Main Menu

Searching for “natural born citizen”

US Constitution

US Constitution

Not many folks have spent more time than I searching the Internet and WestLaw for keywords including “natural born citizen”. You can see the results of such activity on pages like my The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages and Tes’s SCOTUS & “Natural Born Citizen” – A Compendium. While that’s useful, finding short paragraphs with keywords is not the way to understand the subject in depth. Even those who disagree with me fall into the same pattern, for example, citing E. de Vattel without reading the chapters that follow.

To really understand what’s going on one must read those works where the subject is developed: this happens in some scholarly works, and in some imp0rtant court decisions. Here are some useful texts, by far not all.

Commenters here may suggest additions to the list.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , ,

232 Responses to Searching for “natural born citizen”

  1. avatar
    Gordon August 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Doc you are a regular male Erin Brogovich. Should have gone and got a law degree in your spare time.

  2. avatar
    sarina August 28, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    I agree with Gordon.
    Dr. Conspiracy would be a very good lawyer.
    When I get up in the morning I turned on my computer just to see if there is something new or a new comment in fact is on my favorites!
    This is my morning paper! haha!

    Congratulations again to Doctor Conspiracy!
    I give this site 5 stars!

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 28, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    Thanks for those kind remarks. However, reading the work of real lawyers (certain ones who are the topics of articles on this blog excluded), it’s obvious to me the difference between the trained legal mind and the layman.

  4. avatar
    Greg August 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, Bernadette Meyler, 15 Geo Immigr. L. J. 519 (2000-2001)

    Citizenship by Birth, Another View, Henry Ide, 30 Am. L. Rev. 252 (1896)

    Citizenship of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Marshall Woodworth, 30 Am. L. Rev. 535 (1896)

    (these were referring to:
    Citizenship by Birth, George D. Collins, 29 Am. L. Rev. 385 (1895)

    Access to Citizenship for Children born within the state to foreign parents, John Guendelsberger, 40 Am. J. Comp. L. 379 (1992) – Illustrating the importance of birthright citizenship by comparing to French attempts to amend their citizenship laws.

    Coke and the American Revolution, Charles Mullett, 38 Economica 57 (1932)

    Thomas Jefferson on the Law of Nations, Charles Wiltse, 29 Am. J. Int’l L. 66 (1935)

    Eligibility for the Presidency of the Untied States, Alexander P. Morse, 66 Alb. L. J. 99 (1904)

    Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case, Polly Price, 9 Yale J.L. & Human 73 (1997)

    Who Can be President of the United States: The unresolved enigma, Charles Gordon, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968)

    Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, Jonathan Drimmer, 9 Geo. Immigr. L. J. 667 (1995)

    Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, Warren Freedman, 35 Cornell L. Q. 357 (1949)

    I’ve gotten all of these from Hein Online. Also available is Collins 1880 Treatise on Citizenship and a couple of other treatises from the turn of the century.

  5. avatar
    ballantine August 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    This link to Lynch v. Clarke contains the oral arguments of both sides if anyone is interested. Pretty much the same arguments we saw in the Wong briefs.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6UUMAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA587&dq=appellant+brief+%22julia+lynch%22#

  6. avatar
    Bob August 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    Thought you might appreciate this “wisdom” from one of my favorite posters on tRSoL:

    Do the people who comment here not understand that court precedent is not the law – it is only an interpretation of it?

    An “interpretation” enforced by the government’s power of the sword.

    It amazes me that so many people will blindly accept and cite a poorly reasoned and destructive opinion [Wong Kim Ark] – and believe that it is the law – simply because it supports their argument about Barack Obama.

    Exactly the opposite: Because of the holding in Wong Kim Ark, people acknowledge Obama’s eligibility.

    They are the epitome of partisan jackassery

    Oh, the irony.

  7. avatar
    SixToeMoe August 28, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Report from Honolulu Advertiser Obama was born in Indonesia.

    “Very rarely have I met a more impressive person than Tammy Duckworth,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in an article the day before she announced her candidacy Dec. 18. “She just has the poise and exudes the type of character that I think would make her an astounding public servant.”

    Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai’i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have “a kama’aina connection.”

    Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.

    Posted on: Sunday, January 8, 2006

    Duckworth working to win

    By Will Hoover
    Advertiser Staff Writer

  8. avatar
    aarrgghh August 28, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    i guess this counts as a checkmate.

    i hear they’re hauling out the usurper in chains as we speak.

  9. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    Greg:

    You seemingly are concentrating on those of the persuasion of John Locke rather than finding out what the background of collective thought was at the time of the founding. Locke was actually given relatively short shrift at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers and the writings and philosophies of the man who was the primary – and greatly respected and quoted – authority on natural law at the time were quite influential both at the Convention and in the courts of the time. Even John Marshall frequently used this man’s philosophies and quotes.

    Who was this man??? He was one of the three giants of natural (or Leibnitzian) law with Grotius – long since dead at the time of the founding of the US – considered the “founder” of natural law along with the earlier Pufendorf. The third of the three “giants” was none other than Vattel whose Law of Nations was used in institutions of higher learning as well as passed around among the founders.

    There is a very good link about the matter here:

    http://defendourfreedoms.net/2009/01/11/december-2008–law-of-nations-or-principles-of-the-law-of-nature-2.aspx

  10. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    Bob

    No, sorry – WKA is not only “bad law” (quite possibly to help defend Chester Arthur since he was the guy who appointed the justice giving the opinion (and whose earlier opinions on related matters were quite different) … Donofrio had a good description of that on his blog.

    Nowhere in WKA is there given any credence to the subject being a “natural born citizen”; he’s merely decided to be a “citizen” – a different thing.

    Neither WKA nor the 14th Amendment will help your boy especially so since he’s already admnitted he was born a Brit. Let’s get on with the trial, shall we??

  11. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 6:32 pm #

    SixToeMoe:

    You’re going to deflate all the Flying Monkeys by printing the truth like that. Shhh!!!

  12. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    aarrgghh:

    Sounds like a fine idea don’t you think??? Or maybe you think it’s really neat to have a criminal who is legally ineligible as President?

  13. avatar
    Bob August 28, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Honolulu Advertiser published a correction a week after the article was published:

    “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. A Page One story last Sunday contained incorrect information about his birthplace.”

  14. avatar
    Greg August 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    You know who else was influential? Isaac Newton. All the founders knew him, quoted him.

    And he has something in common with Vattel. None of the founders quoted Newton on citizenship either!

  15. avatar
    Greg August 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm #

    Donofrio is a much better poker player than lawyer. And in 3 years, he’s won $45k in poker. $15k a year.

    Donofrio hasn’t actually read WKA, he’s only hit Ctrl-F to find where it says “natural born.”

  16. avatar
    Greg August 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    So, now Ann flew from Kenya to Indonesia to have Barack?

  17. avatar
    Greg August 28, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    Leo wouldn’t know “bad law” from “good law” if it rivered a Royal Flush to beat his four aces!

  18. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    Greg:

    Are you claiming that Newton was cited as some sort of source of Constitutional thought relating to the law of nations???

    If so, please divulge same as it may be a very well-kept secret.

    Vattel’s work was widely known and used in universities of the time as well as puiblic librarys. There were even 3 copies IIRC in the local library in Philly. Several of the men attending the CC passed around their own copies – some in French, some in English. I would say that most (or perhaps even all) of those at the convention knew of Vattel’s Law of Nations as well as the law of nations as originated by Leibniz, Grotius, Pufendorf ane – at the time of the CC – by Vattel whose Law of Nations work was the definitive text on the subject from it first publishing for the next 125 years.

    Newton was good with numbers and stuff, though.

  19. avatar
    misha August 28, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    From what I read, Leo makes ~15K/yr as a poker player; he does not have a law practice. The lawyers braying about Obama are Donofrio, Puzzo and Taitz: the Three Stooges of law.

    And remember, you heard it here first.

  20. avatar
    misha August 28, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    She found an airline that took early delivery of a Boeing 707, and her sugar daddy paid the airfare.

  21. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    ballantine:

    And in these arguments there are several things of note.

    First of all this is a state chancery court not a federal court so any findings would be meaningless WRT federal law.

    Also many of the references have to do with state laws most of which were still heavily based on English Common Law and frequently relied on the term “natural born subject” which is an entirely different class of citizen that “natural born citizen”. The concepts are similar in that both are natural born but different from the standpoint that NBS derived from royalty while NBC derived through the Constitution from natural law (with Vattel being far and away the primary figure in that regard).

    Im the contained arguments there are several allusions to the term ?natural born citizen: as used in A2S1C5 of the Constitution; e.g.:

    “The words ” citizens” ” natural born citizens” and ” aliens” are used, … by the great founders of the Constitution as substantive things, real existences, whose meaning was not only clearly known and understood to those who were familiar with the first principles of the English common law, and of consequence the law of the colonies ; but formed a part of the common learning of the times.”

    and …

    “So when the Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, § 5, [sic.] declares that ” no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Costitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” And the Constitution of this state, Art. 3, § 2, that ” no person except a native citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the office of Governor,” they mean the individuals known as native or natural born citizens to the law as it existed here before the adoption of the Constitution. Neither Constitution denned what a native born citizen was, for the received acceptation of the phrase and the law of the land had already done that too plainly to leave a doubt. ”

    and …

    “When Vattel says, “the natives or natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”—he must by his own reference, mean of parents who are residents there; who have the right of perpetual residence.”

    So, you see, these sorts of cases actually show the position that many have been presenting about Vattel and the natural law and the commonly-known understanding (at that time) of the term “natural born citien”.

    Even at the time of this case (of which Dr. Consipracy is ultra proud) the Vattel definition of NBC (parents as US citizens and the child born on US soil) was extant. There is little point in pretending otherwise … and this was – what – in 1844. The definition certainly has not changed, Obama notwithstanding!

  22. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Greg:

    Unless you can show otherwise with concrete evidence, it may be a “possible”.

    But the “where” does not matter – he’s already told everyone he’s not eligible but since he didn’t use those words there are some who are so ignorant that they cannot understand what he said.

  23. avatar
    jtx August 28, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    Bob:

    As has been repeatedly poointed out … who cares; the “where” doesn’t matter.

    Now all he needs do is show that he’s eligible – right???

  24. avatar
    Adrianinflorida August 28, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    I’m amazed at the fact that such legally inept individuals, like Orly and jtx, profess to know more about the founding fathers intent, than the founders themselves.

  25. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 28, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    He has shown it. He’s been legally deemed eligible, as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to determine whether or not the President is eligible. They determined that he did on January 3, 2009, when they certified the results of the electoral college, and declared Obama to be the President Elect of the United States. The only option open to you now is impeachment, and since every member of congress knew about Barack Hussein Obama’s father, and not one raised an objection to him taking office, how far do you think that will take you?

    If you don’t like it, then try to get a constitutional amendment

  26. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    Now all he needs do is show that he’s eligible – right???

    No such requirement exists. But we do know that per 20th Amendment Congress has qualified him.

    It’s all over my foolish friend.

  27. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    But the “where” does not matter – he’s already told everyone he’s not eligible but since he didn’t use those words there are some who are so ignorant that they cannot understand what he said.

    Liar. He never stated that he was no eligible and in fact the law and precedent supports the fact that his temporary British/Kenyan citizenship was no impairment to his natural born status.

    You ignorant fool, dear friend.

  28. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 1:31 am #

    Vattel’s work was widely known and used in universities of the time as well as puiblic librarys.

    And applicable to Laws of Nation, not municipal law…

    Which is why it was rejected that laws of nations would rule citizenship. The implications would be that the US could not define who would be its citizens, a ridiculous proposal.

    No wonder that you seem to be intent on pursuing such a path.

  29. avatar
    Nullifidian August 29, 2009 at 6:28 am #

    I’m amazed at the fact that such legally inept individuals, like Orly and jtx, profess to know more about the founding fathers intent, than the founders themselves.

    It’s the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The title—which is among my top ten favorite titles for a scientific paper—tells you everything: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”.

    They demonstrated that a cognitive bias exists in genuinely incompetent people, as distinct from the less competent person. To use myself as an example, I’m a less competent person on the piano, fully aware of my limitations and with no aspirations to or delusions of being the next Arthur Rubenstein or Martha Argerich. I still appreciate displays of skill on the part of other, professional pianists (I’m currently listening a lot to the very talented Alessandro Taverna). A genuinely incompetent person would be someone like Florence Foster Jenkins who, to all appearances, really fancied herself the next great lyric coloratura soprano and used her personal fortune to finance a record and a Carnegie Hall appearance.

    (If you want to hear an example of her work, here is her truly unforgettable rendition of “Der Hölle Rache” from Mozart’s [i]The Magic Flute[/i].)

    Incompetent people not only wildly overstate their own competence, they fail to recognize genuine skill in others, and they fail to appreciate how inadequate their own efforts are when compared to genuinely competent people. However, when they are taught how to do something and improve their skill, they can then recognize their previous incompetence.

    Still, it’s a bit of a Catch-22. You only learn something if you don’t know about it, and incompetent people think they know it all, so they rarely put forward the effort to learn enough to know how badly they were screwing it up before.

  30. avatar
    Nullifidian August 29, 2009 at 6:37 am #

    Locke was actually given relatively short shrift at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers….

    I’m trying to decide if this statement or “Barack Obama was born in Mombasa” is the biggest whopper I’ve ever read from a birfer.

  31. avatar
    Nullifidian August 29, 2009 at 6:39 am #

    …quite possibly to help defend Chester Arthur since he was the guy who appointed the justice giving the opinion…

    Yes, what could possibly be more plausible than the idea that this associate justice was defending Arthur a dozen years after his death?

  32. avatar
    Greg August 29, 2009 at 6:41 am #

    I am saying that Vattel was not cited by the founders on the subject of citizenship. I can find just as many citations of Newton on the topic as you can find of Vattel.

  33. avatar
    Greg August 29, 2009 at 6:54 am #

    Quit copying and pasting Leo’s analysis and READ the case. He says specifically that Lynch would be a natural born citizen and that a child of an alien could run for president.

    But, you’ve done a good job of deliberately misstating everything about the case. For example, the citation of state laws was to demonstrate that “natural born” hadn’t changed in 500 years. And he EXPLICITLY rejects Vattel’s definition. Just as the Supreme Court explicitly rejected him 50 years later.

    No one denies that Vattel wrote what he wrote. Duh. We deny that it was actually used by the founders on the subject of citizenship.

    If you’d read the decision, you would have seen that he shows that Vattel’s definition wasn’t even universally understood among the writers about international law.

    And, while it was a state decision, it has been quoted as an authoritative source on citizenship by the Supreme Court infinitely more times than Vattel has.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    Leo can’t have it both ways…

    If Arthur’s father’s naturalization status was known, then the theory that Arthur hid the fact explodes, and the fact that everybody at the time knew that birth in the country qualifies the president is confirmed by Arthur’s election and the total lack of debate in contemporary newspapers.

    On the other hand if Arthur’s father’s immigration status remained a secret, then why would Justice Gray (a decade after Arthur’s death) rule in any particular way? The vote in WKA was 6-2 by the way.

  35. avatar
    ballantine August 29, 2009 at 8:16 am #

    “Even at the time of this case (of which Dr. Consipracy is ultra proud) the Vattel definition of NBC (parents as US citizens and the child born on US soil) was extant. There is little point in pretending otherwise … and this was – what – in 1844. The definition certainly has not changed, Obama notwithstanding”

    Your post doesn’t even make sense. Please cite anyone in America that defined natural born with Vattel’s definition at any time prior to Lynch. If you can’t you’re just embarrassing yourself. Complainant’s couldn’t and the Judge rejected their weak arguments like the supreme court would fifty years later.

  36. avatar
    ballantine August 29, 2009 at 8:24 am #

    Nowhere in WKA is there given any credence “to the subject being a “natural born citizen”; he’s merely decided to be a “citizen” – a different thing.”

    Really, according to Justice Gray:

    “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, 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…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.
    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.”

    Seems pretty clear to me. He states that natural born citizen should be defined by the common law, plainly states the english common law rule and then states the English common law rule continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

  37. avatar
    SixToeMoe August 29, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    SCOTUS is irrelevant!

    The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the right to write legislation and the President the right to sign it into law.

    SCOTUS cannot question or interpret the actions of the Congress or the President.

    The President said he was eligible when he was a Candidate. The Congress said he was eligible when the vote by the electors was affirmed. It’s done!

    SCOTUS is an impotent, uncircumcised noodle drooping left after a steamy, Turkish bath.

  38. avatar
    BlackLion August 29, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    I find it amazing how far the birthers will go to support their fantasy. Over at tROSL, the new theory is to discredit the guy that found the newspaper articles regarding the President’s birth, Mr. Will Hoover. You have to read it. The speculation is pretty out there. But the bottom line is that they are implying that maybe his discovering the announcements may be part of some great conspiracy.

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7136

    A quote from the article…

    “Just look at the Hoover connection here. Politifact sites Hoover and Sue sites politifact and on and on. It all comes from Hoover. Also, Texas Darlin’ website was being used as a source for Factcheck regarding the newspaper articles. Everyone sites Factcheck. I know that also goes for “birthers” too, but not for reasons of duplicity or obfuscation.”

    Also they have an issue with the individual that stated that the announcements were sent by the State and not an individual…

    “So, a guy who didn’t work at either paper in 1961 remembers how the process worked years later???? Is this the proof that the Dept of Health sent the same thing to both papers? Is this another example of one source that is not confirmed becoming proof that is circulated?”

    So know they will be going down the “attack the messenger” road. I guess after the so called “Collins” discovery blew up in their face, it is not a surprise…

  39. avatar
    misha August 29, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    No, I think that distinction goes to ‘his father may actually be Frank Marshall Davis.’

    Hey birthers, Obama’s real father is Darth Vader. Watch the movie; it all comes out at the end.

  40. avatar
    misha August 29, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    “SCOTUS is an impotent, uncircumcised noodle drooping left after a steamy, Turkish bath.”

    WTF?! I’m speechless.

  41. avatar
    Joyce August 29, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain

  42. avatar
    Bob August 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    This article became the basis for a tRSoL posting unironically titled, “Obama Born in Indonesia? Where Are the Facts?”

  43. avatar
    nbc August 29, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    Other cases of interest

    INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR’S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)

    shows amongst others the right of election and that the ‘perpetual allegiance’ doctrine of the British can be removed through treaty. The latter is relevant to the arguments by Apuzzo that Obama maintained his british citizenship after Kenya became independent. In fact, the act clearly breaks the perpetual allegiance that Obama owed to the British at the time of his birth, through his father’s British citizenship.

    McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 209 209 (1808)

    discusses the well established right of election which states that a child when reaching majority can chose which birth right to maintain

  44. avatar
    nbc August 29, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    First of all this is a state chancery court not a federal court so any findings would be meaningless WRT federal law.

    Since the case was quoted and the argument adopted in Wong Kim Ark and other rulings, it seems hard to argue that this does not present a precedent.

    Are you sure you are a judge, as you claimed in the past? I mean, a judge in the legal sense not a judge at a dog show?

  45. avatar
    Gordon August 29, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    We have two Birthers who are judges? Amazing

  46. avatar
    Sally Hill August 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    So – are you saying that Obama is lying about being governed by British Law at the time of his birth? I find that very persumptuous on your part.

    And I wasn’t aware there had been proof provided that he had in fact, renounced or had chosen a particular citizenship. My goodness – we aren’t even allowed to know what type of passports he possesses or have possessed in his lifetime.

    Then you have the added problem of his actions – that of (well after his 21st birthday) he travelled – on the US Taxpayers dime – to Kenya to engange in politics of his birth nation. Additionally, he has appointed cabinet / czars / advisors to his administration which appear to strengthen that claim when looking to their beliefs and the beliefs he campaigned for while in Kenya.

    I’ll admit that it could all be speculative circumstance, but shouldn’t it be my right as an American, to question his actions and Obama’s own words for that matter – it was he, himself who claims dual citizenship at birth – not some wild assertion by the so-called ‘birthers’, afterall.

    The problem with all this is – we just don’t know very much about the man. We know bits and pieces and just enough to want to ask more questions. At least, I do. I was taught by my parents and in school, not to access anyones word for it – to think critically and when some of the puzzle pieces are missing – you might be seeing the image as intended without those pieces – rather than being able to see the whole and complete picture.

    It’s not about Obama – it’s about who comes after him….about the precedent his Presidency sets. I’m not at all sure I would be comfortable with a son/daughter of Osama bin Ladin / Chavez / Il / etc. being constitutionally eligible to be POTUS if they just happened to have a US Citizen mom – would you?

  47. avatar
    Bob August 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm #

    So – are you saying that Obama is lying about being governed by British Law at the time of his birth?

    No.

    And I wasn’t aware there had been proof provided that he had in fact, renounced or had chosen a particular citizenship.

    It happened automatically by operation of the applicable laws (the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 and the Kenyan Constitution).

    I’ll admit that it could all be speculative circumstance

    Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

    I’m not at all sure I would be comfortable with a son/daughter of Osama bin Ladin / Chavez / Il / etc. being constitutionally eligible to be POTUS if they just happened to have a US Citizen mom – would you?

    Yes, because that is what is required under the Constitution. I also have great faith in the American people not to vote for this individual.

  48. avatar
    strikefighter August 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    “I’m not at all sure I would be comfortable with a son/daughter of Osama bin Ladin / Chavez / Il / etc. being constitutionally eligible to be POTUS if they just happened to have a US Citizen mom – would you?”

    Look, this illustrates a distinct difference between the world that existed at the time of the founding of the US and the world as it stands today. When the constitution was being written, I agree that there would be fears that some person with foreign allegiances could conceivably have found himself elected to a position of power, perhaps even POTUS, without anyone being the wiser beforehand.

    But nowadays, with our multitude of information gathering and dispensing services, websites, newsorganizations, etc., no one that you suggest in your blatantly ridiculous strawman would be elected. Plus, you seem to forget that no regular person could be elected President in this country without at least some experience as an elected official. Any children of those people you name wouldn’t get elected dog catcher, let alone POTUS.

  49. avatar
    misha August 29, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    “I’m not at all sure I would be comfortable with a son/daughter of Osama bin Ladin / Chavez / Il / etc. being constitutionally eligible to be POTUS if they just happened to have a US Citizen mom – would you?”

    You cannot be serious. The chance that one of bin Laden’s numerous wives would give birth on US soil is non-existant. The chance that Hugo Chavez’s wife or (pure conjecture) mistress would give birth on US soil is also non-existant.

    Here is one likely scenario: Mercedes Rodriguez,16, is pregnant by her 18-year-old boyfriend, a nogoodnik with some drug dealer. She crosses from Juarez to El Paso, when the contractions start, to go to a midwife clinic, of which there are several to choose from. As soon as she gives birth, someone from El Paso’s Bureau of Vital Statistics visits her, and records the birth of Hector Rodriguez. For “Father,” the BC states “unknown.” Mercedes forgets to go back to Mexico, and finds a job in a hair salon. Meanwhile, a bi-lingual social worker visits, to make sure the baby gets proper care. Hector goes to school, and because his grades are so good, he gets a full scholarship to Harvard, like Al Franken. He returns to El Paso, and after several years, is elected mayor. Finally, he announces for president, and with the Hispanic vote in Texas, is elected our first president of Spanish-Indian descent.

    BTW, Frida Khalo’s father was Jewish; her mother was Mexican Indian. The face of America is changing. Better get used to it.

    Michelle Obama has a cousin, who is rabbi of an Ethiopian shul in Chicago. When I owned a car, the manager of the parking ramp was a Jewish man from Ethiopia.

  50. avatar
    nbc August 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm #

    Lynch v Clarke the ruling in html format. Needs some spell checking

    oral arguments will follow.

  51. avatar
    misha August 29, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    Where are the facts that Orly was not a streetwalker in Moldova?

  52. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    “I’m not at all sure I would be comfortable with a son/daughter of Osama bin Ladin / Chavez / Il / etc. being constitutionally eligible to be POTUS if they just happened to have a US Citizen mom – would you?”

    I have this rather idealistic view that people should be judged on thier own merits rather than what their fathers were or did.

  53. avatar
    nbc August 29, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    So – are you saying that Obama is lying about being governed by British Law at the time of his birth? I find that very persumptuous on your part.

    Nope, I am saying that at the time of birth Obama was ruled by two different laws, and when reaching the age of majority he clearly elected his US birthright to be continued.

    Simple really

  54. avatar
    Bob Weber August 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    Greg wrote:

    So, now Ann flew from Kenya to Indonesia to have Barack?

    *******************

    Yes, and Grammy Obama flew too, in order to witness the birth!

  55. avatar
    richCares August 29, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    “..to Kenya to engange in politics of his birth nation”
    As this is a false story and totally debunked my question to you is are you lying or just being mislead?

  56. avatar
    Adrianinflorida August 29, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    Exactly. To “just so happen to have a US citizen parent” is the stroke of luck that makes us Americans.

  57. avatar
    Adrianinflorida August 29, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    One too many Jerome Corsi fantasies, methinks

  58. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    Adrianinflorida:

    Perhaps itg would help you and the other poorly-informed souls on this blog to find out about:

    “The Law of Nations as U.S. Federal Common Law and Not English Common Law Defines What an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Is”

    at this link:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    You’re welcome to rebut all the points in this excellent treatise …

  59. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    BlackLion:

    As several people have told you and others on this site (repeatedly) the BC matters not at all since Obama, Jr. has told everyone he is not a NBC by his own admissions in several places.

    What is it you dufii do not understand about “I am not a natural born citizen”???

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    I believe they also flew the city of Mombasa to Indonesia from Zanzibar for the occasion.

  61. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    nbc:

    The two cases you mention are actually irrelevant – and you don’t seem to know it. But enlightening you about citizenship matters is hardly worthwhile since you (and many others on this blog) think it is a political matter, a racial matter, or a matter of social positions/attitudes held. It is not – it is a matter of Constitutional Law … and do not forget that O, Jr. has several times proclaimed himself to be a master Constitutional being careful to tell everyone he taught that (shudder!!).

    I suggest you read the current Apuzzo treatise about The Law of Nations as U. S. COmmon Law that I gave the link to above.

  62. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    nbc:

    Seems you and Dr. C. are hanging your collective hats on Lynch v. Clarke.

    Perhaps you haven’t read the posts that show something quite different than what you suppose it shows.

    It bears out the use of the law of nations and the (misnamed) “Vattel definition” (since he defined no such thing) but the case certainly recognized the two US parents on US soil definition for a NBC.

  63. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    NBC:

    You are grossly misinformed. To find out how please read the excellent treatise on

    “The Law of Nations as U.S. Federal Common Law and Not English Common Law Defines What an Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Is”

    at Mr. Apuzzo’s website:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

  64. avatar
    misha August 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    “he travelled – on the US Taxpayers dime – to Kenya to engange in politics of his birth nation.”

    When are you going to get to the part that his father was Frank Marshall Davis, or Malcolm X? Think of the possibilities.

    Maybe Obama was not of woman born? Everyone quotes deVattel. Why not drag Shakespeare into this? C’mon, get more creative than just repeating WND.

    Corsi has nothing on me, once I get going. I say Obama’s father was Sidney Poitier. And his mother was Lani Guinier’s maternal grandmother. And Obama travelled to Kenya to join the Mau Mau – so he really does hate white people, just like Glen Beck said.

    I say Orly Taitz was a streetwalker in Moldova, and used LSD so much it affected her mind. And I say Orly schupted everyone in college when she lived in Jerusalem. She has never denied this. How about it, Sally?

  65. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    Greg:

    Shades of Forrest Gump!!!

    Please read the Apuzzo treatise on the matter that I’ve just given for the poster “NBC”. You’ll learn a lot.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    The Bible does not agree with you.

    (Ezek 18:2-4 NRSV) What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”? {3} As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. {4} Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    No, it is the person who misquotes Obama (and not Obama even, but a campaign web page) who lies.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    A bit of advice I keep always before me.

  69. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 29, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    And I have a link, said by the United States Supreme Court, in Smith v. Alabama, jtx.

    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.

    So, according to you. The Founders of the Constitution, despite writing the constitution in English Common Law, decided to break from English Common Law, and use a book that didn’t even have the words, “Natural Born” in it, to define the concept of “Natural Born”. And furthermore, despite writing the rest of the constitution in English Common Law, they didn’t feel that it was neccessary to define Natural Born.

    You’re getting more and more far-fetched, jtx.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    Sven says: “SCOTUS cannot question or interpret the actions of the Congress or the President. ”

    Don’t let Chief Justice John Marshall hear you say that.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 29, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    The more outrageous what JTX says, the more difficult it is to ignore it. It’s a standard troll technique.

  72. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    Greg:

    You’re so far off base that it’s actually funny. I’ve never read any anslysis of Leo Donofrio’s on Lynch v. Clarke (and I doubt you have either).

    As to the rest of your assertions about what the case said and didn’t say you are out of synch with reality nor can you demonstrate your claims from the case (and yes, I’ve read it). To find out how wrong you are about the founders using the law of nations (for citizenship and other things) read the Apuzzo treatise I just mentioned.

    Lynch v. Clark is a very weak reed in a storm – rather like Wong Kim Ark. You’ve seemingly missed the point completely that the law of nations came from natural law and at the fime of the founding and the CC, Vattel WAS the unrivalled authority on both and remained so for over 100 years. The Library in Philadelphia had several copies that were referenced by the founders at that time. Read about how the law of nations (described in the Vattel book Law of Nations which is mentioned by name in the Constitution) was integrated into and became part of the US Common Law.

  73. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 29, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    “Maybe Obama was not of woman born? Everyone quotes deVattel. Why not drag Shakespeare into this?”

    Nice one Misha! I’ve been wondering for weeks if the founding fathers really had ‘ the scottish play’ in mind rather than dull books on law and philosophy.

  74. avatar
    misha August 29, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    “I believe they also flew Mombasa to Indonesia from Zanzibar for the occasion.”

    No, they took the train on all legs of the journey.

  75. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    ballantine:

    Your claim is patent nonsense. Vattel himself defined the term in his Law of Nations book … or perhaps you know so little French that you do not know what “indigenous” (from the Latin in both French and English) means.

    The founders certainly knew what the term meant and there was no confusion. Only you modern dullards have pretended that it was “oh so confusing”. It wasn’t.

    Read Apuzzo’s excellent treatise. Nor did SCOTUS “reject” any such argument – ever. But you don’t seem to know that either.

  76. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    ballantine:

    Nonsense. That’s merely dicta; ruminations by the judge that are not part of any decision or ruling – nor does your pretense that they are some sort of decision or precent mean anything.

    In WKA the ruling was that the principal was a “citizen” – nothing more. No did it in any way define natural born citizen.

  77. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 8:15 pm #

    Bob Weber:

    Doesn’t matter where the birth (if any) took place.

    What matters is that the man has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies – if fact he’s loudly told everyone he is not eligible and some are too dense to grasp what he’s said.

    If the shoe fits …

  78. avatar
    jtx August 29, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    NBC:

    The requirement is called the Constitution. Neither the 20th amendment nor Congress may override the Constitution … that takes a Constitutional Amendment.

  79. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    Still arguing that you know better than the legal system which has consistently rejected your claims in such excellent rulings as Lynch v Clarke and Wong Kim Ark. The rulings address many of the issues, including Vattel.

    Of course, Vattel could never be relevant for the issue of citizenship as this would preclude any nation from deciding who and who are not citizens.

    A ridiculous proposal indeed.

  80. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 9:51 pm #

    Again, the idea that Vattel rules who is and is not a citizen is ridiculous as it means that independent nations cannot define who is and who is not a citizen.
    In fact, Lynch v Clarke addresses Vattel and rejects his limited definition to more appropriately accept that which Vattel himself appears to argue, namely that the nations themselves can define who is a (natural born) citizen. As in Happersett, the Vattel definition is but one example of what constitutes a natural born citizen.

    Apuzzo’s treatise is full of holes as I am slowly exposing on my website.
    Needless to say, the courts have looked at Vattel and rejected it and instead have relied on Common Law which at the time of the Constitution was mostly mirroring English common law.

    Such are the facts. Of course, for you to understand that, you would be required to do actual research

  81. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 9:53 pm #

    In WKA the ruling was that the principal was a “citizen” – nothing more. No did it in any way define natural born citizen.

    In the ruling the Court clearly establishes who is a natural born citizen as anyone born on US soil is a natural-born citizen. The court clearly recognizes two kinds of citizens, naturalized and natural.

  82. avatar
    NBC August 29, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    The requirement is called the Constitution. Neither the 20th amendment nor Congress may override the Constitution … that takes a Constitutional Amendment.

    And you call yourself a judge and do not realize that the 20th amendment is a constitutional amendment.

    Hilarious

  83. avatar
    richCares August 29, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    need a good laugh, read appuzo, especial when his case gets denied!

  84. avatar
    Mary Brown August 29, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    It is interesting that predictions about the actions of birthers made in January and February are true. They will never give up because the election results were not to their liking. They are moving to the two parent argument now that the birth certificate nonsense has born no fruit. If this fails we will be talking about Indonesian adoptions. They are just like the folks who believe the earth is flat. Nothing, not even pictures from the moon convinced them. Poor birthers wasting your time and energy to try and validate lies.

  85. avatar
    BlackLion August 29, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    JTX, when will you learn to read. President Obama never said that. You have been informed of what he wrote many times. You like all of the birthers choose to ignore what was said and change things to serve your purposes. The President was born in Hawaii. Because of that he is a natural born citizen. No matter how much Apuzzo and Donofrio try and ignore the Wong Kim and Clarke cases, they are the prevailing cases when it comes to citizenship and there is nothing you can do about that.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 30, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    ROFL.

  87. avatar
    NBC August 30, 2009 at 12:39 am #

    It bears out the use of the law of nations and the (misnamed) “Vattel definition” (since he defined no such thing) but the case certainly recognized the two US parents on US soil definition for a NBC.

    Lying once again I notice. Lynch v Clarke did no such thing.

    Your understanding of issues of law seem to be on par with your reading skills

  88. avatar
    misha August 30, 2009 at 4:54 am #

    “If the shoe fits …”

    No, it’s “If the foo shits, wear it.”

  89. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 30, 2009 at 6:46 am #

    In 1798 the Vermont Assembly :

    “AT this session of the legislature a proposal forward from the state of Massachusetts an amendment in the federal constitution That no person should be eligible as or vice president of the United States should any person be a senator or representative in the Congress of the United States ex a natural born citizen or unless he been a resident in the United States at declaration of independence and should continued either to reside within the same or be employed in its service from that period the time of his election”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=zuLG7EkZR6IC&pg=RA1-PA285&lpg=RA1-PA285&dq=Vermont++%22Natural+Born%22+-chester+-arthur&source=bl&ots=egGHJtTo0e&sig=bXcUGgtc_jB_AVZQyuEA8F2dGi4&hl=en&ei=KViaSuTCIuGNjAfBrfmuBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=Vermont%20%22Natural%20Born%22%20-chester%20-arthur&f=false

    Has anyone come across any other refereneces to this proposal. Any debate on it could be another window on how NBC was being viewed at the time.

  90. avatar
    ballantine August 30, 2009 at 8:52 am #

    I take it then can’t find anyone defining natural born citizen according to Vattel. Saying they knew what the term meant all you want, but no one is inaterested in your opinion without authority.

    You, of course, don’t know they read the french, rather than english. Please show some authority that the leteral translation of “indigenous” is “natural born citizen.”
    Nevertheless, even if they did, there is no evidence that anyone using NBC in the early republic associated it with Vattel’s as citiznship in this country was defined by the English common law and all known uses of NBC was consitent with that.

    Apuzzo’s paper is comical and not even worthy of comment.

  91. avatar
    Greg August 30, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    I suggest you read Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark about how the main authors who wrote about the “Law of Nations” couldn’t agree about the definition of citizenship and how the laws of most European nations at the founding, in fact, disagreed with Vattel.

  92. avatar
    Greg August 30, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    You clearly haven’t actually read the case. The case that you claim recognizes the two US parents on US soil definition for an “NBC” also says:

    Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

    And the Wong Kim Ark Court, knowing that Lynch v. Clarke said, explicitly that a child of aliens could be president, and knowing that the parties arguing before it explicitly raised the possibility that the child of an alien could be elected president did not spend a single word to contradict that argument. Instead, WKA approvingly cites Lynch. WKA says, “the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.”

    If everyone before the court thought that deciding for Wong would make him eligible for the presidency, and the cases you’re citing say he’d be eligible for the presidency, and the dissent says your decision would make Wong an NBC, wouldn’t you be pretty explicit about disabusing them of that misperception if that were your intent?

  93. avatar
    Greg August 30, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    Still not a single Founder quoting Vattel’s definition of citizenship. And, from Apuzzo’s “treatise”:

    Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was.

    Actually, the laws of Europe at the time of the founding was that people born in their state, regardless of parental citizenship, were citizens. Here was the law of France at the time of the writing of the Constitution:

    “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”

    There are so many things wrong with Apuzzo’s “treatise.” Getting the universality of Vattel’s definition of NBC wrong is just the least of it. If he misquoted Calvin’s Case and US v. Rhodes before a court like he does in this “treatise” he would be sanctioned. It would take hours to list and explain each of his errors.

  94. avatar
    Greg August 30, 2009 at 9:53 am #

    jtx, jtx, jtx, I can’t demonstrate my claims from the case? Please. Try reading it again.

    Me: He says specifically that Lynch would be a natural born citizen and that a child of an alien could run for president.

    Lynch v. Clarke: Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

    Me: For example, the citation of state laws was to demonstrate that “natural born” hadn’t changed in 500 years.

    Lynch:

    Instead of abridging the rule [children of aliens = citizens], all the colonial legislation which has come under my observation, proceeded on the assumption that it was the settled law of the land.

    It may then be safely assumed, that at the Declaration of Independence, by the law of each and all of the thirteen states, a child born within their territory and ligeance respectively, became thereby a citizen of the state of which he was a native.

    This continued unchanged to the time when our National Constitution went into full operation. There is no evidence of any alteration of the rule in any of the states during the period that intervened; and the references which will be made under another head, show conclusively that there had been no intermediate change in their policy.

    Me: And he EXPLICITLY rejects Vattel’s definition.

    AND

    Me: If you’d read the decision, you would have seen that he shows that Vattel’s definition wasn’t even universally understood among the writers about international law.

    Lynch (after discussing Vattel, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui):

    These references show that the rule which the complainant derives from the writers on public law, is not even in theory, clearly denned or uniformly held. That the most approved authorities, do not deviate from the rule of the common law, any further than Judge Story has suggested that it is reasonable to deviate; and to establish such a departure, would involve the whole subject, as it respects the children of foreigners, in the obscurity ever attendant upon evidence of intention, the animus manendi upon a change of residence; an obscurity the greater in these cases, because the question generally arises after the lapse of many years.

    Vattel was one of the authorities on international law. However, there is no evidence that the Founders cited international law for their definition of natural born citizen. There is no evidence they cited Vattel for their definition of natural born citizenship.

  95. avatar
    Greg August 30, 2009 at 9:59 am #

    France didn’t even accept Vattel’s definition of citizenship at the time of the founding. Here’s what their law was when the Constitution was signed:

    “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”

    And, indigenous is not the same as natural-born, in French, Latin or English.

    As for the Supreme Court rejecting Vattel, they were explicitly asked to apply the “law of nations” in Wong Kim Ark and the appellants cited Vattel. Here’s how the court described the question:

    It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

    The court found that the “law of nations” wasn’t universal and wasn’t the law of nations. They refused to apply that law, and so Wong was a citizen.

  96. avatar
    Greg August 30, 2009 at 10:06 am #

    Actually, jtx, it did define “natural born citizen.” Since Wong wasn’t running for President, it is, technically dicta. But, the case did define the term. It found that the term “natural born citizen” is the functional equivalent of “natural born subject,” and nothing in 500 years had changed the meaning.

    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.

    Since the case found that “in the allegiance of” simply meant that the person born here was not an ambassador, the inexorable logic of the case is that Wong was a natural-born subject.

  97. avatar
    Bob August 30, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    Greg–

    While your scholarship is very impressive, do you realize it will never, ever change jtx’s mind? I appreciate your efforts, but responding to each post won’t change anything.

  98. avatar
    NBC August 30, 2009 at 12:30 pm #

    JTX is a typical example of someone who seems to be unable to do his own research, read the source materials and believes that the 20th amendment is not a constitutional amendment.

    What more can I say?

  99. avatar
    milspec August 30, 2009 at 5:46 pm #

    I first heard this argument in HS in 1965 except the “father” was Castro in civics class. The final pronouncement From the teacher was “Yes”. Much to the dismay of 1965 sophomores.

  100. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 30, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Actually, the correct answer should have been “no”, because of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. That means that no son of a foreign dignitary would be eligible for citizenship, because they’re not under the jurisdiction of our laws. Since we afford diplomatic immunity to dignitaries and their children, then no, he wouldn’t be.

    There are some odd cases, where it might be feasable (Castro has sex with a woman who during her pregenancy defects to the United States, therefore not having Diplomatic Immunity).

    But the situation of Castro visiting the United States with his pregenant wife, and the wife having a child in the United States is covered under the “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause because of diplomatic immunity.

  101. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Mr Apuzzo clearly explains the correct information which you have obviously not seen – I suggest you go study it.

    You are greatly misinformed!!

  102. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    BlackLion:

    You merely illustrate your “benign” ignorance of the subject of NBC. By stating that he was governed at birth by the BNA48 that is a complete admission that he is not and can never be a natural born citizen.

    You need to read the article I’ve point several others to on Mario Apuzzo’s blog.

  103. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    nbc:

    You don’t seem to be aware that the case you point to is irrelevant WRT the eligibility issue.

    When a Brit at Birth he was absolutely not a natural born citizen no matter what may have happened to any later citizenship (which are also unknown).

    All we need is some (ahem) proof by Obama that he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies – which neither he nor anyone else has so far shown.

  104. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    Greg:

    You have no idea what you’re saying an it is proven by the many citations that Mario Apuzzo gives in his excellent treatise.

    I’ve read Lynch AND WKA and neither are of any assistance to your hero on the eligibility issue (and neither are you, actually).

  105. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    NBC:

    Read it again the quote given certainly points to the Vattel definition of NBC. In fact it also refers to the similar Pufendorf belief. But the case itself was about ?natural born citizen” but rather “citizen” WRT Julia Lynch and so the NBC term was nothing but dicta.

    The pleadings are fraught with misunderstandings of the difference between English common law and what had already emerged as American common law – which was based upon natural law (Leibniz, Grotiur, Pufendorf, and Vattel) and at the time of the founding and the Constitution the primary expert on natural law was indeed Vattel – as he was for over 100 years afterward.

    You need to read the excellent treatise by Mario Apuzzo to see Lynch v. Clarke in context. As it is there is a muddling of ECL and ACL but the basic question is “citizen” which is a different thing from “natural born citizen”.

  106. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 8:36 pm #

    Greg:

    Wow – you ninny!! I made no such claim since Lynch was only a case about whether a person (Lynch) was a “citizen” which as many people are beginning to realize (but apparently not you) differe from “natutal born citizen”.

    The references to the term “NBC” are clearly dicta in the case but do support the 2 US parents with the child born on US soil definition which was the one used by Vattelk, Pufendorf, etc.

    The quote you give above does not even address the NBC consideration at all and (were it true) would allow all the anchor babies and Hugo Chavez’s kids and those of Osame bin Laden to be prez. That’s assinine.
    And the comment about the rule of the common law in force at the adoption of the Constitution is incorrect also. At that time from the standpoint of citizenship law the ECL was displaced in the Federal area by the ACL(natural law or law of nation) while
    the ECL was still prevelant in many states for some years.
    You reall do need to stufy Mr. Apuzzo’s essay on the matter that I’ve referenced.

  107. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    It’s not a matter of election results being “liked” or “not liked” … it is simply a matter of following the laws of the country.

    That hasn’t been done and one would that that many of you on this blog would realize that.

  108. avatar
    jtx August 30, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Welsh Dragon:

    I’d suggest you read Mr. Apuzzo’s excellent treatise on the matter where he gives many citations from US law (not just state debates) supporting his position.

  109. avatar
    nbc August 30, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    JTX You are greatly misinformed!!

    Now that is ironic. But Mr Apuzzo is wrong on so many accounts. Needless to say, his idea that Vattel forms the foundation of natural born citizen is to be rejected by history, legal precedents, and logic.

    1. Historically, natural born and native born are equivalent concepts.
    2. Legal precedent shows case after case how ‘natural born’ is a concept that is defined not from the law of nations but rather from municipal/common law. And as such it follows the tradition of our early common law where natural born citizens included any child born on US soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
    3. If citizenship were guided by law of nature then no country could determine who are and are not citizens, even Vattel realizes this.

    Mr Apuzzo is also wrong about dual citizenship somehow disabling the concept of natural born. Again, time after time the courts in the US have ruled, following the law of nature, that parents cannot reject a child’s birth right citizenship and that the child when reaching the age of majority can elect which one to continue.

    Of course, Apuzzo’s musings will never make it the court system.

  110. avatar
    nbc August 30, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    JTX That hasn’t been done and one would that that many of you on this blog would realize that.

    On the contrary you have failed to show that the law was not followed. In fact, the law was followed to the letter and President Obama was qualified to serve as our President.

    It’s all over now, only impeachment can change this.

    Simple

  111. avatar
    nbc August 30, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    The pleadings are fraught with misunderstandings of the difference between English common law and what had already emerged as American common law – which was based upon natural law (Leibniz, Grotiur, Pufendorf, and Vattel) and at the time of the founding and the Constitution the primary expert on natural law was indeed Vattel – as he was for over 100 years afterward.

    That’s just plain silly, there is no evidence that common law was based on natural law in the United States. You must be confused here since it is the rulings of the court which make common law, and common law in our Country was always based on english common law with of course its own adaptations, none of which really affect the citizenship issue. In fact, the right of expatriation and the right of election, all strengthen the position for President Obama, as they support the fact that dual citizenship is not disabling for natural born status.

    The law of Nations was used in areas where it made sense, namely international law, but for municipal law, common law prevailed and citizenship was ruled to be a clear issue of common law not international law.

    It is fascinating how you have decided to ignore a vast amount of facts, in other for a poorly argued position. And yes, remember that many of these arguments were made by the other side in WKA and Lynch v Clarke and the court consistently rejected them.

    The pleadings are in fact, extremely well argued and based on an in depth review of the laws of those days.

    Vattel’s definition of what defines ‘les naturels’ has no relevance to the issue of who is considered to be natural born.

    You surely should make some effort to read WKA and Lynch v Clarke, including the reply arguments from both sides.

    I am converting them right now to html format with a plethora of links which all show how natural born is a concept from common law.

    So far you have shown exactly nothing other than vacuous claims.

  112. avatar
    richCares August 31, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Mst here have read your Apuzzo article, that’s why they are laughing at you. Please come back and report Apuzzo’s views after his case is dismissed, that would be so nice of you.

  113. avatar
    richCares August 31, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    “I’d suggest you read Mr. Apuzzo’s excellent treatise…”
    Most here have read Apuzzo’s treatise, that’s why they are laughing at you. Please remember to comment on Apuzzo’s certain failure when it occurs.

  114. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 31, 2009 at 2:31 am #

    jtx

    I assure you I have read Mario’s treatise and unlike you I’ve examined the cases and statutes he cites.It is so full basic errors that I have to give him ann ‘F’.

  115. avatar
    NBC August 31, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    You’re too kind

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 31, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    NBC: … there is no evidence that common law was based on natural law in the United States.

    I wouldn’t go quite that far. The Declaration of Independence, in saying “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, is a statement of natural law. While in theory natural law is universal and self-evident, in fact natural law is inseparable from tradition. For de Vattel, citizenship is primarily patriarchal, while for the Americans it is feudal. To say that the Constitution is founded on natural law or not tells us very little: it is the content of their particular views of natural law that are important.

  117. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    In Wong, Justice Gray cites Pothier’s Traite des Personnes for the law of France. (p. 666 of the decision) Here’s the reference he was citing, pages 17-18. And, here’s one of the quotes, in the original French:

    “Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran§ais, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise…”

    Gray translates it as “citizens, true and native-born citizens…” I think as likely a translation is “The true and natural-born citizens of France…”

    It continues, “are those born within the lands under French dominion.”

    Paragraph 45 of that Treatise explains that except for those born in countries that later come under French control for everyone else, it doesn’t matter whether their parents were citizens or aliens, or whether they had established a domicile there:

    Au reste, pour que ceux qui sont nés dans les pays de la domination fran§aise soient réputés Fran§ais, on ne considère pas s’ils sont nés de parents fran§ais, ou de parents étrangers; si les étrangers étaient domiciliés dans le royaume, ou s’ils n’y étaient que passagers. Toutes ces circonstances sont indifférentes dans nos usages : la seule naissance dans ce royaume donne les droits de naturalilé, indépendamment de l’origine des père et mère, el de leur demeure.

    That was the law of France at the time of the founding, not Vattel’s conception of it. France did not change their definition of citizenship until the Code Napolean of 1807.

  118. avatar
    ballantine August 31, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    At least he finally figured out that Minor and Wong say “natural born citizen” should be defined by the common law. Too bad he didn’t continue reading and see that about half the opinion is devoted to defining the common law rule as well as rejecting any notion that international law ever defined citzenship in America.

  119. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Welsh Dragon:

    Perhaps you’d like to cite in detail, say, 5 or 6 of what you think are “basic errors in the cases and statutes involved?

    Until you do so, we’ll give you a “L” for liar.

  120. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    ballantine:

    Your “reading skills” need massive refinement it seems. In the article I referenced you to (which you seem not to have read) Mr. Apuzzo clearly says that common law must be looked to for the definition of NBC.

    You completely wrong in claiming that either Minor OR Wong do anything like defining the NBC term – nor do they reject any notion that “international law” (your term) defined citizenship in America. In fact Wong for example deals only with “citizenship” and not “natural born citizenship” at all.

    Nor was it said that the term you use (international law) defined citizenship in America. Read the article again with some attempt to grasp what it says.

    You’re completely wrong.

  121. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    You seem blithley unaware that what you describe is the notion of “natural born subjects” which at the time of the US founding were governed by what amounted to as English Common Law – which was exactly what the revolution in the US and the later French Revolution were trying to escape from.

    You’ve merely proved the points made by Mr. Apuzzo in his treatise on Common Law/Natural Law and apparently do not even realize it. In the Frog pub you cite they are merely referring to natural born subjects which was what both the Brit and the Frog monarchs used assisuously to try to “grow” their empires by decvlaring as many “subjects” as possible.

    You also seem to not understand the important distinctions between “subject” and “citizen”.

  122. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    nbc:

    You need to do further research on the matter and I STRONGLY suggest you read the treatise I mentioned since there is nothing definitive historically to show the “equivalence” (your misleading term) between “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen”. They are distinctly concepts which may be understood both by reading Mr. Apuzzo’s essay and be reviewing the thousands of references on the Web that distinguish between.

    I realize that the only hope you Deathers have is to try to kill the Constitution and have someone (who most likely fits neither of those descriptions – and certainly not the NBC one) ineligible to be emplaced into the Presidency. Or, perhaps you – or he – can prove his eligibility?

    Your grasp of historical matters is tenuous at best.

    Legal precedence shows exactly the opposite of what you claim as Mr. Apuzzo clearly demonstrates in his treatise. You should read it before shooting your mouth off.

    You also seem confused about the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” as yoiu continually mix and match them with each other and with the term or factual existence of “natural born subject”. these are actually different concepts – and it is obvious you do not understand them.

    Claiming that “time after time” the courts have ruled thus-and-so is nothing but specious nonsense on your part as well as being simply untrue.

    I look forward to seeing the Kerchner et al case go before SCOTUS and I predict the definition as described by Vattel (2 US citizen parents with the child born on US soil) will be the definition of the “natural born citizen” term. You are welcome to your mistaken belief to the contrary (if you even know what it is since you’ve not clearly enunciated it).

  123. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    JTX You need to do further research on the matter and I STRONGLY suggest you read the treatise I mentioned since there is nothing definitive historically to show the “equivalence” (your misleading term) between “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen”. They are distinctly concepts which may be understood both by reading Mr. Apuzzo’s essay and be reviewing the thousands of references on the Web that distinguish between.

    Thousands of references… Really… :-)

    Yet, US law has consistently considered for all practical purposes that the two are the same, although recognizing that native born Indians are excluded. However, again reiterating US common law, it is inescapable that any child, with minor exceptions, born in the United States is native and natural born citizen. The two are for all practical purposes indistinguishable.

    You make claims and yet refer to some ‘treatise’ without providing any specific examples and thus I have to reject your argument.

    If you are unable to present your own argument, then you should not blindly rely on the arguments of others, but either admit to your ignorance or educate yourself as to the facts of the matter.

    Legal precedence shows exactly the opposite of what you claim as Mr. Apuzzo clearly demonstrates in his treatise.

    Give some specific examples. Are you confusing dissenting opinions with precedence by any chance?

    Wong Kim Ark, Lynch v Clarke all are precedents that indicate that any child born on US soil is native and natural born citizen of the United States.

    I suggest you make some effort to present your case better.

  124. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    You completely wrong in claiming that either Minor OR Wong do anything like defining the NBC term – nor do they reject any notion that “international law” (your term) defined citizenship in America. In fact Wong for example deals only with “citizenship” and not “natural born citizenship” at all.

    You are wrong. In Wong Kim Ark, the court states that

    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.”

    Noting that

    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]

    The court then proceeded

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

    There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

    124 U.S. 478.

    and finally establishes the relevance of English Common law in defining natural born

    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.

    Hope this clarifies the extent of your confusion. Let me guess, you have been reading the dissenting opinion?

  125. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    richCares:

    Why is it do you suppose that the judge is taking so long to make his ruling since you believe that it is such a clear-cut case for dismissal.

    Is it that the judge cannot spell “dismissal”? Or is he perhaps considering the details presented? After all you seem convinced that every judge will automatically and without reading turn down each and every case before his that names the Oborter. Why would that be anyway? Are you claiming judical bias toward the “sovereign” who can do no wrong?

    BTW, let’s remember who it was that stated O.,Jr. was governed at birth by the BNA48 … it was the Oborter himself. Since, (as he loudly and proudly proclaimed many times) he both taught classes in and was a Constitutional lawyer he would certainly know that such an admission made hin NOT a natural born citizen. But he merely relied on their being enough ignoramuses (look in the mirror) to not realize what he was telling them.

    After the voting public swallowed the misdirection hook, line, and sinker and he ws elected he obviously intends to say “I told you that I waan’t eligible “up-front” by saying that daddy and I were Brits and you elected me anyway you stupid bastards – now I’ve got you …

    I doubt it’ll go down quite as he thinks, however.

  126. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    nbc:

    In fact that’s not at all germane to the eligibility issue – but you don’t seem to realize that. Once born, the status at birth cannot be changed, treaties notwithstanding.

    Obama is what he is – and that ain’t an natural born citizen. But there is a word that fits – usurper.

  127. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    You seem blithley unaware that what you describe is the notion of “natural born subjects” which at the time of the US founding were governed by what amounted to as English Common Law – which was exactly what the revolution in the US and the later French Revolution were trying to escape from.

    Again conflating two different concepts. Undefined terms in the Constitution need to be interpreted in light of US Common Law which at the time of the Constitution was necessarily English Common Law.

    The US, like any other nation, had all the interest in growing its immigrant population by any and all means and thus accepted any child born on its soil, regardless of the status of the parents, as natural born citizens.

    Subject and citizen are for all practical purposes equivalent concepts in law.

    144 A Subject or a Citizen A subject is one who from his birth or oath owes lawful obedience or allegiance to his liege lord or sovereign Citizen is the term usually employed under a republican form of government as the equivalent of subject in monarchies of feudal origin Ency of the Laws of Eng iii p 35 See Note 463 infra Subject of the Queen

    or

    Citizens and Subjects The constitution of 1787 established no rules governing the acquisition or loss of American nationality The whole matter therefore remained governed by the subsidiary law of the laud the English common law All persons born in tlie territory of the United States were its subjects all persons born out of its territory though of American parents were aliens But the constitution did not speak nor has any treaty concluded by the executive nor any act of congress ever spoken of subject of the United States The written law knows only citizens The courts have frequently declared and still more frequently assumed without declaring that citizen and subject citizenship and nationality are equivalent terms.

  128. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    In fact that’s not at all germane to the eligibility issue – but you don’t seem to realize that. Once born, the status at birth cannot be changed, treaties notwithstanding.

    Obama is what he is – and that ain’t an natural born citizen. But there is a word that fits – usurper.

    Again, you are somewhat mistaken. Especially in the United States, citizens have the right of expatriation where they can abandon their birth right citizenship.

    Obama was both a British and US natural born citizen, due to conflicting laws. Of course, while in the US, the meaningful law was the US law which declares that a child, who acquires dual citizenship at birth, can decide when reaching the age of majority, which birthright citizenship to continue. These rights are well established in US jurisprudence.

    Even British law allows citizens/subjects to renounce their birth right citizenship.

  129. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    Why is it do you suppose that the judge is taking so long to make his ruling since you believe that it is such a clear-cut case for dismissal.

    The Judge is not the one holding up judgement, it’s Apuzzo. Surely you must be aware of these facts?

    Resetting Deadlines as to 36 Cross MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Verified Complaint and Petition for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto. Motion set for 8/17/2009 before Judge Jerome B. Simandle. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notified by the court. (js) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion re 27 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint, 36 Cross MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Verified Complaint and Petition for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto filed by CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR, LOWELL T. PATTERSON, DARRELL JAMES LENORMAND, DONALD H. NELSEN, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(APUZZO, MARIO) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

  130. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    Let’s get all of this straight:

    1. “citoyen” means subject, not citizen, even though today “citoyen” means citizen.

    2. The French Revolution (which started in 1789) defined how the US Constitution, written in 1787 used the words “natural born citizen” even though the French Revolution, which ended in 1799 didn’t change their citizenship laws, which weren’t changed until 1807. (And, even though they were changed by Napolean, someone who styled himself Emperor, these changes represent the escape from empire.)

    3. Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” influenced the founders, even though the words “natural born citizen” did not appear in Vattel’s text until after the Constitution was written.

    4. Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” influenced the founders without the founders once mentioning Vattel on the subject of citizenship.

    5. The founders clearly intended to overturn the 400+ years of meaning contained in the phrase “natural born” but simply forgot to mention it.

    6. The fact that the founders clearly intended to overturn 400+ years of meaning contained in the phrase “natural born” is obvious despite the fact that less than 15 years later, the entire legal community had reverted to the old meaning of “natural born” when talking of “natural born citizens.”

    7. Vattel’s use of the word “indigenes” clearly meant “natural born citizen” even though France used the term, “Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran§ais…”

    8. Vattel’s work defined some universal (to the “law of nations”) meaning of “natural born citizenship” even though it didn’t agree with any of the other major writers specializing in the “law of nations” or with the way that nations applied citizenship.

    9. The founders were trying to escape British Common law, even though all the states had laws like Virginia’s which from 1776 on said:

    The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.

    Have I got it all right, jtx?

    Do you need a compass for all of these intellectual switchbacks?

  131. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    nbc:

    It’s almost beyond comprehension that you don’t understand what common law is in relation the citizenship issues.

    It is certainly NOT the ECL as there was no such concept as “citizen” but rather the inhabitants were held to be “subjects” – and the more the merrier as far as the royal was concerned since numbers made him more powerful (just like the Oborter thinks HE is).

    As Mr. Apuzzo clearly points out there were very good reasons why the founders rejected ECL for things where it did not apply (such as citizenship for which there was no ECL corollary) and used it for things where it was meaningful since the states had grown up with ECL in use for contracts, property rights, and many other things. Citizenship was NOT one of those things.

    Perhaps you don’t realize it but the Rev. War was heavily influenced by the opposition to the idea of “sovereignity” and complete dominion over inhabitants – or “freedom” as many express it. You also completely miss the fact that in the two cases you’ve mentioned – Lynch and Wong, the issues to be settled were those hinging upon whether the person might be a “citizen” – and not (as you pretend) “natural born citizen”. those are two disctinctly different concepts.

    You really do need to read the Apuzzo treatise on Common Law/Natural Law that I’ve been pointing you to. It completely destroys your false and utterly preposterous claims … and, yes, I believe that it will hold up in court. I’m also quite familiar with Lynch AND WKA however you seem to not understand what they say.

  132. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    You’ve merely proved the points made by Mr. Apuzzo in his treatise on Common Law/Natural Law and apparently do not even realize it.

    Here’s a point that Apuzzo was trying to make in his “treatise:”

    Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was.

    How does the fact that France, at the time of the founding, operated in an entirely different manner than Apuzzo claims, support his point that “all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was?”

  133. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    nbc:

    If Mr. O. is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies, the question arises “how could he be impeached since he’s not legally President?” What’s your take on that?

    Also what about all his official acts since being sworn in???

    Since he’s never shown he is eligible and the Constitution requires him to be a natural born citizen, it certainly behoves the one who so heavily sought the office to show that he IS legally eligible.

    Of course you Deathers are all too happy to see the Constitution “killed of” but what you seem to not realize is that with no Constitution there is no law … sorry about that!! If you’d like to change the law on elibibility, the correct was is NOT by usurpation but by Constitutional Amendment.

    In the meantime, your Fearless Leader can merely prove his legal eligibility and we can all get on with life – right???

  134. avatar
    SFJeff August 31, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    “You need to read the excellent treatise by Mario Apuzzo to see Lynch v. Clarke in context.”

    No, really I don’t. First of all JTX- you lie- you flat out lie. I have pointed this out many times but you keep doing it.

    “not at all since Obama, Jr. has told everyone he is not a NBC by his own admissions”

    This he has never said- this is your interpretation of what you want his words to mean- but not the words that came from him. You lie sir.

    The reason I don’t have to read Mr. Apuzzo’s most excellent treatise is because ultimately what he argues, and really what we argue here is meaningless. It is really for our amusement only. Why?

    Because there is no meaningful authority who agrees with Apuzzo. Congress didn’t. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court didn’t. The voters didn’t. By action, all agreed that Obama was eligible to President. I don’t need to read the musings of Mr. Apuzzo because he could be entirely correct- you know like the guy who argues the Income Tax is unconstitutional- and it wouldn’t matter. Nobody agrees with either of them, and no court agrees with either of them. Unfortunately, eventually someone will probably end up in jail because of Mr. Apuzzo, just like the poor fools who follow the Income Tax guy. Just believing in it, and arguing that your interpretation of the Constitution is the right one, doesn’t make it the right one.

    Now lets just say that the day in your wildest dreams occurs- and the Supreme Court of the United States rules on a case and says that a NBC must have two citizen parents. This is what more conservatives would decry as “legislating from the bench” but lets just assume it happened. Would this mean that President Obama lied when he proclaimed himself a NBC? No, it would mean the law had been reinterpreted to mean something different from what was legally understood by the entire population.

    It would be up to the Congress at that point to determine whether Impeachment was warrented.

    Well- thats how the Constitution works.

  135. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    richCares:

    Actually I’d rather comment on Obama’s certain failure since he’s the one who needs to prove his legal eligibility. The treatise is quite correct no matter how the case turns out – but you don’t seem to realize it.

    It’s interesting to me that NONE of you Flying Monkeys have ever been intellectually honest enough to say that if Obama is found to be ineligible you’d stand right up with all honest citizens and scream for the full force of law to be visited upon him. The fact that none of you take that position tells most reasonable people a whole lot …

  136. avatar
    SFJeff August 31, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    Sally: “Additionally, he has appointed cabinet / czars / advisors to his administration which appear to strengthen that claim when looking to their beliefs and the beliefs he campaigned for while in Kenya.”

    I am really curious- connect those dots for me- what advisors or cabinet members support that conclusion and how?

    “I’ll admit that it could all be speculative circumstance, but shouldn’t it be my right as an American, to question his actions and Obama’s own words for that matter”

    Of course- as American’s it is both a right and an obligation to question the actions of our political leaders- but that doesn’t mean he has to respond to your speculations.

    “it was he, himself who claims dual citizenship at birth – not some wild assertion by the so-called birthers’, afterall.”

    Yep- right in his book, and in other places- all before the election- where any voter who thought this disqualified him would have voted against him. However he did win the election.

    “The problem with all this is – we just don’t know very much about the man. We know bits and pieces and just enough to want to ask more questions.”

    What don’t you know that you ‘knew’ about Bush? Or Clinton? Or Bush Sr? Or Reagan? I read Obama’s book, I heard all the slander about him before the election- I knew more about him than I did any previously elected President. Matter of fact, after reading a “Team of Rivals” I can say fairly confidently that I knew more about Obama than voters knew about Lincoln when he was elected. What are the things that you feel you ‘need’ to know? Then ask yourself if you knew those things about Bush or Clinton or Reagan.

  137. avatar
    SFJeff August 31, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    “The treatise is quite correct no matter how the case turns out – but you don’t seem to realize it.”

    Well, I would say legally, if the courts disagree with the arguments of the Treastise it is legally incorrect.

    “NONE of you Flying Monkeys have ever been intellectually honest enough to say that if Obama is found to be ineligible you’d stand right up with all honest citizens and scream for the full force of law to be visited upon him”

    Sometimes JTX, I can’t tell whether you are lieing or just ignorant. I have stated twice that if any President were found to have committed High Crimes or Misdeamenors I would support his impeachment.

    If he were found to ineligible for the Presidency because the Courts decided against the common understanding and precedent of NBC, then he would have done nothing wrong and shouldn’t be impeached.

    If it were found that he knowingly hid his foreign birth- I would support his impeachment, just as I would have supported Reagan’s impeachment if he were to have been found to have hidden his foreign birth.

    Your fantasy is not going to happen, but yes, I think President’s and Vice President’s that break the law should be held accountable- no matter who they are.

    Personally I think Cheney should be in the slammer for outing a CIA agent and endangered the security of the United States. But legally that is all just speculative. And just because I think I know that he outed that agent, doesn’t mean he is obliged to prove to me that he didn’t.

  138. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    De facto officer doctrine. All acts of an officer who was elected or appointed to an actual office are valid, even if a later flaw is found in that officer’s election or appointment.

    He did show he was eligible. He presented his COLB to the voters. The birthers presented their arguments that the COLB was insufficient to prove him eligible. The voters rejected the argument of the birthers. The birthers then presented their argument to the electors of the electoral college and then to the Congress which had to certify his election. Both rejected the birther arguments. He has proven himself eligible in the only way the Constitution envisions, by presenting the evidence to the voters and having them decide the issue.

  139. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    JTX It’s almost beyond comprehension that you don’t understand what common law is in relation the citizenship issues.

    You are funny… I may as well say the same about you, with the added confidence that my position is well established in US jurisprudence and yours is based on a flawed understanding of US law in this area.

    It is certainly NOT the ECL as there was no such concept as “citizen” but rather the inhabitants were held to be “subjects” – and the more the merrier as far as the royal was concerned since numbers made him more powerful (just like the Oborter thinks HE is).

    As I have shown, citizen and subject are similar concepts. One owed allegiance to a monarch, the other to a Republic. Both are interested in “the more the merrier” as the success of their ‘empires’ depend on an influx of people.

    As to me not understanding what Lynch of WKA state, I beg to differ as I have read all of them and am in the process of adding the relevant hyperlinks to the references cited, which all indicate how strong the impact of ECL was on establishing the meaning of terms not defined in the Constitution.
    As to the Jus Gentium, Apuzzo is making the flawed argument that since Jus Gentium is part of Common Law that therefor Jus Gentium should guide the issue of citizenship.
    This is easily shown to be erroneous by observing how US law quickly accepted the right of the individual not the nations(s) as defining who is and who is not a citizen, as such rejecting that a law of nations guided this decision.
    As a country based on individual rights, it is unsupportable that the US and its founders envisioned that the United States would abandon the decision as to who was and was not a citizen would be abandoned to a ‘universal principle’.

    As such, your reliance on Apuzzo, while admirable (it almost suggests to me that you are the plaintiff in the case, wishing to accept Apuzzo’s claims, regardless of their factual foundation, logic and reason). However, as I have and continue to show, the suggestion that citizenship in the US is governed by Jus Gentium is unmaintainable.

  140. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    JTX If Mr. O. is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies, the question arises “how could he be impeached since he’s not legally President?” What’s your take on that?

    Simple, per the well established concept of De Facto officer, the president is in fact, until shown otherwise, duly elected. Per Constitutional requirement, the only way to question his eligibility, which was per 20th amendment accepted by Congress, is through impeachment.
    The case law again is quite clear here: A duly elected president cannot be questioned through Quo Warranto, but only through the only constitutional principle provided, that of impeachment.

    Glad you asked as this still seems to be causing some confusion amongst doubters.

  141. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Actually I’d rather comment on Obama’s certain failure since he’s the one who needs to prove his legal eligibility. The treatise is quite correct no matter how the case turns out – but you don’t seem to realize it.

    There is no such requirement in US law or Constitution, in fact, just the opposite, it is Congress who qualified the president.

    A novel theory at best, with no foundation, as usual, in law, precedent or logic.

  142. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    JTX’s continued inability to make his case, combined with his consistent name calling can lead to but one conclusion.

  143. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    You really do need to read the Apuzzo treatise on Common Law/Natural Law that I’ve been pointing you to. It completely destroys your false and utterly preposterous claims

    Let’s take just one of the claims in Apuzzo’s “treatise.”

    The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of U.S. national law.

    Other nations adopted the definition of “natural born citizen” that Vattel recognized?

    Which ones?

    Not England

    Not France, Spain, Portugal, or any other nation in Europe. The rule in Europe generally was jus soli. Spain and Portugal reconfirmed that rule in their Constitutions written in the 1830s, and even by the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Vattel’s limited definition was not recognized in England, France, Holland, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece or Russia.

    I guess if the only nations that make up the supposedly universal “law of nations” are Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, then yes, it was universal, some time before the adoption of the 14th amendment, but not at the time of the founding.

  144. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 5:20 pm #

    JTX I look forward to seeing the Kerchner et al case go before SCOTUS and I predict the definition as described by Vattel (2 US citizen parents with the child born on US soil) will be the definition of the “natural born citizen” term. You are welcome to your mistaken belief to the contrary (if you even know what it is since you’ve not clearly enunciated it).

    I will make a prediction: Kerchner v Obama will be denied, probably appealed and denied again and again. All based on Constitutional principles of standing and failure to state a claim.

    As to my belief. It is the well documented fact that according to US law, since the Constitution does not define the term ‘natural born’ that its definition should be found elsewhere and the only logical place is in English Common Law, as the concept of citizenship is far removed from the concept of Jus Gentium, or Laws of Nations, especially in the US where the Founders and the courts recognized the rights of citizens to reject or denounce citizenship and where rights were strongly individual. As such, the concept of jus soli prevailed.

    Again, the logic is simple, the supporting evidence undeniable, which is probably why Apuzzo has chosen to quote from dissenting opinions of WKA rather than the majority opinion…

  145. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    Greg The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of U.S. national law.

    As Greg continues to point out, this position goes against anything known on this topic, and delegates the authority of the US to decide for itself who are and are not citizens.
    Given that the US chose the opposite path, it seems ironic that Apuzzo and JTX have decided to make this somewhat foolish argument.

  146. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    as the concept of citizenship is far removed from the concept of Jus Gentium, or Laws of Nations

    Wong Kim Ark has been quoted more than 200 times, and one of the things it is quoted for most often is its statement that:

    “[I]t [cannot] be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”

  147. avatar
    BenjiFranklin August 31, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    Dear jtx,

    Methinks you are reeling from the Rhodes Vs. Gates Judge’s immediate and total confirmation that these cases have no merits to succeed upon. The Obama ejecting court case you fantasize about in the delusional confines of never-to-be-realized prospectivity, now has this judge’s writing on the wall to dread looking forward to.
    You one-line fist-shakers are a pathetic excuse for a principled torch-bearing mob!

    Sincerely,
    Benji Franklin

  148. avatar
    SFJeff August 31, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    “Since he’s never shown he is eligible and the Constitution requires him to be a natural born citizen”

    By your own reasoning JTX, no previous President has proven himself eligible. Do you therefore propose that all previous actions by Presidents are suspect until we go back and verify to every citizen’s satisfaction that they were NBCs?

    “If you’d like to change the law on elibibility, the correct was is NOT by usurpation but by Constitutional Amendment.”

    If only you really believed that. You have admitted several times that you believe it impossible for President Obama to be eligible, citing a Treatise that no authority agrees with, citing a NBC requirement that no one had invented prior to Obama being elected President. You and the others are looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, to remove that uppity Muslim Communist.

    And in the process, you insult the man, his mother, his wife, his grandparents. You have no shame sir.

  149. avatar
    jtx August 31, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    nbc:

    Your misstatement of what I actually said does not make your statement correct; in fact it is grossly incorrect. You are either a fool or are intentionally misstating what was said … or, more likely, both.

    The WKA case was about citixen status of the man – and had nothing to do with the NBC definition. In addition you’re merely repeating what was clearly stated in Minor and no one has ever stated otherwist but Minor did say that NBC status was never in doubt.

    You need to re-read Mr. Apuzzo’s excellent treatise – perhaps several times until you understand it since it is clear that you do not. Possibly taking notes might help you. You’ve merely mouthed a lot of what attorney Apuzzo worked into his essay in a correct context and spouting bits of it our of context as you do is totally sterile.

    You keep trying to put words in my mouth and that’s not going to work, either.

    You even misunderstand and misinterpret your own Smith v. Alabama case and as Apuzzo clearly shows while ECL was indeed used prior to the Rev. War (by deginition it had to be since the people were English subjects) and it carried on in many states afterward for things such as contract law and property law. It did not, however apply to citizenship since England had subjects rather than citizens – that why we had the war you apparently would be surprised to discover. The founders – as shown by Apuzzo – relied upon natural law (the law of nations) for the concepts adopted as there were no applicaple ECL equivalents. But citizenship issues and the other things that the ECL DID deal with were distinctly different concepts.

    The garbage you throw in gratuitously at the end of your post is meaningless as I’ve just shown and as did Mr. Apuzzo since NBSubject and NBCitizen are completely different notions – and ECL had no such thing as NBCitizens; only subjects of the King (why we fought, remember)???

  150. avatar
    Greg August 31, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    Apuzzo asserts but does not provide any evidence that Vattel and the law of nations were used for the definition of natural born citizen. But a look at the “law of nations” indicates that the only thing universal about it was that nations didn’t use the “law of nations” to define their citizenship.

  151. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    JTX Your misstatement of what I actually said does not make your statement correct; in fact it is grossly incorrect. You are either a fool or are intentionally misstating what was said … or, more likely, both.

    The expected ad hominem… Well done

    JTX The WKA case was about citixen status of the man – and had nothing to do with the NBC definition. In addition you’re merely repeating what was clearly stated in Minor and no one has ever stated otherwist but Minor did say that NBC status was never in doubt.

    The court gave guidance as to how it reached its conclusion. Following the same logic, the court’s conclusion that anyone born on US soil is a (natural born) citizen is inescapable.

    JTX You need to re-read Mr. Apuzzo’s excellent treatise – perhaps several times until you understand it since it is clear that you do not. Possibly taking notes might help you. You’ve merely mouthed a lot of what attorney Apuzzo worked into his essay in a correct context and spouting bits of it our of context as you do is totally sterile.

    I understand that you may have much invested in the success of Apuzzo but do not blame me for exposing his vacuous claims.
    Perhaps you can get your money back?

  152. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 11:24 pm #

    JTX It did not, however apply to citizenship since England had subjects rather than citizens

    Total nonsense, as I have shown the two terms are virtually identical.

  153. avatar
    nbc August 31, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    I do not misunderstand Smith v Alabama, I am citing from WKA

    From Smith v Alabama we learn

    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. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which therefore is gradually formed by the judgments of this Court, in the application of the Constitution and the laws

    Oops. I guess your friend Mario forgot to read the complete case? Shocking

  154. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    I have taken the liberty, for your education, to document my case here.

  155. avatar
    richCares September 1, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    “The treatise is quite correct no matter how the case turns out – but you don’t seem to realize it.”

    jtx being driven by ideology and hate leads to his making some illuminating comments. What a strange and delusional place he occupies. (courts don’t matter)

  156. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 1, 2009 at 3:58 am #

    For instance:

    1)’It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty to Great Britain (which continues until today)’ – Apuzzo uses an amended version of the Kenyan Independence Act 1963 he should have used the original which clearly shows that Obama was stripped of his CUKC by the UK.

    2)’That is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814),…’ – a concurring opinion rather then the opinion of the court, and uses the ‘indigenes’ version not ‘natural born citizens’.

    3)’… Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830),..’- difficult to see how this supports Vattel definition, the points of contact would be the same under ECL.

    4)’…Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875),..’ – dicta.

    5)’…Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),…’- dissenting opinion only.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 1, 2009 at 7:49 am #

    BTW, did you note Apuzzo calling the Supreme Court a “usurper” by thwarting Congress’s racist citizenship exclusion policy (the Chinese Exclusion Act)? What he doesn’t understand is that the Constitution trumps regular legislation.

    By declaring Wong a “citizen,” Justice Gray circumvented the will of Congress and of the People that prevailed at that time. This was an usurpation of legislative powers as expressed by the will of the People of that time. Our naturalization laws today do not discriminate because of, among other things, race or nationality. Hence, there is no further need today to correct the social wrong that the Wong Kim Ark Court may have perceived but which it had no constitutional authority to correct.

    I dare Mario to put THAT in one of his lawsuits and see how kindly the courts view it.

    Also note the subtle misleading statement that “Justice Gray circumvented …”. It wasn’t Justice Gray who decided Wong Kim Ark, it was 6 justices of the Supreme Court including Gray. 6-2 is a pretty strong majority (one justice, recently appointed did not vote).

    He knows (and thereby makes himself a liar when he writes the preceding) that courts do have the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional when they go against the Constitution, and it is clear from the debates on the 14th Amendment itself that it was the intent of that amendment that indeed every child born in the United States should be a citizen, including the Chinese in California, without regard for who their parents were.

  158. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 8:25 am #

    Some more errors. Apuzzo writes:

    Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was.

    Which is a great sentence, in that it contains two distinct errors.

    First, the Supreme Court has said time and again that citizenship is not something informed by international law, but is based entirely on local law. Justice Gray wrote in Wong:

    Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

    This language was affirmed in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (BVI), 536 US 88, 98-99:

    But the argument’s more significant weakness is its failure to recognize that jurisdictional analysis under the law of the United States is not ultimately governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whatever that may be. While it is perfectly true that “every independent nation [has the inherent right] to determine for itself . . . what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship,” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668, 42 L. Ed. 890, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), our jurisdictional concern here is with the meaning of “citizen” and “subject” as those terms are used in § 1332(a)(2).

    And in Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 329

    In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.

    The second error is in the assumption that the “law of nations” spoke with one voice about citizenship, that “all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was.”

    As I’ve pointed out above, France and England, our two closest influences most assuredly did not adopt Vattel’s conception of citizenship – that a “natural born citizen” was one born to two citizen parents in the country. Wong makes clear that the law in Europe was in accord with France, that “les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Francais” are those born within their borders. Even by the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, it was not a universal understanding of nations that “natural born citizenship” required birth in the nation to two citizen parents. Only Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway imposed Vattel’s rule. Holland, Denmark and Portugal applied jus soli and France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia allowed the children of aliens to get the full rights of the natural-born if certain conditions were met. For example, France, Denmark, Portugal and Holland considered the child of aliens to be a citizen unless that child declined French citizenship before coming of age.

    Not only were the nations not uniform in their understanding of citizenship, the writers about the “law of nations” were not uniform in their description of this supposedly universal law. First, Vattel appears to require only that the father make an intention to reside permanently in a nation (and it’s not clear that he requires two citizen parents). Pufendorf appears to be silent on the issue, while other prominent writers on the law of nations, Schmier, Domat, Burlamaqui, subscribe to some modified form of jus soli.

    That’s why Justice Story wrote in his treatise on the Conflict of Laws

    that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First. Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.

    Story’s Conflict of Laws, 47, § 48

  159. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 1, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    You might want to add this to the collection:

    The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty
    Jill A. Pryor – Yale Law Journal 1988.

    http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

    Oh happy days before the birthers – “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

  160. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    I am slowly working my way through Mario’s revision of American History, exposing the fallacies in his claims.
    JTX will not be amused.

  161. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    Heh. So am I. It’s not so easy, given that he misrepresents 200 page decisions in string-cites.

  162. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    Perhaps we can use Dr C’s wiki site to explore in more detail?

    Let me see if I can find the link.

  163. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    Greg:

    You’ve not been paying attention as he provides a good bit of evidence (which is apparently beyond you since you wish to believe that English Common Law governed all things … it certainly did not).

    The essay also clearly shows how other nations used natural law and why the founders used natural law primarily as embodied in Vattel’s writings for their views of things relating to “citizens” – especially so with the understanding of what a “natural born citizen” might be.

    Trying to graft English Common Law onto the concepts struggled with by the founders will not work. The founders came to know that and realized that “subjects” and “citizens” were two different things. You haven’t gained that realization yet, but if you study the essay you’ll learn.

  164. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    nbc:

    You need to read WKA again – and this time try to see what the decision is – that the man was a citizen period>/b>; not a natural born citizen.

    The case made no determinations at all that related to the definition of natural born citizen. Dicta, yes; decisions, no.

    Try again!!

  165. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    nbc:

    Sorry but subjects and citizens are distinctlyu different terms as used under by the two countries England and the emerging US. You need to get your facts straight and not listen to the Obots.

    As for any “investment” I might have with attorney Apuzzo it is one of learning the correct concepts of citizenship and – especially – the definition natural born citixen. You might try some of that investment yourself as you are bacly in need of it since you think ECL subject and ACL citizen are the same thing. They’re not at all nor can you correctly demonstrate that they are.

  166. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    You need to read WKA again – and this time try to see what the decision is – that the man was a citizen period; not a natural born citizen.

    The case made no determinations at all that related to the definition of natural born citizen. Dicta, yes; decisions, no.

    I am glad that you accept that WKA did indeed address NBC and extending its logical argument, the conclusion is simple: natural born follows the English Common law, just as citizen follows the ECL on subject as the two terms are virtually equivalent.

    The suggestion that citizen and subject mean different things is just irrational. Subject means allegiance to the Crown, citizen means allegiance to the Country/Republic. Both concepts acknowledge that the concept of allegiance is important, and as such allegiance is established at birth by location, either in the realm of the Crown or in the realm of the Republic. Both accept that those born outside the allegiance of the crown/republic are not included: such examples include children born to ambassadors, children born to invading military and in the US children born to Indians not paying taxes.

    The conclusion is inescapable, especially when accepting Smith v Alabama’s ruling, reiterated in WKA that the meaning of the term Natural Born comes from the ECL which at the time of the Constitution guided the common law principles of citizenship. Arguing that Vattel’s principles, which are based on laws of nation and which Vattel accepts to include the English rule, somehow guided the interpretation is illogical as 1) such a position would disallow the US from establishing who is and is not a US citizen 2) laws of actual nations show a strong adherence to the principle of jus soli in many cases.

    As such, Apuzzo’s attempt to revise history is interesting but has to be rejected in light of the facts. That Apuzzo has chosen to ‘re-intepret’ the rulings in WKA or Minor is fascinating and understandable as he, as a lawyer, has to make the ‘best argument’ for his client. But that hardly means that the best argument is a good argument. In fact, as I and others (Greg) are slowly exposing, Apuzzo’s position is based on wishful thinking more than on factual analysis, history and legal precedent.

  167. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    JTX Sorry but subjects and citizens are distinctlyu different terms as used under by the two countries England and the emerging US. You need to get your facts straight and not listen to the Obots.

    Since I have supported my case with actual references that show otherwise, I find your comments at best amusing.

    It is not too late to get your money back I hope?

  168. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    Well, I’ll get set up for adding content.

  169. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    nbc:

    Sorry to disappoint you but Mario is not my friend. I DO find his essays on the subject at hand both factual, well-reasoned, and historically correct.

    Yours, OTOH, are not at all like that and are billed with partisan BS and misinformation.

    For example, you cite Smith v. Alabama a state case dealing with the issue of commerce and you should (but apparently do not) realize that such would be governed in state law basically by English Common Law concepts. That case does not relate to citizenship issues at all and pretending that it does is truly folly.

    You also seem to be unaware that WKA dealt with whether the subject individual – not a NBC. The reference that you quoted that you gave states what was said closely enough but you’ve completely missed the point that the common law interpretation it was referring to was NOT the English Common law you so love (since that’s your only hopoe of helping Obama) but of natural law – the common law (WRT citizenship issues) of the newly emerging US. English common law had no reference to any corollary as they had only “subjects” while the US had “citizens” as sovereigns.

    So the portion you bolded is OK, except that you miss the point that it was not ECL but ACL that was meant. You continue to mis-use the term “natural botn subjects” as though it were the same as “natural born citizens” – and it is not nor is English Common Law applicable to the citizenship issue.

    Actually if you had studied the Apuzzo treatise on the matter you would realize that, but like the old saying “… there are none so blind as those who will not see …”.

  170. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    More on the issue of Subject v Citizen

    The legal notion, derived from English common law, does not emphasize the distinction between subject and citizen. The crucial distinction is between citizen and alien. According to English common law, subjects owed allegiance to the Crown and were reciprocally entitled to the Crown’s protection; at a later date, the terms citizen and subject were used interchangeably. Early American legal authorities continued this idea: “Subject” and “citizen” are , in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives” said Chancellor James Kent in his Commentaries, “and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate for republican free men, yet we are , equally with the inhabitants of all other contries, ‘subjects’, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and the law of the land. The Anglo-American legal concept of citizenship stresses the connection between the individual’s allegiance and the government’s protection.

    Source: “Democratic theories and the Constitution” By Martin Edelman

    Edelman then continues to point out that there also exist differences but that

    “In one sense, of course, Chancellor Kent is correct. In terms of formal rights and privileges, American democracy has destroyed the formal distinction between citizen and subject, at least as to native born persons.

  171. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    JTX Sorry to disappoint you but Mario is not my friend. I DO find his essays on the subject at hand both factual, well-reasoned, and historically correct.

    I understand your beliefs, I merely challenge them with the facts

    JTX Yours, OTOH, are not at all like that and are billed with partisan BS and misinformation.

    No such examples are provided

    JTX For example, you cite Smith v. Alabama a state case dealing with the issue of commerce and you should (but apparently do not) realize that such would be governed in state law basically by English Common Law concepts. That case does not relate to citizenship issues at all and pretending that it does is truly folly.

    You are now misrepresenting my point. What I am showing is how this case, cited in WKA and others shows that English Common Law plays an important role when interpreting the Constitution.

    Seems that the one blinded is you my dear friend. One good thing has resulted from your objections: namely that now various people are working on exposing the many flaws in Apuzzo’s reasoning. And by extension, it seems, also yours.

    Cheers

  172. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    nbc:

    I’ve noted your “documenting” of what you refer to as “your case” but I see that as a futile exerccise on your part that does nothing like demonstrating anything but that you do not grasp the issue – or more probably do not wish to.

    The Smith v. Alabama is totally misapplied to the citizenship issue as it deals with the English Common Law related issue of commerce. There are certainly things today where ECL are to some degree applicable, but the area of citizenship is not one of them and you seem to be heedless of that fact.

    Any “confusion” is on your part, not mine.

  173. avatar
    nbc September 1, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    JTX you’ve completely missed the point that the common law interpretation it was referring to was NOT the English Common law you so love (since that’s your only hopoe of helping Obama) but of natural law – the common law (WRT citizenship issues) of the newly emerging US

    That is only correct if you limit yourself to the losing opinion. When applying the majority opinion, which is precedent, the exact opposite conclusion is reached.

    I am surprised that you want to argue otherwise, but I understand that Mario may have put you on the wrong track. Why not present your best argument, if any?

  174. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    jtx: The essay also clearly shows how other nations used natural law

    No, it doesn’t. He states, without proof, that all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. In fact, other than the United States and Great Britain, he doesn’t discuss a single other country!

    He cites no direct evidence that Vattel supplanted British common law. In fact, when he attempts to bolster Vattel’s credibility by citing a law review article on the Alien Tort Claims Act, he misses the part of the article which says that Vattel can be useful, if Blackstone is silent!

  175. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    nbc:

    It is you who mave mis-asserted what WKA “addressed” as it addressed no such thing but merely mentioned the term. It is virtually impossible to extend the mention to pretend that it somehow decided the meaning of NBC (which was not an issue in the case).

    The decision of the case and the meat of the citation content was relating to whether the subject was a citizen or not. The decision found that he WAS a citizen but made no determination at all about natural born citizen but merely referenced the term in passing – that’s called dicta.

    Attempting to use dicta to assume or pretend that is was a decision and in any way definitive is totally incorrect – but hey, that’s all you’ve got to work with. Trying to extend dicta to be any sort of “logical argument” demostrating anything meaningful is very incorrect but not nearly as incorrect as your mistaken belief the ECL somehow governed the WKA proceeding. It didn’t; WHA was a citizenship matter and ECL was inapplicable thereto.

  176. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    There are certainly things today where ECL are to some degree applicable, but the area of citizenship is not one of them

    Wong dealt with this issue. It found that there was no universal “law of nations” when it came to citizenship:

    There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

    The court was specifically asked by the appellants to find that British Common Law did not apply. The court rejected that argument.

    The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.

    The court doesn’t look to international law to define common law, finding, as noted above, that there was no international law on the issue that was universally accepted, in fact, it said:

    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.

    You’ll note the Court spends many pages figuring (pp. 655-658) determining the common law of Britain, citing about 13 different sources.

    Beginning in section III (p. 658) the Court explains that the Common law of Britain was in effect in the colonies “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.” Not the law of nations, but the British Common Law. He spends pages 658-666) discussing how the British Common law was the universal law of the land.

    Starting in section IV of the case, (page 666) Gray goes into his discussion of whether:

    the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

    By the end of page 667, Gray had found that the so-called Roman rule did not supersede British Common Law. He then discusses whether British Common Law determines citizenship by parentage. On pages 668-674 he finds that it was by British statutory law, not common law, that citizenship descended by parentage. He finds the same in American law – it is only by action of Congress that citizenship can pass jus sanguinis. He concludes:

    So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory, or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens, have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which ahve gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law, have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.

    It is a complete and total misreading of Wong to suppose that when he’s talking about common law, it means anything other than British Common law as applied by the American colonies before the revolution and the American States after the revolution. He explicitly considered and rejected the argument that the “law of nations” should take precedence!

  177. avatar
    SFJeff September 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    JTX- you keep referencing Apuzzo as if his treatise matters. At best, it is an interesting theory. But since nobody of any authority or gravitas agrees with him, it is means little.

    I have asked every time for you to cite someone with any gravitas who agrees with you or Apuzzo’s many and novel theories, but you don’t and can’t- so you remain silent.

    Argue the legal points as much as you want- it is clear to me that you and Apuzzo are wrong, but what matters is whether anyone of authority agrees with you. Until you get that, you are just like the “Income Tax is Unconstitutional” guy. (His stuff is fun to read too, and he too is certain of his interpretation of the Constitution)

  178. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    nbc:

    You “case” is quite mis-named as it is not that at all but a bunch off off-point references that do not illustrate (let alone prove) what you claim.

    The fact that you are “amused” is no doubt true since that shouldn’t take much given your level of intellect.

    The only “conclusion” reached in WKA was that the person in question was a citizen (period). Trying to stretch that into some sort of universal use of ECL is nonsense – but you did say you were easily amused, so that figures.

  179. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    that’s called dicta.

    There’s dicta and then there’s dicta. While Gray’s citation of cases saying that “natural born subject” is the equivalent of “natural born citizen” do not answer the question of whether the Wong was a natural-born citizen, since he was not running for President, and therefore the question was not before the court.

    However, they are in no way secondary to the decision, they are, in fact, crucial to the decision. Gray makes a detailed and lengthy case that the method of obtaining citizenship by birth is exactly the same in the United States as it was in Britain. Part of that argument hinges on the fact of the common-law term “natural born subject” and its US counterpart “natural born citizen” being equivalent terms.

    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.

    So, in order to avoid the conclusion that Wong’s rationale binds the future case of the Presidential candidate, you’ll have to argue one of the following:

    A. Wong was completely wrong in finding that English Common law applies to the definition of natural born citizen (and so Chinamen can be excluded from citizenship)

    OR

    B. Wong was right to find that English common law helped define “natural born citizen” but wrong when he found an equivalence between natural born subject and natural born citizen.

    If you can’t show one or the other, if you rely on “but it was dicta!” you’ll lose.

  180. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    SFJeff:

    We all know that by the term “nobody of any authority or gravitas” you mean that only you of the Flying Monkey Brigade can be believed.

    I think that when the eligibility issue reaches SCOTUS as a matter of first impression that their decision will agree with Apuzzo’s presentation – not yours.

    In the meantime, just keep up the good old lib look-down-your-nose at any who disagree since you think denigration is part of debate.

    It’s apparent that you’ve not read the piece mentioned since it has ample cites … you merely wish to ignore them all by brushing them away with an idiotic “gravitas, etc.” comment such as you used to start your post.

    If you can’t read them there it’s quite clear that you couldn’t read them here either so posting them for your convenience is surely a waste of effort. You’d rather remain uninformed.

  181. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Greg:

    And as has been pointed out to yu (several times) “subjects” and “citizens” as used between the two countries are not at all “equivalent” terms. That ws merely dicta and not part of the decision handed down which related to the fact that WKA was considered a “citizen”.

    Gray’s use of the cites you mention do nothing to advance the idea of the definition of NBC and his attempt at trying to cloud the issue (which is why the Oborter fans like it) by throwing ECL as being meaningful when it is not is merely part of the sideshow that he apparently felt compelled to put on for the benefit of his mentor Chester Arthur.

    In fact as can be noted from the reception statutes, the US Constitution had long before (at the time of WKA) assumed the preeminance in the citizenship arena. For these reasons (and others) WKA is considered by many – including some on SCOTUS – as “bad law”.

    It certainly figures that you Deathers would need to used the most flawed decision you could find to support your hero. ECL WRT the ctizen issue was not in effect and hadn’t been for generations (and I’ve no doubt Gray knew that; but perhaps he’s as uninformed as you).

    The “common law” referred to in these 2 cases (WKA and Minor) actually refers to the citizen laws in effect at the time of founding and these were NOT ECL at all but ACL – the use of natural law as common law in an area where ECL had no applicability at all.

    So blubbering on as you do and citing inapplicable cases as you is not furthering your cause. You merely expose further chinks in your already falling-apart armor.

  182. avatar
    SFJeff September 1, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    “We all know that by the term “nobody of any authority or gravitas” you mean that only you of the Flying Monkey Brigade can be believed.”

    If you mean that judges, congressman, Senators, Secretaries of State, published Constitutional Scholars are all part of the Flying Monkey Brigade, I suppose you are right. But I would settle for anyone of even modest achievement beyond being technically a lawyer. Can you name anyone besides you and Apuzzo that agree with Apuzzo?

    See, everyone I ask- i mean everyone at work, my family etc- everyone all agrees that what they were taught when they were growing up was that NBC means being born in the U.S. Apparently the voters felt this way too, when they voted for Obama. Congress obviously felt this way too when they approved him.

    What you and Appuzzo are proposing is a novel interpretation of NBC. You have no one of ‘gravitas’ who agrees with you. The citations of your argument have no more weight than the guy who argues that the Income Tax is Unconstitutional. Until you find someone to agree with you, you are basically just shouting in the wind.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 1, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    I think I’m going to have to rename my blog to JTX Conspiracy theories.

  184. avatar
    SFJeff September 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Have any of them really thought through the implications of this “must have two citizen parents” theory? While it is fairly simple to authenticate who a mother is(by rational people standards), paternity is far less clear.

    We are talking mandatory DNA testing for not only Presidential candidates, but also their male parent(probably to be safe, the maternal side too), to establish clearly who the father is, and whether the father was a citizen.

    Speaking of which- here is a fun scenario- the Birthers win a Supreme Court Case that says NBC means must have 2 citizen parents. Paternity tests then show that Obama Sr. was not the parent but that Obama is the secret love child of some American Marxist.
    It will be a win/win- Obama will have proven his NBC status and Birthers will have come up with some new reasons to smear Obama’s parents- because whether JTX believes his spiel or not, he and his ilk are the schills of those who want to undermine the President because of his politics and his race, not because of they care where he was born

  185. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    nbc:

    Edelman seems a nice, liberal source for you to use so that’s not too surprising. But the quote you give for him is, in fact, off subject as the issue being discussed is not “citizen” and “subject” at all and certainly about the undefined “native born persons”. What IS being discussed is the meaning of the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” at the time of founding and it clearly came from the precepts of natural law as espoused by Vattel.

    Nor do I think that the terms “citizen” and “subject” were used interchangeably nor does your James Kent Commentaries quote show anything like that. In fact, the manner in which you start your quote is putting an incorrect spin on the entire quote right from the start as you say “The legal notion, derived from English common law …”. That alone is misleading since it presupposes that ECL is, somehow, the controlling body of law in the citizenship arena – and it was in no respect that since the two terms “subject” and “citizen” were clearly different and so recognixed by the founders.

    Kent, in Commentaries, does say that:

    “When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among the civilized nations of Europe as their public law. During the war of the American revolution, Congress claimed cognizance of all matters arising upon the law of nations, and they professed obedience to that law, according to the general usages of Europe.”

    The “law” Kent is referring to is the law of nations and he also cites Baron de Montesquieu of France (who the founders consulted heavily also along with Vattel).

    And along those lines Kent also says:

    “The most popular, and the most elegant writer on the law of nations, is Vattel, whose method has been greatly admired. He has been cited, for the last half century, more freely than any one of the public jurists …”.

    Kent himself was an unapologetic ECL guy and, as an educator, taught many, many classes in the differing aspects of ECL that DID survive the founding of tne new nation. I’ll not bother to list all of the general ECL topice he taught, but one can see that even this man was honest enough to own up to the non-ECL aspects of the founding.

    Since he was a great fan of ECL it is hardly surprising that he leans heavily upon it as your selected out of context quotes show. They do not say, however, that ECL was used in each and every facet of law in the new country – and his Commentaries illustrate (in the 70 or so lectures he included) that he knew very well that was not the case.

    That’s more than can be said for your body of knowledge on the matter.

  186. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    The “law” Kent is referring to is the law of nations and he also cites Baron de Montesquieu of France

    As I’ve shown repeatedly above, not even France applied the law of Vattel. In fact, at the founding, the law of Europe was the law of jus soli In fact, by 1898, it was not at all universally understood by the “law of nations” that Vattel’s conception of citizenship should supplant the English Common Law understanding.

    And no case, not Wong, not any of the cases that came before or since, has said that citizenship is anything other than local, municipal law. It is not something that is determined by the “law of nations.”

    If there was anything the “law of nations” agreed on, it was that citizenship was determined solely by the nation, and not by reference to the “law of nations.”

  187. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    Welsh Dragon:

    1) Sorry, but the correct Kenyan Constitution was used. You are the one mistaken. He has never been “stripped” of his Brit citizenship – nor has he ever renounded it so far as is known; but perhaps he did so secretly last week – he’s certainly lied before.

    2) The French and English versions were both used by the founders with the French version being the more widely used if I recall. And the French term used meant “indigenous” stemming from the Latin, which means (in all three languages – “native”). The concurring opinion is PART of the court’s opinion.

    3)Actually I’m surprised you missed the passage “If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.” as it clearly discussed the citizenship matter and how it is originated. And that’s directly supportive of the (misnamed) “Vattel definition” which actually was the new American common law definition under the law of nations.

    4)Minor .. your catprization of part of the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice as “dicta” is laughable. It is no such thing, but while we’re on the subject why is it that the Flying Monkeys get to rely (heavily, since that’s all there is) in WKA and those wo differ do not get to?? “House rules”, eh???

    5) WKA. Perhaps a dissenting opinion but if so it is odd that Justice Gray presented it as part of the court’s opinion when he used the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” to draw a distuinct difference between the two. Wrong also.

  188. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 1, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    JTX:

    the concurring opinion is PART of the court’s opinion.

    No, the concurring opinion is not part of the Court’s opinion, and matters little more than the dissenting opinions in terms of case law. In reality, the concurring opinion was basically, someone who voted the same way on that paticular case, but for completely different reasons. The reasons for his opinion do not matter. The opinion of the court is what matters. The fact that you do not know this means that you have had absolutely no legal training. It means that the only way you could be a judge for 30 years is if you were talking about being a dog show judge, but even that would require you to read rules, and know how to interpret them.

    The concurring opinion means absolutely nothing. If 7 justices said, “John Doe is a citizen because of the definition in Blackstone.” And 1 justice said, “John Doe is a citizen because of de Vattel” that doesn’t mean that the court held de Vattel was the definition of citizenship. It’s just one justice reached the same decision in that case because of different logic.

  189. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    Greg:

    … and you think wrong about the French at the time since they were following the traits of what we know as ECL which meant that the royal sovereign had dominion over his “subjects” just as the Brits did.

    This merely puts you right back to the same old, same old incorrect notion that ECL (even if Frog-speaking) held sway). Tweren’t so. Justice Gray knew it, but you don’t seem to. I can read a little French and the meaning is as Gray phrases it, not as you do.

    As for WKA being bad law, here’s a helpful link that will explain that so you can grasp why that is so:

    http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

  190. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    The French is clear, “Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran§ais” you clearly know as little about French as you do about the law.

    Citoyen meant citizen. Gray thought it meant citizen. Justice Gray knew it, but you don’t seem to.

    As for your citation to the federalist blog, not only have I read that, I know where it makes its errors and why it’s wrong. If you wanted to have an intelligent discussion about it, we could.

    Here’s an article which explains why revisionists are barking up the wrong tree when appealing to Trumbull and Howard:

    http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0212-ho.pdf

    The fact of the matter is that there was extensive debate about how the Amendment was a bad idea because it granted citizenship to the children of aliens, such as gypsies and Chinese. Edgar Cowan (R-PA) to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the nation. No Senator stood up and said, “Don’t worry about gypsies overrunning your state, because the Amendment doesn’t grant them citizenship!” Senator John Conness stood up and acknowledged Cowan’s fear, but minimized it:

    The proposition before us .. relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

    It’s clear from this day-long debate that everyone voting on the Amendment realized it would grant citizenship to the children of aliens. Cowan eventually voted against it for this reason.

    When that article isn’t committing crimes against history, it’s rehashing arguments completely considered and rejected by Wong. Yes, Elk said something about citizenship but Wong spends 3-4 pages explaining why that statement was dicta, of the type that can be ignored.

  191. avatar
    SFJeff September 1, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Who is P.A. Madison? The only links I can find is one to an ultra conservative website that wants to repeal the 17th Amendment and impeach most judges.

    I mean he writes a pretty article but what he is saying is that the Supreme Court was wrong. The problem with that is, in our country, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn’t. A Supreme Court ruling isn’t wrong- but it can be reversed by a later court.

    You are hoping that this Supreme Court reverse the prior precedent of what is a Natural Born Citizen. I don’t think it will happen. Even if it did, it would take affect moving forward, not backwards.

    But I give you kudo’s on finding someone who actually argued this point before Obama was being elected.

  192. avatar
    Bob September 1, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    Don’t know much about P.A. Madison, but the good doctor has already torn apart that article.

  193. avatar
    BenjiFranklin September 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    Dear Doc,

    Please consider instead renaming your blog JTX Conspiracy Prayers!

    “Theories” implies he has given them careful thought and has no personal interest in the outcome.

    Appreciative of you efforts here, Doc,
    Benji Franklin

  194. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Jtx, you are so full of it.

    including some on SCOTUS

    Name ONE.

    As a matter of fact, 7 of the 9 justices have cited Wong approvingly. 1 was on a circuit that approved of it. Only 1, Alito, hasn’t had a chance to rule on anything where it has come up. Alito, the son of immigrants.

    And you’re just wrong that the English Common Law was in any way supplanted by “ACL.” The Court has been consistent throughout its history that when Constitutional terms need defining, we look, in part, at the common law of England. The Court (Scalia) did so when figuring out the definition of the 2nd Amendment in Heller. The Court did so when figuring out how far to extend Habeas Corpus.

    The Court has also been consistent that the definition of citizenship is something that nations do based on their own municipal laws, without regard to the laws of nations. See JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (BVI), 536 US 88, 98-99.

    You’re just parroting stuff you don’t understand, jtx. And you’re doing so while pretending to know it better than everyone who has looked at the issue before you. For example, you, apparently, know so much more about Wong Kim Ark than the Chief Justice and Justice Harlan that you see that Wong did not decide on the issue of “natural born citizen” while those two, who only sat through the oral arguments and argued face-to-face with Gray, thought he was deciding just that issue!

  195. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 1, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Just to illistrate my point, JTX.

    Perkins v. Elg had a 9-0 decision in the United States Supreme Court. Let’s say that there was a need to define citizenship for this case.

    Let’s say that 8 of the Justices found that Elg was a U.S. Citizen by citing English Common Law, and found that she was born on U.S. Soil, and therefore was a citizen.

    Let’s say that the remaining justice said that Elg was a citizen, because she was born to U.S. Citizen parents, citing de Vattel on it. Since he voted that Elg was a citizen, he would have filed a concurring opinion (not a disenting one). However, his logic would have been found to directly contradict the logic of the other 8.

    All 9 would have voted that Elg was a citizen. However, the binding aspect of that would follow the logic of the 8, not the logic.

  196. avatar
    milspec September 1, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    Not to thread hi-jack but I think that JTX is really a a committee of posters, there are to many discrepancy’s in the individual posts to be the same person.

  197. avatar
    Bob September 1, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    there are to many discrepancy’s in the individual posts to be the same person.

    I’ve noticed that as well.

    I think jtx is sometimes “aided” by the likes of Jack (Daniels) and Jim (Beam).

  198. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    SFJeff:

    Too funnie; altogether too funny!!

    The only fools who I’ve called Flying Monkeys are those of you on this blog who cannot even admit that when Obama is shown to be not legally eligible that you will join with most of the rest of Americans who insist he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    None of you have ever said that but instead clearly indiocate that no matter what the weight of evidence is or how clear it may be that you will still love and adore what’s-his-name who was born is what’s-his-birth-country and is not a citizen of whatever-all his-citizenships-might-be.

    In short none of you give a real rats’ ass about legality and that’s why you’re called Deathers – you’re trying as hard as you can to bring about the Death of the Constitution and our courtry as most people have known it the past few generations.

    If that’s not correct, then step up to the plate in front of Dr. Conspiracy and everyone any so state. In the meantime, stop acting like the little boy out behind his grandfather’s barn with all the neighbor boys stying to make the highest “mark” on the side of the barn for bragging rights.

    You merely sound foolish. And, gee, if your WHOLE family believes as you say that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen it MUST be so, eh??? In fact such an idiocy ungrounded in fact is merely a commentary on how sadly our educational syustems have failed their job. You could, however, get off your butt and find out that what you think is some cooked up notion by Mr. Apuzzo and I is not that at all but what will be decided eventually by SCOTUS and it is based not upon what you or I or Mr. Apuzzo thinks, but upon what the SCOTUS justices interpret to be the meaning of the NBC clause at the time of the founding of the country.

    That shouldn’t be much longer so in the meantime why don’t you avail yourself of some good reading on the topic … and while you’re at it you can also educate your friends and family.

    There have been a series of full-page ads run each week in the Washington Times National Weekly edition that, when put together will tell you far more than your presently know and together they make a very nice primer on the eligibility issue (but only if you wish to know the truth). IIRC they started about May 18,2009 and were being replaced by a new one roughly each week. The last 6-8 weeks are the ones you might use as a learning aid.

  199. avatar
    richCares September 1, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    to me it is obvious that he is just a “cut and paster” from his favorite retard sites.

  200. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    Greg:

    I suppose there’s no law against citing bad law is there?? But using it as a citation is altogether different from thinking it is a good, solid landmark case. In fact, WKA is quite warped and altogether known as one of the more poorly-reasoned cases that have received a lot of attention. It will most likely be overturned at some juncture (if we still have any rule of law and if we don’t it hardly matters as we’ll all be in communist work camps – aka gulage … right?) Or are you now going to claim that the Oborter is not a communist?

    In the meantime, here’s a starter essay which should help you understand Wrong Kim Ark – which you clearly do not.

  201. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Wrong again Doc. Mario’s quote was quite correct and the WKA decision was indeed a dirruption of already passed citizenship laws as well as being an illegal act in trying to legislate from the bench.

    I would surely have thought you knew that but apparently you wish to overlook some of the facts. One of this category is that the decision in Wrong Kim Ark gavbe opinions about citizenship but that had nothing to to with the definition of natural born citizen.

    Mayb e you could use a bit of “refreshing” on the matter:

    http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

  202. avatar
    jtx September 1, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    A more apporopriate name would be “Deather Consipracy Throries” since I’ve espoused no conspiracies.

    You Enablers are trying awfully hard – but coming up short consistently.

  203. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    You’re still full of crap, jtx.

    In fact, WKA is quite warped and altogether known as one of the more poorly-reasoned cases

    Known to birthers and racists, perhaps. In fact, it has been cited by the courts 298 times. The only criticism I’ve seen of it from a source outside those two above-named groups is that it is a tad longish.

    In those 298 citations, it has only been distinguished on the facts twice. It has an extremely solid history.

    By contrast, birthers keep pointing, apparently without a sense of irony, to Dred Scott, a case universally understood as the nadir of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Wanting to up the ante, apparently, Apuzzo cited to both Dred Scott and Korematsu.

  204. avatar
    Greg September 1, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    You sound like my three year old “lalalala, I’m not listening – is, too! is, too! istooistooistoo!”

    If you read the briefs of the appellees and appellants in Wong, you’d find that it was the government that was trying to overturn established law. It was acknowledged by all sides that the way the law worked at common law, was such that Wong would get citizenship.

    Or are you arguing that overturning a Congressional act was illegal? Yeah, sorry, the judicial review of legislative acts ship sailed 100 years before Wong.

  205. avatar
    Mary Brown September 1, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    It is useless to use logic or reasoning with jtx. He, like all birthers, is opposed to the results of an election and would like to overturn it. Nothing you say or I say will change that. Look at the scripture for the week. It applies.

  206. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    Dred Scott is longer.

  207. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 12:44 am #

    I was not referring to the content of your comments, but as to the volume. Your frequent comments, systematically directed at every commenter here, evoking outraged responses, has almost taken over the blog.

    I was hoping folks here would take the hint and stop enabling your hijacking of the site. They are adults and can make their own decisions, but I hate to see sensible people waste their time answering obvious nonsense. And I further bemoan the fact that anyone coming here to read comments ON THE TOPICS has to wait through mounds of off topic bullshit.

  208. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    Wrong again Doc. Mario’s quote was quite correct and the WKA decision was indeed a dirruption of already passed citizenship laws as well as being an illegal act in trying to legislate from the bench.

    Seems our delusional friend has not read WKA and the reply briefs, or he would have known that its ruling was in line with previous citizenship laws and common law precedents and he would also have known that WKA was all but illegal as the court did what it is constitutionally charged, namely interpret the meaning of the Constitution, which according to common practices was to be interpreted with references to English Common Law.

    As the reply brief shows

    It is substantially conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment is but declaratory of the law as it previously existed, and it is practically admitted that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, every judicial decision directly upon the question in controversy has been adverse to the Government’s present position.

    Wow… Adverse to the government’s present position.

    So why is JTX still confused about the facts of WKA?

    Fascinating…

    Of course, as Greg has shown, a recent court decision by the Supreme Court cites Wong Kim Ark approvingly . Since I am concerned that you are unable to find anything not spoon-fed to you, here is the reference

    But the argument’s more significant weakness is its failure to recognize that jurisdictional analysis under the law of the United States is not ultimately governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whatever that may be. While it is perfectly true that “every independent nation [has the inherent right] to determine for itself … what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship,” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 (1898), our jurisdictional concern here is with the meaning of “citizen” and “subject” as those terms are used in §1332(a)(2).

    Decided in 2002. Good luck my friend, it the unlikely chance that your case will make it to SCOTUS, you may be in for a predictable surprise.

    The above quote shows how citizenship law cannot be guided by the Law of Nations, otherwise the independent nations could not make their own laws about citizenship.

    Smile my friend, this is but a start of what is going to be a long autumn for Apuzzo and Kerchner.

  209. avatar
    aarrgghh September 2, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    i stopped reading his comments long ago. they’re just repetitive and boring.

  210. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    More devastating rulings

    Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982_

    Footnote 10: Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was

    impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Id. at 687.

    Justice Gray concluded that

    [e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

    Establishing that presence is sufficient to establish jurisdiction and allegiance, and thus through the 14th amendment, citizenship, if born on US soil.

  211. avatar
    NBC September 2, 2009 at 1:44 am #

    GregKnown to birthers and racists, perhaps. In fact, it has been cited by the courts 298 times. The only criticism I’ve seen of it from a source outside those two above-named groups is that it is a tad longish.

    In those 298 citations, it has only been distinguished on the facts twice. It has an extremely solid history.

    By contrast, birthers keep pointing, apparently without a sense of irony, to Dred Scott, a case universally understood as the nadir of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Wanting to up the ante, apparently, Apuzzo cited to both Dred Scott and Korematsu.

    You are a true scholar Greg. I admire your fountain of wisdom and your familiarity with the law. If only the birthers could find even one person like you…

    Based on your comments I have started an inventory of SCOTUS rulings referencing Wong Kim Ark.
    To noone’s surprise, the references continue to undermine Mario and JTX’s case.

    Bummer….

  212. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 2:56 am #

    Amen.

    Read one of his comments, and you’ve read them all.

  213. avatar
    NBC September 2, 2009 at 3:11 am #

    Well, recently he has shown the courage to reference some actual decisions and it is educational to see them refuted by the facts.

  214. avatar
    SFJeff September 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    JTX- as I have pointed out repeatedly- you sir, are a bald faced liar.

    You have posted at least three times that nobody who disagrees with you will support removing the President if he is proven to be ineligible.

    Three times, I have stated(in so many words) that I would support the impeachment of any President who committed crimes in order to become President. I don’t know how more clearly I can state it.

    Any President who has committed high crimes or misdeamenors.
    Impeachment.
    What don’t you understand? Or do you as usual ignore that which you can’t refute?

  215. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    Here’s the Congressional Globe. The debate over the citizenship amendment to the 14th Amendment starts on page 2890 of the 39th Congress.

    Check out, in particular, Senator Cowan’s lengthy racist tirade. He forcefully explains why he thinks it’s a terrible idea to grant citizenship to anyone born here, even the children of aliens.

    You cannot read that and doubt that the understanding of the 14th Amendment was that it would grant citizenship to the children of aliens.

  216. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    In the same Session of Congress is the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1866, pages 497-507.

  217. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    This stuff is pretty fascinating. Some of the best quotes we’ve seen from Trumbull which negate the notion that he favored an absolutist principle of “allegiance” are missing the best parts:

    Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

    Mr. COWAN. I think not.

    Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

    Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator assumes that which is not fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

    Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point whch he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

    (p. 496 of the Congressional Globe)

  218. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 8:01 pm #

    Reading these debates, however, is a great curative for the idea that legislative history is the end-all/be-all of legal decision-making. You’ve seen how equivocal the evidence is for or against the idea of citizenship for the children of aliens? Our side can quote the extensive debate between Cowan and Conness, and Trumbull’s statements about how the law certainly would grant citizenship to alien’s children while the other side has their cites, too. (Personally, I think the vast weight of the evidence read in context comes out on our side.)

    One thing everyone agreed on at the time, however, was that the civil rights act and Fourteenth Amendment wouldn’t let black men marry white women! Anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory, they applied to everyone equally! Black men cannot marry white women, and white women cannot marry black men. See, that’s equal!

    In a very real sense, Constitutional law is like contract law. In theory, the contract/constitution is supposed to speak for itself. It’s only when the language is ambiguous that you can go beyond the four corners.

    Sometimes (and given the amount of litigation, it sometimes seems like often) the contract, when it’s speaking for itself says things that at least one party did not intend.

    Who cares that the writers of the 14th Amendment thought it wouldn’t get rid of their racist laws? Now, when a reasonable person looks at the clause, they cannot but read it to require real equality under the law, not just figurative equality. Racist laws applied equally are not equal rights.

  219. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Greg: Sometimes (and given the amount of litigation, it sometimes seems like often) the contract, when it’s speaking for itself says things that at least one party did not intend.

    It seems like a major part of my job these days is dealing with those contracts and things “that at least one party did not intend”. ;(

  220. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    I’m currently looking examining a rather odd book from 1856:

    The great American battle; or, The contest between Christianity and political Romanism

    http://books.google.com/books?id=gzdJAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22the+great+american+battle%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OEdQHOUsEq&sig=vP22DDIpBd-hsCpqWnB2jocF3MU&hl=en&ei=H92nStr_M8qrjAfF-IiyCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    It seems to be a ‘Know-Nothing’ tract and I’m not entirely convinced by the veracity of its contents. However, it contains this interesting claim:

    “While the American Revolution was progressing our Continental Congress forbade any but the native sons to be employed in the foreign service of the country. The committee consisting of Jefferson, Gerry, Read, Sherman and Williams reported :
    Resolved: That it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister charge d affaires consul vice consul or to any other civil department in a foreign country and that a copy of this resolve be transmitted to Messrs Adams,Franklin and Jay ministers of the said States in Europe ”

    No date is given but from its content it would be between 1779 and 1785 (I can probably narrow that down with further work – I’m relying on memory now).

    The Vattelist definition would be nonsense at that date and 3 of of the alleged committee would be delegates to the 1787 convention so if true it’s useful indication of ‘original meaning’ of the term.

  221. avatar
    Greg September 9, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    It’s cited in another Know Nothing tract “In Defence of the American Party” found here. And cited in Republican Landmarks.

  222. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    They’re all wrong according the to the Secret Journals of the Continental Congress:

    “MARCH 16, 1784.
    On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr.Gerry, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Read and Mr.Williamson, …
    Resolved, that it is inconsistent with the interest of the United States to appoint any person, not a citizen thereof, …”

    Note that it’s Williamson not Williams, it’s also a different Read than I first thought (Jacob not George)

    P.S. One of the sources Greg quoted said 1777 but there wouldn’t have been the right delgates and of course it’s too early for the ministers in Europe.

    I’m not disappointed – I came to this publication in pusuit of some dubious looking quotes used by Leo’s little helpers at UCONN which happened to be in it. Now it’s shown to be untrustworthy I will resume my pursuit.

  223. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 9, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Left out my link:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/secretjournalsof3unit#page/450/mode/2up

  224. avatar
    Greg September 9, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Journals of the Continental Congress volume 21, p. 804.

    This memorial and plan of convention were entered only in the manuscript Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs. The following translation, in Charles Thomson’s hand, was the paper considered by Congress. It is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, folio 21.

    3
    The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other

  225. avatar
    Greg September 9, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    This was a treaty with France in 1781 about the appointment of consuls.

    Page 794 has the clause in its original French, which gives us another clue about how the Founders would have translated natural born subject into French and vice-versa:

    Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d’autrui.

  226. avatar
    nbc September 9, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    Nice work Greg, another good link.

  227. avatar
    nbc September 9, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Okay some research of mine

    The concept of being a natural born dual citizen is explored in International law: a treatise By Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Francis Roxburgh, 1920

    310 Individuals owning double nationality bear in the language of diplomatists the name sujets mixtes. The position of such mixed subjects is awkward on account of the fact that two different States claim them as subjects and therefore claim their allegiance. In case a serious dispute arises between these two States which leads to war an irreconcilable conflict of duties is created for these unfortunate individuals. It is all very well to say that such conflict is a personal matter which concerns neither the Law of Nations nor the two States in dispute. As far as an individual has through naturalisation option and the like acquired his double nationality one may say that he has placed himself in that awkward position by intentionally and knowingly acquiring a second nationality without being released from his original nationality. But those who are natural born sujets mixtes in most cases do not know it before they have to face the conflict and their difficult position is not their own fault .

  228. avatar
    Greg September 17, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    Dr. Here is the 1967 unpublished Pinckney McElwee memo that was read into the Congressional Record:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19829138/Cong-Rec-Mcelwee

    He concluded that George Romney was ineligible to run for President.

  229. avatar
    NBC September 17, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    Wonderful. Will OCR and upload

  230. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 23, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    One of the things that strikes me about the natural born citizen’ term is that we naturally tend to think of it political terms but the historical sources seem to be at least as concerned with rights of holding and transferring property. An interesting example that I’ve come across is the testamentary law of Maryland.
    “LAWS OF MARYLAND.— 1798.CHAPTER 4.
    SEC. 4. When any person, so named as an executor in a
    will, shall be alleged to be an alien, or not a citizen of the
    United States, his citizenship shall not be established otherwise
    than by a certificate under the seal of the office, or court, where
    the party became naturalized, or by competent testimony that
    the said person is a natural born citizen of this state, or of some
    of the United States”
    http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000141/html/am141–381.html
    It’s interesting because it’s early, it only provides for two classes of citizen (naturalized and natural born) and it was kept more or less intact until at least the 1950’s . Over the years, the section number changed, “some of the United States” simply became “the United States” , and an extra clause was tacked on the end referring to wives of citizens. Indeed it may still be in the Maryland Code.

  231. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 23, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    JTX

    Sorry for being so tardy in my reply – I’ve only just noticed that you responde to my post. Since others have already commented I’ll restrict mine to 2 points.

    1)I never said that Mario had used the wrong Kenyan constitution – the Kenyan Independence Act 1963 is different thing altogether and Mario quotes the wrong version.

    4) I didn’t miss the part of Shanks v Dupont you quote – but it doesn’t prove the use of Vattel because in this case it would be the same under English Common Law.

99999 00000
?????????