – within this link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen.

            I repeated the link for YOU, Mario – BECAUSE of your RCD. By the By, Mario – I’m typing SLOWER than usual – JUST so that YOU can keep up – what with your RCD and all.

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
          • September 4, 2013 at 3:14 am #

            Mario, with respect, I have to take issue with an implication in your last paragraph where you indicate, ” …children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents who are not serving the U.S. national defense…”

            Nowhere is there any reference regarding natural born citizen that absence from the country, wile in service to a country’s military, might provide excuse allowing for natural born citizen offspring. I believe it would run entirely counter to those founder’s perspectives to create a de facto privileged military class. Neither this society itself, nor the principles of this society, follow the military overseas. The purpose of the natural born requirement was to protect every citizen’s rights from foreign influence, and not to provide a non-existent right to obtain the Highest Office of the Land for those in the military.

            In fact the very same corrupt members of the U.S. Senate that fraudulently promoted John McCain as a natural born citizen in S.R. 511, only 42 days previous, had introduced a Bill to make the offspring of those serving in the military overseas natural born citizens, S.2678 ““Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act”. Obviously if the offspring of those serving in the military overseas were actually natural born citizens, there would be no such need for an act inappropriately attempting to alter natural born citizen by statute.

            Ironically, in attempting to recognize John McCain as a natural born citizen, albeit by corrupt means, those members of Congress recognized two terms: both 1) birth on U.S. Soil, AND 2) birth to parents who were citizens.

            Reference: John McCain: A Case of Senate Fraud (PDF)

            Posted by Sentient Storm
          • September 4, 2013 at 4:24 am #

            Ah, Sentient Storm – the Problem with the phrase – Natural Born Citizen – IS that the writers of the Constitution – Just FORGOT – to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within OUR Constitution – because, they were – Human, OH SO Human – as Fred Nietzsche would put it!!!!!

            It looks like, Sentient Storm – that you have MISSED this Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

            “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

            The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

            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.[1]

            The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

            So, Sentient Storm – the writers of OUR Consitution – were – Human, OH SO Human – and they Just FORGOT to DEFINE the phrase – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!

            It’s as SIMPLE as that, Sentient Storm !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
        • August 6, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

          Actually, English Common Law was not used to define the US Constitution. If that were so, the authority would be cited. No state constitution adopted English Common law either, they did however, use pieces and parts of the ECL to establish their own common law precedents. Face it, the US Common Law began with the first shot in the Revolution.

          This is validated in the use of the term “law of nations” within the US Constitution. Congress has the authority to prosecute offenses under the Law of Nations. It cannot lift a finger however, in any regard to the English Common Law, it does not have that power, it was left to the states to determine common law, which is simply put, precedent based upon the custom of the nation it exists. While English Common Law required that subjects be members of the Church of England, subjects which were subject to the sole, sovereign power of the nation, also know as the monarch, or King of England at that time, there could be no state in the United States that could enforce that law upon the sovereign citizens of the United States, because they would then violate the US Constitution.

          It is obvious that the ECL had no authority in the minds of the founding fathers, and as such, could not and would not have been used to define the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

          Our courts have made grievous errors in the past. Of this there can be no doubt. To suggest that the finding of the courts in this issue is valid, ignores everything that the founding fathers stood for. Until the courts recognize the entire content of our history to come to a conclusion that honors our Constitution, then the courts are in error, and their rulings are as invalid as the Dred Scot ruling in 1856, which claimed that Blacks were no more than property, and held no rights under the US Constitution.

          Posted by js03
        • August 6, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

          But we are not under English common law, not at the national level. This all goes back to what makes a US citizen.

          US citizenship has always relied on a free, individual making a free choice to support the American revolution, as it was articulated by Declaration of Independence, and after the US Const. was adopted, to support and abide by that constitution.

          Under the present court rulings, if US Citizenship is bestowed by the state, a natural born Citizen would be no different than a natural born subject of the English realm. Far from being the result of a free individual, making a free choice, US citizenship would simply be the result of the state bestowing citizenship rather than the result of a free decision being made by two free US Citizens to ‘create’ a US citizen under the cloak of allegiance of their pledge to support and abide by the US. Constitution. It’s the difference between being a free people, consenting to be governed, and servitude, without choice, to a sovereign power.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by davidfarrard
        • September 4, 2013 at 2:21 am #

          Contrary to claims, even the repeated gross misrepresentations and distrotions of Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, the United States have never applied British common law.

          “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
          George Mason, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788.

          “The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”
          Justice Antonin Scalia, speech National Lawyers Convention, Nov. 22, 2008

          The only reason British “natural born Subject” became mere birth on British soil, was a result of the progressive dictate of the Crown and its application of feudal oblige, as recognized in Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries, Book 1, Chapter 10:

          To 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 were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

          If these United States were to apply British common law, anyone being a Jew, or having a religion contrary to the Anglican church, would be prohibited from being a natural born citizen.

          We engaged two wars, the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, to deliberately and specifically reject British common law dictate of feudal Perpetual Allegiance, with the result being that the natural membership in this society was no longer by dictate of the state (Crown), but rather by the natural bounds of allegiance – soil and blood. The result is Justice Horace Gray’s references to British common law are extremely misplaced and inappropriate.

          The fact is that nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does Gray indicate that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, nor does Gray indicate that Wong is a natural born citizen. It’s simply not there. Also Gray nowhere refutes the cited definition of natural born citizen from Minor v Happersett, and used that reference to undermine an opinion from the Slaughterhouse cases.

          Posted by Sentient Storm
          • September 4, 2013 at 4:12 am #

            Ah, Sentient Storm – the Problem with the phrase – Natural Born Citizen – IS that the writers of the Constitution – Just FORGOT – to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within OUR Constitution – because, they were – Human, OH SO Human – as Fred Nietzsche would put it!!!!!

            It looks like, Sentient Storm – that you have MISSED this Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

            “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

            The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

            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.[1]

            The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

            So, Sentient Storm – the writers of OUR Consitution – were – Human, OH SO Human – and they Just FORGOT to DEFINE the phrase – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!

            It’s as SIMPLE as that, Sentient Storm !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
      • August 6, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

        To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and that’s all Congress can do.

        The 14th amendment requires jurisdiction for citizenship, which is a form of naturalization, and does not award natural born citizenship to anyone..

        Jurisdiction is complete. The US Constitution does not give any exception to the Jurisdiction it demands, nor does it intend to share jurisdiction of a child born in this nation with the jurisdiction of the nation that foreign parents of that child are subject to, nor the jurisdiction that the child is subject to, as that child’s natural right to be a citizen of the nation that his/her parent comes from.

        To suggest otherwise would be like claiming that children born to illegal immigrants in this nation are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and that no jurisdictional rights of the Mexican Government hold any power over the child who was born in America to Mexican Citizens. It doesn’t work that way.

        Posted by js03
        • August 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

          Oh, but it does work that way, according to Sen. Cruz. That’s exactly what he is telling us he believes in when he says he is eligible to take the oath of officer of the presidency … that the children born in this country to illegal immigrants are US citizens at birth, and that according to Wong Kim Ark, any person born A US Citizen by statutory law, is somehow an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by davidfarrard
    • August 8, 2013 at 9:12 am #

      boba123 wrote:
      “AND, David Farrard […] Ol’ Mario Puzzo IS a lawyer – AND has ACTUALLY brought Birther Madness cases INTO COURTS of Law !!!!!”

      David Farrar has his own court losses. His attorney is generally considered to be, believe it or not, worse than Mario Apuzzo.

      Posted by NotLinda
  15. August 8, 2013 at 8:12 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “boba123, You are a non-entity in any of this.”

    Do you realize what makes you an entity in this, Esquire Apuzzo? It’s your lawsuits, not your e-tantrums. You dragged people to court. You got verdicts. Your real-world outcomes are useful in dismissing eligibility deniers.

    Look at the comments here that hold Ted Cruz to be ineligible. They push theories under which two actual U.S. presidents are also ineligible. One reason that Cruz will not have major difficulty on this issue is that potential challengers will fear being associated with that crank nonsense.

    Posted by NotLinda
  16. August 9, 2013 at 9:40 am #

    js03 wrote:
    “Its funny, but just saying ‘I agree with some guy who has his head up his duff’ doesn’t exactly appeal to the intellectual debate here.”

    Did you actually intend to write the most hypocritical possible sentence? How exactly did Introducing “head up his duff” as if bquasius wrote it appeal to the intellectual debate?

    Posted by NotLinda
  17. August 11, 2013 at 10:28 pm #

    So here’s a question – anyone have info on when Ted Cruz’s parents were (actually) married?

    Posted by Jon
    • August 11, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

      I recall they met in Canada, but married in the U.S. Don’t recall the details, which don’t really matter.

      Posted by bquasius
  18. August 11, 2013 at 11:28 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    I see that you cannot handle George St. Tucker telling us that the U.S. government’s powers were limited by two constitutions, first by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union as the first constitution and then the Constitution of 1787 as “the present Constitution.” You also cannot handle that Tucker said that both of these constitutions did not authorize the national government to declare the English common law as part of the law of the land. And you surely cannot handle the fact that the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 specifically incorporates the law of nations into the Constitution. And for the finally kicker, you just go wild when we examine the law of nations (see Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (1758/1797) and find that it defines a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 1, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

      Ah Mario (as in that old childhood TV show – where the sidekick says “Ah Cisco”, with Cisco Responding “Ah Poncho”) it looks like YOU STILL see yourself – AS – The Leader – in this Birther Madness madness!!!!! And JUST like that other Italian – who considered himself as “the Leader” – I say to you, Mario – Il Duce (that’s Italian for “the Leader”) – yes, Il Duce – it’s time that YOU just give it up !!!!

      Mario, Il Duce – YOU’VE LOST your Birther Madness cases in Court – where Judges – better lawyers than you, Il Duce, have thrown your Birther Madness – OUT of Court!!!

      Il Duce, You’ve also lost in the Birther Madness thread within this Blog Space. AND, Il Duce – you’ve lost in THIS thread – that Birther Madness madness!!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen
      PS – Mario, Il Duce – I KNOW that you see yourself as VICTORIOUS – with EVERY Birther Madness post that you make – thus Mario, Il Duce – I say to that – Hail Victory – or as they pronounce it in German – Sieg Heil, Il Duce !!!!!

      Posted by boba123
  19. September 1, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    As somewhat of a wonk on this topic, I congratulate you on the article, albeit short, and offer my sympathies for the inevitable birther onslaught.

    Posted by Dr. Conspiracy
  20. September 1, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    You do not realize that the Framers, Founders, Ratifiers, and the People were the original American Birthers. You also do not realize that John Jay, George Washington, and James Madison were leaders of the Birthers, and that they gave us the “natural born Citizen” clause. Too bad that they are not around to have a little talk with you. Maybe you can channel their soul and talk to them anyway. Let me know how you make out.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 2, 2013 at 1:30 am #

      STILL Pissed off, eh Mario – that a Black guy – PRESIDENT Obama – IS THE President of the U.S. of A. – THE LEADING Democracy of the Free World !!!!!!! IT’S SO NICE – that a WOP, like you, Mario, is willing to do the WORK – for WASPS (WHITE Anglo Saxon Protestants) – in the on-going attempt to Keep that Ol’ Boys’ thingy, the American Presidency, largely within the Ruling WASP Circles of a so-called “class-less” American Culture !!!! YOU, Mario, DO the work for WASPs – loose ALL of your Legal Cases – and then become very much like a raging Evangelical Fundamentalist, like Ol’ Billy Sunday – maybe even Ol’ Billy Graham – and then – just to make yourself feel good, in an attempt to RE-build that LOST Self-esteem (from LOOSING those Court Cases), you come “a Blogging” on this Blog Site – and CONTINUE to Loose your Birther Madness madness cases !!!!

      Good show, Il Duce !!!!!!!

      AS I’ve pointed out at least 6 times within various threads within the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space – this Wiki Link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – starts out – Start of Quote –

      “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

      The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

      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.[1]

      The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

      So you MAY SEE, Il Duce – those folk that YOU, Mario Name in your latest missive within this thread – “…the Framers, Founders, Ratifiers, and the People were the original American Birthers. You also do not realize that John Jay, George Washington, and James Madison …” – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – WITHIN the Constitution !!!!!!!

      THAT FAILURE to DEFINE, Il Duce – JUST GOES to SHOW – that these folk that YOU Name, Mario, ARE – “Human, OH so human” – as Fred Nietzche would put it. Yup, Mario – YOU Hang YOUR Hat – on these Humans, OH so human’s – FAILURE to DEFINE. THIS FAILURE to define. Mario – IS the REASON that YOU, Mario – LOST ALL of YOUR Court Cases !!!!

      It’s as Simple as that, Il Duce !!!!!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
      • September 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

        Robert, we can do without derogatory terms like “wop”, comparisons of a person of Italian ancestry to “il duce”, etc. Keep it civil. No racial or ethnic slurs.

        I am satisfied Obama is a natural born citizen, and more than a dozen court decisions explicitly reached that conclusion. Obama is one of our worst presidents of modern history. There are plenty of reasons he should not be president; lack of eligibility as a natural born citizen isn’t one of them.

        Posted by bquasius
        • September 2, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

          I agree, when an author uses needlessly derogatory terms, it is a self-admission that s/he doesn’t consider their point strong enough to carry the day by themselves.

          Now to Obama’s and Ted Cruz’ nbC status. There are only two ways to become a US Citizen: naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of one’s US Citizen parents, or through the naturalization powers enumerated in Art. I, §8, cl. 4 of the US Const.

          Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct when he states he is a “US Citizen at birth”. But Sen. Ted Cruz is a US Citizen at birth by positive law (Title 8 USC §1401 (g)). Unfortunately, the US Const. calls for our presidents to be US Citizen by birth, by natural law. If the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. had wanted “US citizens at birth” as the requirement, they could have easily said: “US citizens at birth”, but they didn’t; they said: ‘”natural” born Citizens. In the US Const. words mean something, each and every one.

          The fact that a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is missing from the US Const. wasn’t an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement, as our courts have assumed. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const., even the colonial (man) in the street, knew perfectly well what a “natural born subject” was before the American revolution.

          After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a Citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. Therefore, to find the original meaning of a “natural born citizen” used in 1787, we must look at this enigmatic phrase, not through the eyes of a subject, but through the eyes of a sovereign, using natural law.

          The practical interpretation of this qualification, from the very beginning, among US presidents and vice-presidents, has been to require both parents to be US citizens, and their offspring to be born within the jurisdiction. In fact, 43 out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed this prescription. This prophetic tradition fits in nicely with the passage of the 1922-1934 Marriage Act (Cable Act), wherein the allegiance of the wife was kept after marriage, thereby observing the sexual equity called for by today’s standards, while avoiding the inevitable growing list of resultant dual allegiances at birth.

          Under this definition, neither Barack Obama, nor Sen Cruz, are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens. Barack Obama was born a natural born British subject, and a native-US citizen at birth; while Sen Cruz was born a natural born citizen of Cuba and a US citizen at birth.

          I hope, Sen Cruz, at some point in time, can see the error of his ways and step up to the plate and lead the charge in restoring our most cherished American birthright from the gutter it has been placed by our courts to where even the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country can run for the US presidency. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by davidfarrar
          • September 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

            Hey, Dave Farrar,

            You appear to continue to Ignore that Wiki Link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – that appears in my comment to Ol’ Mario that you comment upon.

            SINCE the folk who wrote the Constitution – BEING – Human, OH SO, human – FORGOT to INCLUDE a DEFINITION of Natural Born Citizen – there REALLY US NO SUCH THING – as an “Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizen” – BECAUSE there IS NO DEFINITION of the term – within Art. II, §1, cl. 4 !!!!

            Have you, personally, Dave Farrar – EVER forgotten something that you already know???? IF YOU, Dave Farrar HAVE EVER forgotten something that YOU KNOW – THEN – YOU, Dave Farrar KNOW what a Human, OH SO Human act THAT IS !!!!!!

            WHY, David Farrar, do you appear to believe that the folk who wrote the Constitution – are NOT Human, OH SO, Human ?????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
        • September 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

          Thanks, Bob Quasius for your comments – and I WILL never again use the term – WOP. However, Bob – the phrase – Il Duce – IS a translation into English, of the Italian Phrase – The Leader.

          Bob, I’m SURE that Ol’ Mario would agree that as far as this Birther Madness madness goes – that he IS the leader of the PRO-Birther Madness madness within this Blog Space. Since Mario is of Italian heretage – I use the Italian phrase – Il Duce – to Aknowledge that Mario IS INDEED – the LEADER of the Birther Madness madness within this Blog Space. I betcha, that Mario appreciates this recognition of his Leadership – of the PRO-Birther Madness madness!

          And, Bob, the same goes for my givin’ Ol’ Mario a High-Five (a real High Solute, at that) when I Hail his Victory – or as Hail Victory IS pronounced in German – Sieg Heil, Il Duce.

          Somehow, Germans and Italians have been good buddies in the past.

          Robert Allen

          Posted by boba123
          • September 3, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

            Mr. Robert Allen, you are not able to articulate any convincing argument as to what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is. On the other hand, what you do present is prejudice, race-bating, and feel good-feel bad arguments, all of which are nothing more than your expression of your contempt for America and concealed racism.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 4, 2013 at 12:00 am #

            OH My, oh my, Mario, poopsy – SUCH a “tongue lashing”, from YOU, as THE Leader (Il Duce) of the Birther Madness madness within this Blog Space.

            OH My, oh my, oh MY !!!!!

            Somehow, Mario – YOU KEEP MISSING that Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – starts out – Start of Quote –

            “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

            The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

            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.[1]

            The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

            I’ve POINTED OUT to you, before, Mario, THAT those guys WHO WROTE the Constitution JUST FORGOT to DEFINE the Phrase – Natural Born Citizen – within THAT CONSTITUTION – SO – NOBODY REALY KNOWS – Exactly WHAT they meant with that PHRASE !!!!!

            AND, Mario – I have NO IDEA WHAT those guys writing OUR Constitution – EXACTLY MEANT – with the phrase – Natural Born Citizen —– AND, NEITHER do you, Il Duce !!!!!

            I DON’T understand, Mario, poopsy – WHY you KEEP ASKING ME – of all people – to DEFINE – what the writers of OUR Constitution JUST FORGOT to DEFINE !!!!!

            YOU, Mario, appear to KEEP ASKING this question – over – and over – and over – and over – and over again. HOW CAN I DEFINE – what those OBVIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOOLARS (those guys WROTE the puppy – thus ARE SCHOOLARS – about WHAT they WROTE – and forgot to write!!!!!) FORGOT to WRITE !!!!!

            SO – Mario – ONE MORE TIME – SINCE those writers of OUR Constitution FORGOT to DEFINE the Phrase – Natural Born Citizen – who am I, just little ol’ Bobby – to try to DO THEIR WORK – For THEM ?????? Besides, Mario – THOSE GUYS are dead – thus wouldn’t listen to me, anyhow!!!!

            BUT YOU, Mario – THE LEADER (or IL DUCE in Italian) THINK that YOU KNOW – WHAT these DEAD GUYS Actually Meant – with the phrase – Natural Born Citizen. ONE WOULD THINK, Mario – that WITH YOUR OBVIOUSLY Superior KNOWLEDGE – that you WOULD HAVE WON – at Least ONE of those cases that you took to Court !!!!!

            SO, Mario – EVEN YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE – was thrown – OUT OF COURT !!!!

            TOO BAD. SO SAD. SO Mario – IL DUCE when it comes to Birther Madness madness within this Blog Space !!!!!!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
        • September 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

          Bob Quasius,

          The historical record demonstrates that the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause was “to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and … that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

          John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787.

          The Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People were greatly influenced by the writings of Emer de Vattel. In The Law of Nations (1758) he explained:

          § 70. All the subjects of the two states at war are enemies.

          When the sovereign or ruler of the state declares war against another sovereign, it is understood that the whole nation declares war against another nation; for the sovereign represents the nation, and acts in the name of the whole society (Book I. §§ 40, 41;) and it is only in a body, and in her national character, that one nation has to do with another. Hence, these two nations are enemies, and all the subjects of the one are enemies to all the subjects of the other. In this particular, custom and principle are in accord.

          § 71. and continue to be enemies in all places.

          Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no consequence here. It is the political ties which determine the character. Whilst a man continues a citizen of his own country, he is the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war. . . .

          ***

          Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 3, c. 5, sec. 70-71 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Section 71 was relied upon by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, 291 (1814).

          Vattel explains that any person located in a nation’s territory who is a citizen of a nation with which that home nation is at war is an enemy of that home nation. In other words, according to Vattel, the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People would have understood that any person located in the United States who was a citizen of a nation with which the United States was at war was an enemy of the United States. Can you explain how the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People would have accepted as their Commander in Chief a person born not only a U.S. citizen but also a foreign subject or citizen and owing allegiance, and civil, political, and military obligations to two nations, with the potential of being an enemy of the United States, the nation he was elected to lead militarily, by being a citizen of the nation with which the U.S. could be at war?

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 2, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

            Ah Mario, (Ah Cisco….Ah Poncho) it looks like you are STILL havin’ a hard time dealing with the writers of the Constitution – FORGETTING to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – thus being – Human, OH SO Human – as Fred Nietzsche would put it

            Yup, Mario – YOU Hang YOUR Hat – on these Humans, OH so human’s – FAILURE to DEFINE. THIS FAILURE to define. Mario – IS the REASON that YOU, Mario – LOST ALL of YOUR Court Cases !!!!

            Looks like, though Mario – the Leader (Il Duce) of this Birther Madness madness – is makin’ up for the Constitution Writers’ FAILURE TO DEFINE – by DEFINING – Paragraph, after paragraph, after Paragraph – JUST to make up for the ORIGINAL FAILURE to DEFINE – by BEING – Human, OH SO Human – from the get-go.

            Don’t ya get it, Mario, Il Duce ??????? YOU can NEVER MAKE UP for that ORIGINAL FAILURE to Define – and MANY Judges, Mario, poopsy, TELL ya that – as they throw your Birther Madness madness – OUT of Court. As a radio baseball commentator could put it – “It’s Out of there – a HIGH Fly ball going into FOUL territory!!!!”

            It’s as Simple as that, Il Duce !!!!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
  21. September 4, 2013 at 3:21 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esquire wrote:
    “Too bad that they are not around to have a little talk with you.”

    That’s common in crank theories. Proponents are happy to name esteemed authorities who would no doubt take their side but for being dead. The respected experts who are actually alive to speak for themselves uniformly debunk the theory.

    Attorney Apuzzo’s wins are all in his head. In reality he heaped failure and defeat upon himself and upon those who accepted his legal advice.

    There is now pretty strong consensus in the American legal community that a candidate in Ted Cruz’s position is eligible, and the idea that Jindal, Rubio, and actual Presidents Arthur and Obama are ineligible is just crank nonsense.

    Posted by NotLinda
    • September 4, 2013 at 4:20 am #

      @NotLinda

      Your claim that this is just “theory”, even one that has been “debunked”, only trumpets your own ignorance. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently. without exception, recognized natural born citizen to be birth on U.S. soil to parents who were citizens, inclusive of:

      1857 – Scott v. Sandford: quote “‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

      1875 – Minor v. Happersett, “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.”

      1890 – United States v. Ward : “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.”

      1898 – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark : Justice Gray cited Minor v Happersett in order to undermine a statement from the Slaughterhouse Cases, and Gray never did refute this citation: ” 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”.

      In 1881 Prentiss Webster published A Treatise On the Law Of Citizenship In The United States, in which he recognized the existence of divergent ideologies regarding this nation’s foundation in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The disagreement over the meaning “natural born citizen” in Article II is only one specific aspect of this larger disagreement. Webster indicated that those who who reject the idea that “natural born citizen” means “born in the country, to parents both of whom are citizens of that country” and argue the phrase is subject to statutory dictate, actually support a system of feudal dictate entirely in conflict with this nation’s founding. Webster wrote, “Such a theory had its origin in the feudal law, on which the principles of this country were not grounded, and, while it may be argued that it finds place in the English common law, it must not be forgotten that “our ancestors brought with them, and claimed as their birthright its general principles, and adopted that portion of it only which was applicable to their situation.”

      NotLinda, pretending that there is any sort of compelling evidence for your feudal ideology and that there is no real and profound conflict conflict, is just in utter disregard for the facts and history of this country. You might pause and consider that the recent, egregious actions by all three branches of government, which have put our very freedoms and this country itself at risk, all come from these branches disregard for this country’s principles.

      Posted by Sentient Storm
      • September 4, 2013 at 4:40 am #

        Ah, Sentient Storm – the Problem with the phrase – Natural Born Citizen – IS that the writers of the Constitution – Just FORGOT – to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within OUR Constitution – because, they were – Human, OH SO Human – as Fred Nietzsche would put it!!!!!

        It looks like, Sentient Storm – that you have MISSED this Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

        “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

        The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

        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.[1]

        The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

        So, Sentient Storm – the writers of OUR Consitution – were – Human, OH SO Human – and they Just FORGOT to DEFINE the phrase – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!

        It’s as SIMPLE as that, Sentient Storm !!!!!

        Just sayin’,

        Robert Allen

        Posted by BOBA123
        • September 4, 2013 at 6:20 am #

          Robert Allen

          The Founders did not need to “DEFINE” natural born citizen. They did not FORGET. Natural born citizen is a term of art originating from Natural Law, which is by definition outside of man-made Positive Law. Perhaps more importantly, Natural born is a term of common sense.

          What natural born citizen involves is a SIMPLE thing, and has been the means by which societies the world over have been promoted and advanced since ancient times — by those members of a society producing offspring within that society.

          You can stop all that vapid hand-waving and posturing any time now; you’re not going to establish any point without first engaging serious self-education.

          Posted by Sentient Storm
          • September 4, 2013 at 9:14 am #

            OH, Sentient Storm – I’m SO GLAD to HEAR – that YOU KNOW – what those fine folk FAILED to FORGET !!!!!! YOU, Salient Storm ARE an ORIGINAL 100% American Psychic – WITH YOU VAST KNOWLEDGE !!!!!

            HOW, Salient Storm DO YOU CHANNEL this GREAT PSYCHIC INFORMATION that YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE – from SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO ?????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
    • September 4, 2013 at 4:32 am #

      RIGHT ON, NotLinda – cuz Ol’ Mario HAS LOST ALL of the cases of Birther Madness madness that he has EVER brought into Court.

      Sock it to Ol, Mario – cuz Ol’ Mario – OBVIOUSLY – IS – a loser – and a sore loser at that !!!!

      Sock it to him!!! Sock it to him !!!! Hot Damn, NotLinda – I REALLY LIKED that TV show – Laugh in – and in Ol’ Mario’s case – it would be Laugh AT !!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by BOBA123
  22. September 4, 2013 at 7:54 am #

    Robert Allen,

    Poor you. You just can’t figure out what a “natural born citizen” is.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 4, 2013 at 11:59 am #

      Mario, Mario, Mario – SINCE you LOST ALL of the Birther Madness madness cases that YOU EVER brought to Court – I can easily see where this IS a BLOW, so to speak, to your MANHOOD!!!!!

      AND, Mario, I even understand WHY you are ATTEMPTING to REGAIN that MANHOOD by ATTEMPTING to “WIN” with YOUR posts within THIS Blog Space.

      AND, Mario, I have ALWAYS RECOGNIZED YOU as – THE LEADER – IL DUCE – of the LOST CAUSE of the Birther Madness madness within THIS Blog Space!!!!

      But PLEASE, Mario, Poopsy, Il Duce – LEARN to read that Wiki article – that you have MISSED -AND CONTINUE to MISS – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

      “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

      The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

      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.[1]

      The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

      NOW I KNOW, from you previous posts, Mario, that you SUFFER FROM – Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) – but even you, Mario, can LEARN to COPE with RCD !!!!

      I’m sorry, Mario, that you SUFFER FROM RCD – but PLEASE give that Wiki Article a TRY !!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by BOBA123
  23. September 4, 2013 at 10:11 am #

    Notlinda,

    I have read all the scholarship that you allude to, including the latest by Professor Jacobson. The scholarship does not even scratch the surface. It is full of contradictions, misstatements, and more.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 4, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

      WHAT with your Rerading Comprehension Disorder (RCD), Mario – you STILL FAIL to READ that Wiki Article that I have NOW POSTED for YOU – SEVERAL TIMES.

      I Know, I KNOW, Mario – that that RCD of yours MUST be a “heavy cross to bear”, so to speak – BUT – WITH a little Faith – YOU, Mario, CAN OVERCOME (“We shall overcome; We shall overcome; We shall overcome SOME DAY” – Sing it Mario – LOUD and STRONG) that RCD !!!

      I’m HOPIN’ and CHEERIN’ for ya, Mario – Il Duce!!!!!

      Cherrin’ ON,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
  24. September 4, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    Actually, I have been kind of fascinated with charlie hughes’ material posted over at Prof: William A. Jacobson site:

    “There is no evidence to suggest that the term (natural born Citizen) was in common usage at the time, but there is some evidence that “natural born Citizen” related to citizenship by birth, consistent with the plain text, and did not have some complicated British historical meaning.”

    “One of the first uses of the term was in a 1777 draft of the Articles of Confederation.

    “Massachusetts used the term NBC in it’s naturalization acts as early as 1785. Those naturalization acts (1785 to 1790) used both terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeably. In fact the last act to use the term NBS was written in 1791.”

    Or this one:

    “Also in July, 1781 the Continental Congress reviewed a treaty with France. In the Journals of the Continental Congress both the French and English translations of the treaty are presented. The French version has the sentence “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.” with the English version translating the phrase “les sujets naturels” as the “the natural born subjects”.

    So in reading Vattels phrase “Les naturels, ou indigenes”, the Founders/Framers might have translated it as “The natural born, or indigenes” or as “The natural born, or natives”.

    Of course that doesn’t change the fact that there is no evidence that Vattel was used by the Framers to define the term.”

    or this one:

    “Professor Jacobson there is a mistake in Jill Pryor’s article that you cited.

    The June 18th, 1787 draft plan by Alexander Hamilton did not include the “born a citizen” clause. That was in a draft constitution that he gave to James Madison at the end of the Convention.

    His response to me when I ask him to cite his source:

    “Well, you could start by reading Madison’s notes on the Convention. Specifically, the June 18th notes where Madison gives us the draft of Hamilton’s plan.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    Then you could look at Eliot’s Notes on the Federal Convention specifically Appendix No. 5.

    “Copy of a Paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.”

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1909&layout=html#chapter_112488

    There is also Farrand

    “The document that has just been discussed [June 18th plan]is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.”

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1787&layout=html#lf0544-03_footnote_nt_663

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Posted by davidfarrar
    • September 4, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

      AND – in the meantime, David Farrar – you CONTINUE to AVOID that Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

      “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

      The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

      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.[1]

      The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

      WHY, David Farrar – do YOU AVOID DEALING with the ISSUE – that those guys who WROTE OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution?

      This Human, OH SO Human thingy (as Fred Nietzsche would put it) of FORGETTING to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution – ALLOWS this Birther Madness madness thingy to go on – and on – and on – and on – and on – with the Birther Madness madness folk – FAILING to WIN in ANY American Court of LAW !!!!!!!!

      David Farrar – LAW – THAT’S WHAT OUR Constitution IS ALL ABOUT – yet the Birther Madness madness folk – DON’T appear to give TWO HOOTS about LAW – EXPRESSED by AMERICAN COURTS – but just want to go on – and on – and on – and on – and on – SPOUTING THEIR CRAP – on Blog Sites !!!!!

      GIVE it UP, David Farrar!!!!!!!!!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by BOBA123
  25. September 4, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    Sentient Storm wrote:
    “NotLinda, pretending that there is any sort of compelling evidence for your feudal ideology and that there is no real and profound conflict conflict, is just in utter disregard for the facts and history of this country.”

    Whereas leading with a concurring opinion from Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), demonstrates your impressive regard “for the facts and history of this country.”

    Posted by NotLinda
  26. September 4, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
    “I have read all the scholarship that you allude to, including the latest by Professor Jacobson. The scholarship does not even scratch the surface. It is full of contradictions, misstatements, and more.”

    Love it! I wrote, “Attorney Apuzzo’s wins are all in his head”, and Mr. Apuzzo comes right back with how *he* judges all the scholarship to be superficial and in error.

    Mr. Apuzzo, my claim was that the authorities who are alive to speak for themselves refute you. I never suggested that you’d like what they say.

    Posted by NotLinda
  27. September 5, 2013 at 1:13 am #

    David Farrar wrote:
    “I agree, when an author uses needlessly derogatory terms, it is a self-admission that s/he doesn’t consider their point strong enough to carry the day by themselves.”

    And they embarrass their own side.

    I try to avoid anything personal, but out of honesty I write about birther theories with deliberate disrespect. I consider the born-in-the-country-of-two-citizen-parents theory to be utterly refuted and now crank nonsense. On the other hand, I admire contrarians — those who take and defend an unpopular position — provided they stand on principle.

    Mr. Farrar, I offer to address you with the respect a principled contrarian is due, and never again rub Farrar v. Obama in your face, if you can cite yourself holding the Vattelist position before 2008. I’ll still disagree, but if you stood up when the issue was Constitutional principle rather than the fortunes of the particular candidate, then my previous tone was inappropriate.

    So back to Senator Cruz. Should he run for president, Cruz will benefit from legal positions advanced before his name ever came up. The current consensus of scholars holds that any person acquiring citizenship upon birth is an Article II natural-born citizen, and for the most part that consensus emerged when no particular candidate was at issue. The 2008 run of John S. McCain III certaily helped settle that birth in the U.S. is not required, and McCain’s particular personal and family history may have played a role in that, but now Cruz is eligible under the rules already established.

    Posted by NotLinda
    • September 5, 2013 at 8:59 am #

      Before 2008, I couldn’t even tell you who de vattel was; could you?

      Here is someone you just might respect then by your terms: “IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION” by Breckinridge Long, Chicago Legal News
      Vol.146, p.220 in 1916.

      One more point, just to be sure we are one the same page: Barack Obama wasn’t the only presidential candidate in the 2008 elections sued in federal court over his natural born Citizenship credentials. He wasn’t even the first presidential candidate in the 2008 elections sued in federal court over his natural born Citizenship credentials. Those dubious honors belong to John McCain.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      Posted by David Farrar
      • September 5, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

        AND, David Farrar – “just to be sure we are one the same page” – President Obama – DESPITE that Birther Madness madness – IS STILL the President of the U.S. of A. – THE LEADING Demomocracy of the FREE WORLD !!!!

        SO, David Farrar – WHAT DOES that tell YOU ??? IT SHOULD tell you, David Farrar – that BIRTHER MADNESS madness IS MADNESS (in MORE ways that one) !!!!!!!!

        Just sayin’,

        Robert Allen

        Posted by boba123
        • September 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm #

          In order for Sen. Cruz, or Barack Obama for that matter, to be able to constitutionally take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States upon being elected; they must both believe the power to set the qualifications for the president and vice-president of the United States lies not where the founders and framers of the US Const. had rightfully placed it, i.e., in the hands of we the People, but in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., positive law.

          In order for Sen. Cruz to believe himself to be eligible to stand for the presidency of the United States, he must also believe the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country are also natural born citizens and can also stand for the presidency.

          In order for Sen. Cruz to believe himself to be eligible to stand for the presidency of the United States, he must also believe there is no difference between a pre-American Revolutionary natural born British subject and a post American Revolutionary natural born US Citizen. Now I know, leftest, socialist and communists all believe these things true. What I want to know is: does Sen. Cruz?

          The URL to MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION” by Breckinridge Long, Chicago Legal News Vol.146, p.220 in 1916 is at

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by David Farrar
          • September 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

            AND – David Farrar – the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT of the U.S. of A. – Legislating, Executive, Judicial, and Military – ALLOW President Obama – to BE – President Obama !!!!! This MUST say something – except to the Birther Madness madness folk – who OBVIOUSLY DON’T BELIEVE that the ENTIRE GOVENMENT – has it right !!!!!!!

            Both you, David Farra and Ol’ Mario, Il Duce, DON’T APPEAR to SUPPORT – OUR Goverment !!! Why DO YOU, David Farrar even want to live in the U.S. of A. ?????

            Just askin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
      • September 6, 2013 at 2:32 pm #

        David Farrar wrote:
        “Before 2008, I couldn’t even tell you who de vattel was; could you?”

        Probably not. Birthers vastly overstate Vattel’s importance.

        I’ve yet to find *any* twofer birthers who can cite themselves holding the position before October of 2008. Nor can they cite *any* authority in our time taking their position. Their references are either so old that they were considering law before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, or so new as to be specifically about Obama.

        The twofer birthers are not iconoclasts standing against poplular opinion on principle. They are cheaters who started telling the rules different when they did not like who was winning.

        David Farrar wrote:
        “Here is someone you just might respect then by your terms: ‘IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION’ by Breckinridge Long, Chicago Legal News
        Vol.146, p.220 in 1916.”

        At the time, Long was a partisan for Hugh’s opponent, Woodrow Wilson. Like birthers today, his motivation was the individual. History judges Breckinridge Long harshly for his xenophobia which later turned lethal to many.

        Long is certainly no where near the stature of his subject, Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes, in order to run for president, resigned from the United States Supreme Court. Hughes would later be reappointed and serve as Chief Justice of the United States. One could argue that he was biased, but clearly Hughes believed himself eligible.

        Moreover, from Long’s article, “Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.” Before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, our issue may have been arguable. That’s over.

        David Farrar wrote:
        “One more point, just to be sure we are one the same page: Barack Obama wasn’t the only presidential candidate in the 2008 elections sued in federal court over his natural born Citizenship credentials. He wasn’t even the first presidential candidate in the 2008 elections sued in federal court over his natural born Citizenship credentials. Those dubious honors belong to John McCain.”

        Sure, and one case has clear relevance to Cruz’s eligibility. In Robinson v. Bowen, Markham Robinson petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a preliminary injunction to remove John McCain from the ballot. To rule on the motion, the Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits. The Court looked at whether McCain was a citizen from birth. As the Congressional Research Service explained:

        The federal court in Robinson v. Bowen thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born” citizen in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow “common law” meaning (jus soli , being born geographically in the United States without reference to parental citizenship, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” even if born abroad when such citizenship is transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

        Posted by NotLinda
        • September 6, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

          Great Comment, NotLinda – and I LOVE your word – twofer – referring to the Birther Madness madness twofers – within this thread – particularly the leader, IL DUCE, Mario Aputza !!!!

          It’s wonderful that both you and Patrick – go into great detail – to counter that Avalanche of NOT relevant detail that OUR very OWN Birther Madness madness TWOFERS just LOVE, likes Pigs in mud, to wallow around in !!!!

          I’ll just content myself, for now, in TRYING to GET OUR Birther Madness madnes TWOFERS to JUST realize – that those guys who wrote OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
        • November 23, 2014 at 10:54 am #

          CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION” by Breckinridge Long, Chicago Legal News Vol.146, p.220 in 1916.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by David Farrar
  28. September 5, 2013 at 9:54 am #

    NotLinda,

    So you think that:

    (1) America going through revolution from:

    (a) monarchy under the imposed absolute divine right of Kings and authority of Parliament to a Republic guided by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and under the authority of the people, who now possessed the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” but consented through contract to give their representative government limited governing powers over specific objects and retained all the rest not expressly or impliedly given;

    (b) subjecthood (meaning the King and Parliament were absolutely sovereign over their people) to citizenship (meaning the members of the Republic possessed sovereign power and to better their station in life transferred by consent part of that power to their government and retained all that was not so transferred);

    (c) children being under the absolute authority of the King in whose dominion they happen to be born to children being under the authority of their parents until reaching the age of majority;

    (d) the authority of the English common law with its broad and absolute rules of allegiance (including perpetual allegiance) which applied in the individual colonies and states to the authority of the law of nations with its limited rules of allegiance (including the natural right to expatriation) which applied to the whole national territory; and

    (2) the unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that, understanding all of this history, defined, under American national common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar and which was based on the law of nations, a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country or jurisdiction of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, as confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),

    is all “crank nonsense” that has been “utterly refuted?” How nice of you to attempt to manipulate all this American history out of existence and to just imagine “wins” in your own head.

    Talk about “crank nonsense,” where do you get the absurd idea that current positions on the meaning of an Article II “natural born citizen,” which challenge Obama’s eligibility to be President, are not valid unless made before 2008? You do not have sufficient sense to realize that your stupid position also discredits your current views on the same issue since you did not express them before 2008. You peddle yourself as though your position on the meaning of a “natural born citizen” comes down to us from a politics-free heaven when in fact it is a corpse fully infected with the virus of partisan politics and ambitious interest.

    Finally, John McCain, born in Panama, regardless of the exact location there, to U.S. citizen parents, is a “natural born citizen” because, being born to U.S. citizen parents who were stationed in Panama serving the national military defense of the United States, he was reputed born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, Section 217, The Law of Nations (1758) (“[C]hildren born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory”). Moreover, Panama, which followed the jus sanguinis model of citizenship (citizenship inherited from parents) at the time of his birth, did not impose its citizenship upon McCain when he was born in its territory. Because of his unique birth circumstances, McCain was born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States which makes him a “natural born citizen.”

    If Obama was not born in the United States, he cannot make the McCain claim, for under the Congressional Act that controlled when he was born in 1961 (8 U.S.C. Section 1401(g), providing that the sole U.S. citizen parent had to have at least 5 years of U.S. residency after attaining the age of 14 years and thereby mandating that the U.S.-citizen parent be at least 19 years old at the time of the child’s birth), his 18-year-old U.S. citizen mother did not satisfy the residency requirement of the applicable statute and therefore could not transmit any U.S. citizenship to him. But even if Obama could inherit U.S. citizenship from his mother under the applicable Act of Congress, with that U.S. citizenship being transmitted to him from just one U.S. citizen parent, and with Obama having been born out of the United States or its jurisdiction to parents who were not serving the U.S. military, all causing him to be born with foreign allegiance and citizenship belonging to the foreign country of his birth and to the foreign country of his alien father, that Congress-provided grace of citizenship would not be “natural born citizen[ship].” Additionally, even if Obama were born in the United States, he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (a British citizen) and therefore by jus sanguinis and the British Nationality of 1948 also a British citizen by parental inheritance and statute. Not being born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States (at best he is a born British and U.S. citizen), he cannot be a “natural born citizen” even if born in the United States. The Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People, wanting to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief all foreign and monarchical influence, would never have accepted in the future a person for those highly sensitive offices born owing natural and legal allegiance to two or more different countries.

    Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother, also cannot make the McCain claim, for his father was not a U.S. citizen and his parents were not serving the U.S. military while in Canada, all causing him to be born as a citizen at birth of Canada, Cuba, and the United States. Again, the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People, for the same reasons that apply to Obama, would never have accepted for the future a person for those offices born owing natural and legal allegiance to three different countries. Hence, since Cruz is not a “natural born citizen,” he is, like Obama, not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 5, 2013 at 10:37 am #

      Oh, Mario – you CONTINUE to AVOID that Wiki link – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

      “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

      The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

      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.[1]

      The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

      So, Mario – it LOOKS Like – YOU, Il Duce – have NEVER FORGOTTEN Something – although those fine folk who ACTUALLY DID FORGET to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – in OUR Constitution.

      SINCE, Mario – YOU have NEVER FORGOTTEN ANYTHING – NEED to REMEMBER – that YOU, IlDuce, HAVE LOST – yes LOST – EACH and EVERY CASE that you BROUGHT to COURT on this Birther Madness madness.

      WHY, Mario – DO YOU SEEM to FORGET that YOU LOST – yet seem to HOLD ONLY the writers of OUR CONSTITUTION – as NOT BEING ABLE to FORGET that they FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen.

      I LOOKS Like you are STILL PISSED – that the JUDGES of LAW – ALLOW President Obama, the guy of the SAME ETHINIC upbringing as Trayvon Martin, to remain in Office – while other JUDGES of LAW – through YOUR Birther Madness madness cases – OUT of COURT !!!!!

      YOU, Mario – ARE JUST a sore LOSER – that make all of us folk within THIS Blog Space – SUFFER – YOUR Pissed-OFFNESS – AND – YOUR LOSING ALL of your Birther Madness madness Court Cases !!!!!!

      Give it UP, Mario, Il Duce !!!!!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by boba123
      • September 5, 2013 at 11:01 am #

        Robert Allen,

        Wikipedia has every right to express its opinion on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” Its opinion must, however, be tested by the strength of its sources, reasoning, and logic. Under those standards, its opinion does not pass constitutional muster.

        Jack Maskell’s “conclusion” is filled with an invalid and unsound logical argument. It also has a built-in contradiction.

        Finally, you, like other Obama/Cruz eligibility supporters, realize that you do not have the historical and legal evidence needed to prove your position. So, now you put forth a theory that since we do not know what a “natural born citizen” is, it means anything we want to make it. Well, Robert Allen, that is not how the U.S. Supreme Court works its cases.

        So, now hopefully you will stop your neurotic posting of the same nonsense over and over.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 5, 2013 at 11:57 am #

          Mario – The GUTS of that Wiki article IS – that the writers of OUR Constitution – FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution. SOMEHOW, Mario – it looks like YOU MISS this FORGETFULNESS – EVERY time that I post that Wiki link !!!!!

          SO, Mario – SINCE the writers of OUR Constitution – FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within the Constitution – it IS UP to the COURTS – Ultimately, the Supreme Court – to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!!!

          SINCE, Mario, the COURTS that YOU, Mario, have brought your Birther Madness madness cases into – TELL YOU, Mario – that they REFUSE to ACCEPT YOUR LEGAL THEORIES – of WHAT the DEFINITION of – Natural Born Citizen – IS – THUS the COURTS – throw YOUR Birther Madness madness cases – OUT of court.

          In FACT, Mario – ALL of the Birther Madness madness cases – HUNDREDS of them – HAVE BEEN – THROWN – OUT of COURT – BECAUSE – the writers of OUR Constitution – SIMPLY FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!

          SO, Mario – YOU and YOUR Supporters for Birther Madness madness – FAIL to (using your words, Mario) – “realize that you do not have the historical and legal evidence needed to prove” that the writers of OUR Constitution – did NOT FORGET to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

          GET OVER IT – Mario – that this FORGETFULNESS of those guys who wrote OUR Constitution – PRAGMATICALLY – CAUSES – the Birther Madness madness cases – to be THROWN OUT of COURT !!!!

          GET OVER IT – Mario – that the “HUMAN, OH SO HUMAN” ACT (thanks for that phrase, Fred Nietzsche) of FORGETFULNESS to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within OUR Constitution – ALSO IS – WHAT TOTALLY WEAKENS the Birther Madness madness position within THIS Blog Space !!!!

          YOU, Mario – ARE – JUST a SORE LOSER – over what the Courts have done – and ALSO a SORE LOSER over WHAT that Wiki Link – POINTS OUT !!!!!

          But then, Mario – I guess that YOU see YOURSELF as – BEING above the – Human OH SO Human – as you PLEAD your case (lost in Court) within this Blog Space !!!!!! I guess, Mario – YOUR FORGETFULNESS of the Constitutional writers’ FORGETFULNESS – MAKES YOU, Mario – a SUPER HUMAN (thanks again, Fred Neitzsche, for the concept of “Übermensch”, but which you, Mario, Interpret, INCORRECTLY – in the WORST possible sense of the word).

          Just sayin’,

          Robert Allen

          Posted by boba123
          • September 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm #

            Robert Allen,

            So if as you say the Framers forgot to define a “natural born citizen,” how did those lower courts of which you speak define one, and on what did they base their definition and decisions?

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 5, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

            I would think, Mario, that the lower courts – particularly those lower courts that TOSSED YOUR cases – OUT of Court – would have their explanations recorded within the court records. YOU WHERE there, Mario – so you SHOULD KNOW – about those Court Records. WHY, Mario, do you even bother to ask ME, little ol’ Bob Allen, what is in those Court Records?

            OBVIOUSLY, Mario – YOU NEVER Challenged those lower court findings – as YOU have never taken ANY of YOUR that lost cases – to the Supreme Court!!!! I WOULD think, Mario – that YOU as a LAWYER, KNOW – that taking a loss to the Supreme Court – would have GREATER EFFECT – than your VENTING within this Blog Space!!!! But who knows, Mario – LAWYERS, like you, appear to think that venting within this Blog Space – IS MORE EFFECTIVE – than taking a case to the Supreme Court !!!!

            But then, Mario, WHO am I, to QUESTION the MOST EFFECTIVE thing that a LAWYER can do – to be effective.

            But, Mario – I certainly DO QUESTION your venting about your losing cases, within this Blog Space. You, Mario, ARE a SORE LOSER – and we ALL SUFFER this SORE LOSER-ship within this Blog Space!!!!

            Just observin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by boba123
      • September 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

        And now, not only are the offspring of illegal aliens,Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen, Obama has quietly issued a new controversial directive that softens enforcement against immigrants any illegally aliens living in the U.S. with their children. This means their will start dragging little children into the desert so they won’t be deported

        In order for Sen. Cruz to be eligible to stand for the presidency, he will also have to support this total insult to our American birthright….it this what you are defending Robert Allen?

        http://www.abqjournal.com/257401/news/nation/immigration-policy-gives-parental-exceptions.html

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        Posted by David Farrar
    • September 7, 2013 at 7:25 am #

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “So you think that: […]”

      That’s never a good start.

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “subjecthood (meaning the King and Parliament were absolutely sovereign over their people) to citizenship (meaning the members of the Republic possessed sovereign power and to better their station in life transferred by consent part of that power to their government and retained all that was not so transferred);”

      Yet you take the meaning from Vattel’s Law of Nations, which recognizes citizens regardless of the form of government. Did you notice which form Vattel says, “appears preferable to every other”?

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “How nice of you to attempt to manipulate all this American history out of existence and to just imagine ‘wins’ in your own head.”

      In my own head? Check this out:
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/21/second-inauguration-barack-obama

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “Talk about ‘crank nonsense,’ where do you get the absurd idea that current positions on the meaning of an Article II ‘natural born citizen,’ which challenge Obama’s eligibility to be President, are not valid unless made before 2008?”

      Well we certainly know what your issue is. You packaged your crank legal theory along with the usual birther smears. In a complaint to a federal court you included, “Obama stated publicly in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport.” You signed that. With your advice your client swore to it. Lying to a court is not a step in standing up for principle.

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “Finally, John McCain, born in Panama, regardless of the exact location there, to U.S. citizen parents, is a ‘natural born citizen’ because, being born to U.S. citizen parents who were stationed in Panama serving the national military defense of the United States, he was reputed born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, Section 217, The Law of Nations (1758)”

      Yes McCain was eligible, but for the reasons the real judge on the bench of the real court explained.

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “If Obama was not born in the United States […]”

      That’s crank nonsense.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • September 7, 2013 at 8:59 am #

        AND – it’s crank nonsense – that Mario believes that the guys who wrote OUR Constitution were NOT Capable to JUST FORGET to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution – because these guys JUST would NOT FORGET something like that.

        NATURALLY – Ol’ Mario and David Farrar HAVE an INSIDE TRACK – in KNOWING (in SOME mysterious way) – WHAT those guys FAILED to FORGET – cuz Ol’ Mario and Dave – KNOW – they JUST KNOW !!!!!!!

        BUT – this KNOWING – IS a SECRET – revealed ONLY to them !!!!! SO – Mario and Dave – ARE ASKING – that everyone else – JUST BELIEVE – that they KNOW !!!!!

        Just like in that Peter Pan STORY – IF YOU believe in Fairies – just clap you hands !!!!!

        THAT’S IT – it looks Mario and Dave – ALSO BELIEVE in Fairies !!!!!! NOW I Know that Tinker-Bell MUST BE Mario’s BEST FRIEND (cuz he probably is getting lonely being THE LEADER – IL DUCE (THE LEADER in Italian) – of those Birther Madness madness folk !!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
      • September 7, 2013 at 11:52 am #

        NotLinda,

        You said: “Yet you take the meaning from Vattel’s Law of Nations, which recognizes citizens regardless of the form of government. Did you notice which form Vattel says, “appears preferable to every other”?”

        You are wrong here and Thomas Jefferson well knew it. “Citizens” belong to republics and “subjects” belong to monarchies. That is why Jefferson obliterated from the Declaration of Independence “subject” and replaced it with “citizen.” Our constitution also recognizes that “citizens” are members of the United States and that “subjects” could be members of foreign nations but never members of the United States.

        Your comment about what form of government is preferable is also simply insane. Did you forget that we had an American Revolution which replaced monarchical rule for republican rule and outlawed in the United States any titles of nobility?

        I take great pleasure in advising you that the “crank legal theories,” filled with divine Kings and Queens, and Dominions, are all yours.

        The rest of your comments do not merit a response, for they are nothing more than cheerleading and water carrying for the Obot talking points.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 8, 2013 at 12:06 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
          “You are wrong here and Thomas Jefferson well knew it. ‘Citizens’ belong to republics and ‘subjects’ belong to monarchies.”

          You seem to have me confused with you. You are the one who gets definitions of Constitutional terms from Vattel. I wrote that Vattel’s Law of Nations recognizes citizens regardless of the form of government, not that Jefferson agrees.

          Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
          “Your comment about what form of government is preferable is also simply insane. Did you forget that we had an American Revolution which replaced monarchical rule for republican rule and outlawed in the United States any titles of nobility?”

          I’m not the one who thinks the Constitution was based on Vattel. If it were we’d be a monarchy with a state religion.

          Posted by NotLinda
        • September 8, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

          So, Mario – YOU say to NotLinda – “The rest of your comments do not merit a response….” which, Mario, is a GREAT WAY for YOU to carry on a conversation.

          SINCE, Mario, the writers of OUR Constitution JUST FORGET to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – AND ALL of the Current Courts where Hundreds of Birther Madness madness cases – HAVE thrown those Birther Madness madness cases – OUT of COURT – JUST BECAUSE the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – that one would GET the Message – that the writers of OUR Consttution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

          IT IS, Mario – JUST as SIMPLE as that !!!!! AND, Mario – Current Courts throwing HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases – OUT of COURT – DEMONSTRATES just HOW SIMPLE is the FACT – that the writers of OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
  29. September 5, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    I asked you about those lower courts because, since you speak with such authority on this blog, I thought maybe you knew something that I did not know. I did check the court record for that sought-after information but was not able to find it. So, I see that you also are not able to cite anything in particular. That is, indeed, reassuring.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 5, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

      Mario, let’s cut to the chase. This handy scorecard shows that birthers have yet to win a single case.

      Obviously you are right and the scorecard must be wrong. Please provide us a list of court decisions where judges explicitly rules that Obama or John McCain are not natural born citizens:
      1.
      2.
      3.
      4.

      Posted by bquasius
      • September 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

        bquasius,

        Let’s cut to the chase. Clearly you have no convincing refutation to anything that I have said. I have long maintained that when the Obots and their supporters have no answer to an argument, they pull out either the race card or scorecard. I notice that Cornell Law School Professor Jacobson did not cite to one of those decisions in his recent position paper on what is a “natural born citizen.” Like I asked Robert Allen (he did not know), maybe you can tell us upon what evidence, reasoning, and logic the scorecard rests. Your answer might explain why Professor Jacobson did not mention any of the cases to which you refer.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm #

          Yes, let’s cut to the chase. Kindly provide a list of court cases that birthers have won:
          1.
          2.
          3.
          4.

          Also, thanks for confirming you’re losing the debate, as evidenced by your resort to name calling rather than furnishing a list of court cases birthers have won.

          No fan of Obama here… there’s plenty of good reasons he shouldn’t be president, but lack of natural born citizenship isn’t one of them. Obviously judges, etc. saw it the same way in 350 or so cases, including at least a dozen where judges reviewed the arguments and evidence, and nevertheless explicitly found Obama a natural born citizen.

          Posted by bquasius
        • September 5, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

          Let CUT to the Chase, Mario – since YOU LOST all of those Birther Madness madness cases in Court – you ATTEMPT to COMPENSATE for this BLOW, so to speak, to your MANHOOD – by Blogging within this Blog Space !!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
        • September 7, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
          “Clearly you have no convincing refutation to anything that I have said. I have long maintained that when the Obots and their supporters have no answer to an argument, they pull out either the race card or scorecard.”

          The scorecard is convincing, particularly since you, Mr. Apuzzo, are on it. The NJ Office of Administrative Law heard your arguments from your own writing and your own voice and found: “The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”

          You appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. Three judges heard your appeal and without dissent affirmed your dismissal. The Court wrote, “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012″.

          Now you complain that we keep bringing up these cases. Well why would we stop? You’re in no position to claim those authorities are irrelevant, because you’re the one that sought rulings from them. The results are in. Your legal position, your arguments, are without merit.

          Posted by NotLinda
      • September 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

        And as much as I admire Sen. Cruz for his strong stance against Obamacare, I, and much of his Tea Party base, admire and respect the US Const. even more.

        Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct when he states he is a “US Citizen at birth”. Unfortunately, the US Const. calls for our presidents to be “natural” US Citizens by birth. If the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. had meant “US citizens at birth” i.e., naturalization, they could have easily said: “US citizens at birth”, but they didn’t; they said: natural born US Citizens. In the US Const. words mean something, each and every one.

        The fact that a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is missing from the US Const. wasn’t an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement, as our courts have assumed. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const., even the colonial (man) in the street, knew perfectly well what a “natural born subject” was before the American revolution.

        After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a Citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. Therefore, to find the original meaning of a “natural born citizen” used in 1787, we must look at this enigmatic phrase, not through the eyes of a subject, but through the eyes of a sovereign, using natural law.

        The practical interpretation of this qualification, from the very beginning, among US presidents and vice-presidents, has been to require both parents to be US citizens, and their offspring to be born within the jurisdiction. In fact, 43* out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed this prescription. This prophetic tradition also fits in nicely with the much later passage of the 1922-1934 Marriage Act (The Cable Act, and later updates), wherein the allegiance of the wife was kept after marriage, thereby observing the sexual equality standards of today, while avoiding the inevitable growing list of resultant dual allegiances at birth.

        Under this definition, neither Barack Obama, nor Sen Cruz, are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens. Barack Obama was born a natural born British subject and native US citizen at birth, while Sen. Cruz was born a natural born citizen of Cuba and a US citizen at birth.

        I hope we can get this issue behind us one way or another soon. If our nbC constitutional construct prevails, I hope, Sen Cruz, at some point in time, can see the error of his ways and step up to the plate and lead the charge in restoring our most cherished American birthright from the gutter it has been placed by our courts to where even the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country can run for the US presidency. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar
        *I include Chester Arthur in with the US Presidents who followed the two citizen-parent rule due to the fact that he lied twice about his fathers naturalization and took steps to hide this fact by leaving instructions to burn all of his personal records after his death.

        Posted by David Farrar
        • September 5, 2013 at 5:03 pm #

          You are incorrect, and you’re depriving your nation of a potentially good President due to your disinformation. If you would kindly read my post on Wong Kim Ark, it very clearly states that the settled American definition of “natural born” is based upon the English common law definition. Therefore, it applies to everyone who is a citizen at birth. Since Ted Cruz is gained citizenship at birth, he is a natural born citizen. You would sabotage both Republicans and the Tea Party due to your dishonesty.

          • September 5, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

            Keep up your great comments, Patrick !!!!! You contributed a lot of great comments in that Birther Madness thread also.

            It certainly looks like to me, Patrick, that BOTH David and Ol’ Mario – ARE getting their rocks off by commenting within this Blog Space.

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 5, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

            But Sen Cruz wasn’t born within the jurisdiction. The only way Sen Cruz is now deemed to be a citizen at birth (an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen) is by positive law. This means the only way for Sen. Cruz will be able to constitutionally take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States is if he, too, believes the power to set the qualifications for the president and vice-president of the United States lies not where the founders and framers of the US Const. had rightfully placed it, i.e., in the hands of we the People, but in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., positive law.

            If Sen Cruz accepts Wong Kim Ark decision, then he must also believe the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country are also natural born citizens and can also stand for the presidency.

            If Sen. Cruz believes in the Wong Kim Ark decision, he must also believe there is no difference between a natural born British subject and a natural born US Citizen.

            Only leftest, socialist and communists believe US Citizenship is created by an accident of birth instead of a free individual, making a free choice to support and abide by the US Const., and become one of the “Consent of the Governed”, and to be able to transfer that allegiance on to his/er children, and not the state, as the Wong Kim Ark decision would require.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by David Farrar
          • September 5, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

            No Dave – there IS ANOTHER WAY – “Sen Cruz is now deemed to be a citizen at birth” – IS by gaining the Nomination from a party to run for the Presidancy – JUST LIKE President Obama – and have the Birther Madness folk go NUTS – JUST like with President Obama – with the Birther Madness madness attempting to bring a case AGAINST Sen Cruz – JUST like with President Obama – and have those Birther Madness cases – THROWN OUT of Court – JUST LIKE with President Obama !!!!!!

            Damn, David Farrar – those Birther Madness folk REALLY DO TAKE – their RASCISM very seriously !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 5, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

            An Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen acquires US citizenship, naturally, by natural law “by” birth, not “at birth”, being bestowed by the state.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by David Farrar
          • September 5, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

            DAMN, David Farrar – when YOU say – “An Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen acquires US citizenship, naturally, by natural law “by” birth, not “at birth”, being bestowed by the state.” – you reveal that you DON’T KNOW – that PEOPLE are conceived, usually through Sexual Intercourse, and then are BORN. The STATE – “bestowing” ANYTHING – has NOTHING to do with this SEX Stuff !!!!!

            I believe, David Farrar – that you could benefit from a High School Biology Class !!!!!!

            It’s NEVER TOO Late, David Farrar – to take a Biology Class !!!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 5, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

            Pat,

            The offspring of Illegal aliens born in this country are US Citizens at birth, and can stand for the presidency of the United States; is that what you believe?

            Puerto Ricans, living in Puerto Rico, are US citizens at birth by treaty, but can’t vote for the presidency, unless they live in one of the other fifty states. You have to be more than a US Citizen at birth to be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen. You have to have inherited your US Citizenship, naturally, by birth, as a natural political right — as one of those inalienable rights that are based of self-evident truths, that every American has a right to inherit their US citizenship from his/er American parents.

            You guys have no idea just how badly you are selling out our constitution just to support a popular politician how, apparently, so blind to gaining political power of the presidency ,himself, he is more than willing to play you as useful fools to get there.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by David Farrar
          • September 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm #

            AND David Farrar – YOU “have no idea just how badly you are selling out our constitution” when you FAIL to understand – that those guys who wrote the Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – BEING – Human, OH SO Human (as Fred Nietzsche would put it) !!!!!!

            Dave Farrar – by YOUR Definition – YOU are a “sell out” !!!!!

            Just sayin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 5, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

            David, I sense that you are a sincere person, but disinformed. Let me point you to some relevant points in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I will try to make this as brief as possible.

            The Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, made it clear that since the Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen of the United States,” 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.”

            I am aware that certain dissembling characters have tried to claim that this was a reference to “American common law” which was supposedly based on Vattel, but that, I regret to have to inform you, is a naked lie.

            The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that resort is to be made to ENGLISH common law, since the term “natural born” originated there.

            From United States v. Wong Kim Ark: “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.”

            There is no common law in the United States distinct from English common law. And the Constitution is framed in the language of English common law.

            If you still want to believe that Vattel was the source for the term “natural born citizen,” don’t you find it rather odd that in a ruling that points out that the Constitution doesn’t define the term “natural born citizen” does not make even a single REFERENCE to Vattel? Nowhere, but nowhere, in the ruling of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, do they even suggest that Vattel should be the source.

            Think about that. Why would the Supreme Court, in a case in which they announce at the very outset that the Constitution does not define natural born citizen, and make it clear that they are trying to determine what is meant by the term, do they not even MENTION Vattel? Why instead do they make it clear that the Constitution “must be interpreted in the light of the common law,” and further make it clear that they mean English common law?

            Instead of Vattel, the Supreme Court deferred to noted experts on the common law of England, such as Alexander Cockburn, first chief Justice of the English Supreme Court, appointed by Queen Victoria. And noted British jurist of the day, Albert Venn Dicey.

            From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

            “Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, …

            “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

            See? Remember, the Supreme Court said that when determining the meaning of natural born citizen, the United States Constitution “must be interpreted in the light of the common law.”

            And according to common law, “natural born” means anyone who acquires their citizenship at birth.

            Ted acquired his citizenship at birth. Therefore he is natural born.

        • September 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

          AH, David Farrar – SINCE you CLAIM to ADMIRE OUR Constitution SO MUCH – WHY, David Farrar, do YOU have SUCH a hard time UNDERSTANDING that OUR Constitution was written by a buch of guys – BEING Human, OH SO Human – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution ????

          Could it be, David Farrar – that you APPEAR to be rather like Ol’ Mario – see YOURSELF as NEVER FORGETTING ANYTHING – thus find it hard to understand how those writers of OUR CONSTITUTION – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution ????

          Just askin’,

          Robert Allen

          Posted by BOBA123
      • September 5, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

        Bob Quasius – you know by now – that Ol’ Mario – is NEVER Goina be able to Cite even ONE CASE that those Birther Madness madness folk EVER WON !!!!!!

        Bob – Ol’ Mario has seen your opportunity to list WINS – in that Birther Madness thread – and now here in THIS thread – but ya gotta realize with Mario’s Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) – that Ol’ Mario IS ONLY able to READ – SELECTIVELY – thus MISSES ALL of the OPPORTUNITIES that you, Bob, offer.

        It’s Mario’s RCD – that is SO FRUSTRATING to deal with within this Blog Space – but Bob, I’m pleased that YOU – ARE SO OPEN MINDED – that you let Ol’ Mario continue to display the ravages of Chronic RCD !!!!!!

        SOMEDAY, Bob, Ol’ Mario MAY be able to overcome the MASSIVE STRIKE that RCD has made upon his life.

        Here’s HOPIN’ for Mario,

        Robert Allen

        Posted by BOBA123
        • September 6, 2013 at 4:20 am #

          I assume RCD means “reading comprehension disorder.” I don’t believe that Mario suffers from any such disorder other than (perhaps) pathological lying.

          When he creates ridiculous constructs such as the idea that the references to “common law” in Wong Kim Ark refer to American common law which was based on Vattel, or the idea that the “Constitution as originally established” was the Supreme Court referring to the Articles of Confederation, it is NOT because he doesn’t grasp the concepts.

          It’s because whenever he’s confronted with these arguments that utterly demolish the birther argument, he simply makes up some lie to keep the myth going.

          The only hope I have for Mario is that he suffers a sudden attack of conscience and realizes how despicable and dishonest it is to deliberately disinform the American people for the sake of his political agenda and self-aggrandizement. Or else, failing this, he simply suffer the karmic payback his misdeeds have earned him.

          If I learned that the New Jersey state board had finally had enough of his willful distortion of the law for the sake of his political agenda and disbarred him, I would shed no tears for him. On the contrary, I would say “Good for them!” I absolutely believe that lawyers who engage in the kind of despicable misconduct of Mario Apuzzo and Orly Taitz should be disbarred. These two are prime examples of why there are lawyer jokes.

          In fact, they both ARE lawyer jokes.

          • September 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

            Patrick – I would never be so BOLD as to accuse Ol’ Mario, THE LEADER – IL DUCE – of lying!!! That’s why I believe that Ol’ Mario suffers from – Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) – which, I’ll admit, Appears to be RATHER SELECTIVE on Ol’ Mario’s part.

            Thanks, Patrict for ALL of your contributions within THIS thread and that Birther Madness thread – where the Birther Madness madness folk – just GO NUTS – with their FLIM-FLAM rediculous orientations !!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
    • September 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

      AH, but Mario – I DO Site that Wiki article – which CLEARLY INDICATES – that those guys who wrote OUR Constitution – BEING – Human, OH SO Human (thank’s Fred Nietzsche for THAT phrase) – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

      Mario, I SEE that YOU consider youself SO SUPERIOR to other folk that YOU NEVER FORGET ANYTHING – so, Mario, it appears that YOU have a HARD TIME Understanding HOW those writers of OUR Constitution – COULD have FORGOTTEN ANYTHING SO SIMPLE – as FAILING to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!!

      Mario – JUST take a MOMENT – to realize – that folk, other than yourself – CAN and DO – FORGET things !!!!!!!

      Mario – it is NOT reassuring to see that YOU DON’T understand HOW those writers of OUR Constitution COULD HAVE FORGOTTEN – to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!!

      TO BAD!!!! SO SAD !!!!! SO Mario !!!!!!!!

      Posted by boba123
  30. September 5, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

    Pat,

    The Supreme Court has been wrong before.

    So let’s be clear: you think Sen. Cruz supports the stripping of power to set the qualifications for the President out of the People’s hands, where the founder and framers of the US Const. placed it, and place it into the hands of Congress, so he can be judged to be a US citizen at birth?

    You also believe; do you not, that Sen Cruz supports the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country acquiring US citizenship at birth, without any transfer of allegiance whatsoever, and further, even becoming our President of the United States, all without ever pledging to support and protect the US Const., so he can be judged to be a US citizen at birth?

    I just want to be clear here, because I have save the worse to last. So you believe Sen Cruz thinks, according to common law of England, there is no difference between a mere subject to a sovereign king, and an American citizen in our constitutional Republic, just so he can be judged to be a US citizen at birth? This is what Sen. Cruz is actually telling us he believes in order to be judges to be an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Posted by David Farrar
    • September 5, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

      David, David, David – THAT Wiki article TELLS US – that the guys who wrote OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

      SO, David Farrar – it IS up the Courts NOW – to Define – Natural Born Citizen – AND, David – the COURTS have RULED – in HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness Cases – that President Obama IS a Natural Born Citizen – SO, David – EAT YOUR HEART OUT !!!!!!!

      If Push comes to Shove, David Farrar – the COURTS will ALSO DEFINE – Sen Cruz a – Natural Born Citizen !!!!

      Do, David Farrar – WHY do YOU HATE our COURTS SO MUCH – that YOU have CONTEMPT for the COURTS – DEFINING – by tossing OUT those HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness case – the Courts have DEFINED – President Obama as a – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!

      So David – CONTEMPT for/of Courts – IS WHAT YOU and Ol’ Mario “The Leader” (IL DUCE in Italian) ARE SHOWING within THIS Blog Space !!!!!

      TALK ABOUT BEING – UNAMERICAN – in YOUR HEART !!!!!

      Just sayin’,

      Robert Allen

      Posted by BOBA123
      • September 6, 2013 at 6:08 am #

        “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.”…Chief Justice Morrison Waite

        As Chief Justice Waite points out in Minor: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.” However, search as I might; I can find no reference at all to where any of the founders or framers of this enigmatic phrase had any discussion about any doubts at all as to its meaning. As far as the record indicates, the delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention unanimously adopted this phrase without much discussion at all, or, at least, none that was recorded. Certainly, if the delegates had “doubts” as to its meaning, a record would existed, after all this was one of only three requirements listed to stand for the presidency, and the only one of the three that even requires a US president to be a US Citizen at all, of any strip. So I think we can safely say, whatever the “doubts” Chief Waite was eluding to 87 years later, they weren’t shared by the delegates to the constitutional convention, which can only mean one thing, according to Chief Justice Waite, that Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizens are, “…children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” has never been doubted.

        If Sen. Cruz has to quote statute, i.e., Title 8 USC §1401 (g), to acquire US citizenship at birth, then he is not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen. He is a US citizen at birth by positive law.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        Posted by David Farrar
        • September 6, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

          OH, David, David, David – YOU, of all people – seem to have MISSED – that COURTS – where those HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases have been thrown OUT of Court – have the final word – on what a Natural Born Citizen – IS !!!!!!!!

          Damn, David – that Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) has REALLY effected the WHOLE way that you live !!!!!

          I don’t mean to speak ill of the disordered – BUT – TOO BAD – SO SAD – SO David Farrar !!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
    • September 6, 2013 at 4:32 am #

      And Senator Cruz is correct.

      Regarding the differences between subject and citizen, they are both terms that describe members of a given society. And the Supreme Court decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark addresses this.

      From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

      “In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

      “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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

      And another quote, from United States v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting the second edition of Kent’s Commentaries:

      “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

      • September 6, 2013 at 5:46 am #

        “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Thomas Jefferson

        Okay, Pat, cite for me the English common law that would allow English subjects to raise up against their sovereign, and, as now citizens among the “Consent of the Governed, rule themselves?

        “The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.” Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ” Id. at 788. So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law.

        “While it is true, through the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the states, which selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by state legislatures, decided who their citizens were and that they to some undefined degree used the jus soli English common law rule to make that decision. These state citizens became “citizens of the United States” upon the adoption of the Constitution. But then in 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by that of 1795, 1802, and 1855. After that, the states, to whatever degree they still applied the English common law, could no longer naturalize anyone after birth and their state citizens were no longer recognized as national citizens or what the Constitution called “citizens of the United States.” The only common law rule that Congress did not nor could abrogate was that of the law of nations/American national common law which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used to certainly and uniformly define a “natural born citizen.” And that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth…..Mario Aupzzo

        Pat, please cite your reference to Sen. Cruz being correct…regarding the differences between subject and citizen.

        Thank you.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        Posted by David Farrar
        • September 6, 2013 at 7:31 am #

          Okay, thanks very much for your prompt response. Now, let’s address this point by point. You included this quote, attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

          “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Thomas Jefferson

          It might be a dangerous doctrine for the courts to interpret all Constitutional questions, but the Congress did not have a problem with the courts interpreting THIS constitutional question. Was there even an attempt by the Congress to amend the Constitution, or even objections heard in Congress when SCOTUS rendered its decision, making Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen? Nope.

          And as I pointed out, the Congress does have the prerogative of amending the Constitution, with approval from a sufficient number of states.

          You quoted Justice Swayne in his decision United States v. Rhodes.

          “The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.” Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ” Id. at 788. So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law.”

          Your Swayne quote has been taken out of context. From United States v. Rhodes, the opinion of circuit court judge Swayne:

          “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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

          While the phrase “natural born citizen” was never found in English common law, that matters little. The Supreme Court of Wong Kim Ark plainly stated, as I’ve already shown you, that for the meaning and intent of “natural born citizen,” the Constitution “must be interpreted in the light of the common law.” Are the duties of American citizens vs. those of English subjects different? Without examining the separate Constitutions of each nation, I would venture to say, “Without a doubt.” But “citizen” and “subject” are not the operative terms here. The operative term here is “natural born,” as in, what makes a person “natural born” to a country. The Supreme Court determined that birth in the nation, even to an alien just passing through, makes a person “natural born.” And as Justice Swayne points out, it has ALWAYS been that way in the United States. He finds no evidence that that principle has ever been changed.

          I was a little perplexed by the last quote of yours…until I saw it was by Mario Apuzzo. Forgetting for a moment what I personally think of Mario Apuzzo, I should point out that Apuzzo is not a judge, nor have his words ever been upheld as true by a judge. Therefore, his words carry no more weight than if I said, “The moon is made of green cheese.” I can say it all I want, but it doesn’t make it true. However, if a valid scientific authority were to quote my words and affirm them as truth, THEN it carries weight.

          Until such time as Mario Apuzzo’s words are upheld by a court of law presiding over such an issue as to make his words relevant to what the judge is deciding, they are utterly worthless as an argument. So, Mario Apuzzo thinks so…or pretend to think so. Until such time as a judge agrees with him, his words have no more weight than mine.

          • September 6, 2013 at 9:29 am #

            Let me repeat, Pat: 43 out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed the Minor court’s prescription of a Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen, not the Wonk Kim Ark’s prescription. I can’t speak for history itself on this matter, but in reading Mr. Long’s Chicago Legal News article (Vol.146, p.220 in 1916), entitled: ‘Is Mr. Charles E. Huges A “Natural Born Citizen” Within The Meaning Of The Constitution’, I find no mention of the Wong Kim Ark decision coming to Mr. Huges’ defense.

            (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within)

            “Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry. He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr.Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government. If war had broken out between this government and England this government would have had a right to interne the father, the mother and the son as subjects of an enemy power.

            “The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.” The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought, a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “Native born” does not mean quite the same thing. He might be born in a country under conditions similar to the conditions under which Mr. Hughes was born, and subsequently become a citizen of that Country. In that case, after he became a citizen, he would be a “native born”citizen, but he would not have been a “natural born” citizen. From the instant of his birth this government would not be solely responsible for his protection.”

            Now we turn to your point on allegiance. At birth then Ted Cruz was born under three allegiances, Cuba’s, USA’s, and Canada’s. As I, and, apparently, the weightless words of Mr. Apuzzo, have pointed out to you: Ted Cruz was not born “within the jurisdiction”. There is no legal construct under Wong Kim Ark, or the US Const. for that matter, that would, or could, make him a natural born citizen of the United States.

            “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.”

            Pat, I assume you believe Sen. Cruz believes this statement to be true, as you, yourself do. But the operative term here is “allegiance”. While it is true, in England, under English common law, a person can be born in the allegiance of the King. But here, in the United States, no one is born in the allegiance of the United States.

            As I mentioned above, US citizenship, since the very beginning, has always relied on a free person, making a free choice to become one the “Consent of the Governed”, so we, the People could rule ourselves. In other words, Pat, allegiance to the United States cannot be bestowed by the state as an accident of birth. It must be given freely.

            In Sen. Cruz’ case, as the Long article points out, he was born under several allegiances, with several governments laying claim to his allegiances at birth, making Sen. Cruz a ‘naturalized’ US citizen at birth, and not an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizen by birth, one allegiance to the United States, under the cloak of allegiance of his US citizen parents, is could be his natural political right, under natural law.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by David Farrar
          • September 6, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

            Let me repeat, David Farrar – that HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases brought to Court – have been thown OUT of COURT !!!!!

            The Beautiful thingy about SHORT responses to YOUR LONG WINDED (as in the wind that you create from your butt) – IS – that they are SHORT and Sweet (unlike that MIGHTY WIND that you and IL DUCE, Mario, create – BY your SELF)

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 6, 2013 at 9:59 am #

            There haven’t even BEEN 44 elected Presidents. Counting Obama, only 43 people have served as President. Moreover, there’s one other person who did not have two citizen parents as (after those, of course, who were grandfathered in). Chester Arthur’s father did not become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Arthur was fourteen. Yes, there was a concern about his eligibility, but only because he was supposedly born in Canada. The issue of his parentage was addressed by Chester-Arthur-eligibility-investigator Arthur Hinman, and when a congressmen advised Hinman that this was utterly groundless, Hinman dropped the subject of his parentage and went straight after place of birth.

            Interesting opinion you posted. Has it ever been upheld by any judge? No? Then, it has no more merit than yours or mine. There can be disinformed lawyers out there. Had he brought his argument to court, a judge, citing Wong Kim Ark, would probably strike down his objections toute suite, as happened in the case of Ankeny and Kruse v. Daniels:

            “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.”

            Are you going to tell me that the Indiana Court of Appeals is wrong? They’ve been cited in 12 ballot challenges and upheld.

            And if you ARE going to tell me that the Indiana Appellate Court is wrong, I would find that very interesting. Because you’re upholding some essay from an author I know absolutely nothing about, and insist it’s factual. While the THREE-JUDGE panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals, having the authority to make case law and interpret the Constitution in a way that is legally binding, just doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

          • September 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

            AGAIN, RIGHT ON, Patrick, to that LEFT OFF orientation that Ol’ David Farrar and Ol’ IL DUCE, Mario Apuzzo (who hasn’t commented lately) present !!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 6, 2013 at 10:44 am #

            I need to make a few corrections to my last post of SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 AT 9:29 AM, as I am sure you will be making a few corrections yourself.

            It is Charles Evens Hughes to which I speak, as is Mr. Apuzzo.

            But let’s be clear here, Pat; we aren’t in any kind of disagreement. You, in your defense of Wong Kim Ark and now the 2009 Ankeny decision, are saying that Sen. Cruz also supports these decisions; namely: Sen. Cruz supports the removal of the power to set the qualifications for the president and vice-president of the United States from where the founders and framers of the US Const. had rightfully placed it (i.e., in the hands of we the People) to placing it now in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., positive law; and that Sen Sen. Cruz also believes the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country should not only be given American birthright citizenship, but also to be declared “natural born US citizens” so they can also run for the president and vie-president of the United States, without any transfer of allegiance to support and abide by the US Const., like the rest of us, and, lastly; that Sen. Cruz sees himself as no different than a natural born British subject at birth? These are the things Sen Cruz will have to believe in if he believes himself, rightfully, eligible to run for the office of either president or vice-president of the United States.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by David Farrar
          • September 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

            Indeed, David Farrar – YOU NEED to make a LOT of CORRECTIONS – to the Birther Madness madness silliness that you post within this thread !!!!!

            MAYBE David (IF we are all lucky), YOUR Corrections WILL INCLUDE a realization of HOW SILLY your Birther Madness madness position – IS !!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 6, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

            Patrick – the LARGEST problem that those Birther Madness madness folk have – IS that DAMNED Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) that they ALL appear to have.

            With that in mind, Patrick – even though you ARE Right on with your comments – that Birther Madness madness RCD will ALWAYS (and selectively) PREVENT the Birther Madness madness folk – from COMPREHENDING WHAT you post !!!!!

            Posted by boba123
          • September 6, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

            Patrick J. Colliano,

            You said: “Was there even an attempt by the Congress to amend the Constitution, or even objections heard in Congress when SCOTUS rendered its decision, making Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen? Nope.”

            Why do you not stop your lying? Wong Kim Ark was not about Article II “natural born citizen[ship.” Rather, the decision was about a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not hold Wong to be a “natural born citizen,” but rather a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Why do you not read the latest position paper by Cornell Law Professor, William A. Jacobson? I have for some time been explaining that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark define a “natural born citizen.” While the Professor does not agree with my definition of a “natural born citizen,” at least he agrees with my position that neither the amendment nor Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born citizen.”

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 6, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

            Mario Apuuza,

            YOU said – BLAH, blah, blah – and followed that up with – Blah, blah blah.

            WHY do you not stop LYING ???????????????????

            Posted by BOBA123
        • September 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

          Ah, David Farrar – YOU STILL can’t deal with the issue – that those guys WHO WROTE OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

          OBVIOUSLY, David Farrar – YOU CAN’T admit that those GUYS – SIMPLY FORGOT to INCLUDE a Definition of – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!!

          TIME to FESS UP, David Farrar – that YOU TOO, appear to suffer FROM – Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) – just like IL DUCE, Mario !!!!!

          DAMN, David Farrar – it SURE looks like the Birther Madness madness folk SUFFER from RCD – which is appearing to be a rather contagious disease – among the Birther Madness madness folk !!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
      • September 6, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

        RIGHT ON, Patrick !!!! Sock it too ‘em !!!!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
      • September 6, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

        Patrick J. Colliano,

        You and countless other Obots provide this quote from Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes (1866) (not a U.S. Supreme Court opinion) to support your point that birth alone in the U.S. is sufficient to make a “natural born citizen:”

        “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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

        But as I have so many times already pointed out, Rhodes defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It had nothing to do with defining an Article II “natural born citizen” and the court in fact did not define one. As I have also many times stated, you fail to tell us how Justice Swayne defined “born in the allegiance of the United States.” Additionally, Justice Swayne was in the dissent, for other reasons, in The Slaughterhouse Cases (a U.S. Supreme Court opinion) in which the majority said that children born in the U.S. to alien parents were not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lastly, Justice Swayne was part of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor which defined a “natural born citizen” as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

        So, your most-abused Justice Swayne quote does not prove your point. Do you care to try again?

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 6, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

          Mario Apuzza,

          You and countless of Birther Madeness madness 100% LOSERS – STILL FAIL to understand that those guys writing OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

          TOO BAD !!! SO SAD !!!! SO Mario !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
          • September 6, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

            Mario, I’m afraid you’re caught in extreme ignorance. The opinion by Justice Swayne was indeed a mere circuit court opinion. However, it was upheld in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which gives it the effect of case law.

            Maybe someday you should actually read the opinion of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. You might spare yourself some embarrassment.

            From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

            “In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
            “‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
            19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.
            “In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
            “‘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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.'”

            Yes, a circuit court is subject to review from higher courts, and maybe overturned; however, in this case, the Supreme Court UPHELD Justice Swayze’s opinion.

            Oh, and if Wong Kim Ark was not pronounced a natural born citizen, then please explain this to all of us…(and pay attention, everyone. Mario’s response is going to be laugh out loud hilarious):

            From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

            “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.”

            So, please tell us all how, Mario, that the Supreme Court said that in England, a child born in the jurisdiction, even to aliens, was considered “natural born” and the U.S. observes “the same rule.”

            (If Mario does what he did on the Obama Ballot Challenge page — which is make an idiot of himself — he’s going to claim that the “Constitution as originally established” was the Articles of Confederation. Of course, he won’t explain why the Supreme Court has NEVER referred to the Articles of Confederation as a “Constitution.” Or why, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, they support this contention with case law that occurred AFTER 1787, when the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation.)

            He also can’t explain why, if Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen, did Chief Justice Fuller, when writing the dissenting opinion, gave THIS as part of the reason for his objection:

            ” I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency…”

            Gee, sounds like Chief Justice Fuller thinks they DID rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, otherwise, he wouldn’t have written a dissenting opinion.

            And, if Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with natural born citizenship, as this dissembling, flaccid excuse for an attorney would have us believe, did the actual opinion of the court open with this?

            From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

            “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”…
            “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, … “In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

            So, the Supreme Court makes a big presentation about how the Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizenship, advises us that the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of English common law, but then goes on to say, “But you know what? This ruling really isn’t going to have gosh-durned thing to do with natural born citizenship! PSYCH!”

            And before Mario pulls his B.S. about it being a reference to American common law, the Supreme Court said it was English common law. Immediately following the portion I just quoted, SCOTUS cited Smith v. Alabama.

            From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

            “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.'”

        • September 6, 2013 at 7:11 pm #

          Slaughterhouse case was not a birthright citizenship case.

          Posted by bquasius
          • September 6, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

            bquasius,

            And Wong Kim Ark was not a “natural born citizen” case

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  31. September 6, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    I also defer to the opinion of Judge William Alsup when he struck down the lawsuit of Markham Robinson v. Debra Bowen. He used “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably, and with such glibness that he simply treated as a given that the two terms mean the same thing. This suit, by the way, was not challenging the eligibility of Obama, but of John McCain.

    Regarding the claim that native born and natural born citizen are different things, you point out (correctly) that Wong Kim Ark was called a “native born citizen.” “Native born is properly understood as a subset of “natural born.” A “native-born citizen” is a natural-born citizen of the United States that is born in the U.S. This is distinct from a “foreign-born” natural born citizen, who is born outside the U.S., such as Ted Cruz and John McCain.

    And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agreed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, when he wrote the dissenting opinion. He wrote, “…I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency…”

    Notice, he is OBJECTING to the opinion of the Court. And he wrote the dissenting opinion (and Justice Harlan concurred with the Chief Justice, making WKA a six-two decision, with McKenna abstaining). He is objecting because he believes it is “unreasonable” to assume that everyone born in the country, even to “foreigners…passing through the country…” were natural born citizens and “eligible to the Presidency.”

    Why would he object to that…unless that’s what the Supreme Court said.

    And please understand, I’m NOT saying I AGREE with this. Do I think that someone can just come into the U.S. illegally, have a kid in this country and that kid, despite both his parents being illegal aliens, is a natural born citizen?

    Hell, no, I don’t! But that’s the way it is. And the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can do something about it. Because it’s a serious problem here. There is a birth-tourism industry. People are actually making a living providing accommodations to these women. “Hey, want a natural born citizen in the U.S.? No problem, just come to the U.S., stay in our facilities and give birth, and you can get green cards for the whole family when your kid is of age!”

    That needs to be stopped.

    • September 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

      Yup, Partick – RIGHT ON !!!!! POWER to THE PEOPLE !!!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
    • September 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

      “Hell, no, I don’t! But that’s the way it is. And the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can do something about it. Because it’s a serious problem here. There is a birth-tourism industry. People are actually making a living providing accommodations to these women. “Hey, want a natural born citizen in the U.S.? No problem, just come to the U.S., stay in our facilities and give birth, and you can get green cards for the whole family when your kid is of age!”

      That needs to be stopped.”

      But Pat, Sen. Cruz is telling you he supports these decisions when he says he is eligible. He should be helping us pick up our American birthright from the gutter these court decisions have thrown it, but he can’t do that and support these court decisions at the same time because he wants to be president. As I say, I hope Sen Cruz at some point in time can see the error of his ways and step up to the plate and lead the charge in restoring our cherished American birthright. If he does such a thing, I am sure he will find himself sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, perhaps even as its chief justice some day.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar .

      Posted by David Farrar
      • September 6, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

        David Farrar – the SOONER that YOU REALIZE – that the guys who WROTE the Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution – the SOONER that this Birther Madness madness will be PUT AWAY – as it SHOULD have been PUT AWAY – within PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST TERM in office !!!!!!!!

        I’m surprised, David Farrar – that YOU AREN’T citing stuff from the Articles of Confederation to SUPPORT YOUR Claims —- WAIT a minute, Patrick HAS already demonstrated, David Farrar, that YOU HAVE cited stuff from the Articles of Confederation !!!!!

        Oh, Well – so THEN, David Farrar – WHY aren’t you citing stuff from from the Confederate States of America (CSA or C.S.A.) – cuz the Ol’ CSA MUST have had SOMETHING within their organizing documents – that supports discrimination against NON-Whites !!!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
    • September 6, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

      Patrick J. Colliano,

      You said:

      “I also defer to the opinion of Judge William Alsup when he struck down the lawsuit of Markham Robinson v. Debra Bowen. He used ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ interchangeably, and with such glibness that he simply treated as a given that the two terms mean the same thing.”

      Just saying something is so does not make it so. Wit all due respect to the judge, what evidence did Judge Alsup provide that demonstrates that a “citizen at birth” is equivalent to a “natural born citizen?” None.

      Maybe you can help us out and prove me wrong regarding Judge Alsup or at least provide your own evidence.

      Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
      • September 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

        Well, at least you admit you don’t actually read these cases, Mario. Which may be the only honest thing you’ve ever said since I’ve had any exchange with you.

        Mario, there is such a thing as a “search engine.” Perhaps you’ve heard of them? And the case is available on the internet. The case is barely four pages long, Mario. Could you possibly handle that much?

        But we’ll just include “sloth” among your many other failings.

        From Markham Robinson v. Debra Bowen, which is a case that challenged not the eligibility of Barack Obama, but of John McCain.

        “At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment.

        “Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”

        Notice, lazy one (if you aren’t balked at the prospect of reading two whole paragrahs), “Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth.” And “in 1937… Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a) [ of Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904]…THEREBY RETROACTIVELY RENDERING SENATOR MCCAIN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, IF HE WAS NOT ONE ALREADY.”

        See that? Citizen at birth and natural born citizen used interchangeably, as if one means the other. Which they do.

        As for the U.S. Code referenced (8 U.S.C. 1403(a)), it reads as follows: “(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”

        Look at that. Judge Alsup just construed a person “a citizen of the United States” “at the time of the birth” as a “natural born citizen.”

        Unless, you think Alsup is so stupid, he cited U.S. Code without having the vaguest idea of what was actually in the code he was citing.

        • September 6, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

          Patrick J. Colliano,

          You said: “Citizen at birth and natural born citizen used interchangeably, as if one means the other. Which they do.” That is your whole problem. You believe that by simply using words or clauses a certain way that somehow the use alone without more provides reason and logic. You really are a lightweight in the mental department.

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 6, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

            No you really are a liar. I just gave you Judge William Alsup of the Northern District Court of California. I just got through explaining that he uses the words “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably, and I proved it with citations from his decision of Robinson v. Bowen.

            “At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment.

            “Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.”

            Mario, you are a detestable human being. Because of your hatred of the president and you’re desire for personal recognition, you are willing, even eager, to lie to an entire nation. You are deliberately misconstruing the law you swore to uphold. You are not deserving of the name American. Indeed, you are not deserving of the name “person.”

          • September 7, 2013 at 12:53 am #

            Patrick – you indicate – “You are deliberately misconstruing the law you swore to uphold.” – referring to Ol’ Mario Apuzzo.

            Why, Patrick – THAT places Ol’ Mario Apuzzo in the SAME CLASS with that OTHER LAWYER – John Mitchell – also a U.S. Attorney General – appointed by Ol’ Tricky Dicky Nixon – yet, ANOTHER Lawyer – who CLAIMED – NOT to be a Crook !!!! Ashcroft too – another Republican LAWYER.

            I understand now, Partrick, WHY Mario Apuzzo IS a Lawyer Joke !!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
        • September 7, 2013 at 9:59 am #

          Pat,

          I agree with Mr. Apuzzo, by natural law, John McCain is an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen, both of his parents were US Citizens and he was born out of US jurisdiction on orders of that jurisdiction, not because of the 1937 positive law.

          Because the Canal Zone was a “no man’s land,” in the words of Representative Sparkman, in 1937 Congress passed a statute, the Act of Aug. 4, 1937 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a)) granting citizenship to “[a]ny person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904″ who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. This Act made Senator McCain a U.S. citizen before his first birthday. If John McCain’s parents were not there under US military orders(i.e., within US jurisdiction), he would have actually been naturalized US citizen at birth by positive law, just as Sen. Cruz is today.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by davidfarrar
          • September 7, 2013 at 10:59 am #

            Ah, David Farrar – BOTH you and Ol’ Mario – keep DUCKING the issue – that those guys who wrote OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution!!!!

            WHY, David Farrar – DO YOU DUCK this issue ???????

            Posted by BOBA123
  32. September 6, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    I see that you are still struggling with understanding that our first constitution was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and our second constitution was the Constitution adopted in 1787.
    I also see that you are still in denial that the “common-law” to which Minor referred was American national common law and not English common law, for the latter made no requirement for citizen parents for children born in the King’s dominion and did not treat children born in the King’s dominion (in the country) to alien parents as “aliens or foreigners” as did American national common law and Acts of Congress. It is really simple to understand and accept, unless one is a despicable deceiver as you are.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 6, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo – I SEE that you are STILL struggling with being able to deal with the notion that the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

      Some folk, like you, Mario – ARE rather SLOW in grasping ideas that tear their PRE-conceived notions apart !!!!! Feel free to take you time, Mario, YEARS even, should it take that long – since it is rathe unlikely that you will bring any other Birther Madness madness case to Court – where you have already LOST 100% of your cases – so far !!!!!

      YUP, Mario – you ARE one of those 100% LOSERS !!!!!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
      • September 7, 2013 at 12:52 am #

        Robert, address the subject, not the other person. Our patience with your personal attacks is wearing thin… I’m going to start deleting posts which personally attack others, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their point of view.

        Posted by bquasius
        • September 7, 2013 at 1:14 am #

          OK, Bob Quasius – I’ll mend my ways – but ya GOTTA realize, Bob, that Ol’ Mario appears to NOT understand that those guys who wrote OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to Define – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

          AND, Bob – because these guys, BEING Human, OH SO Human (as Fred Nietzsche would put it) FORGOT TO DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution – These Birther Madness madness folk, like Mario and David, HAVE to COME UP with ALL of thier rather convoluted INTGERPRETATIONS of OTHER WRITINGS – rather than DEAL with the SIMPLE, Human, OH SO Human, Act of JUST FORGETTING to DEFINE.

          I’d like to know, Bob, WHEN Mario is goina look at – the SIMPLE, oh so SIMPLE !!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
          • September 7, 2013 at 10:31 am #

            While I certainly agree, personal attacks have no place on a respected web site, dedicated to an honest discourse of the issues and disputes of the day; to suggest that the founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const. simply “forgot” to define the only requirement calling for the president and vice-president to be US citizens at all is absurd.

            The definition of a natural born (US) citizen was self-evident, not only to them, but to 43 of the last 44 elected US presidents.

            A “natural born citizen” is a person born a natural member of its father’s society, without benefit or need of man-made law. In the case of a natural born US citizen: it is a person born within the jurisdiction under the sole allegiance of its US citizen parents from birth.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            Posted by davidfarrar
          • September 7, 2013 at 11:49 am #

            Oh My, David Farrar – SUCH a WEAK attempt to EXPLAIN – WHY – the guys who wrote OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

            However, David Farrar – I’ll address each and every POINT that you bring up –

            1.) “The definition of a natural born (US) citizen was self-evident” – IF THIS WERE the Case – the Birther Madness madness folk would NOT KEEP POINTING to OUR Constitution – NOTING the FAILURE to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution – and then CLAIMING – here on this Blog Space AND within the HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases – THROWN OUT of COURT – that OUR Constitution does NOT define – Natural Born Citizen – BUT that other documents DO DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen. David Farrar – SINCE YOU CLAIM that OTHER DOCUMENTS DO DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – AND, David Farrar – YOU CLAIM that the DEFINITION of – Natural Born Citizen – IS “self evident”, thus did NOT NEED to be Defined within OUR Constitution – WHY DID ALL of these OTHER DOCUMENTS – NEED to DEFINE – this “self evident” thingy ????? WHY ???

            2.) YOU CLAIM, David Farrar – “A “natural born citizen” is a person born a natural member of its father’s society, without benefit or need of man-made law.”. SINCE you ARE a GUY, David, OBVIOUSLY you can NOT SEE – the OBVIOUS – SEXIST Language that you use. WHY, David, ONLY – “member of its father’s society”? WHAT about the mother’s society? OBVIOUSLY, Dave – THIS IS Sexist Language – but MAYBE David – YOU DON’T BELIEVE – that there IS, such a THING, as Sexist Language !!!!! OBVIOUSLY, David Farrar – SEXIST LANGUAGE IS – created by HUMANS, OH SO HUMAN – DISCOUTING the Language of EQUALITY. But then, David Farrar – OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T believe in EQUALITY between Men and Women !!!!! SEXIST LANGUAGE IS ALWAYS a CREATION of “man-made law” !!!!

            3.) David Farrar – YOU SAY – “…a person born within the jurisdiction under the sole allegiance of its US citizen parents from birth.” – where “sole allegiance of its US Citizen parents from birth” CLEARL INDICATES that “sole allegiance” – a POLITICAL ORIENTATION – of the parents – DETERMINES – a BIOLOGICAL (i.e. Birth) HAPPENING !!!!!! My, MY, David Farrar – a POLITICAL ORIENTATION – DEFINING a Biological Happening – SURELY SOUNDS like some National Socialist Propaganda to me.

            SO, David Farrar – YOU BRING UP – ONLY 3 points – as to WHY the guys who WROTE OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution. LET’S see, Dave, IF Ol’ Mario CAN come up with BETTER POINTS !!!! I’m waiting, Mario – for YOU to bring up BETTER points !!!!!!!!!!

            ONE of these 3 Points – USES SEXIST Language.

            ANOTHER of these 3 points – uses language that SMACKS of National Socialist PROPAGANDA.

            And the Third of these 3 Points – indicates that “self evident” KNOWLEDGE – PREVENTS the DEFINITION of – Natural Born Citizen – FROM appearing WITHIN OUR Constitution – but DOESN’T PREVENT the DEFINITION of – Natural Born Citizen – FROM APPEARING in OTHER DOCUMENTS !!!!!! YOU ARE saying, David Farrar, that the guys who WROTE our Constitution – FAILED to include “sefl evident KNOWLEDGE – WHILE the WRITERS of OTHER DOCUMENTS – INCLUDED “self evident” KNOWLEDGE – as a part of these other documents !!!

            OBVIOUSLY, except to a SEXIST GUY and NATIONAL SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA LOVING GUY, such as your self, David Farrar – the THREE, and ONLY THREE POINTS that you bring up – ARE RATHER WEAK POINTS !!!!!!!!

            LET’S see, David Farrar – IF YOU have the GUTS to respond to THIS COMMENT !!!!!

            Just observin’,

            Robert Allen

            Posted by BOBA123
    • September 6, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

      Wong Kim Ark plainly states that the Common law referenced was ENGLISH common law. Moreover, Justice Gray gave an example of Minor v. Happersett, and five other court cases, to establish the precedent for reliance on English common law for the meaning of terms undefined in the Constitution.

      From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

      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.

      Further more, they go on to cite prominent authorities on English common law, including Alexander Cockburn (Chief Justice of the English Supreme Court, appointed by Queen Victoria), and noted British jurist of the day, Albert Venn Dicey.

      Just for fun, everyone, here’s the second section of Wong Kim Ark, in its entirety. As you can see, they resorted to ENGLISH common law. (After just citing a source that says there’s no American common law distinct from English common law.

      Section II, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. (Just skim it, everyone, and count the references to English common law.

      II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

      This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

      The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.

      In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:

      The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.

      And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which

      the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,

      he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

      Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

      By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

      Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

      Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

      “British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

      The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

      1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

      2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

      And he adds:

      The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

      Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

      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.

  33. September 6, 2013 at 5:48 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    You said:

    “Chester Arthur’s father did not become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Arthur was fourteen. Yes, there was a concern about his eligibility, but only because he was supposedly born in Canada. The issue of his parentage was addressed by Chester-Arthur-eligibility-investigator Arthur Hinman, and when a congressmen advised Hinman that this was utterly groundless, Hinman dropped the subject of his parentage and went straight after place of birth.”

    I see that you are again making stuff up. Provide source and link to your phantom congressman who advised Attorney Arthur P. Hinman that parentage was not relevant to being a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, it looks to me that Arthur knew very well that it was highly relevant. He even acted as though the Naturalization Acts of 1802 and 1855 did not confirm that he was, indeed, not a “natural born citizen” because he was born in the United States to alien parents. As Breckinridge Long pointed out:
    “In this connection it will be pertinent to make a few illusions to the recommendations made to Congress urging them to clarify the situation [actually meaning to amend the acts]. President Arthur, in his Fourth Annual Message, in 1884, said: ‘Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. *** Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is ambiguous in its terms***.

    ‘An uniform rule of naturalization, such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens***.’”

    But the truth of the matter is that the naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) were not “ambiguous.” Arthur’s reference to R.S. § 2172, was a revision from the Naturalization Act of 1802, Apr. 14, 1802, ch. 28, § 4,2 Stat. 155. The plain language of the 1802 Act can be read here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=192 . The 1802 Act clearly explained that upon the naturalization of the parents, their minor children, if dwelling in the United States, became “citizens of the United States” after birth. The Act made no distinction between such children based on whether they were born in or out of the United States. Since the act plainly and clearly did not make any such distinction, it is only the intellectually dishonest who insert into the acts such a distinction. Hence, clearly, any child who was born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen at birth, let alone a “natural born citizen.” Remember that Minor also explained that at “common-law” the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, children born in the United States to alien parents were themselves like their parents “aliens or foreigners.” This very rule disqualified Chester Arthur from being President and Vice President (and it also disqualifies Barack Obama). He knew it and just played along as though it did not apply to him and even had the nerve to ask that the very laws which demonstrated he was not eligible to be President of Vice-President be clarified.

    Also, if the public knew about Arthur being born to alien parents, we would think that since as Arthur said, the Congressional Act as written raised questions about whether such children were even citizens, someone would have challenged Arthur’s eligibility based on parentage, and not only on place of birth.

    Finally, we saw how Breckenridge Long challenged Hughes for not being a “natural born citizen” and he clearly stated in his position paper his grounds. Those same grounds (not born in the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents) applied to Chester Arthur. So, it is only reasonable that if Long knew about Arthur being born in the United States to alien parents, he would have also explained that Arthur was also not a “natural born citizen.”

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
  34. September 6, 2013 at 9:16 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    Again your logic fails. While you give us a great quantity of words regarding what the colonial English common law provided, you give us no words other than conclusory statements linking that English common law to the Founders’, Framers’, and Ratifiers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 6, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

      Already did, Apuzzo. And you know it.

      From United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the first section.

      The whole thing, nothing taken out of context. It will plainly show you that, according to the Supreme Court, the framers’ intent behind “natural born citizen” is found in ENGLISH COMMON LAW! Here you go:

      I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

      The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that

      all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

      also declares that

      no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that

      the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

      The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 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 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.

      • September 6, 2013 at 11:37 pm #

        Patrrick J. Colliano,

        “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.”

        What I will now say about Wong Kim Ark does not go to show that it was wrong about any definition of a “natural born citizen.” Rather, it only goes to reveal some of the errors that Justice Gary committed. In Minor, Chief Justice Waite did not construe the Fourteenth Amendment. While the parties in Minor had conceded that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth, Justice Waite still looked for another source which proved that Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” He said that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to show she was a “citizen,” for there had been “citizens” before that amendment was passed. He therefore did not examine the amendment as the source of Virginia’s citizenship. What he did examine, among other things, was the “common-law.” He told us that the Framers who drafted the Constitution were familiar with the nomenclature of this “common-law.” He then said that under this “common-law,” children born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” were not only “citizens” like their parents, but also “natural-born citizens.” He also told us that that same “common-law” treated all other children as “aliens or foreigners.” He then went on to show how Congress’s naturalization acts could be used to naturalize these alien born children.

        Waite added that “some authorities” maintained that children “born in the jurisdiction” (referring to the Fourteenth Amendment) to alien parents were also “citizens.” He said that “there have been doubts” whether that was correct. Waite said that it was not necessary for the Court to answer that question (meaning it was not necessary to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment to answer the question), because, any child born in the country to citizen parents was a “citizen.” Those had been Virginia Minor’s birth circumstances which meant that she was a “citizen.” So, the Court explained that it was not necessary to determine if a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a “citizen” under that amendment. It was not necessary because Virginia Minor, unlike Wong Kim Ark, satisfied the “common law” definition of a “citizen” by virtue of birth in the United States which Minor explained was also the definition of a “natural born citizen.” So, Waite never used the “common-law” to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, he used it to define a “citizen” by virtue of birth in the United States and ultimately a “natural born citizen.” So Minor demonstrated that the “common-law” required birth in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “citizen” by birth which it called a “natural-born citizen.”

        So, we can see how wrong Justice Gray was in making his statement that Minor interpreted the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment and that it resorted to the “common law” as an aid in interpreting its meaning.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 7, 2013 at 1:02 am #

          Mario – Have YOU EVER FORGOTTEN ANYTHING???

          If So – then MAYBE, just MAYBE you can Understand – HOW the writers of OUR Constitution JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

          If Not – then I DON’T believe you, Mario, when you indicate that you have NEVER FORGOTTEN ANYTHING !!!!!

          Simple as that, Mario – EITHER you HAVE FORGOTTEN Something – or you,Mario, CLAIM that you have NEVER FORGOTTEN ANYTHING !!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
        • September 7, 2013 at 4:42 am #

          Justice Gray was not incorrect. The fouteenth did not create a new class of citizen, only extended what was already true to African-Americans who, according to the appalling Dred Scott decision, were not citizens, nor could they ever be. Not even free blacks could be citizens, even in the states which extended them the basic rights of suffrage and property ownership.

          Therefore there is no distinction between being a citizen under the Fourteenth and being a citizen under the Constitution.

          From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
          “As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

          And even if the Fourteenth did somehow create a new class of citizen, the Supreme Court did not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment in establishing Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship. As they plainly stated, they relied upon the definition of “natural born citizen” based upon the definition of “natural born” found in English common law.

          Wong Kim Ark would have been declared a natural born citizen with or without the Fourteenth.

          In fact, it seems that the Fourteenth Amendment was expressly avoided in questions of Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship. The first section dealt with the appropriateness of English common law being used for terms undefined in the Constitution.

          The second section was a foray into English common law, to determined what precisely was meant by the term “natural born subject.” Number of references to the Fourteenth in this section? Zero.

          The third section cited numerous cases that prove beyond all doubt that those born in the U.S., even to aliens, were natural born citizens. ALL of which were written AFTER 1787, which proves beyond all doubt that the Constitution as originally established was a reference to the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. The Supreme Court has NEVER referred to the Articles of Confederation as anything BUT the Articles of Confederation. Number of references to the Fourteenth Amendment? Zero.

          Seems very odd that a question of Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship that was supposedly decided by the Fourteenth Amendment avoids using it when establishing Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship. Moreover, it also seems strange that this “common law” is supposedly a reference to “American common law” which was supposedly based upon Vattel, but the phrase American common law doesn’t appear even once. English common law, however, does appear, and is referenced extensively. And there is not a single reference to Vattel in all of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. He appears in the DISSENTING opinion, yes, but never once in the ruling. In fact, they don’t even discuss him when discussing whether Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship should be decided by his parentage (to which they answer no, that does not apply to the child born in the U.S.; outside the U.S. is another matter). Instead, they refer to the citizenship by descent as “Roman Law.”

          Yes, it is true, that the “question presented by the record” in Wong Kim Ark alluded to the Fourteenth Amendment. However the Supreme Court is not obligated to answer any questions within the parameters dictated by lower courts.

          In fact, the Supreme Court pointedly avoided deciding Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship with the Fourteenth. There is something very interesting I noticed when reading the decision of United States v Wong Kim Ark. There are two allusions to the “question presented by the record,” once in the introductory section and the other at the conclusion. I’ll quote them below. See if you notice anything.

          The introductory section, just prior to section I, from United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

          “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

          Now, take a look at this, everyone. This from United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the CONCLUSION:

          “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

          Notice, these two portions of the ruling are almost verbatim copies of one another, beginning at the word “whether.” What’s missing from the conclusion? Any reference to the Fourteenth Amendment.

          Interesting, huh?

          • September 7, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

            Patrick J. Colliano,

            It is hilarious to see you argue that Justice Gray did not find Wong to be a “citizen of the Untied States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather under some other law. Would you care to explain what that law is?

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 8, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

            Mario Apuzzo,

            It is hilarious to see you argue that the writers of OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
  35. September 7, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    Robert Allen,

    You act as though I and Dave Farrar are the only ones with any burden of proof in the debate on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” What is also laughable is that you actually come to the conclusion by who knows what mental process that you win by default simply because as you falsely claim no definition of a “natural born citizen” existed at the Founding which we can discover today.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 8, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

      Mari Apuuzo,

      I DON’T Falsely claim that those guys who wrote the Constitution – just FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citozen within OUR Constitution – THAT Wiki Link Clearly SHOWS that those writers JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natual Born Citizen- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

      “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

      The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

      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.[1]

      The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

      SO, Mario, The CURRENT Courts – DEFINE WHAT a – Natural Born Citizen IS – and the HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases brought to court – including ALL of the Birther Madness madness cases that YOU, Mario, have brought into court – have been thrown – OUT of COURT – because the Courts TOTALLY AGREE – that the writers of OUR Constitution JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!

      It’s JUST as SIMPLE as that, Mario !!!!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
  36. September 7, 2013 at 4:04 pm #

    NotLinda,

    I see that you still have no argument of your own and so you persist with the scorecard.

    New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin, in Purpura & Moran v. Obama, concluded:

    “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

    But Judge Masin did not correctly state the challengers’ position and therefore presented a straw man argument. We did not take issue with Obama’s father being born in Kenya which made him a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act. What we did challenge was the fact that Obama’s father was not a U.S. “citizen” when Obama was born. While this objection could relate to the father’s place of birth, his place of birth did not control. What did control, however, was whether his father was a U.S. “citizen” at the time of Obama’s birth. In other words, Obama’s father could have been born in Kenya, but if he had become a U.S. “citizen” before the time of Obama’s birth, that he was born in Kenya would have been immaterial.

    As far as Obama having dual citizenship at the moment of birth, we objected to the dual citizen at birth because he acquired British citizenship from his British father. It was the problem of being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father that created the objection with Obama’s dual citizenship. We did not object to any dual citizenship just because he somehow acquired that dual citizenship at birth. The dual citizenship objection was tied to being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father. So, as we can see, ALJ Masin did not at all address petitioners’ position on Obama not being a “natural born Citizen.”

    Furthermore, Judge Masin, because of the tremendous time constraints of ballot challenge, avoided having to present a thoroughly researched and comprehensive decision on the very complex issue of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” by telling us that there was no need to “reinvent the wheel here.” Needless to say, the “natural born citizen” issue is no wheel.

    Finally, Judge Masin found that Obama was born in the United States without an iota of such evidence in the court record, a fact that was conceded by both the court and Obama’s attorney. Hence, he found him to be born in the United States without any substantial credible evidence in the record upon which he could base such a finding.

    The affirmance on appeal without any explanation can only be as good as the underlying decision. The underlying decision failed on both the constitutional law and the evidence. Hence, we cannot put any value on the appellate decision either.

    Until you can present your own well-reasoned and well-supported argument on the definition of a “natural born citizen,” rather than simply rely on lower court decisions such as Purpura and Moran v. Obama, which I have shown addressed neither the legal nor factual issue, you lose by default.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 7, 2013 at 5:56 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “I see that you still have no argument of your own and so you persist with the scorecard.”

      Your debunkers explained long ago that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the controlling case that refutes your legal theory. You ruled all our arguments wrong. You and other birthers chose to take the matter to various courts. Now several courts have ruled on the two-citizen-parent theory. It is without merit. What’s more, the case they cite back to is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, just as we explained to you long ago.

      You proclaim that we have no convincing argument. The reality is that some of us explained years ago the arguments that the authorities would find convincing. You did not find them convincing and that mistake of yours lead you to heap failure and defeat upon yourself and your clients.

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “But Judge Masin did not correctly state the challengers’ position and therefore presented a straw man argument.”

      Court decisions do not require the approval of the losing attorney.

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “Until you can present your own well-reasoned and well-supported argument on the definition of a ‘natural born citizen,’ rather than simply rely on lower court decisions such as Purpura and Moran v. Obama, which I have shown addressed neither the legal nor factual issue, you lose by default.”

      No, you failed to show any serious issue. The three-judge appellate panel unanimously upheld your dismissal, said your argument was without merit, and called Judge Masin’s opinion “thorough and thoughtful”.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • September 7, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

        NotLinda,

        Do you really think that you can gain any points by simply recycling your same statements about how some lower courts prove that you are correct without providing any meaningful analysis that supports either what those courts concluded or your position? If you must simply rely on court conclusions without showing that those conclusions are correct, I repeat you lose by default.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 8, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
          “Do you really think that you can gain any points by simply recycling your same statements about how some lower courts prove that you are correct without providing any meaningful analysis that supports either what those courts concluded or your position?”

          That’s not reality. We’ve explained to you, over and over, why your cases fail. Some people had explained it before you got your answers in court, and your results confirmed that analysis. What we cannot do is make all the birthers understand. You are free to cling with invincible ignorance to ludicrous misunderstandings and learn nothing even from your own experience.

          Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
          “If you must simply rely on court conclusions without showing that those conclusions are correct, I repeat you lose by default.”

          When you play judge, I always lose. “Attorney Apuzzo’s wins are all in his head,” I wrote. My analysis is bearing out well.

          Posted by NotLinda
        • September 8, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo,

          Do you really think that you can gain any points by simply recycling your same statements – over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – again ?????

          Posted by BOBA123
        • September 8, 2013 at 5:57 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo,

          Do you really think that you can gain any points by simply recycling your same statements – over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – and over – again ?????

          One would think, Mario, that you would be getting rather tired of the rundundancy !!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
      • September 8, 2013 at 5:47 pm #

        Notinda,

        I LIKE the Score-card approach – that CLEARLY SHOWS – Mario’s Personal Score-card AND the HUNDREDS all of the OTHER Birther Madness madness Score-cards – which SHOW ZERO WINS for all of the Birther Madness madness cases brought into Court !!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
        • September 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm #

          Robert Allen,

          The problem with your scorecard approach is that the cases in your scorecard either do not at all address (which is most of them given that they dismissed Obama eligibility cases for lack of jurisdiction, standing, or some other procedural issue without ever reaching the merits of the matter) or do not adequately address the many questions regarding the constitutional meaning of a “natural born citizen” (either not analyzing the correct issues or not providing historical or legal evidence for their conclusions). If the cases on your scorecard which did reach the merits had sufficiently done their job, do you think that the “natural born citizen” debate would still be alive and well throughout the United States? Additionally, missing from your scorecard is the word of the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressing today’s ongoing “natural born citizen” debate.

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 8, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

            Oh my, Mario – THAT Reading Comprehension Disability (RCD) of yours APPEARS to be – REALLY DEEP – to the point – that is IS – NOT ONLY SELECTIVE – but that it INTERFERS, Mario, with YOU LEARNING ANYTHING that UPSETS your apparent BIASIS !!!!!

            Mario – JUST LOOK – and TRY to Comprehend that Wiki link – AGAIN – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause – which starts out – Start of Quote –

            “Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.

            The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

            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.[1]

            The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.” – END of Start of Quote

            Now, Mario, I’ve posted that link WELL OVER a DOZEN TIMES in this thread – AND, Mario, YOU KEEP MISSING – that LAST PART that says -:”…the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.”

            YUP, Mario – the SUPREME COURT – has NEVER – I’ll repeat that Mario (cuz YOUR RCD APPEARS to get in the way – AGAIN) – the SUPREME COURT has NEVER MADE ANY RULING on the phrase – Natural Born Citizen – BECAUSE the guys writing OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citzen – within OUR CONSTITUTION !!!!!!!!!

            GOT it, Mario?????? The guys writing OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitutiton !!!!!!!

            AND, Mario – ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE of YOUR RCD – the guys writing OUR CONSTITUTION, FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR CONSTIRUTION !!!

            AND JUST because, Mario, YOUR SELECTIVE RCD – IS SO BAD – the guys writing OUR Constitution – FAILED to Define – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            SO, Mario – MY Scorcard – that SHOWS HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases – THROWN OUT of COURT – because the writers of OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – IS the REASON WHY – the Supreme Court does NOT ADDRESSES the Birther Madness madness take – on the phrase – Natural Born Citizen – BECAUSE – the writers of OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!!!!!

            DAMN, Mario – I HOPE that YOU GET IT – THIS TIME – that the writers of OUR Constitution – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen !!!!!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
    • September 8, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

      Ah, Mario – LOOKING at YOUR Score-card of Birther Madness madness cases that YOU have brought to Court – SHOWS, Mario, that you have NOT WON – a single Birther Madness madness case – EVER !!!!!!

      THAT, Mario, IS a rather IMPRESSIVE Score-card, DON’T YOU THINK ?????

      Posted by BOBA123
  37. September 7, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    (1) What Justice Swayne said and did in United States v. Rhodes does not improve or change simply because Justice Gray relied upon it in some undefined way. Also, Justice Swayne in Rhodes also said that English common law did not define a “natural born citizen” or a “citizen.” So I guess Wong Kim Ark upheld that too?

    (2) Justice Curtis’s “natural-born citizen” statement in Dred Scott was in dissent and rejected by the majority. The majority was clear that it took more than just birth in the country to make a “natural-born citizen.”

    (3) This is the Obot “same rule” argument. To properly understand this argument, we have to start with the understanding that Justice Gray did not need to so was not looking to make Wong a “natural-born citizen,” but rather only a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. In that connection, he had to first define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. To do that, he looked to the English common law tradition that applied to a “natural born subject” that existed in the colonies and during the founding.

    With the Declaration of Independence, so as not to revert to a state of nature, most states selectively adopted the English common law as their own common law, but only until abrogated by their legislatures. Hence, following that English common law, their state citizenship rules would have followed that of the English, except to the degree altered by state statute. So, the “same [English] rule” applied in the states at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the states that made up the United States afterwards, under the Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union (the first constitution), and continued to prevail in the states under the second constitution (“the Constitution”) as originally established. There were no federal laws, under the new Constitution covering all the states as a united nation. Hence, only state laws, whether their constitutions, common law, or statutory laws, applied in the states to define who were their state citizens.

    But over matters of national citizenship, all that came to an abrupt end with the Naturalization Act of 1790 and those that followed. The Framers had built into the Constitution a mechanism to make uniform and therefore certain the rules of naturalization that had existed in the states. The Framers saw the need to have Congress make uniform citizenship law for the nation. Indeed, national citizenship law could not be driven by what individual states did, including what England, a foreign state, did. Neither any individual state nor England was a national federation such as what the free and independent states decided to become. The nation as a whole needed new rules of citizenship. So, after those national naturalization acts were passed, the states no longer had the power to naturalize anyone as did the English under their common law by the mere fact of birth in their “dominions.” (“Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212). Now, only Congress could naturalize a person to be a national “citizen of the United States” after birth. Such naturalized “citizens” were national “citizens,” not state “citizens.” Also, while the states retained the power to continue to make state citizens at birth, either through their state common law or statutes, those citizens were not national “citizens of the United States,” unless the federal statutes were satisfied. And surely, if the states could not make anyone a national “citizen of the United States” unless Acts of Congress were satisfied, they surely could not make anyone a national “natural born citizen” who did not satisfy national law that defined the clause which Minor v. Happersett explained was American national common law that was incorporated into the Constitution and became the law of the land. And we also know from Minor that that “common-law” 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. Minor also explained that at “common-law,” children who were born in the United States to alien parents were themselves “aliens or foreigners.” Surely, this was not the English common law that had prevailed in England and the states which Justice Gray called “the same rule” and which as we have just seen applied only in those former colonies and new states, but only for a limited time and only to make state citizens.

    All this demonstrates that Justice Gray was able to give meaning to the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause by using the old English common law rule (“the same rule”) which was very liberal with it broad allegiance as to aliens who were merely present in a colony’s or state’s territory, but by doing so, he did not change the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born citizen,” which as he also confirmed three times in his decision was satisfied only by a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.
    So, Wong Kim Ark did not overruled Minor’s statement as to what a “natural born citizen” was at “common-law,” and that children born in the United States to aliens were either “aliens or foreigners.” It did not overrule or even criticize its statement that “there have been doubts” about whether children “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents were “citizens” (Minor did not ask whether they were “natural born citizens” which is falsely contended by Obots). In fact, Wong Kim Ark even provided the Minor quote which contained these principles within it without any criticism whatsoever. Hence, Justice Gray knew that his task was different than that of Minor. Minor relied upon American national “common-law” to define a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.” But Justice Gray only needed to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, as interpreted by the aid of the English common law as Smith v. Alabama and other cases said could be done. Wong Kim Ark overruled American common law which required that a child be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “citizen” at birth by virtue of birth in the United States, and overruled Acts of Congress and treaties which prevented children born in the United States to alien parents from being “citizens” at birth, replacing them with the rule of the Fourteenth Amendment which created a new class of “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of birth in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In the end, Minor confirmed the American national “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and Wong Kim Ark explained, by resort to the English common law and without altering the definition of an Article II “natural born citizen,” who was included as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. This explanation is the only way that we can reconcile Minor and Wong Kim Ark, something which the Obots, courts, or any scholar has never attempted to do.

    (4) Regarding Chief Justice Fuller’s comment in dissent concerning a “natural-born citizen,” first, not only is the comment made in dissent, but it is also pure dicta. Second, Justice Fuller dissented, not because the majority held Wong to be a “natural-born citizen,” but because he believed that the United States could through Congressional statutes and federal treaties decide who shall be “citizens” by birth in the United States. (Both the United States and China had decided that Chinese could not naturalize in the United States nor could their children born in the United States become U.S. “citizens.”) Third, regardless of what a Justice in dissent says the majority held, the words of the majority speak for themselves, and those words do not take on a different meaning than what they manifest merely because the dissent ascribes a different meaning to them. Fourth, Fuller’s argument is a straw man argument, for he ascribed a position to the majority which it did not take. As we can see from the majority decision, Justice Gray interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II. As I have shown, the majority did not change the meaning of a “natural-born citizen,” even twice distinguishing a child born in the country to alien parents from a “natural born” child born in the country to “citizen” parents and finding that they were both “citizens.” So, there was no need for Justice Fuller’s comment. He probably made the comment just to criticize the majority by complaining about the plight of children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents. But his criticism was not justified given what the majority actually held. Therefore, the comment simply has no force or authority, and surely cannot be used to control what the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 7, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “What Justice Swayne said and did in United States v. Rhodes does not improve or change simply because Justice Gray relied upon it in some undefined way.”

      Do you seriously not understand the basic principle here? The authority of a U.S. Supreme Court Majority Opinion does not depend on its sources. That the quote came from Rhodes is irrelevant. The Wong Majority Opinion quotes it affirmatively and incorporates it into the decision. The authority is Wong, a U.S. Supreme Court case, not Rhodes.

      Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
      “Also, Justice Swayne in Rhodes also said that English common law did not define a ‘natural born citizen’ or a ‘citizen.’ So I guess Wong Kim Ark upheld that too?”

      Were you out sick that day from law school or what?

      Judge Masin used that same quote in his opinion dismissing your action. He was citing the authority of Wong, not Rhodes. Mr. Apuzzo, you write all these criticisms of Masin’s opinion, but the real problem is that you don’t understand such basic concepts.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • September 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

        NAH, NotLind,

        It appears the the ONLY basic principle that Mario appears to hold – IS his CLAIM that ALL of his opponents have NO basic principles.

        Posted by BOBA123
    • September 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo,

      The HUNDREDS of judges – in the HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases thrown OUT of COURT, Mario – ARE saying, rather consistantly, that the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

      Mario – WHY don’t we all TRY – to keep our comments – on the SHORT side ????

      Posted by BOBA123
  38. September 8, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

    NotLinda,

    You have simply run out of gasoline. You do not offer anything that merits any response.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo,

      It appears that you NEVER run out of gas – and the aroma that remains – does not in itself show much merit.

      Posted by BOBA123
  39. September 8, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

    Robert Allen,

    You just keep repeating the same thing over and over again about your definition of a “natural born citizen” is correct because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers “forgot” to define the meaning of the clause in the Constitution. You must really believe that you have a valid point so let me understand you a little better. Do you believe that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers defined in the Constitution the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” If you tell me that they did not so define it, please inform us how me may know today how they defined that right at the time they inserted it into the Constitution and what that right means today.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

      IF the writers of OUR Constitution HAD DEFINED – Natural Born Citizen – within the Constitution – THAT DEFINITION WOULD be USED within our Current Courts.

      BUT, Mario, BECAUSE the writers of OUR CONSTITUTION – FAILED to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constititution – HUNDREDS of Birther Madness madness cases – HAVE been THROWN OUT of Court !!!! SIMPLE as THAT !!!!!

      SINCE, Mario, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” – IS ONLY a part of a subordinate phrase (that you ERRONIOUSLY END with a period) YOU, Mario, appear to be STACKING the DECK – in what you are asking me to comment upon!!!!!

      SHAME on you, Mario, for appearing to STACK the DECK !!!!!

      I believe, Mario, that the WHOLE Sentence that you lift FROM ONLY a section of a subordinate phase IS – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Mario, YOU know as well as I – that this SINGLE SENTANCE IS the ONE and ONLY Sentence within the Second Amendment within OUR Constitution. IF, Mario, YOU WANT to DIVERT attention AWAY from the SUBJECT of THIS THREAD – Please ask Bob Quasius to START a DIFFERENT thread in which you, and I, and others would be able to DISCUSS the Second Amendment to OUR Constitution. I say this (about Bob Quasius starting a different thread), Mario, because neither you nor I have the right to start threads within the Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog Space !!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
      • September 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

        Robert Allen,

        Given your refusal to answer my question on the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” I guess we have seen the end of your “did-not-define-it-therefore-I-win” theory of constitutional construction.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 9, 2013 at 12:05 am #

          Mario – I wrote – “SINCE, Mario, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” – IS ONLY a part of a subordinate phrase (that you ERRONIOUSLY END with a period) YOU, Mario, appear to be STACKING the DECK – in what you are asking me to comment upon!!!!!

          SHAME on you, Mario, for appearing to STACK the DECK !!!!!”

          I thought that I was being KIND – when I could have used MUCH HARSHER language – but I chose not to. But YOUR Sneakiness of ONLY using a snippet of a subordinate clause – within a ONE Sentence Amendment to OUR Constitution – PUTS YOU, Mario, IN the SAME LEAGUE and CLASS as TRICKY DICKY NIXON – Lawyer – or HIS Attorney Gerneral, John Mitchell !!!!!

          ADDITIONALLY, Mario, I AM TRYING VERY HARD, per Bob Quasius’ request, to KEEP MY COMMENTS – DIRECTLY addressing Bob’s Opening Comments within this thread !!!!!!

          I EVEN, Mario, suggested that YOU ask Bob Quasius to Start another thread – so that YOU, I, and others MAY Discuss the Second Amendment to OUR Constitution !!!!!

          But NO, Mario – it looks like YOU want to Corrupt THIS THREAD with a discussion of the Second Amendment to OUR Constitution !!!!!!!!

          Mario – PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC !!!!!!!! PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
  40. September 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    On August 8 I commented:
    “Look at the comments here that hold Ted Cruz to be ineligible. They push theories under which two actual U.S. presidents are also ineligible. One reason that Cruz will not have major difficulty on this issue is that potential challengers will fear being associated with that crank nonsense.”

    On August 14 CNN asked Rand Paul about Cruz’s eligible. Paul said, “You won’t find me questioning his eligibility. I decided a long time ago I wasn’t going to be a birther for Democrats. I’m not a birther for Republicans,”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316945-paul-im-not-a-birther-wont-question-cruzs-eligibility-for-president-

    Posted by NotLinda
    • September 8, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

      NotLinda,

      Your appeal to establishment politicians does not nor can it make up for your lack of having any convincing historical and legal argument on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.”

      Additionally, establishment politicians and radio hosts win whether presidential candidates are eligible or not eligible. Do you really think that any such politician or radio host would rock the establishment boat?

      Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
      • September 8, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

        I agree, Mario, that radio host, RUSH the LIM-bla, WILL NEVER get it !!!!!!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
  41. September 9, 2013 at 1:21 am #

    Patrick J. Colliano wrote:
    “When he creates ridiculous constructs such as the idea that the references to ‘common law’ in Wong Kim Ark refer to American common law which was based on Vattel, or the idea that the ‘Constitution as originally established’ was the Supreme Court referring to the Articles of Confederation, it is NOT because he doesn’t grasp the concepts.”

    The quote from Wong containing “Constitution as originally established” came up in the Purpura v. Obama hearing. ALJ Masin read aloud:

    “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.”
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) at 658

    Then asked Apuzzo:

    “Doesn’t that say that English common law, whatever that was, whatever the definitions under English common law were, that that was what was adopted in the Constitution?”

    Apuzzo responded:

    “With all due respect to the United States Supreme Court, and to Justice Grey, there’s no support for what he says.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_w0
    ~ 39 minutes in.

    I find Apuzzo’s reply astonishing. First, if he thought, as he now claims, that the term “the Constitution as originally established” in that quote means the Articles of Confederation, that would have been the time for him to say so.

    Second, what he actually did say could not possibly help his case. Even if Apuzzo could convince Judge Masin that the statement in Wong is unsupported, Masin’s court cannot do anything about it. The New Jersey Office of Administrative Law does not review decisions of the United States Supreme Court. What could Apuzzo have been thinking?

    Patrick J. Colliano wrote:
    “It’s because whenever he’s confronted with these arguments that utterly demolish the birther argument, he simply makes up some lie to keep the myth going.”

    I agree that the Articles of Confederation thing seems dishonest, but be careful not to underestimate his power of self-deception. I’m convinced that he believes some of his howlers. For one thing, in other instances he has tried them in court, so hard as it is to believe he could be so deluded, the alternative is that he knows they’re nonsense but thinks the judges could be so deluded.

    Posted by NotLinda
    • September 9, 2013 at 2:17 am #

      Upon independence, every one of the original 13 colonies embraced English common law except where it conflicted with their constitution. Some states included an article embracing common law in their constitution, while others passed “reception statutes.” Not one sate passed a statute embracing Vattel. Since the adoption of our constitution, all of the other states and the District of Columbia embraced common law, except for Louisiana which embraced the Napoleonic Code that existed as a French colony.

      Posted by bquasius
    • September 9, 2013 at 2:48 am #

      Thanks for the details, NotLinda. Naturally, I’m waiting with baited breath to see how Ol’ Mario will respond to these details – since Ol’ Mario has such an unique take on many of the DETAILS that I post !!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
    • September 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

      NOTLINDA, to think I almost gave up on this page, because of other projects. Had I not returned just now, I would have missed your posts.

      As you yourself pointed out, he did not say at the time that he believed “the Constitution as originally established” referred to the Articles of Confederation. With the Articles of Confederation comment, my own conviction is that Mario simply likes to make things up to see outrageous his lies have to be before even the credulous birthers begin to doubt it.

      And quite the contrary to Apuzzo’s asinine claim that the Supreme Court’s (NOT Justice Gray’s — It is the opinion of the Supreme Court. Justice Gray merely delivered and probably authored most of it, but we can never know for certain how much, if any of the other concurring justices contributed to it) claim lacks support, the entire third section of Wong Kim Ark is dedicated to doing just that. Moreover, each and every source used by the Supreme Court to support this claim occurs AFTER 1788, when the Constitution was ratified, which puts the lie to Articles of Confederation claim.

      • September 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

        atrick J. Colliano wrote:
        “Moreover, each and every source used by the Supreme Court to support this claim occurs AFTER 1788, when the Constitution was ratified, which puts the lie to Articles of Confederation claim.”

        Moreover still, the Majority opinion also notes:

        “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.'” (p654)

        and:

        “by the Constitution, as originally established, ‘Indians not taxed’ were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned” (p680)

        Those things are not in the Articles of Confederation. They’re in the Constitution. Not that there was any question anyway about what “the Constitution as originally established” means.

        Posted by NotLinda
        • September 10, 2013 at 12:09 am #

          But, NotLinda – the FAR MORE Important thingy IS – that the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

          SOMEHOW, NotLinda, Ol’ Mario seems to KEEP FORGETTING – that the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

          Rather, NotLinda, than a WHOLE LOT of Shakin’ goin’ ON Here – There’s a WHOLE LOT of Forgettin’ goin ON – HERE !!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
  42. September 9, 2013 at 10:11 am #

    Bob Quasius,

    Yours is a straw man argument. I never argued that the states did not adopt English common law after the Declaration of Independence. In fact, after independence, as not to revert to a state of nature and to maintain a civil society, most of them did selectively adopt the English common law, until abrogated by their state legislatures. But this fact does not prove your point that the definition of a “natural born citizen” comes from the English common law rather than American national common law.

    First, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers never adopted the English common law and statutes for the national government. Each state adopted the English common law and statutes in various forms and degrees. There were many aspects to that law that were also not suited for a republic, including but not limited to that law institutionalizing the King and imposing upon the people an established religion with all its legal ramifications. In fact, the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 specifically incorporated the law of nations into Article III “Laws of the United States” and Congress, with the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, demonstrated that the English common law jus soli rule did not apply in the United States, but rather what did apply was the law of nations’ jus sanguinis rule. In these statutes, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. Under English common law, they would have been “natural born subjects.” But Congress decided that they were aliens.

    Second, after Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, the states no longer had any authority or power to naturalize anyone after birth. They could continue to decide, based on their state common law or state statutes, who they considered to be their own state citizens at birth. But these state citizens did not become “citizens of the United States” of “natural born citizens” unless federal law was satisfied as to those classes of citizens.

    Third, there is also no historical or legal evidence showing that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used the definition of a “natural born subject” to define an Article II “natural born citizen.” All the historical and legal evidence, which includes but is not limited to cases from our U.S. Supreme Court, demonstrates that the definition of a national “natural born citizen” came from the law of nations which was incorporated as American national common law and that definition as applied to the United States is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 10, 2013 at 4:14 am #

      The “Law of Nations” in Article I, section 8, clause 10, never referred to Vattel’s work. (It would be superlatively careless of the Founding Fathers to refer to Vattel’s four-volume treatise in the Constitution, and neglect to include the work’s FULL title, and the author’s name.) Nor did it even refer to the underlying principles of Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” It had absolutely nothing to do with Vattel’s work. Nor is it even a reference to international law.

      Contrary to “Law of Nations” referring to Vattel in the Constitution, it is a direct translation of the Latin expression, jus gentium.

      At the time the Constitution was ratified, the “Law of Nations” was understood to mean the following points, taken from Blackstones’ Commentaries (though we missed the mark with point 8):

      (1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

      (2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

      (3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

      (4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

      (5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

      (6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

      (7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one’s territory or are found on the high seas.

      (8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.

    • September 10, 2013 at 4:17 am #

      And among the top 40 (or top 37) contributors to the Founding Fathers’ political thought, among the ones most often quoted, Vattel was actually tied for dead last:

      http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

  43. September 9, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    I see that you still refuse to admit that our nation has had two constitutions. The first one was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the second one was the Constitution adopted on 1787.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 9, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

      AND, Mario – at one time – Part of our Nation – had 3 Constitutions !!!! DON’T forget the Confederate States of America.

      But in ALL Seriousness – Mario – YOU are FORGETTING – AND REFUSE to ADMIT – that they guys writting OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen within OUR Counstitution !!!!!!

      AH – FORGETFULL Mario – FORGETTING that those writers – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

      And, OH Mario, I see that YOU ARE conveniently FORGETTING to follow up on ALL of your recent Comments to me – in which I make a SNAPPY Come-badk to YOUR Comments to ME !!!

      What, Mario, SOME CAT got your tongue ???????

      Posted by BOBA123
      • September 9, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

        Robert Allen,

        We do not need the Constitution to define the “natural born citizen” clause to know its meaning. The historical record, Acts of Congress, case law of our U.S. Supreme Court, and logic adequately inform us who were “citizens of the United States” up to the time the Constitution was adopted and thereafter and who have always been the “natural born citizens.” I will make it real easy for you to understand.

        People who inhabited the colonies and who were British subjects by birth or by naturalization after birth, and who accepted the Declaration of Independence and adhered to the American Revolution became automatically naturalized citizens of their respective states. Any one of these state citizens existing at the time the Constitution was adopted became at once upon the adoption of the Constitution a “citizen of the United States.” The children born in one of the states to persons who became original “citizens of the United States” were the first true “natural born citizens” and needed no law to grant to them the rights of the “natural born citizens.”

        In keeping with the definition of a “natural born citizen” and the Constitution’s command at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 that Congress make uniform the rules of naturalization, after Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, a “citizen of the United States” was no longer defined by state law, but rather only by Acts of Congress, which included, among others, the Acts of 1795, 1802, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization.

        Only in the Naturalization Act of 1790 did Congress, through its naturalization powers, grant to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents the rights of the “natural born citizens” by considering such children “as natural born citizens.” Since the Constitution specifically states that only a “natural born citizen” is eligible to be President and Vice-President and that command cannot be changed without constitutional amendment, it is doubtful that Congress could by a naturalization law grant to these children, among all the rights that it granted to them, also the right to be eligible to be President. In any event, in the 1795 Act and all that have followed ever since, Congress has never again attempted to grant to children born out of the United States, even to U.S. citizen parents, the status of the “natural born citizens,” let alone the right to be eligible to be president and vice-president. As another sign of how Congress viewed children born out of the United States, in the 1802 Act it treated children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 as aliens. Congress did not restore to such children the status of a “citizen of the United State” at birth until it passed the Naturalization Act of 1855.

        In 1868, the nation passed the Fourteenth Amendment which defined a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of birth in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and confirmed also the “citizen of the United States” status of those persons who were naturalized in the United States. Given Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation and application of this amendment’s citizenship provision, the amendment cleared the way for another class of citizen to be created. Unlike a “natural born citizen,” who had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents, Wong Kim Ark held that it was sufficient for this class of citizen to be born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents. The amendment made clear that persons so born in the United States were “citizens of the United States” at birth and of the state wherein they resided. The former were national citizens and the citizens of the states were just that, state citizens.

        The only “citizen” class that did not change during all this history is the “natural born citizen” class, with the first such “citizens” being children born in the United States to the original “citizens of the United States” and all the later ones being other children born in the United States to “citizen” parents, regardless of whether their parents obtained their citizenship at birth or after birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875). This means that today the definition of a “natural born citizen” continues to be a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

        I hope that this summary will help you clear up any confusion that you might have about the meaning of an Article II “natural born citizen.”

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 9, 2013 at 11:58 pm #

          Shucks, Mario – there IS NOTHING SIMPLER THAN – the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!

          SEE, Mario – I use LESS than 2 lines – FOR my SIMPLE Explaination !!!

          But YOU, Mario – wait, let me QUOTE YOUR rather CONDESCENDING statement to ME – “I will make it real easy for you to understand.” SO, Mario – YOU USE – 64 lines – to “…make it real easy for you to understand.” WHY, Mario – the COMPARISON of 2 lines to 64 lines, let’s see, that’s 32 TIMES as many lines – 3200% !!!!!!!!

          And SOME of us KNOW – ’bout Occam’s razor – that indicates – “Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor from William of Ockham, and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor).

          DAMN, Mario – that 3200% MORE for YOU to CLAIM – in an OBVIOUSLY CONDESCENDING TONE – ” “I will make it real easy for you to understand.” !!!!!!! LOL – LOL – LOL !!!!

          As a ANOTHER ISSUE, Mario – THANK YOU VERY MUCH – for GIVING UP – on that crazy attempt of YOURS – to Divert the Discussion AWAY FROM the – Natural Born Citizen issue – into a discussion the SECOND Amendment to OUR Constitution.

          REMEMBER that GREAT – SNAPPY – response of mine – where I said in part, Mario – “…SHAME on you, Mario, for appearing to STACK the DECK !!!!!”

          I thought that I was being KIND – when I could have used MUCH HARSHER language – but I chose not to. But YOUR Sneakiness of ONLY using a snippet of a subordinate clause – within a ONE Sentence Amendment to OUR Constitution – PUTS YOU, Mario, IN the SAME LEAGUE and CLASS as TRICKY DICKY NIXON – Lawyer – or HIS Attorney Gerneral, John Mitchell !!!!!

          ADDITIONALLY, Mario, I AM TRYING VERY HARD, per Bob Quasius’ request, to KEEP MY COMMENTS – DIRECTLY addressing Bob’s Opening Comments within this thread !!!!!!

          I EVEN, Mario, suggested that YOU ask Bob Quasius to Start another thread – so that YOU, I, and others MAY Discuss the Second Amendment to OUR Constitution !!!!!

          But NO, Mario – it looks like YOU want to Corrupt THIS THREAD with a discussion of the Second Amendment to OUR Constitution !!!!!!!!

          Mario – PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC !!!!!!!! PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!”

          SO, Mario, who BLOW IT, so to speak, on that Occam’s razor thingy !!!!!!

          Mario, YOU BLOW IT – again (in what is starting to look like a PATTERN of BLOW JOBS – on that ATTEMPTED DIVERSION into a discussion of the SECOND AMENDMENT to OUR Constitution !!!!!

          I’m curious, Mario – IS THAT the way that you ARE acting in Court – when you LOST ALL of your Birther Madness madness cases – by first – applying Condescension – and THEN – following THAT up with “applying” Occam’s razor to the issues ?????

          Just Askin’,

          Robert Allen

          Posted by BOBA123
  44. September 10, 2013 at 3:33 am #

    I should also point out that, regardless of whether Mr. Apuzzo is a deliberate and unrepentant liar or has become enmeshed in self-deception, that would not change the fact that he IS a liar. If it is true that he has succumbed to believing his own lies, that merely makes him a pathological liar.

    • September 10, 2013 at 10:39 am #

      Patrick – BOTH you and NotLinda have certainly been able to present a MUCH more believable Historical orientation that Ol’ Mario could ever HOPE to present.

      So, Patrick, from my experiences with Ol’ Mario, I note that he IS a REAL FORGETFUL KIND of Dude. I certainly note that Mario is SO FORGETFUL that he actually FORGETS that he IS a Liar – based on the number of times that he KEEPS FORGETTING – that the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution.

      The sad part, Partrick, IS that Mario WILL PROBABLY FORGET – all of that GREAT HISTORY – that both you and NotLinda present – AGAIN – and again – and again – and again – FORGETTING that he KEEPS FORGETTING – SELECTIVELY, of course !!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
      • September 10, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

        Adding further to the absurdity, even by Vattel’s standard, if the U.S. had ever adopted it (which it most certainly did not), Obama would be a natural born citizen.

        From Vattel’s Law of Nations,

        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        Birthers make the rather asinine claim that Vattel insisted that both parents have to be citizens. “See? It says PARENTS (plural)! Dat mean dat both mommy and daddy have to be both cityzuns! Me so smart!”

        This first: the word translated as “parents” (Paren in old French, Parent in modern French) is a false cognate. The word does NOT mean “parents.” The word means “blood relatives.” Could refer to nieces, nephews, cousins, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or any combinations thereof.

        Moreover, even if the word did mean parents (plural), it is a ridiculous argument. The natives (plural) or natural born citizens (plural) are those born in the country of parents (plural) who are citizens. The word parens (blood relatives) is rendered in the plural because “natives” and “natural born citizens” is rendered in the plural.

        Suppose you were at a fitness center and a sign at the pool said, “Children whose parents are members may use the facility.” Would you understand this to mean that both parents have to be members? No, it would simply mean that if the child’s (plural) mother or father is a member, the child may use the facility.

        But the reference to blood-relatives (parens) is obviously a reference to FATHERS. And the rest of the quotation makes it perfectly clear. “Those children naturally follow the condition of their FATHERS. The country of their FATHERS is therefore that of the children … it is necessary that a person be born of a FATHER who is a citizen.”

        (The second edition of Vattel, by the way, included a footnote that added if the child is illegitimate, he would follow the citizenship of the mother.)

        It would seem somewhat hard to believe that early America would have insisted that both parents be citizens. In law, there is an axiom that describes the situation of the married couples in the early days of the United States: “Husband and wife become one person … and that person is the husband.”

        Now, does this mean that Obama could not be a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen? That is virtually impossible. In the early 20th century, nations which adopted the Vattelian standard, such as France, Germany and Switzerland, all changed their laws to place mothers on equal footing with fathers. It seems highly unlikely that the United States, which prides itself on equality and extended to women the right to vote in 1920 (which was about 144 years too late), would not follow suit.

        Of course, we cannot know for certain, but in light of the fact that 8 U.S.C. section 1401, and other laws that determine citizenship specify “parent” without reference to which parent, I would imagine that the U.S. almost certainly would have adopted the same standard by the time Obama was born.

        • September 10, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

          WOAH – Patrick – you say –
          “This first: the word translated as “parents” (Paren in old French, Parent in modern French) is a false cognate. The word does NOT mean “parents.” The word means “blood relatives.” Could refer to nieces, nephews, cousins, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or any combinations thereof.”

          THAT MEANS, Patrick – that SIBS who get it on – and HAVE a Child – THAT Child WOULD BE – a Natural Born Citizen – AT BIRTH !!!! And INCEST – YES, Patrick – INCEST – COULD PRODUCE – a NATION FULL of INCESTUOUS – Natural Born Citizens !!!! I DON’T think that the Christians who approve of THAT!!!! AND, Patrick – WE KNOW – that INCEST FREQUENTLY Produces MUTANTS – SO – WE COULD have a NATION of MUTANT – Natural Born Citizens !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          I’m SHOCKED, Patrick – ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED !!!!

          HEY, Mario – ARE YOU SHOCKED – that a WHOLE NATION COULD HAVE – a Nation of – MUTANT Natural Born Citizens – that ARE a PRODUCT – of INCEST ??? PLEASE, Mario – SAY SOMETHING ‘BOUT Dat !!!!! PLEASE Mario – SAY SOMETHIN” !!!!!!!

          AND, What ’bout YOU, David Farrar – DO YOU want a NATION of – MUTANT Natural Born Citizens – that ARE the PRODUCT of INCEST ???????

          Let’s HOPE, Patrick, that Bob Quasius (the guy who runs this Blog Space – and the guy who started this Blog Space) takes a LIBERAL VIEW of YOUR Comment – and ALLOWS your comment – to go – UNMOLESTED, so to speak !!!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
  45. September 10, 2013 at 8:23 am #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    I see you are still at your lying. Here some more law of nations for your pleasure:

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett (1875) (cited and quoted also in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)).

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 10, 2013 at 10:51 am #

      Mario Apuzzo,

      I see that you are still at your SELECTIVE FORGETFULNESS – FORGETTING that the writers of OUR Constitution – JUST FORGET to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution !!!!!

      Mario – as far as YOU actually contributing anything of note within this Birther Madness madness………… FORGET IT !!!!!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! LOL !!! – LOL !!!

      Posted by BOBA123
    • September 10, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

      Which says that those born in the country to citizen parents are natural born citizens. A point I never disputed. What is missing is the restrictive terminology. Nothing in the language used suggests that this was the ONLY way one can be a natural born citizen.

      • September 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

        You KNOW, Partick – that Ol’ Mario is JUST GOINA FORGET – this comment of yours !!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
    • September 11, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “Patrick J. Colliano, I see you are still at your lying.”

      No Mr. Apuzzo, that’s not how things are.

      As I already pointed out, you told a federal court, “Obama stated publicly in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport.” You pretend to be standing for principle, but you packed your complaint with lies and smears. You signed it, and your client, with the benefit of your advice, swore to it.

      Later, when that case was on appeal, you wrote: “Putative President Obama’s supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie.” Your debunkers did indeed point out that the Berg precedent doomed your appeal, but did we lie? Now we know. The Court not only dismissed your appeal, citing the Berg precedent, they found your appeal frivolous and noted with concern that your failed to cite Berg in your opening brief.
      http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20fco%2020100702075

      You Mr. Apuzzo, are a liar and you call truth-tellers liars. These are not just names people call; these are facts that we can document. It is who you are and what you do.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • September 11, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

        AND, NotLinda – Ol’ Mario STILL REFUSES to talk about those MUTANT Natural Born Citizens !!!! See my 9/10/13 Comment to Patrick for the DETAILS on these MUTANT Natural Born Citizens !!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
      • September 12, 2013 at 11:29 am #

        NotLinda,

        You are still the liar and manipulator of truth.

        (1) You said:

        “As I already pointed out, you told a federal court, ‘Obama stated publicly in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport.’ You pretend to be standing for principle, but you packed your complaint with lies and smears. You signed it, and your client, with the benefit of your advice, swore to it.”

        Your complaint mining is hilarious. The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it. Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country. I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country. But the point is not what type of ban was there, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban. The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan. I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81. In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time. To this day, Obama has refused to disclose to the American people the passport with which he travel to Pakistan in his youthful years.

        (2) Then you said:

        “Later, when that case [Kerchner] was on appeal, you wrote: ‘Putative President Obama’s supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie.’ Your debunkers did indeed point out that the Berg precedent doomed your appeal, but did we lie? Now we know. The Court not only dismissed your appeal, citing the Berg precedent, they found your appeal frivolous and noted with concern that you failed to cite Berg in your opening brief. http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20fco%2020100702075

        That the Third Circuit dismissed my appeal for lack of standing (it never reached the merits of the definition of an Article II “natural born citizen”) does not prove that Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case “is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case.” A simple reading of both cases plainly shows that they are not “exactly” the same. Without going into all the differences between the two cases, suffice it to say that Berg did not argue the Minor definition of a “natural born citizen” (birth in the country to “citizen” parents) nor did he make the 5th Amendment due process (life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility) and equal protection arguments as basis for standing.

        Finally, as I explained to the Third Circuit, there is no rule in New Jersey which obligates an attorney to cite any case in his opening brief. With the Berg case, the case was cited and argued by the defense in its opposition brief. I then fully briefed the case in my reply brief. Upon receiving my response to its order to show cause, the court immediately discharged it order to show cause and assessed no penalties against me.

        So, NotLinda, not only do you lose again, but you are also no truth-teller and not even close to it.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 12, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

          Mario, on a totally different subject – it LOOKS LIKE you are NOT in the LEAST CONCERNED – about MUTANT Natural Born Citizens.

          I EVEN included my ORIGINAL note to Patrick – DIRECTLY INTO a response to one of your Comments, Mario !!!!!!!

          Mario – Mario – DON’T you EVEN CARE about Mutant Natural Born Citizens taking OVER OUR Country ?????????????????

          SPEAK, Mario, SPEAK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
        • September 12, 2013 at 8:40 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
          “Your complaint mining is hilarious. The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it. Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country. I am, however, not aware of an actual travel ‘ban’ from the U.S. to that country.”

          Mr. Apuzzo, you write in a tone that suggests you are disagreeing with my claims, but you state facts that confirm what I wrote. If the point was this thing you say now, why did you have your client falsely swear to another? You told a federal court, “we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport.” You signed it, and your client, with your advice, swore to in.

          How can one who is not aware of an actual travel ban swear to a court that he knows such travel was prohibited? Is “lie” somehow an inappropriate or unfair term for what you and your client did?

          Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
          “That the Third Circuit dismissed my appeal for lack of standing (it never reached the merits of the definition of an Article II ‘natural born citizen’) does not prove that Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case ‘is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case.’ A simple reading of both cases plainly shows that they are not ‘exactly’ the same.”

          When you go after use of the word “exactly”, please remember that it was *your* word. I don’t know every word that every one of your debunkers used, but you put in on Obama’s supporters generally: “Putative President Obama’s supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie.” Your debunkers told the truth and you called it “an outright lie”.

          Posted by NotLinda
          • September 12, 2013 at 11:09 pm #

            Frustratin’, ain’t it, NotLinda, dealin’ with Mario’s VERSION of “the truth” – ‘specially when ONLY Mario, and nobody else ‘cept Birther Madness madness folk, “sees” Mario’s VERSION … or is that …. is that … (I better not finish this sentence, cuz Bob Quasius would not approve).

            ‘NUFF Said,

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 13, 2013 at 8:26 am #

            NotLinda,

            You said:

            “Mr. Apuzzo, you write in a tone that suggests you are disagreeing with my claims, but you state facts that confirm what I wrote. If the point was this thing you say now, why did you have your client falsely swear to another? You told a federal court, “we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport.” You signed it, and your client, with your advice, swore to in.
            How can one who is not aware of an actual travel ban swear to a court that he knows such travel was prohibited? Is “lie” somehow an inappropriate or unfair term for what you and your client did?”

            The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it. Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country. I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country. But the point is not what type of ban was there, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban. The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan. I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81. In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time. To this day, Obama has refused to disclose to the American people the passport with which he travel to Pakistan in his youthful years.

            Also, I see that you now agree with me that the Third Circuit Kerchner case was not “exactly” like the Berg case.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:52 am #

            Mario Apuxxo, ESQ.

            You said: Blah, blah, Blah.

            Also, I see that you, Mario now agree with me that the Blah, blah, blah – IS JUST – Blah, blah, blah.

            Posted by BOBA123
  46. September 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

    Patrick J. Colliano,

    “Parents” in Vattel’s and the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural born citizen” has to mean both parents.

    First, the strongest reason for the need for two U.S. citizen parents is the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause. Through the clause, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers sought to provide a “strong check” on and to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military all foreign and monarchical influence. Hence, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers tied presidential and commander eligibility to a “natural born citizen” because it is a citizenship status which allows the child to be born with no foreign allegiance and citizenship. In other words, no other nation other than the United States can lay any claim to the allegiance of a U.S. “natural born citizen.” That is so because the child must be born in the United States (cutting off any foreign nation jus soli claim to the child) to two U.S. citizen parents (cutting of any foreign nation jus sanguinis claim to the child). If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child would still inherit a foreign allegiance and citizenship from the other alien parent through jus sanguinis citizenship just as much as if both parents were aliens. So, birth to just one U.S. citizen parent changes nothing for the child in terms of whether the child inherits a foreign allegiance and citizenship. For this reason, two U.S. citizen parents is required. So, your fitness center analogy proves nothing, for making one parent sufficient for children pool use could be sufficient for the center’s purposes (surely nothing do with the national security and safety of a nation and its people), but making both parents necessary for “natural born citizen” purposes is as we have seen necessary for national security and safety purposes).

    Second, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that a child born in the country to alien parents is as much a “citizen” as the natural born child born in the country to citizen parents. This statement can only have sense if both parents are either aliens or citizens.

    Third, your argument that Vattel’s French word “parents” means the “blood relatives” or the family is absurd. If you have any doubt about what Vattel meant by “parents,” consider these instances in which Vattel also used “parents:” “A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth.” Section 122. Children are not born to brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc., but rather only to mothers and fathers. Again Vattel says that “country” “signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth.” Section 122. Vattel’s definition of “country” would not be workable, for “blood relatives” could be literally scattered all over the world. Hence, we can easily see how wrong you are to define Vattel’s “parents” to mean anything other than a child’s both parents.

    Fourth, your equal protection argument is a red herring. The maxim that explained that children followed the citizenship of the father was “partus sequitur patrem.” That was the rule under the law of nations. We also adopted this rule for the United States. The rule also existed that if the child was illegitimate, the child followed the condition of the mother. But no one is arguing that the “father’s” citizenship controls while that of the mother does not. Vattel refers to “fathers” because, not only did children follow the condition of their fathers, but so did wives. There was no such thing as the husband having one citizenship and the wife having another. So when Vattel said “fathers,” he really meant “parents” in the plural. Our U.S. Supreme Court has always interpreted Vattel’s “parents” to mean both mother and father.

    Our nation adopted the doctrine that the wife acquired the citizenship of her husband. In 1922, through the Cable Act, women finally were able to have their own citizenship independent from their husbands. But this does not mean that we went from two parents to one parent in the definition of a “natural born citizen.” The definition always required two U.S parents and it continued to do so. What the Cable Act and later acts did is that they changed the mechanism by which one becomes a “natural born citizen” by requiring that both the husband and wife take affirmative steps to become a citizen before their children are born to them in the country if they want those children to be “natural born citizens.” This means that a wife no longer can just rely upon getting married to acquire her U.S. citizenship and then give birth to a child who her husband and she desire to be a “natural born citizen.”

    So as you can see, the evidence is stacked against you that “parents” means anything other than both parents.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 10, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

      Mario – YOU write – “Children are not born to brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc., but rather only to mothers and fathers.”

      I’m SHOCKED, Mario, BUT not surprised !!!!!

      Mario – PLEASE read my response to Patrick’s Comment – to which YOU are ALSO responding.

      I CLEARLY write to Patrick – ” Patrick – INCEST – COULD PRODUCE – a NATION FULL of INCESTUOUS – Natural Born Citizens !!!! I DON’T think that the Christians who approve of THAT!!!!”

      It CERTAINLY appears, Mario, that YOU ARE one of them thar Christians – BECAUSE, Mario, in YOUR Comment, that I am responding to – YOU, Mario write – “Children are not born to brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc., but rather only to mothers and fathers.”

      First Mario – I’M SHOCKED that you appear to have a VERY CONSERVATION Christian thingy going on within YOU PSYCHE – that YOU, Mario – CAN’T EVEN Conceptualize, let alone write ANYTHING OTHER than YOUR STATEMENT that – ONLY mothers and fathers – BARE Children – AND that NO INCESTUOUS relationships EVER RESULT in BORN Children !!!!! Mario, YOU WRITE – “Children are not born to brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.” in a CATAGORICAL STATEMENT – that, as one of them thar Christians, Mario, OBVIOUSELY CONFOUND – BIOLOGY with a Christian Faithy thingy!!!!!

      Obviously, Mario, you ALSO appear to have FAILED the comment that I wrote to Patrick – as EVIDENCED by YOUR FAILURE, Mario, to RESPOND to MY PLEA to YOU, PERSONALLY – to wit – “HEY, Mario – ARE YOU SHOCKED – that a WHOLE NATION COULD HAVE – a Nation of – MUTANT Natural Born Citizens – that ARE a PRODUCT – of INCEST ??? PLEASE, Mario – SAY SOMETHING ‘BOUT Dat !!!!! PLEASE Mario – SAY SOMETHIN” !!!!!!!”

      Hell, Mario – WHY should I go about lifting a quote, here and there from within my comment to Patrick – when it IS FAR EASIER for me just to lift the ENTIRE COMMENT that I made to Patrick – AND – Place THAT COMMENT – right here !!!!! Start of my comment to Patrick –

      “WOAH – Patrick – you say –
      “This first: the word translated as “parents” (Paren in old French, Parent in modern French) is a false cognate. The word does NOT mean “parents.” The word means “blood relatives.” Could refer to nieces, nephews, cousins, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or any combinations thereof.”

      THAT MEANS, Patrick – that SIBS who get it on – and HAVE a Child – THAT Child WOULD BE – a Natural Born Citizen – AT BIRTH !!!! And INCEST – YES, Patrick – INCEST – COULD PRODUCE – a NATION FULL of INCESTUOUS – Natural Born Citizens !!!! I DON’T think that the Christians who approve of THAT!!!! AND, Patrick – WE KNOW – that INCEST FREQUENTLY Produces MUTANTS – SO – WE COULD have a NATION of MUTANT – Natural Born Citizens !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I’m SHOCKED, Patrick – ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED !!!!

      HEY, Mario – ARE YOU SHOCKED – that a WHOLE NATION COULD HAVE – a Nation of – MUTANT Natural Born Citizens – that ARE a PRODUCT – of INCEST ??? PLEASE, Mario – SAY SOMETHING ‘BOUT Dat !!!!! PLEASE Mario – SAY SOMETHIN” !!!!!!!

      AND, What ’bout YOU, David Farrar – DO YOU want a NATION of – MUTANT Natural Born Citizens – that ARE the PRODUCT of INCEST ???????

      Let’s HOPE, Patrick, that Bob Quasius (the guy who runs this Blog Space – and the guy who started this Blog Space) takes a LIBERAL VIEW of YOUR Comment – and ALLOWS your comment – to go – UNMOLESTED, so to speak !!!!!!!” – END of my comment to Patrick !

      SO, Mario – ARE YA GOINA ANSWER MY PERSONAL PLEA – for YOU, Mario, to SAY SOMETHING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Robert Allen

      Posted by BOBA123
    • September 11, 2013 at 9:43 am #

      Apuzzo writes: “’Parents’ in Vattel’s and the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ has to mean both parents.”

      No, it does not. “Parents” is rendered in the plural because “natives” is rendered in the plural. And the only definition of “natural born citizen” that could be inferred by any Supreme Court ruling is from Wong Kim Ark, not Minor.

      As I said before, a sign that says, “Only children whose parents are members may use this facility” does not imply that both parents have to be members in order for the child to use the facility. Could be either the child’s mother or father. A sign that says, “Children must be accompanied by their parents” does not demand that both parents accompany the child.

      And no nation that has adopted the Vattelian standard has EVER interpreted the idea that Vattel inferred that both parents have to be citizens. Reading further in Vattel, he plainly states that the father is the transmitter of citizenship.

      From Vattel’s Law of Nations:

      “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their FATHERS, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the FATHERS is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a FATHER who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      Are you suggesting, that because “fathers” is rendered in the plural, that each child has more than one father? Was Vattel advocating same-sex marriage, with adoption privileges, no less?

      Of course not. “Fathers” is rendered in the plural because “children” is rendered in the plural.

      In much the same way, “parents” is rendered in the plural, because the words incorrectly translated as “natives or natural born citizens” are in the plural. And Vattel makes it very clear in the same paragraph that the “blood relatives” he is referring to are the fathers.

      • September 11, 2013 at 10:20 am #

        I’m NOT surprised, Patrick, that you NEED to repeat your position for Mario because of Mario’s SELECTIVE Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) – which appears to me to also go hand-in-hand with Mario’s SELECTIVE FORGETFULNESS. Let’s see, Patrick, IF Ol’ Mario, FINALLY gets it !!!!!

        What concerns me though, Patrick, IS that Ol’ Mario HASN’T said ANYTHING about a Nation FILLED with MUTANT – Natural Born Citizens !!!!! One WOULD think – from Mario’s LACK of response to THIS ISSUE – that Ol’ Mario FAVORS the Notion – of a Nation FILLED – with MUTANT Natural Born Citizens !!!!!

        Speak UP, Mario – SPEAK UP. EVERYONE IS WAITING for you, Mario, to weigh in on this issue of a Nation FILLED with Mutant Natural Born Citizens !!!!!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
    • September 11, 2013 at 10:11 am #

      Apuzzo: “There was no such thing as the husband having one citizenship and the wife having another.”

      The Supreme Court decision of Shanks v. DuPont says you’re wrong.

      From Shanks v. Dupont, when deciding the citizenship of Ann Shanks (nee Scott):

      “Now in the first place the capture and possession by the British was not an absolute change of the allegiance of the captured inhabitants. They owed allegiance indeed to the conquerors during their occupation, but it was a temporary allegiance which did not destroy but only suspend their former allegiance. It did not annihilate their allegiance to the State of South Carolina and make them de facto aliens. That could only be by a treaty of peace which should cede the territory, and them with it, or by a permanent conquest, not disturbed or controverted by arms, which would lead to a like result. Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect, because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not effect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens. If it were otherwise, then a femme alien would by her marriage become, ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband, which are clearly contrary to law.

      “Our conclusion therefore is that neither of these acts warrants the Court in saying that Ann Shands had ceased to be a citizen of South Carolina at the death of her father. This is not, indeed, controverted in the allegations of the parties.”

      It clearly states that a marriage, in and of itself, did not remove Ann Shanks U.S. citizenship. More importantly, they point out that an alien woman who marries an American does NOT become an American citizen because of her marriage.

      Ann Shanks, it turns out, DID lose her American citizenship, but NOT because she married an alien.

      • September 11, 2013 at 11:31 am #

        Patrick – EVERY time that I see the word – alien – I think of folk from outer space. I know, Patrick, that this is my personal hang-up, but I suspect that a grant number of other folk may have the same hang-up.

        Posted by BOBA123
    • September 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm #

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
      “Second, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that a child born in the country to alien parents is as much a ‘citizen’ as the natural born child born in the country to citizen parents. This statement can only have sense if both parents are either aliens or citizens.”

      And then we read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and find parent in the singular:

      “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen”
      United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) at 665, quoting Binney.

      We can’t both be telling the truth. Look it up.

      Posted by NotLinda
      • September 11, 2013 at 11:28 pm #

        Remember, NotLinda, Ol’ Mario, BEING the FORGETFUL kind of guy he IS (FORGETTING to realize that the guys writing OUR Constitutiton, JUST FORGOT to DEFINE – Natural Born Citizen – within OUR Constitution) JUST FORGOT – that there IS a DIFFERENCE – between Plural and Singular !!!!

        NOT ONLY that, NotLinda, Mario – with his SELECTIVE READING COMPREHENSIVE DISORDER (RCD) – Mario, IS most likely goina FAIL to READ your Comment – thus will NOT FEEL any obligation for a Simple Courtasy of responding to your Comment – although, NotLinda, your comment OFFERS a SIMPLE Black or White, so to speak, CHOICE !!!!!

        Posted by BOBA123
      • September 12, 2013 at 10:34 am #

        NotLinda,

        You said: “’The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) at 665, quoting Binney.

        We can’t both be telling the truth. Look it up.”

        First, your quote is correct. But I did not quote Wong Kim Ark or Binney.

        Second, demonstrate for all of us here how what you quote from Wong Kim Ark and Binney proves that what I said is incorrect.

        I’ll be waiting.

        Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
        • September 12, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

          So, Mario, who’s paying you to do all this, anyway? You don’t strike me as the principled sort. Anything but, as a matter of fact. Obviously, someone’s dumping money in your pockets to keep you from advancing arguments that you know are false.

          Let’s see, what do I know about Mario Apuzzo. Full-blooded Italian, and from New Jersey. Well, that certainly answers that.

          But…why?

          • September 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

            AND, Patrick – the little that I know about Ol’ Mario is that he considers himeself – THE LEADER – IL DUCE (in Italian) of this Birther Madness madness – AND – that he, Mario, sees himself AS Victorious within ALL of his Birther Madness madness postings – so I SAY to Mario – Hail Victory – or as they WOULD pronounce it in German – Seig Heil, Il Duce !!!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

            I don’t know that Mario considers himself the leader of the birthers. He certainly has no reason to. The two-citizen parent soi-disant requirement certainly wasn’t invented by him. Leo Donofrio (another Italian Jersey-based attorney, although Leo has since abandoned his practice and the birther movement and never looked back) was the one who started that nonsense.

            The most VISIBLE presence in the birther movement is Orly Taitz (or Donald Trump). Mario might be said to be the most COMPETENT attorney in the birther movement, although Phil Berg might give him a run for the money. Orly is certainly no threat to Mario in that regard. In courtrooms, she’s a one-woman disaster area.

            So, if Mario is supposed to be the leader of the birthers, by what distinction does he make this claim? If he makes it at all, which I’ve never seen him do.

          • September 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm #

            WELL, Patrick, Ol’ Mario HAS put me down a number of times – and frequently, Ol’ Mario’s Selective Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) prevents him from actually READING a great deal of what I write – and Ol’ Mario has this attitude about himself, that passes ALL Understanding – Thus, Patrick, Ol’ Mario has ALL THREE of the MOST BASIC Qualities TO BE – THE LEADER (IL DUCE) of those Birther Madness madness folk – SO, Ol’ Mario LEADS this pack of Jackals !!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
        • September 12, 2013 at 8:39 pm #

          Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
          “First, your quote is correct. But I did not quote Wong Kim Ark or Binney.”

          *Both* of my quotes were correct. Here they are again:

          Mario Apuzzo had written:
          “Second, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that a child born in the country to alien parents is as much a ‘citizen’ as the natural born child born in the country to citizen parents. This statement can only have sense if both parents are either aliens or citizens.”

          The U.S. Supreme Court in WKA wrote:
          “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen”
          United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) at 665, quoting Binney.”

          In one post you cite WKA and lift the words, “is as much a citizen as the natural born child”, right out of the WKA quote of Binny. In the next you tell us, “I did not quote Wong Kim Ark or Binney”.

          Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
          “Second, demonstrate for all of us here how what you quote from Wong Kim Ark and Binney proves that what I said is incorrect.”

          ‘Incorrect’ is a bit too mild for this kind of thing.

          Posted by NotLinda
          • September 12, 2013 at 10:59 pm #

            I know, NotLinda, I KNOW – that ALL of the Politeness that Ol’ Mario receives – tends to be a wasted effort – but hey, NotLinda, you and I ONLY SEE – the Weirdness of Mario’s world – from the Outside lookin’ in. Just TRY to immagine, NotLinda, Mario’s view of the World – from the inside Lookin’ OUT !!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 13, 2013 at 8:17 am #

            NotLinda,

            You are desperate and as usual incorrect. I did quote Gray and Binney in one post and paraphrased them in another. There is nothing wrong with that. Also, your saying that “you lift,” is dishonest as all things that you write. If I quote, I do not “lift.” Also, I have throughout the years indicted that it was Justice Gray, quoting Binney, who made this statement which I also said proves that Justice Gray distinguished a child born in the country to alien parents from a natural born child born in the county to citizen parents.
            Also, I see that you were not able to refute my argument that when Gray/Binney said, “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle,’” they could only have meant that both parents of the child were either aliens or citizens.

            I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate how the Gray/Binney quote could allow for just one citizen parent or one alien parent. Tell me how long I should wait.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:47 am #

            Mario, You are desperate and as usual incorrect. THIS ENTIRE THREAD – as with that Birther Madness madness thread – IS CLEAR EVIDENCE – of THIS FACT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Posted by boba123
  47. September 12, 2013 at 6:48 pm #

    Oh, please. Mario has put you down? Getting slammed by Mario is like someone trying to stone you to death with popcorn. He can throw the stuff at you all day, it wouldn’t do a damned thing to you.

    • September 12, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

      Obots like “Patrick J. Colliano” argue that any child who is a citizen at birth is a
      “natural born citizen.” This is an erroneous constitutional position. The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers gave to the “natural born citizen” clause just one definition at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. That definition, which Minor v. Happersett (1875) in one of its holdings confirmed was based on the “common-law” the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Explaining what a native citizen and a “natural-born citizen” were under that “common-law,” the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said:

      “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.”

      U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in its decision in which it defined a native “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born citizen”), cited and quoted this exact “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen.” This constitutional definition was part and parcel of “the Constitution,” and therefore, became part of “the supreme Law of the Land.” Article VI. This means that given Article V, this definition of a “natural born citizen” could be changed only by an Article V constitutional amendment.

      Yet, Obots like “Colliano” maintain that the definition of a “natural born citizen” can change every day of the week by mere Act of Congress and without constitutional amendment. Under their thesis, all we need is Congress to just tell us what a citizen at birth is and we have a new definition of a “natural born citizen.” But Congress cannot change the Constitution by mere statute. Additionally, even if Congress could somehow define a “natural born citizen,” the text of its citizenship statutes does not contain the clause “natural born citizen.” Rather, its statutes define a “citizen of the United States,” which Article I and II clearly distinguish from a “natural born citizen.”

      “Colliano” Obots also argue that the Fourteenth Amendment gives us citizens at birth who are also necessarily Article II “natural born citizens.” But neither the text nor the amendment’s history in any way suggests that the amendment repealed or amended the “natural born citizen” clause. Minor explained that the amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Wong Kim Ark, itself a Fourteenth Amendment case, cited and quoted Minor’s statement that the amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Constitutional scholar, Charles Gordon, agrees when he argues that “the fourteenth amendment has little significant relevance to the appraisal of the presidential qualification clause.” And so does Cornell Law Professor, William A. Jacobson, who, echoing what I have been arguing since 2008, recently concluded, “The 14th Amendment defines birth citizenship, but not ‘natural born Citizen[ship],’” for Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship is “a different concept than ‘natural born’ citizenship, at least in theory.” Professor Jacobson also cites and quotes Charles Gordon to support his position.

      Finally, “Colliano” Obots argue that Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment case that gave us a new class of native citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, also defines a “natural born citizen.” First, we have seen that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Given that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born citizen,” and Wong Kim Ark is a Fourteenth Amendment case, logic dictates that Wong Kim Ark could not possibly provide a holding that defined a “natural born citizen.” Rather, what Wong Kim Ark did was distinguish an Article II “natural born citizen” from a Fourteenth Amendment native “citizen of the United States” at birth. Not being prevented by any express constitutional provision and operating under the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, with the aid of the colonial English common law and by analogy to an English “natural born subject,” created another class of native citizen at birth by virtue of birth in the country. This native citizen is defined as born in the United States while “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Under the Court’s holding, even children born in the United States to one or two domiciled and resident alien parents, who are neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, are “citizens of the United States” at birth. This birthright citizenship status, other than being given by the Constitution itself and therefore being out of the hands of Congress to touch beyond how it can still correctly define what “born in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction” mean, is no different from the same birthright citizen status which Congress calls “citizen of the United States” at birth under its citizenship and naturalization acts.

      The Obots say that I am wrong for maintaining that Wong Kim Ark did not define a “natural born citizen” any differently than did Minor. But there are constitutional scholars that agree with me. See, among others, Professor Jacobson (recently commented on Wong Kim Ark and its role in defining a “natural born citizen,” and explained: “[T]hat was not at issue in the case. . . ‘natural born Citizen[ship]’ was not the issue in the case, and the Court did not even purport to rule on the issue as to whether someone is a ‘natural born Citizen;” Charles Gordon (Wong Kim Ark “did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference”). See also Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (concedes that Wong Kim Ark did not in words hold that Wong was a “natural born citizen,” but then attempts to make Wong Kim Ark into a “natural born citizen” case by arguing that the case interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment and then suggesting but without demonstrating that the amendment defines a “natural born citizen”).

      As I have said on my blog and explained to Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter, the Obots and their supporters provide a logically invalid argument: all “natural born citizens” are citizens at birth; X is a citizen at birth; therefore, X is a “natural born citizen.” They argue that by the lone fact that someone is a citizen at birth (a necessary but not sufficient condition of being a “natural born citizen”), that person is a “natural born citizen.” This argument is invalid because it commits the fallacies of violating the rule of the undistributed middle and of affirming the consequent (poor Bubbles). Even if we were to convert their invalid argument into a valid one, i.e., all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens;” X is a citizen at birth; therefore, X is a “natural born citizen,” they still are wrong. With this maneuver, they would provide a logically valid argument. But the argument is unsound (a logically valid argument which contains a false major or minor premise which gives a false conclusion). The false major premise is that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens.” This major premise is false because Squeeky Fromm and “Colliano” Obots have no historical or legal evidence that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens.” Given this false major premises, it is error to conclude that simply because someone is a citizen at birth, that person is a “natural born citizen.”

      So, simply showing that Obama (although he has yet to provide to any court competent evidence that he is a citizen at birth by birth in the United States), Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are citizens at birth (just one necessary condition) does not prove that they are “natural born citizens.” Rather, what they have to prove is that they were born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were U.S. “citizens” (either “natural born citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth (all the necessary and sufficient conditions). As we have seen, their birth circumstances do not allow them to be able to prove these necessary and sufficient birth facts. They are all, therefore, not “natural born citizens.”

      Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
      • September 12, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

        You misrepresent my position, but what else is new? No, the Fourteenth Amendment did not make Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen, nor could it. The Fourteenth Amendment, as the Supreme Court declared in Wong Kim Ark, was “declaratory in form.” Its sole purpose was to extend what was already true, to African-Americans, which in the appalling Dred Scott decision, were ruled not to be citizens, nor could they ever be. Even free blacks who had been granted the right to own property and vote in their particular state could not be citizens, according to Dred Scott.

        Wong Kim Ark did not need the Fourteenth Amendment, nor did the Supreme Court rely upon it. Instead, the court (as it often does), resorted to common-law to ascertain what the Framers meant by “natural born.” After having delved into authorities on the subject, such as the first Chief Justice of the English Supreme Court, Alexander Cockburn and British jurist Albert Venn Dicey, they determined that a child born in England, even to aliens, was considered a “natural born subject,” and noted that the U.S. had always observed “the same rule.”

        Obviously, Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. In fact, the Chief Justice Fuller noted it in his dissenting opinion. His reason for dissent was precisely because he believed it was “unreasonable” to assume that a person born in the U.S. even to aliens just passing through “were natural born citizens and eligible to the Presidency.”

        While a dissenting opinion carries no judicial weight, he obviously believes that the Supreme Court just ruled Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen.”

        • September 12, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

          Well, HOT DAMN, Patrick – that IS a SHORT and SWEET response to ALL of Mario’s Jammerin’ ’bout Wong Kim Ark and CHIEF Justice Fuller.

          NOW WHY, can’t Ol’ Mario – EVER be short and sweet like that ????? After all – Mario’s a Laywer – who KNOWS ’bout Brief !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Posted by BOBA123
        • September 13, 2013 at 7:02 am #

          I love how the Obots try to gain an advantage by saying that the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory. But the question is declaratory of what? Based on Justice Gray’s lengthy explanation of the colonial English common law, maybe he believed that he had to prove that it was declaratory of that law (an erroneous conclusion). But the problem you have is that even if the amendment was declaratory of the old English common law, that law did not define a “natural born citizen.” Rather it defined a much different type of member of a nation, a “natural born subject.” And Justice Gray knew that, for, knowing how Minor had defined a “natural-born citizen,” he distinguished the son of aliens born in the country from the natural born son of citizen parents born in the country.

          Finally, as I have explained already, Chief Justice Fuller’s erroneous and unwarranted dicta in his dissenting opinion concerning presidential eligibility is no basis for defining a “natural born citizen.”

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:42 am #

            I love how the Birther Madness madness RObots try to gain an advantage by saying that Birther Madness madness IS – the END ALL and BE ALL !!!!!!

            I’d LOVE to say, Mario, that YOUR Birther Madness madness – LEAVES QUITE a LOT OUT – when it comes to Human Decency – but Mario, I’m certain that YOU DON’T have a CLUE as to WHAT I would even be talking about !!!!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
        • June 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm #

          After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. “We are all now,” as first Chief Justice John Jay observed in 1789, in the Chisholm v. Georgia case, “sovereigns without subjects”. It is ‘as sovereigns’ then we must look to find the proper definition of the enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” inserted into Art. II, §1, cl. 4.”

          As sovereigns, our children would inherit their sovereignty from their father (partus sequitur patrem), as natural law dictates. As sovereigns, our children would also be ‘natural citizens’ wherever their birth occurs, again, as natural law dictates.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

          Posted by davidfarrar
      • September 12, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

        ROBOTS like “Mario Apuzzo, ESQ” argue that any ol’ Birther Madness madness argument IS the CAT’S MEOW – which IS SOFTER than a Doggie’s BOW WOW – and as about a “meaningful” as a Pig SQUEAKING in Mud !!!

        Naturally, Bob Quasius, the above paragraph is rich in MANY Metaphores – and if you’ve EVER seen a PIG SQUEAK in Mud (I, like you, Bob, come from Minnesota [THE Heartland of BASIC GOODNESS], thus have actually seen PIGS SQUEAK in Mud), then you KNOW that this IS a RICH Metaphore – and NOT just low-down name-calling !!!!!!

        Well, Mario, now that I’ve dealt with an issue that I know Bob Quasius IS WATCHING me, very closely on – let’s get down to Brass Tacks !!!!

        Obama is JUST – “A typical American boy from a typical American town. Who believes in God and Senator Dodd and a-keepin’ old Castro down. And when it came his time to serve he knew “better dead than red”, but when he got it from the Birther Madness madness guys, this is what I said: – Ah Shit, this IS a NEW TWIST on RACISM – but it’s the same ol’, same ol’, all over again!!!!”

        Posted by BOBA123
      • September 13, 2013 at 2:45 am #

        Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
        “As I have said on my blog and explained to Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter, the Obots and their supporters provide a logically invalid argument: all ‘natural born citizens’ are citizens at birth; X is a citizen at birth; therefore, X is a ‘natural born citizen.'”

        That’s not even a straw-man; it’s outright fabrication. Here you attribute your bad argument to unnamed “Obots and their supporters”, but you’ve also falsely attributed it to a Report to Congress by the Congressional Research Service.

        Your argument by bad syllogism does not appear in the Report. You made it up.
        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

        Posted by NotLinda
        • September 13, 2013 at 6:35 am #

          NotLinda,

          It appears as though you know very little about logical syllogisms. Do you really think that you can find neatly packaged syllogisms in people’s writings?

          I gave you two choices, either Jack Maskell’s invalid argument or his valid one which is unsound. So which one do you want to defend, NotLinda?

          Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 13, 2013 at 7:48 am #

            It’s a valid argument that is quite sound, thanks so much, Mario. Your arguments, on the other hand…

          • September 13, 2013 at 8:33 am #

            Patrick J. Colliano,

            Do you really think that you are entitled to any points for just opening your mouth?

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:55 am #

            Mario Apuzzo, ESQ.,

            Do YOU really think that you are entitled to any points for just opening your mouth?

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 13, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

            Robert Allen,

            May I respectfully recommend some bed rest for you.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

            Mario, Mario, Mario – I’M ONLY – REPEATING the words that YOU Use !!!!!!!

            I believe that it’s been said, somewhere – that IMMITATION IS the BEST COMPLIMENT !!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:44 am #

            WELL SAID, Patrick !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Posted by BOBA123
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:37 am #

            Oh, BOY – so NOW – Ol’ Mario – IS – THE – MASTER of Syllogism !!!!!!!!!! That’s one of YOUR best jokes yet, Mario !!!!!!

            Posted by boba123
          • September 13, 2013 at 11:10 pm #

            Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
            “It appears as though you know very little about logical syllogisms. Do you really think that you can find neatly packaged syllogisms in people’s writings?”

            Yet again you seem to have me confused with you. I’m the one pointed out that the CSR papers did *not* argue from Aristotelian syllogism. The CRS considered the weight of legal and historical evidence. You fabricated bad syllogisms, and falsely attributed them to the CRS.

            Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
            “I gave you two choices, either Jack Maskell’s invalid argument or his valid one which is unsound. So which one do you want to defend, NotLinda?”

            Fallacy, thy name is Apuzzo.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

            Posted by NotLinda
          • September 14, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

            NotLinda,

            You have nothing substantive to say. You just repeat yourself.

            Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
          • September 14, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

            Mario Apuuzo, ESQ – PDQ – and STD

            You have nothing substantive to say. You just repeat yourself.

            Posted by BOBA123
        • September 13, 2013 at 11:34 am #

          MARIO – BAD SYLLOGISM !! Bad, bad, Syllogism !!!! DOWN, boy – BAD, BAD, Bad Syllogism!! Roll over, boy. Play dead.

          Posted by BOBA123
    • September 12, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

      I KNOW that it’s hard to believe, Patrick – but – I AM a sensitive guy – with feelings – that Mario has been picking at – like at an old scab – with Mario – making it bleed – as ONLY MY Bleeding Heart Liberalism can do – cuz, Patrick – MY Heart’s as Big as ALL Outdoors – (and so is my ego)!!

      I LOVE your popcorn analogy, Patrick – cuz I’m a LOVER of POP CORN – and yeah, Patrick – Ol’ Mario CAN (and DOES) throw pop corn at me, well, NOT all day – BUT JUST enough – that I DEEEPLY enjoy setting up situations – and stories – and INTERPRETATIONS of things – that I LIKE to believe (it’s that ego thingy working, well, a little over half-time), strikes Mario as “off the beaten path” – but intreging enough, intellectually – to grab Ol’ Mario by the short hairs, letting Ol’ Mario KNOW – that he has MORE than met his match. AND, Patrick – I’M ONLY working at about 50% capacity !!!!!

      Poor Mario !!!! My Bleeding-Heart, Liberal Heart, Beats for him too – as it would for any injured animal.

      So, Patrick – NOW YOU and MARIO – KNOW – WHAT’S WHAT !!!!!

      Posted by BOBA123
  48. September 13, 2013 at 11:58 am #

    Robert Allen,

    I see that you have a lot of catching up to do.

    Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
    • September 13, 2013 at 2:01 pm #