Main Menu

Another Look

We believe in recycling here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. It was last April when my article  In re LOOK TIN SING appeared. Here, I cite more extensively from the decision of the Circuit Court in California in 1884. This case is a precursor to United States v. Wonk Kim Ark, with a similar Chinese citizen barred from re-entry into the United States. This case was decided in the same month as the law review article by George D. Collins was published, claiming that Chinese should never be citizens, that they must always be foreigners. These are the facts of the case as stated by the Court:

The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month, (September, 1884,) and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States. It is admitted by an agreed statement of facts that his parents are now residing in Mendocino, in California, and have resided there for the last 20 years; that they are of the Chinese race, and have always been subjects of the emperor of China; that his father sent the petitioner to China, but with the intention that he should return to this country; that the father is a merchant at Mendocino, and is not here in Any diplomatic or other official capacity under the emperor of China.

In response to these facts, the Court said:

The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country….

With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the  jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not
within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country….

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said [in Lynch v Clarke] that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. In illustration of this general understanding he mentions the fact that when at an election an inquiry is made whether the person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country the answer is received as conclusive that he is a citizen; that no one inquires further; no one, asks whether his parents were citizens or foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents. He shows, also, that legislative expositions on the subject speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a great number of the states, and establishes conclusively that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord with the general understanding of the profession and of the public.

[Emphasis added]

Mr. Collins in the law review article found the decision in Lynch v. Clarke flawed. The California Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found it authoritative.

The court decided in favor of Look Tin Sing. The decision was not appealed.

, , , , , ,

198 Responses to Another Look

  1. avatar
    Sally Hill September 23, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    The fact is this case is a California State case, not federal. The fact that you hold it as a precursor for WKA, makes me wonder why you didn’t re-hash WKA instead since WKA could be held as precedent for Obama (since it was a federal case), while it is HIGHLY unlikely that Sing or Lynch v Clark would even be considered should Obama’s case find its way into court.

    However, the holding in WKA was only to the specific question of whether WKA was a US citizen and the court indicated that the native born child of an alien was not natural born.

    In WKA the court held that if your parents were permanently domiciled here and you were born here, then you are a US citizen. They indicated that you were not natural born though. Additionally, Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled here so WKA’s limited holding doesn’t apply to Obama.

    The petitioner in Sing may not have been within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country….but that certainly doesn’t apply to Obama since the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was NOT exclusively the US since he was ALSO governed by British Law at the time of his birth by his own admission.

    You stated in your original post: ““everybody knows that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents.” In truth, prior to Obama posting his birth certificate online last June, nobody thought that.” – I guess I’m a Cotton Mather Nobody because I certainly DID think that. It was my understanding – from my high school US Government class 30 years ago – there was a fundamental difference in the status of a US Citizen which is required to run for Congress and a NBC which is required to run for POTUS. We didn’t learn much else, but we DID cover the Constitution quite thoroughly. If EVERYONE born in the US is a NBC, why would there be different requirements for Congress and POTUS? Why not just say every elected official must be a NBC?

    I think once again, you have proved that the Constitution did NOT define NBC and there has been NO federal cases with a holding regarding NBC as required for POTUS eligibility and therefore, there is NO ‘understood’ or ‘agree upon’ definition of NBC for POTUS. The courts should hear the case and put it to rest.

  2. avatar
    misha September 23, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    Which confirms my belief that Denialists are clinically insane.

    “the court indicated that the native born child of an alien was not natural born. In WKA the court held that if your parents were permanently domiciled here and you were born here, then you are a US citizen. They indicated that you were not natural born though. Additionally, Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled here so WKA’s limited holding doesn’t apply to Obama.”

    WTF?

    “The courts should hear the case and put it to rest.” You’e joking, right?

  3. avatar
    Rickey September 23, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    Sally Hill: If EVERYONE born in the US is a NBC, why would there be different requirements for Congress and POTUS?Why not just say every elected official must be a NBC?

    That’s easy. The Founders wanted naturalized citizens who had been citizens for at least seven years to be eligible to serve in Congress. That is why the Constitution doesn’t say that every elected offical must be a NBC. You don’t have to be born in the United States to serve in Congress.

  4. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    The fact is this case is a California State case, not federal.

    In re Look Tin Sing is a federal case; it comes from the 9th Circuit.

    The fact that you hold it as a precursor for WKA, makes me wonder why you didn’t re-hash WKA instead since WKA could be held as precedent for Obama (since it was a federal case)

    Because Wong Kim Ark is discussed here on a daily basis already. Why rehash what is already hashed?

    while it is HIGHLY unlikely that Sing or Lynch v Clark would even be considered should Obama’s case find its way into court.

    Both Look Tin Sing and Lynch were cited approvingly by Wong Kim Ark.

    However, the holding in WKA was only to the specific question of whether WKA was a US citizen and the court indicated that the native born child of an alien was not natural born.

    And the exact reasoning that led SCOTUS to conclude that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen leads to Obama being a natural born citizen; if Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, then Wong Kim Ark isn’t a citizen.

    Additionally, Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled here so WKA’s limited holding doesn’t apply to Obama.

    No subsequent decision has ever limited Wong Kim Ark to those who were permanently domiciled, and where’s the evidence at the time of Obama’s birth his father did not have that intent? (And 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401(a) makes no reference to a permanent domicile, which is why children of undocumented people are not asked to prove their parents’ intent at time of their birth.)

    but that certainly doesn’t apply to Obama since the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was NOT exclusively the US since he was ALSO governed by British Law at the time of his birth by his own admission.

    The status of Obama’s birth was governed by British law; Obama was not subject to the UK’s jurisdiction. There is absolutely no cases that say dual citizenship prevents natural born citizenship.

    It was my understanding – from my high school US Government class 30 years ago

    Has it occurred to you that your high-school government teacher, who was most likely not a lawyer, was simply wrong?

    If EVERYONE born in the US is a NBC, why would there be different requirements for Congress and POTUS? Why not just say every elected official must be a NBC?

    So naturalized citizens can serve in Congress where, due to their numbers, there is less fear of “foreign influence.”

    I think once again, you have proved that the Constitution did NOT define NBC and there has been NO federal cases with a holding regarding NBC as required for POTUS eligibility and therefore, there is NO understood’ or agree upon’ definition of NBC for POTUS.

    You’ll find exactly zero lawyers of note that believe this two-parent theory; the consensus among actual constitutional scholars is that Wong Kim Ark adequately addresses this issue, which is why neither Clinton nor McCain ever raised this issue.

    The courts should hear the case and put it to rest.

    For the vast majority of Americans, it was put to rest long ago.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Sally Hill: The fact is this case is a California State case, not federal…

    The fact is that the Circuit Court D. California is part of the Ninth Circuit of the Federal appeals system. It is not a “state court”.

    Please do not abuse the word “fact”.

    Sally Hill: Additionally, Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled here so WKA’s limited holding doesn’t apply to Obama.

    There is nothing in the reasoning of the decision that relies on the incidental fact that Look’s parents were permanently domiciled. You might as well claim the decision doesn’t apply because Obama was not Chinese.

  6. avatar
    Lupin September 23, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    Obama’s father’s residence is utterly irrelevant.

    And dual citizenship just does NOT work the way you think. Obama never WAS a UK (or Kenyan) citizen. He had the option of becoming one (if I understand correctly) but he did NOT take advantage of it.

    Look, J F Kennedy MIGHT have become an Irish citizen, had he wanted to, but he didn’t. Ditto with Ike and Germany.

    We’ve gone over this several times already, You’re either very very dense, or totally dishonest, or both.

  7. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Once again the Obots use a case in which the plaintiff is specifically called ONLY a “citizen” to make the case that Obama is an NBC.

  8. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    Because the exact reasoning that made Wong Kim Ark a citizen also makes Obama a natural born citizen.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    Did you read the whole decision?

  10. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    There’s a nastygram to Judge Land making the birfer rounds (and is on Taitz’s site). It signed by “retired criminal magistrate” Steven Neuenschwander.

    Although Neuenschwander claims to have served on the bench for 30 years, he does not specify which bench, and a cursory Internet search didn’t reveal much about this person.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    IceTrey: Once again the Obots use a case in which the plaintiff is specifically called ONLY a “citizen” to make the case that Obama is an NBC.

    So are you willing to concede that Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States? If so we can move on.

  12. avatar
    kimba September 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    Sorry Sally, you never learned that in your government class 30 years ago. You are either sorely mistaken or being disingenuous. No one ever heard of this two-fer crap until Leo brought it up a little more than a year ago. Nice try though.

  13. avatar
    kimba September 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    I don’t understand how these people think a letter like this could be at all helpful. Especially someone who claims to have spent 30 years on the bench. This sounds more like the usual right-wing former military bluster we read from Carl Swensson and Bob Campbell. I noticed in particular “Captain Rhodes and thousands are in arms way.” Do you think an educated person would make that mistake? I don’t. Could this be our Steven Neuenschwander?
    Highest rank Sgt 1st Class? I think the odds are high.
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/bib/18664

    He huffs and puffs, but his letter is going in the round file like all the others.

  14. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    Another off-topic conversation starter:

    I think Phil from tRSoL is “taking or break” or has quietly semi-retired from birferville.

    * No daily reposting from WND; fewer new postings

    * Not obsessively arguing with everyone who disagrees with him

    * Comments are now unmoderated (and there have been complaints about the inmates running the asylum).

  15. avatar
    misha September 23, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    “Could this be our Steven Neuenschwander?”

    Probably. Whoever wrote that is not educated – certainly not a law school grad.

  16. avatar
    Con Rep September 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    Quotable quotes from the “Magistrate” —

    “Any layman can read Article 1 of the Constitution and quickly ascertain the relevance and intent of the founders of that treasured document.”

    Apparently not.

    “Perhaps your political will is so far left and off stream of the intent and will of the Constitution you simply are not able to effectively administer the position of your appointment. If that be the case, then you have a moral and legal obligation to remove yourself and let the citizens delegate appointment to a more worthy candidate.”

    Um, last I looked, “citizens” do not appoint federal judges.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    There is no reason to think that a magistrate has a law degree. They certainly do not have such a requirement in South Carolina, nor does it appear to be a requirement for “criminal magistrates” in many other jurisdictions.

    This is our Steven Neuenschwander, though. He has an Associate degree in Business Administration from Indiana Business College, lives in the Seattle area, and is a former magistrate and realtor.

    According to his profile on Linked In, he is preparing to run for President. You can’t make this stuff up!

  18. avatar
    kimba September 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Maybe he took Orly turning her guns on him harder than you’d expect. Or perhaps he took Judge Land’s words to heart and changed his mind about birtherism.

  19. avatar
    Con Rep September 23, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    This is more likely to be the Steven K. Neuenschwander in question, given the realtor connection — something that seems to tie the merry band of Orly buddies together (with apologies to reputable realtors everywhere).

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steve-neuenschwander/9/5A0/196

  20. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    He didn’t react well to Taitz turning on him; for someone who was quite outspoken, he started to not mention her at all, so he wouldn’t end up on her enemies list.

  21. avatar
    Con Rep September 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    Doctor Conspiracy, you beat me to it.

    No, you can’t make it up, unfortunately.

    But we can haz laughs!

  22. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    And here’s his facebook profile (he’s friends with Taitz; surprise).

    So what’s with this “magistrate” business? Is that some citzen’s grand jury thing? Military? (I would be surprised; that’s what JAG is for.)

  23. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 23, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    The guys Kimba,Con Rep and the Doc have come up with are the same person. He’s also one Orly’s plaintiffs in Barnett. Back in April he was described as
    “E7 Paralegal, MSGT USAF Steven Kay Neuenschwander, ret., resident of Washington”

    http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/taitz-plaintiffs-petition-for-an-extraordinary-writ-of-mandamus/

  24. avatar
    thisoldhippie September 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    In Georgia a magistrate judge – which presides over non-felony criminal, (prior to being bound over to state court), and minor civil cases, does not have to be an attorney if the county has less than a certain number of residents. For many years I had to deal with non-lawyer magistrates who did know the law and did not know how to read the law and who made up the law from the bench. Luckily the county I live in, (I was a police officer back then), has grown to the point where magistrates have to be attorneys.

  25. avatar
    Black Lion September 23, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    It is kind of weird…I know he had indicated that he would be going unmoderated for awhile, but no real comments from him…The birthers that look to him to keep responses to their ridiculous theories and statements are begining to get upset…

  26. avatar
    Con Rep September 23, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    The “magistrate” is also a complainant in Keyes v Obama-Easterling:

    E7 Paralegal, MSGT USAF Steven Kay Neuenschwander, ret., resident of Washington

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/keyes-v-obama-doc-69-ex-10-easterling/

  27. avatar
    SFJeff September 23, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Sally, Sally, Sally.

    I don’t know what you learned in your high school civics class but when I was taught the ‘natural born’ provision it was very clearly and simply “anyone born in the U.S..

    And you seem to miss that this court decision affirms that this was the same understanding in 1880:
    “…every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”

    And I believe that the same holds true today.

  28. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Washington state, too, employs magistrates, and it appears that may be appointed (rather than elected) in smaller jurisdictions and need not be attorneys. Neuenschwander’s profile here shows him in Thurston County, which is pretty small.

    And Washington magistrates do not have jurisdiction to hear civil cases, so “criminal magistrate” is redundant.

  29. avatar
    Chris September 23, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    I doubt this guy was a magistrate. Maybe he is a “retired criminal”

  30. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    Yes. Did I miss were the court said he was a “natural born citizen”? If so please put up the quote.

  31. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm #

    How can a case in which the plaintiff is called ONLY a “citizen” make Obama a “natural born citizen”? You people seem to believe that “born a citizen” or “citizen at birth” equals “natural born citizen” it doesn’t.

  32. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    Yes I freely admit Obama is a CITIZEN, assuming he was born in Hawaii. Section 305 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act makes everyone born in Hawaii after 1904 a US citizen. But, he is NOT a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Obama himself on Fightthesmears admits that he was also a UKC citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. The crux of the matter is this, you believe anyone who is born with US citizenship is an NBC. I believe that to be an NBC you have to be born on US soil and BOTH of your parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth. The problem is that there is no law nor court case which has SPECIFICALLY defined what an NBC is. At this point it is all argument. An argument that neither side can win until a case is decided.

  33. avatar
    Jez September 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    Basically you are disenfranchising millions of kids born overseas to parents in the military or diplomatic corps from ever running for President? Just because their parents were serving their country? Now that is unAmerican.

    IceTrey: Yes I freely admit Obama is a CITIZEN, assuming he was born in Hawaii. Section 305 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act makes everyone born in Hawaii after 1904 a US citizen. But, he is NOT a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Obama himself on Fightthesmears admits that he was also a UKC citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. The crux of the matter is this, you believe anyone who is born with US citizenship is an NBC. I believe that to be an NBC you have to be born on US soil and BOTH of your parents must be US citizens at the time f your birth. The problem is that there is no law nor court case which has SPECIFICALLY defined what an NBC is. At this point it is all argument. An argument that neither side can win until a case is decided.

  34. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    How can a case in which the plaintiff is called ONLY a “citizen” make Obama a “natural born citizen”?

    What part “the exact reasoning that made Wong Kim Ark a citizen also makes Obama a natural born citizen” is unclear?

    You people seem to believe that “born a citizen” or “citizen at birth” equals “natural born citizen” it doesn’t.

    If it doesn’t, it should be no problem for you to cite a case that plainly says that.

  35. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    I believe that to be an NBC you have to be born on US soil and BOTH of your parents must be US citizens at the time f your birth.

    While you are entitled to your beliefs, it is unsupported by the law.

    The problem is that there is no law nor court case which has SPECIFICALLY defined what an NBC is

    This may shock you, but the law is full of unanswered questions. But Wong Kim Ark rather exhaustively explored the law on citizenship, and concluded that it was proper to use English common law to define certain terms, and under English common law, there is no question that (almost) everyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

  36. avatar
    nBc September 23, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Seems you read but did not comprehend? Note how the Court points out that in order to understand the meaning of undefined words in the Constitution, such as ‘natural born’, one has to look at Common Law, which in this case shows that natural born is includes anyone born on the country’s soil with minor exceptions.

  37. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    Judge Carter denies Taitz’s request to file a second amended complaint without prior leave of the court.

    Guess that “reservation of rights” thing didn’t work out….

  38. avatar
    misha September 23, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    I luv this part: “I an currently in the process of placing my intent to run for President.”

    My cat is, too. “Max For President. A fish in every bowl.”

    If you give a cat a fish, he will have a meal.
    If you teach a cat to fish, he will empty your aquarium.

  39. avatar
    misha September 23, 2009 at 6:35 pm #

    “I believe that to be an NBC you have to be born on US soil and BOTH of your parents must be US citizens at the time f your birth.”

    It’s also in the Constitution that to be NBC, a presidential candidate must have maintained for five years, a matched pair of Siamese cats. Orly told me.

  40. avatar
    misha September 23, 2009 at 6:50 pm #

    “Maybe he is a “retired criminal”

    Maybe he is clinically insane, like the rest of them.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    IceTrey: Yes I freely admit Obama is a CITIZEN, assuming he was born in Hawaii.

    I congratulate you for being ahead of some other eligibility deniers.

    IceTrey: I believe that to be an NBC you have to be born on US soil and BOTH of your parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth.

    I understand that you believe this, but I do not understand the logic through which you arrive at this belief. I have been in the middle of all this controversy since Leo Donofrio originally invented the two-citizen parent rule. I have been through the smear campaign against President Chester A. Arthur. I have read dozens of cases, studied books, read microfilm newspaper articles at the library and even got access to WestLaw to search for citizenship cases. I have studied de Vattel in multiple translations. I have read colonial laws and law review articles. I have listened to many of the arguments posed on the Internet.

    What I found is two dissenting law review articles, one pro-slavery Supreme Court decision, one doubting Supreme Court comment (Minor) a couple of dissenting opinions and a Swiss philosopher named Vattel, none of which used the phrase natural born citizen prior to the ratification of the Constitution and none of which have any remote relationship to a consensus view.

    Against that are many cases, colonial laws and commentary, things from the mainstream of American law (e.g. Supreme Court decisions, US Attorney General opinions, State Department testimony before Congress) which make a veritable mountain of evidence that the two-citizen rule was never in existence in this country. One case went so far as to say that the view that those born in the United States were natural born citizens without regard for the condition of their parents was universally held!

    You may believe what you want, but if you want to convince me, you have a lot of work to do.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    IceTrey: You people seem to believe that “born a citizen” or “citizen at birth” equals “natural born citizen” it doesn’t.

    I do believe that. The courts have said that the Constitution defines two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized, and that the only difference in law between the rights of each is that only the natural born citizen is eligible to be president. And I know that you cannot find anyone in all of American history who was born in the United States ruled by a court not be a natural born citizen. (And there are many cases that say those born in the United States ARE natural born citizens). In fact there was a law in effect for a few years that explicitly said that someone NOT born on the United States, but born to a US Citizen father was a natural born citizen.

    I have a hard time with this discussion because I simply cannot understand why the overwhelming mass of evidence does not convince everyone. To see where I’m coming from, read this:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    The court did not say Look Tin Sing was a natural born citizen. It said that everyone born in the United States (with the usual exceptions) was a natural born citizen. Here is the quote:

    “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said [in Lynch v Clarke] that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen”

    The knee jerk reaction is to say that this is dicta, not decision. But please explain why the courts would speak dicta that they didn’t have good reason to believe was true.

  44. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Here are some things I find interesting about Look Ting Sing:

    First, it was THE decision the federal courts used in determining citizenship under the Chinese exclusion act. Unlike many decisions that go to the Supreme Court, there was no circuit split. The Government couldn’t find a single case that disagreed with it.

    Second, the reason that Wong was a 6-2 decision and not a 7-2 decision was that Justice Field, who decided Look and heard the oral arguments in Wong, retired.

    Third, Justices Gray and Field hated each other. Field would look to the natural law, while Gray would ground his decisions in history. Despite this, both justices decided the same way on the issue. By natural law, Look Ting Sing was a natural born citizen. By the clear mandate of history, Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. (Anyone who thinks that Wong was only held to be a citizen didn’t read the 10 pages where Wong found NBC to be the exact same as NBS under English Common Law.

  45. avatar
    sarina September 23, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    Obama is a natural born citizen.
    United States grants citizenship to anybody born in US soil. The principle is jus soli.
    The Supreme Court recognizes only 2 citizenship: natural born or native born and naturalize. Andrew Jackson was the only president born to two immigrants, both Irish.
    James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers. Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover,whose mothers were born respectively in England.
    Miss Elg, Julia Lynch, Wong Kim also of alien parentage were declared by the Supreme Court, natural born citizens. Ask any illegal immigrant pregnant woman crossing the border to have her baby here.

  46. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Life’s a bitch. Hey guess what, people under the age of 35 or who haven’t lived in the US for 14 years can’t run either. Running for President isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. The Framers made these qualifications specifically to EXCLUDE people.

  47. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    “The Supreme Court recognizes only 2 citizenship: natural born or native born and naturalize.”

    Please cite the case law that supports your position. No where in Wong does the court call him a “natural born” citizen.

  48. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a CITIZEN of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    I don’t see the words “natural born” in there anywhere.

  49. avatar
    Bob September 23, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    Doc:

    In response to your query:

    I see you’ve found tRSoL’s coverage, but here’s the brief answer:

    Paul Mitchell, not Berg, issued the subpoena. Mitchell is (to use a technical term) a nutbag who has in the past declared himself a “private attorney general” and sought to assert himself in various cases. Same thing here.

    There’s no evidence that Berg had anything to do with this, and surely the Kenyan government will ignore this for various reasons (namely, you don’t respond to cranks).

    For fun, google Paul Andrew Mitchell and enjoy the trip down the rabbit hole.

  50. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    “What part “the exact reasoning that made Wong Kim Ark a citizen also makes Obama a natural born citizen” is unclear?”

    All of it. You cite a case in which the plaintiff is NOT called a natural born citizen to support your belief.

    “If it doesn’t, it should be no problem for you to cite a case that plainly says that.”

    Uh, Wong Kim Ark. He’s born in the US and court DOES NOT call him a natural born citizen.

  51. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    Arguably, no, but it spends about 15 pages explaining how natural born means the same under British Common Law as it does under American law – born here, regardless of parents. It was a critical part of the decision.

  52. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    And for THOSE qualifications, the Founders wrote down what they meant. For the “natural born” qualification they borrowed a 400 year old term, “natural born,” that had always meant born here, regardless of parental citizenship. Despite choosing this term with more history than our nation has had since they didn’t once say they were changing the meaning completely and entirely.

  53. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    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.

    Wong Kim, p. 662.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 9:51 pm #

    IceTrey: Uh, Wong Kim Ark. He’s born in the US and court DOES NOT call him a natural born citizen.

    We mean a case where someone born in the United States was called “not a natural born citizen”.

  55. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    First of all running for the Presidency is not a right it is a privilege. Secondly, I defy you to find one case in which a person born in the US to a foreign parent IS declared by the court to be a natural born citizen. All of the citizenship cases that people cite only call the plaintiffs “citizen”. The Act of 1790 states that children born overseas “shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. Which actually supports my case against McCain that one of the requirements to be an NBC is to be born on US soil.

  56. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    It also doesn’t say that Wong is ineligible for the Presidency. It state there’s any difference between native-born and natural-born.

    In fact, it spends pages and pages describing how “natural born” means the exact same thing when it’s used in British Common Law (“Natural Born Subject”) and in the Constitution (“Natural Born Citizen”).

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

  57. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    Please explain why if they believed this to be true they didn’t DECIDE to call him an NBC? The Supreme also discussed the nature of natural born in Wong and yet they also declined to call him an NBC.

  58. avatar
    sarina September 23, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    Ice Trey:

    Perkins v Elg 307 US 325 1939

    A girl born in NY of alien parentage (Both from Sweden) she was declared by the Supreme Court a natural born citizen.
    “The Supreme Court affirmed the decree..
    (Aetna Lif Ins. Co v Haworth 300.US 227, 57 Sc.t. 461,108 A.L.R 1000) declared Miss Elg a natural born citizen.
    Natural born in not defined in the Constitution. The Naturalization Act of 1790 includes foreign born children of US citizen parents. Congress repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795, the wording was the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term “natural born citizen” was replaced by “citizen”
    Congress has not passed any laws that defines natural born citizen.

  59. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    Why are you citing US v Rhodes which was a circuit court case? While the Supreme used it as part of their argument the fact remains they did not deign to call Wong natural born.

  60. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Neither Wong, nor Look were running for President.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    IceTrey:

    “The Supreme Court recognizes only 2 citizenship: natural born or native born and naturalize.” Please cite the case law that supports your position.

    I’m getting tired of you asking for citations, when you yourself provide none. But I will do this one more time and then you have to put up or shut up.

    Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

    The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

    and

    This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Minor v. Happersett (1874)

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 (1973)

    I do not believe that it is irrational for New York to require this class of civil servants to be citizens, either natural born or naturalized.

    Lynch v. Clarke New York in 1844

    The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

    Musata v. U.S. Department of Justice United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (1999)

    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

    AND FINALLY

    The courts seem to think that the Wong decision did indeed say he was a natural born citizen:

    United States v. Low Hong, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1919).

    The averments of the amended petition show that the appellee is a natural-born citizen of the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 Sup.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

  62. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 10:20 pm #

    You’re confusing natural born subject with natural born citizen. NBS comes from English common law while NBC comes from the law of nations (international law). You see an NBS owed allegiance to the king, who wanted as many subjects as he could get, and that allegiance could never be rescinded. Well the Framers didn’t care for that at all. To them a citizen is always free to renounce said citizenship and parts ways with that particular country. So they actually did change the the meaning of natural born.

  63. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    I’m quoting Wong, quoting Rhodes. Why do you think Wong quotes Rhodes and doesn’t immediately disabuse the reader of the obvious conclusion that if someone is born here in our allegiance (defined as not being an ambassador) they’re a natural born citizen?

  64. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    Because Rhodes is wrong.

  65. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    So, Wong quotes Rhodes and in a 60 page decision doesn’t say that Rhodes is wrong because Rhodes is wrong?

  66. avatar
    HistorianDude September 23, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    The phrase “natural born citizen” absolutely does NOT come from de Vattel. The phrase was inserted into “Law of Nations” by a translator 30 years after de Vattel was dead, and ten years after the Constitution had already been written. The words “natural born citizen” never passed through either de Vattel’s lips or his pen.

  67. avatar
    HistorianDude September 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    The Supreme Court rather clearly disagrees with you.

  68. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    First of all her father was a naturalized US citizen so there’s one lie right there. Secondly the SCOTUS didn’t “affirm the decree” that she was natural born. It affirmed the decree that she should be given a passport. Why must you so blatantly lie to make your case?

  69. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    No. It doesn’t “disabuse the reader of the obvious conclusion” because it is wrong. You know sometimes courts do get things wrong.

  70. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    Natural Born Subject and Natural Born Citizen share two words in common. Can you guess which two words those are? Those two words have a 400 year old history. The founders could have chosen a different word to mean super-citizen (your natural born citizen) or semi-citizen (your native-born citizen), but they didn’t, they chose a phrase that had a 400 year history.

    I’m not the only one who is confused by it. Justice Gray spent 20 some-odd pages explaining how natural born meant the exact same thing whether it was applied to the word subject or the word citizen.

    Tucker got confused in 1803, only a few decades after the Constitution was written. Kent got confused in 1826. Rawle got confused in 1829. And Story got confused in 1833.

    In fact, you can’t find a single source who got it right by your definition until, when? 1877 with Elk?

    As for the “law of nations,” there are only three problems with this theory.

    1. The term “natural born citizen” didn’t come from the “law of nations.” Vattel’s book didn’t have that phrase until long after the Constitution was written. Why didn’t the founders write “indigenes” like Vattel did, if they wanted to use his word, instead of using a word that had 400 years of British history (and history of usage in the colonies, and in state law and Constitutions)?

    2. The writers on the “law of nations,” didn’t agree on the 2-citizen parent rule, even if Vattel did. Grotius, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, etc. these writers all had different views of what requirements were needed to be a true member of society.

    3. The nations that made up the “law of nations” didn’t agree on the 2-citizen parent rule. At the time of the founding, most were jus soli. By the writing of the 14th Amendment, some greater number had moved to a version of jus sanguinis, but not all, and not all required birth to citizen parents to become fully able to exercise all rights or privileges of those born to citizen parents. Many, for example, allowed election of citizenship to those who were born there of alien parents. So, if, upon majority, you chose to be French, you were a natural born French citizen. Able to run for whatever passed for the French Presidency in that time. Justice Story wrote:

    [C]ertain 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.

    So, you’ve got a view of natural born citizenship that the founders never wrote about, that the legal professors of the day thought was the exact opposite of what you thought, based on international law that didn’t exist.

    In fact, a search finds that this native/natural distinction didn’t arise until the 1890s when Collins wanted to argue that Chinese children shouldn’t be citizens. His racist views were smacked down by Wong. And even his crazy views weren’t nutty enough to assert that both parents needed to be citizens – that didn’t come about until 2008, when Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo misread a translation of Vattel that wasn’t available to the Founders!

  71. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    I never said anything about “The Law of Nations”. I said the law of nations. Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” is a scholarly work ABOUT the law of nations.

  72. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    Sorry, that doesn’t so much work. Wong spends a not insignificant amount of time explaining that natural born means exactly the same thing when it is used for subject or for citizen. It is the point of parts 1, 2 and 3 of the decision. In fact, Wong doesn’t become a citizen if natural born had changed meanings. There is no part of the decision that would support that conclusion. As such, the citation of Rhodes is of a piece with the numerous other citations showing that natural born did not change definitions. For example, Wong at 665 quoting Kent:

    And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

  73. avatar
    sarina September 23, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    IceTrey: First of all her father was a naturalized US citizen so there’s one lie right there. Secondly the SCOTUS didn’t “affirm the decree” that she was natural born. It affirmed the decree that she should be given a passport. Why must you so blatantly lie to make your case?

    I don’t have to lie, you are the one lying. why don’t you cite the law or a case that states that Obama is not a nbc? Because you can’t. Read all the comments and cases Dr Conspiracy posted. You’re mad because you can’t show any evidence. Obama is a natural born citizen.
    Case closed.

  74. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    Then where did the founders look to find this “law of nations?” Clearly, not to other nations, since not a one, at the founding or since, has applied the 2-citizen parent rule. The vast majority of nations the Founders would have looked to were using jus soli. It was the rule of Europe that those born within the realm were natural born citizens. And it wasn’t even a universal “law of nations” at the writing of the 14th Amendment, as Wong makes clear:

    At the time of the passage of that act, although the tendency on the continent of Europe was to make parentage, rather than birthplace, the criterion of nationality, and citizenship was denied to the native-born children of foreign parents in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, yet it appears still to have been conferred upon such children in Holland, Denmark and Portugal, and, when claimed under certain specified conditions, in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia. Cockburn on Nationality, 14-21.

  75. avatar
    IceTrey September 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    Lynch v Clarke

    “Vattel says, the natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. That in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattels Law of Nations, B. 1, ch. 19, § 212.) He further says, in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations. That in England being born in the country, naturalizes the children of a foreigner. That by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. But he puts forth that opinion on the supposition, that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, and his children are so too. (Ibid. § 214, 215. And see § 219.) Thus the rule of Vattel, is controlled by the intention with which the father takes up his abode in the foreign country.”

    “In conclusion, I entertain no doubt but that Julia Lynch was a CITIZEN of the United States when Thomas Lynch died”

    You still have offered no case in which the subject is called a “natural born” citizen. You might as well give it up since no case exists.

  76. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    Doesn’t matter that her parents were naturalized here. The Elg court stated the rule:

    On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. 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.”

    307 US 325, 328.

    As for what the court did, here’s how they describe what happened in the court below:

    The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship. The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    Sorry, Ice, you are simply wrong. The lower court decreed that she was a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court struck some of the language about the Secretary of State (proving they knew how to strike words out of a decree) but they left in the part of the decree saying that Elg was a natural born citizen!

    Why are you incapable of reading cases?

  77. avatar
    sarina September 23, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    IceTrey: First of all her father was a naturalized US citizen so there’s one lie right there. Secondly the SCOTUS didn’t “affirm the decree” that she was natural born. It affirmed the decree that she should be given a passport. Why must you so blatantly lie to make your case?

    See? Miss Elg is a natural born citizen.

  78. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Out of context much? The citation of Vattel is in the part of the decision where the judge is showing, quite persuasively, that Vattel’s conception of citizenship isn’t shared with other thinkers on the “law of nations,” much less by actual nations! In the next paragraphs, he cites Pufendorf, Schmier, Domat, and Burlamaqui. He finally states about so-called “law of nations:”

    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…The qualifications mentioned by Judge Story, and which are not universally established in the public law, are certainly unknown to the common law in England, and as established in the United States. There is no authority, and unless Mr. Dane’s Abridgment be an exception, not a single work on American law, that asserts the existence of either of those qualifications.

    There simply was not the clear distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” that you pretend there was. Did the court say that Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen? No, but he said she was a citizen by virtue of her birth, which was good enough:

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” ifcc. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

    She was a citizen. She wasn’t naturalized, that makes her a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency. There was no reasonable doubt in his mind!

  79. avatar
    sarina September 23, 2009 at 11:34 pm #

    Ice Trey

    Why do I have to lie to prove the truth?
    You can’t cite any law showing why Obama is not natural born. Can you?

  80. avatar
    Greg September 23, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    Of course they can’t! They can’t even cite a founder making this distinction between citizens born here and natural born citizens. They have no law or facts on their side other than the recycled dicta quoted by the losing side in Wong. The only thing that has changed in the 100 years since Wong smacked those arguments down is that these birthers have added a 2-parent rule that was foreign even to the racists arguing Wong.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    IceTrey,

    You are playing games. It doesn’t matter whether the courts decide or comment. The fact of the matter is that your “two-citizen rule” is a made up fantasy that was never the opinion of the founders of the US, nor the courts since. Every time the court says someone is a citizen when they were born, they are saying they are a natural born citizen. I have a dozen judges, and US attorneys that agree with what I just said.

    Troll alert.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    IceTrey: NBS comes from English common law while NBC comes from the law of nations (international law).

    And where might this “international law” be codified? What international body or treaty ratified it? Which countries subscribed to it?

    You keep asserting and asserting and asserting, but provide no authority. Why do you waste our time?

  83. avatar
    SFJeff September 24, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    IceTrey: “Once again the Obots use a case in which the plaintiff is specifically called ONLY a “citizen” to make the case that Obama is an NBC.”

    From Lok-Sing- the article Doc quoted:
    no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.

    Trey- I have read all your stuff, and you are a propagandist. You have nothing to support the theory you put out, and ignore every refuting of your claims. You haven’t shown any credibility.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    One should keep in mind that anyone who sincerely espouses the 2-citizen parent rule doesn’t know what they are talking about. The fact that they are talking without knowing what they are talking about implies the toxic combination of credulity and arrogance. They are essentially immune from rational argument, and that they will never be able to support their position with relevant and compelling facts. The only variables in the equation are whether they make up their own fallacious arguments or paste them from others, and whether they will dodge and weave or present bad argument and stick to it. They will typically engage in burden shifting, assert false statements, and sometimes copy and paste material from the tricksters and propagandists that use this crank legal theory for political advantage.

    From that I conclude that in most every case, discussion with such people is not only a waste of time, but will inevitably prove to be a frustrating experience.

    My late mother had severe dementia in the last year of her life. At the end I could not even convince her that she was in her own house, even though she would admit that the house and things in it looked like hers. After my best argument, she told me I would make a good lawyer, but she still believed she was in a hotel in another city. From that difficult experience I learned that you cannot win an argument against someone who rejects reason and evidence.

  85. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 1:46 am #

    And that masterful concise reply should be the end of the matter.

    But alas….

  86. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 2:01 am #

    Another masterfully concise, clear post that in a sane world should be the end of the matter.

    IceTrey is clearly a lunatic. Arguing with him is a waste of time.

  87. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    Admirably put.

    Anyone in the legal profession has had to deal with obsessive people who just won’t listen to reason, facts, etc. and will pursue their ill-founded course of action until they’re shot down in flames by the court, creating much tragedy all around.

    (I could tell you some horror stories.)

    I take a far worse view of those professionals (usually attorneys) who encourage the lunatics in order to feed from their pocket book.

  88. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 3:04 am #

    I noticed that you and your associates are getting a bit full of yourselves. I figured you must be bored and calling for me.

    “In the courts of the United States in the Ninth circuit it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884) 10 Sawy. 353, 2§ Fed. 905; Ex parte Chin King (1888) 13 Sawy. 333, 35 Fed. 354; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawy. 482, 36 Fed. 437; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawy. 530, 36 Fed. 553; Gee Fook Sing v. U. S. (1892), 7 U. S. App. 27, 1 C. C. A. 211, and 49 Fed. 146; In re Wong Kim Ark (1896) 71 Fed. 382. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 698, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

    An examination of the 1884 case of Look Tin Sing will show how incorrect this statement by the Wong Court is. Consider these very basic facts. Our United States Supreme Court decided some cases, two before and one right after Look, that clearly show that Look, a Circuit Court case for the District of California, and the cases subsequently decided in the Ninth circuit following that ruling, made bad law in defining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and that Wong had no basis for relying upon those cases for its ruling. In 1857, the Court decided Dred Scott v. Sandford (natural born citizens” are those children born in the country of parents who are its citizens); in 1872, the Court decided the Slaughter House Cases (“subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”); on March 29, 1875, Minor v. Happersett (“natural born citizens” are those children born in the country of parents who are its citizens); and on November 3, 1884, Elk v. Wilkins (a born citizen under the 14th Amendment owes “no allegiance to any alien power”). Again, these are U.S. Supreme Court cases.

    There is also congressional action during this time period that further shows that Look was not decided properly. John Bingham confirms the understanding and the construction the 14th Amendment Framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on the proposed civil rights act of 1866 that was being discussed in the House on March 9, 1866:

    I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;

    John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend. Bingham reiterates that Congress cannot deny a person his “birthright” citizenship if that person is born within the jurisdiction of the United States and does not owe “a foreign allegiance.” In the first sentence of the quote, Bingham requires that the child’s parents not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. In the second sentence, he speaks about the child not owing any foreign allegiance. We can conclude from Bingham’s reference to foreign allegiance that the child born in the United States would be born with a foreign allegiance only if he or she inherits that allegiance from his or her foreign parents at the time of birth.

    These cases and legislative activity show that Look was not properly decided. How could Justice Field not even mention the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions of The Slaughter House Cases and Minor v. Happersett when defining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” Then the Elk decision, which followed only four days later, clearly shows that Justice Field was wrong with his definition of “subject to the jurisdiction.” Elk states that a born citizen under the 14th Amendment owes “no allegiance to any alien power” at the time of birth on U.S. soil. A child can accomplish that status only if he/she is born on U.S. soil (except for children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who are serving the “armies of the state”) to a mother and father who are both U.S. citizens at the time of birth.

    While the 14th Amendment made our citizenship laws color and race neutral, it did not throw out the Founder’s requirement that the President and Commander in Chief be born with undivided allegiance to the United States. Wong Kim Ark misrepresented and/or ignored what these prior U.S. Supreme Court cases said regarding what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant. It even relied on the California Look line of cases when those cases totally disregarded U.S. Supreme Court precedents and Congressional action as shown above.

  89. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 3:15 am #

    Bravo to both.

  90. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 24, 2009 at 3:57 am #

    IceTrey: Please explain why if they believed this to be true they didn’t DECIDE to call him an NBC? The Supreme also discussed the nature of natural born in Wong and yet they also declined to call him an NBC.

    They never declined to call him an NBC. They just did not call him one, because the legal question at stake was not his running for president. Actually, one dissenting judge said he could not live with the claim that Wong was a citizen because that would have meant he could run for the presidency. The majority opinion was that it did not matter. The question for the Supreme Court was: is Wong Kim Ark a US citizen, resulting in US immigration laws not applying to him, and the refusal to let him into the country therefore being illegal? The answer was: “yes, Wong Kim Ark is a US citizen”. Since Wong Kim Ark was not naturalized, and since the very reason why he was acknowledged as a citizen was his birth in the US, he therefore was a natural born citizen. You are not splitting hairs here, you are downright misleading. Oh, and since Mc Cain was a citizen at birth, he also is an NBC. Nobody protested when Romney ran for the presidency.

  91. avatar
    aarrgghh September 24, 2009 at 4:19 am #

    people suffering from dementia are, of course, neither responsible for nor can be blamed their irrationality.

    birfers, however, and anyone like them who are willfully, contemptuously, loudly and proudly stupid, deserve nothing but scorn. they choose irrationality, bigotry and lawlessness and want the rest of us to call it common sense, patriotism and principle.

    not only should they know better, i believe they do know better. instead, having watched their cherished misconceptions brought crashing down by their boy king, they have chosen to wallow in self-pity and, like spoiled children, will hold their breath and stamp their feet until they get their way again.

    not this time.

  92. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 4:25 am #

    “While the 14th Amendment made our citizenship laws color and race neutral, it did not throw out the Founder’s requirement that the President and Commander in Chief be born with undivided allegiance to the United States.”

    This strikes me as pure unadulterated rubbish. If this were true, for example, no Jewish-American would ever be eligible to become President.

    If you want to know what you sound like to a normal person, watch or rewatch Ghadafi’s speech at the UN yesterday.

    That’s how coherent you and your fellow lunatics sound to the rest of us.

    (Except that, in your case, I harbor the strong suspicion you don’t believe a word you’re saying and that it’s all a “game” to you, possibly motivated by profit, something for which I hope you’ll be properly and severely sanctioned in due course.)

  93. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 24, 2009 at 4:35 am #

    Whenever Apuzzo mentions Dred Scott, I release the safety catch of my Browning.

  94. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 5:08 am #

    Whenever Apuzzo mentions Dred Scott, I reach for my Uzi.

  95. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 5:10 am #

    I have dual loyalty: my wife and my cat. It’s a tough choice.

  96. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 5:39 am #

    Why Americans continue to “organize” by race or religion instead of social classes is deeply puzzling, but in any event explains the unhampered transformation of the country into an oligarchy.

    As I wrote yesterday, 1st Amendment not withstanding, Donofrio, Apuzzo, Beck, Malkin et al are dangerous to the social fabric of the US because they knowingly (I suspect) stoke the fires of racism in order to divert the genuinely impoverished moujiks’ attention from the Tsars onto some made-up target.

    Frankly, I don’t think the American Empire is fixable, but I’d bet a handsome sum that historians of the future will study things like the Birther movement in the same fashion as we look at some of the strange cults that popped up in the latter days of the Roman Empire.

  97. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 5:49 am #

    As someone who is Jewish, with a spouse from China, that is exactly my concern.

    The conservative movement is a haven for anti-Semites, white nationalists, tax rebels, theocrats and assorted other kooks.

    Any Jew who lies down with conservatives, just gets fleas.

  98. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 5:58 am #

    Yeah, we’ve been over this. Wong discusses at great length why Elk isn’t an appropriate precedent to rely on. Ditto Minor. Ditto Slaughterhouse. Why would Justice Field mention inapposite dicta?

    And James C. Ho pretty comprehensively destroyed your misreading of the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment in his Green Bag article, “Defining American” in 2006. Senator Trumbull also destroyed it back in 1872:

    By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

  99. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 6:08 am #

    I don’t believe Apuzzo “misreads;” I believe he purposefully distorts.

  100. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 7:12 am #

    Speaking of Dred Scott, the case that killed our nation, Horace Gray and John Lowell wrote a comprehensive article tearing apart the decision in 1857. Among other things, they note that the citizenship part of Taney’s decision did not command a majority of the court – Catron, McLean opining that it was not an open question and Nelson, Grier and Campbell saying it wasn’t important to their decision. Only Taney, Daniel, Wayne and Curtis decided the issue of citizenship. He also comprehensively demolishes Taney’s misuse of history.

  101. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 7:20 am #

    Thank you. I cannot believe it when these people quote Scott. Yuck.

  102. avatar
    kimba September 24, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    “Did someone say ‘credulity and arrogance’?”

    Really, Mario, I don’t know how you can think using Dred Scott as an example of citizenship criteria, can help your super-, two-fer-citizen argument at all. Trying to parse the 14th amendment can lead to no good end either.

    (“natural born citizens” are those children born in the country of parents who are its citizens. There you go mangling the group plural again, trying to make it mean both parents of one child. It doesn’t. When you start to write it next time, think of these phrases:
    ” Children whose parents are employees get into the theme park free on picnic day.”
    ” Children whose parents are members, can use the pool between 3 and 5.”
    ” Children whose parents are Mario Apuzzo’s clients get represented for 50% off in their first juvenile prosecution.”
    Does anyone ever think these phrases mean both parents have to be employees or members? No. Same with the phrase “Children born in the country whose parents are citizens.”

  103. avatar
    kimba September 24, 2009 at 8:08 am #

    Double Yuck. “Never trust a man in a tuxedo who references Dred Scott.”

  104. avatar
    sarina September 24, 2009 at 8:21 am #

    Can anybody tell me if the parents of Wong Kim were naturalized? What about former presidents with foreign parents? Were all naturalized?

    I can’t find any information about it.

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 8:50 am #

    Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not naturalized. All presidents except Obama and Chester A. Arthur (so far as is known) had parents who were citizens. Both Obama and Arthur’s fathers were British and the time of the future president’s birth.

    As a general rule you can say that Chinese parents of that period were not naturalized, since there was a law (The Chinese Exclusion Act) that prevented it.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    So Mario, are you willing to retract what you said last August: “It is not my intent to overturn Wong Kim Ark and I do not know from where you got that notion.”

  107. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    Dr. C: why do some of the comments appear to be fainter (or paler)? I use firefox as a browser. Has this been reported to you?

  108. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 10:05 am #

    It appears to be a new feature. The less liked a post is, the fainter it, and all responses become. I’m not a huge fan, since it makes my excellent responses to crappy posts very hard to read. 😉

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    I believe this is fixed now.

  110. avatar
    Tracy September 24, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Whenver Apuzzo mentions Dred Scott, I reach for a beer.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 10:30 am #

    Hear, hear!

  112. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 10:59 am #

    Lupin,

    Can you explain to me how Jewish-Americans would be ineligible to be President under my formulation of what an Article II “natural born Citizen’ is.

  113. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    I’m sure you’ve chosen your cat.

  114. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    “undivided allegiance”

    Either your 2-parent citizen rule is ineffective, in that it allows Jews and Italians and others to become President despite their respective home countries claim of citizenship (and disallows those born here of aliens from countries not recognizing foreign-born citizens) OR it must disallow Jews.

  115. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 24, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    Easy…

    Mario Apuzzo, I’ve asked you these questions before.

    An Italian couple comes to America legally, and has children before they Naturalize in America. The children are U.S. Citizens by birth (14th Amendment) and Italian Citizens by birth. Neither one of these require you to renounce the other to keep after adult hood.

    They marry Americans, and have children of their own, Mario. This second-generation is born of 2 U.S. Citizen Parents, and are both U.S. Citizens, and Italian Citizens, according to the law of both countries.

    So, my question is if this 2nd-generation Americans are Natural Born Citizens, or if the fact that they’re also Italian Citizens prevents them from becoming Natural Born Citizens?

    And if they’re Natural-Born U.S. Citizens, then why don’t they have the foreign influence that you’re so worried about? The Italian Government considers them Italian Citizens. Why couldn’t the Italian Government subvert undue control over them, since they are the citizen of their country?

    Your rule either rules out Dual Citizenship (which would rule out a lot of Italian-Americans, and a lot of Jewish-Americans), or you don’t really care about dual citizenship, and should really stop arguing it in your briefs and here.

  116. avatar
    nbc September 24, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    Seems our friend Mario has some problems making choices.

  117. avatar
    nbc September 24, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    That’s an unfortunate quote of what Minor really said.. Guess it’s that problem between ban and advisory again?…

    Mario Apuzzo: on March 29, 1875, Minor v. Happersett (“natural born citizens” are those children born in the country of parents who are its citizens);

  118. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    Your examples are not logically relevant.

    Your examples only provide for sufficient conditions to get a benefit, e.g., the assumption is one of two parents for the child to get a benefit.

    My Article II NBC formula provides a means to assure that a child at birth does not inherit any foreign citizenship from either of the parents so as not to be born with divided allegiance. My formula requires that both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Hence, the logic of my formula shows that both parents (mother and father) being U.S. citizens at the time of birth is a necessary condition to avoid the child acquiring a disqualifying condition (divided allegiance at birth) rather then a sufficient condition for the child to obtain a benefit.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  119. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    I already exlained to you my position on Wong. It is not necessary that it be overturned because it does not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen’ is, but rather only defined Wong to be a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” under the unique facts of that case. Notwithstanding, it is bad law.

    Should a court decide that Wong does define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, then I would insist that it be overturned.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Why do you put my comments in your penalty box? Don’t you think that is a bit absurd? You should not bite the hand that feeds you.

  120. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Lupin,

    I guess we know where your politics are: “the American empire.” Now I know why you make the statements you make.

    I like the way you and your associates use that same broad race brush to try to discredit sound law of the Dred Scott case which has never been the subject of any criticism of our U.S. Supreme Court or any other legal authority.

    Let’s face it, the only chance you and your ilk have is if the court paints this whole thing with a race brush which would be cowardly and would go down in history as infamy.

  121. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Greg,

    You still don’t get it. Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” has nothing to do with color or race. I know that you want misinformed readers to believe that so you can win this debate with the race card. But people are getting educated on this issue and will not fall so easily to your demagoguery.

    Further, I would never sell my country out to party politics.

  122. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Anyone born from a Jewish parent (even a grandparent) is eligible to become a Israeli citizen. No matter where they were born or what other citizenship they have. It’s called “right of return”.

    You could have checked. It’s pretty well known.

    So a Jewish child is born with a “divided allegiance” (to use your terminology) and therefore couldn’t become President (in your twisted world).

  123. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    What you write is not even logical.

    There is no causality between each of your three sentences.

    For example, sentences 2 and 3 : A child can be born of two US citizens and still have a divided allegiance at birth (eg: Jewish)

    Sentences 1 and 2: a child can inherit a foreign citizenship EVEN if both his parents are US citizens (eg: naturalized Italian father, or Irish father)

    You can’t write three — three!!! — sentences without contradicting yourself, and opening gaps in your alleged “logic” large enough to drive Donofrio’s ego through.

    Even if this is all a meretricious game to you, you are one of the worst advocates I have ever seen.

  124. avatar
    kimba September 24, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    It appears your formula is evolving away from Vattel. Vattel doesn’t support ‘your formula’ because Vattel, as Lupin has kindly explained a number of times, is using the group plural. Even when I put my examples in terms of a necessary condition, one can’t construe that they mean both parents:

    “Only children whose parents are members may use the pool.”
    “Only children whose parents are employees can be admitted to the theme park on picnic day.”
    “Only children of Mario’s clients get a 50% discount.”

    Should we call your formula The Apuzzo Assumption or the Mario Misrepresentation?

  125. avatar
    Lupin September 24, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    And we know where your politics are.

    I’m sure Donofrio can lend you a sheet and a cross to burn.

  126. avatar
    kimba September 24, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    But he can’t quit us.

  127. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Which parts are sound? Which have been cited approvingly by any later courts.

    The citizenship discussion was all about whether African Americans could be citizens and the holding that they could not be was overturned by the 14th Amendment. What’s left that you want to quote?

    You’ve quoted Daniel’s concurrence, which was a single justice’s opinion. His quotation of Vattel was in support of his conclusion that slaves and freed slaves could never be citizens. So, if his conclusion is rejected, why should we accept his premises? Have any later courts adopted his premises? I can’t see any examples other than the dicta we’ve been through.

  128. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    Please quote which part of the post you’re referring to claims that Vattel’s “definition” of citizenship has to do with race?

    Do you have any comments on what I did say? Let me reiterate:

    1. Taney’s citizenship decision did not command a majority in Dred Scott, so should never have had the force of law.

    2. Taney misused history?

  129. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    Oh, and Vattel’s “definition” of citizenship doesn’t appear in Taney’s majority opinion, does it, Mario? It appears in a single-justice concurrence. What precedential value does a single-justice concurrence have?

    Has Daniel’s use of Vattel been quoted by any subsequent court?

    Of course not.

  130. avatar
    Bob September 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Even if this is all a meretricious game to you, you are one of the worst advocates I have ever seen.

    In Apuzzo’s defense, his “colleagues” (Taitz, Berg, etc.) are worse.

    And very nice use of “meretricious.”

  131. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Israel has a law which considers anyone in the world, who is biologically Jewish, to be an Israeli citizen.

    Which means dual loyalty, which you decry with every post.

    True story: my wife is from China. She did some research, and found ancestors in Kaifeng.

    She wants us to go to Israel, and she wants to be recognized as Jewish – in other words, she wants to be declared biologically Jewish, even though she is Buddhist. And she wants Israel citizenship, so she would have three passports.

  132. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    He is the tallest of the legal midgets.

  133. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    “Should we call your formula The Apuzzo Assumption or the Mario Misrepresentation?”

    Wonderful. And dig that alliteration.

  134. avatar
    Bob September 24, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” has nothing to do with color or race.

    But its application does. Collins, for example, was a supporter of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and to muster support of it, he cited de Vattel because it supported his belief in excluding those who just so happened to be of another race.

    From a broader perspective, birthers rely upon cases (Dred Scott, Minor, Elk, etc.) that sought to narrow the class of citizenship. Why is that?

  135. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    “sound law of the Dred Scott case which has never been the subject of any criticism of our U.S. Supreme Court or any other legal authority.”

    Where’s my Xanax?

  136. avatar
    Annika September 24, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Can a citizen (American born) who is given dual citizenship through one of his parents ever become President of the United States?

    This is of interest to me, not just in the case of Obama, but also for my children (I immigrated from France)

  137. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    With the law as it stands and is currently understood, anyone who is born here who is not the child of a foreign head of state, ambassador or minister or invading army is eligible to become President. So is anyone born abroad to an American citizen, assuming they meet certain conditions.

  138. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    Yes, they can. It’s funny that you mention French Citizenship. 7 of our Presidents were entitled to both French and U.S. Citizenship by birth. A few of them were still entitled to it while they were in office.

    Those Presidents were: Ulysseus S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald R. Ford.

    Dwight D. Eisenhower was probably entitled to German/Prussian Citizenship. And Chester A. Arthur was probably entitled to Irish/British Citizenship.

    And those are just the Presidents. The Vice Presidents are far more precedent setting.

    Al Gore was born in the District of Columbia, which confirms that people born in D.C. are eligible for the Presidency.

    Charles Curtis was born in the TERRITORY of Kansas, which confirms that people born in a territory that later becomes a state are eligible for the Presidency.

  139. avatar
    IceTrey September 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Wong was a 14th amendment citizen. He was a “citizen by law”. A “natural born citizen” requires no law to make them a citizen.

  140. avatar
    nBc September 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    And thus to understand the terminology, one looks at common law which reflects the 14th amendment making anyone born on US soil a natural born citizen.
    However, to state that natural born requires no law is also incorrect.

  141. avatar
    Bob September 24, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    Wong was a 14th amendment citizen. He was a “citizen by law”. A “natural born citizen” requires no law to make them a citizen.

    By that “logic,” everyone born in the United States is a “14th amendment citizen” and “citizen by law” (and it is sooooo cute when you make up legal terms!).

  142. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Annika: don’t listen to the Denialists. They want to sow discord. Don’t give them a victory.

    Anyone born on US soil, irrespective of the parents’ status, is a natural born citizen, and can grow up to be president. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    It is in our 14th Amendment, and was affirmed by the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark. End of matter.

    Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

  143. avatar
    IceTrey September 24, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Show me one SCOTUS decision in which it calls a child born in the US with a foreign parent a natural born citizen. I mean a DECISION not argument or opinion. I mean uses the words “declared to be a natural born citizen” or something similar. Every case that Dr C has posted only calls the subject a “citizen”. I know my opinion on this matter isn’t covered by any such decision BUT NEITHER IS YOURS!

  144. avatar
    nBc September 24, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    It is clear that SCOTUS never had to rule on such but it is also clear that the same reasoning in Wong Kim Ark allows one to determine the meaning of natural born.

    Hope this clarifies.

    If you expect a ruling from SCOTUS on this, then you will be disappointed as they lack jurisdiction per US Constitution.

  145. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    I mean uses the words “declared to be a natural born citizen” or something similar.

    Marie Elizabeth Elg sued the Secretary of Labor, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Secretary of State asking the District Court of DC to declare her a “natural born citizen.” Here’s how the DC Circuit Court of Appeals describes the suit:

    In January 1937 Miss Elg brought her suit in the United States District Court in the District of Columbia against the Secretary of Labor, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Secretary of State. She prayed for a judgment declaring that she is a natural born citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights and privileges of a citizen; and she prayed further that the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration be enjoined from carrying out the threat to deport her from the United States or from interfering with her residence therein; that the Secretary of State be enjoined from officially holding her not to be a citizen of the United States and refusing to issue her a passport; and for general relief.

    99 F.2d 408, 409-410.

    The Appeals Court looked at all the familiar case law and found that Elg was a natural born citizen:

    In our opinion appellee is a natural born American citizen whose right to all the privileges of citizenship, — whether or not, as far as concerns diplomatic protection, it be considered as suspended during her minority and sojourn in a foreign country, — was in full effect when on her majority she applied for and received her passport.

    Id. p. 413.

    Now, here’s the crucial part. Elg had asked for a court’s decree that she was a natural born citizen under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400. The trial court concluded that it WAS appropriate for them to issue a decree stating that she was a natural born citizen.

    The appeals court then considered the issue and also found that it was appropriately raised under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The Appeals Court stated:

    The decree of the District Court declaring appellee to be a natural born citizen of the United States is in all respects affirmed.

    So, when Ms. Elg went to the Supreme Court, she had a trial court decree stating, “Elg is a natural born citizen!” That decree was blessed by the Appeals court.

    That decree, that order of the court, was affirmed by the Supreme Court:

    The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    They struck the words “Secretary of State,” but left the words “Ms. Elg is a natural born citizen!

    So, we’re left with Ms. Elg holding a piece of paper from the DC Circuit court saying, “Ms. Elg is a natural born citizen” which has now been blessed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Her mother was an unnaturalized alien at her birth. So, just as the trial court, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, declared Elg a natural born citizen, we can declare the 2-citizen parent rule dead!

  146. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    “He is the tallest of the legal midgets.”

    The tallest of the Three Stooges. He’s brilliant compared to Orly and Leo.

  147. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    The Slaughterhouse case said that the explicit purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make African Americans citizens. Does that make all African Americans into “citizens by law,” and ineligible to be President?

  148. avatar
    Bob September 24, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Her mother was an unnaturalized alien at her birth.

    The common response to this claim is that Elg’s mother was automatically naturalized by her marriage to Elg’s father (a law no longer in effect), who was naturalized.

  149. avatar
    kimba September 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    They sound like Ludlum book titles, no? And he doesn’t find any humor in what I write. Go figure. Yet,he can’t quit us.

  150. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 24, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Andrew Johnson’s parents it’s not really known. There’s some indication that Jacob Johnson (Andrew’s father) was born in England and immigrated around 1795.

    It’s the VPs that have interesting origins.

    George M. Dallas’s father was born in Jamacia.

    Then of course, you have Charles Curtis, who was born to an Native American Woman, at a time that Native Americans generally were not allowed to be citizens.

  151. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    The facts of the case don’t give us enough information to tell whether she would have gained citizenship by her husband’s naturalization. They say they lived in the United States for “some years” before he was naturalized in 1906. The wife had to be eligible to be naturalized. To be eligible to be naturalized meant 5 years resident here. The courts were divided on whether this was required for wives, but according to Dyne’s Treatise on Citizenship by Naturalization (1907), the better view was that it was. (p. 233)

  152. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    Greg,

    You better read what Trumball said I little closer. He surely was not using the English common law as the source of the definition of citizenship, but rather the law of nations. Let me know what you think. I’m sure you’ll agree with me.

  153. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    If you mean to say that Trumbull recognized that no nation at the founding disagreed that a person born within the country was a natural born citizen/subject, then sure.

    It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born

    If, however, you think he didn’t quote Paschal’s Constitution talking about the common law of this country and of England, well, I’d have to say that’s a literacy failure on your part.

    I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “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.

  154. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:32 pm #

    Greg,

    You still missed it.

    By the way, why do you not tell Dr. Conspiracy to stop playing the Wizard of Oz with the lights on here so that we can continue to discuss the subject at hand intelligently.

  155. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    Lupin,

    Good thing that you were only driving Donofrio’s ego through that gap.

    On your Jewish and Italian hypotheticals, they all fail as spoilers to my NBC formulation. Simply put, its your birth status that counts under Article II, not your status later in life. That is why naturalized citizens cannot be President.

    Tell Dr. Conspiracy to pay his electric bill. They’ve almost turned the lights out. Or maybe he should tell his mice to pedal a little harder to keep them on.

  156. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    PaulPieniezny,

    They are bringing in the reinforcements.

    About splitting hairs, if you did not know it, Immigration and the courts do it every day and with no mercy.

  157. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

    Maybe you can find a good use for it.

  158. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    It sounds like you are working on writing a novel.

  159. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

    Hey aarrgghh,

    You appointed you the village psychologist?

  160. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 6:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    On that comment rating thing that you got there, under Obama’s plan for internet policing, is he also going to have a dimmer button ready when he reads all the bad things people say about it on the internet?

  161. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 6:49 pm #

    Before you continue to make a fool of yourself, I suggest you go to the original record (click on the first session and go to page 575. Trumbull is not your friend on this issue.

  162. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    The Mario Misinterpretation, then, doesn’t effectively address the question of dual citizenship, as the Jewish and Italian citizenships arise at birth, not later in life.

  163. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    Greg,

    There are some people in this fight that have a warped sense of themselves. Do you really think that you deserve to call your responses “excellent” if they are responding to “crappy” posts?

  164. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    “Hey aarrgghh, You appointed you the village psychologist?”

    It seems like a reasonable view from a distance. If I were to advocate for Dred Scott, and strangers on a forum thought I was off the beam, I would rethink my position. At least a reasonable person would. Dred Scott was dreadful law, no pun intended. Your advocacy of it is more like someone would read on a Stormfront forum.

    Here’s another example: there is one mental health clinic for all of Gaza, population approx. 1.1M. I think it is entirely reasonable to conjecture that most cases of manic depression, schizophrenia and other psychoses are untreated – which explains a lot of the turmoil there.

    And I don’t have to be a clinical psychologist to make that observation about Gaza.

  165. avatar
    Greg September 24, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    When you submit briefs to the court, do you attempt to write to the level of your opponent? Crappy opponents get crappy responses?

  166. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 7:28 pm #

    “the Jewish and Italian citizenships arise at birth, not later in life.”

    Precisely.

  167. avatar
    misha September 24, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    “Or maybe he should tell his mice to pedal a little harder to keep them on.”

    Actually, I think DrC uses squirrels.

  168. avatar
    nBc September 24, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    Touche… Man you are a tough cookie.

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    No. All malcontents will be shipped to the FEMA gulag, where they will be forcibly infected with H1N1 Swine Flu (since none of them will have been vaccinated, knowing that the vaccine is really poison.)

    Don’t you read the anti-Obama blogs?

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: On your Jewish and Italian hypotheticals, they all fail as spoilers to my NBC formulation.

    Why don’t you find someone in Congress to offer up your NBC formulation as a Constitutional amendment, in place of the one we’ve been using since the Constitution was ratified.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    The issue with the comment rating system is vexing. The problem, as Greg pointed out, is that the styling is carried on to every comment nested below it. The result is many mistakes. I can control the style to some extent, but now where it is applied. For now all dimming is turned off. I may have to turn off the high-rated styling as well.

    Comment rating is a third-party plug-in and not something I can change much.

  172. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    I wonder why Apuzzo spends so much time over here.

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 24, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Curtis’ mother was only part Native American. I think she was probably a citizen.

  174. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    Great mariners do not distinguish themselves by sailing calm seas.

    Great teams are not made by beating weak
    ones.

    Great battles in war are not made great by
    beating a weak army.

  175. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 24, 2009 at 11:35 pm #

    I do not read the anti-Obama blogs but I did see the YouTube of a grammer school teacher in New Jersey making young children recite after her some Obama chant which just went on and on. I would just love to have a school try that with my son.

  176. avatar
    nbc September 25, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    A grammer (sic) school teacher?…

  177. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    I would just love to have a school try that with my son.

    And then what? Would you file another loser lawsuit?

  178. avatar
    nbc September 25, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    So have you given up hope then?

  179. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 25, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    Yes, I know, I noticed the same thing but that is the way she spelled it.

  180. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 25, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Bob,

    The only loser that I know is you. And I’ll tell you why you are a loser, because you are defending a current sitting President and do not have the guts to let people know who you really are.

  181. avatar
    Greg September 25, 2009 at 12:46 am #

    And if you keep making that face, it might stick that way.

  182. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    Because being harassed by birthers isn’t my idea of fun.

  183. avatar
    ImaForener September 25, 2009 at 1:03 am #

    Are you suggesting that
    a) defending a sitting president makes one a loser
    or
    b) not using a full name makes one a loser

    Follow-up question – if one files suits and loses them, technically doesn’t make them a loser?

    Just like when you and Luigi are racing karts in Wii – only one can be the winner, so the other must be the loser.

  184. avatar
    NBC September 25, 2009 at 1:23 am #

    The only loser that I know is you. And I’ll tell you why you are a loser, because you are defending a current sitting President and do not have the guts to let people know who you really are.

    Imagine that, the shame of defending a duly elected president. What happened to our pride in our Country.
    A true loser would be someone who is forced to argue an opinion not because of that is where the facts lead him but rather because of that is what he is paid to do?

    Then again, the identity of Bob does not affect his ability to kick ass.

  185. avatar
    NBC September 25, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    Always blaming others it seems? Am I right?

  186. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 2:21 am #

    Touché

  187. avatar
    NBC September 25, 2009 at 2:53 am #

    Well said.

  188. avatar
    Lupin September 25, 2009 at 4:44 am #

    http://www.vie-publique.fr/decouverte-institutions/citoyen/citoyennete/citoyen-france/comment-devient-on-citoyen-francais.html

    This is how you can become a French citizen.

    Note that only ONE of the two parents has to be French — a typical rule, not the crazy “twofer” version promoted by some.

    I would check with the nearest French consulate; AFAIK you may be expected to provide not only the parent’s birth certificate, but grandparents as well.

    The process might take up to 18 months until you get a decree of citizenship; oh, and the applicant may be required to prove he can speak French in an interview.

  189. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 25, 2009 at 5:31 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Great mariners do not distinguish themselves by sailing calm seas. Great teams are not made by beating weakones. Great battles in war are not made great bybeating a weak army.

    And great chess players do not really stay great chess players when hastily withdrawing from a tournament after losing to a weak chess player. Tell that to Leo.

  190. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 25, 2009 at 6:02 am #

    “About splitting hairs” – YOU are splitting hairs. I said she was not just splitting hairs.

    Do you believe, like she seems to believe, that blacks and “members of the Mongol race” (whatever that may mean, but intersteing to me personally as I am one of those many Eurasians with the Ghengis Khan gene) cannot be natural born citizens since they are citizens as a result of a law?

    Reinforcements? Good grief, did you just google my name? OK, now google Ghengis Khan.

  191. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 25, 2009 at 6:08 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: go down in history as infamy

    You do realize that that is a quote from that infamous usurper, Franklin Delano Roosevelt? How unpatriotic of you to quote from the last US President who was born, served and died a French citizen.

  192. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 6:56 am #

    “the applicant may be required to prove he can speak French in an interview.”

    I thought the interviews were conducted in Esperanto. True story: the man who invented Esperanto, was Jewish.

    I once worked in an optical store managed by a Jewish man from Brooklyn. Conversations with him were like a skit in the Yiddish theatre.

    “Could I have three days off to go to a bar mitzvah in Boston?”
    “Why not?” was his answer.

    “What’s wrong with your car?”
    “Do I look like a mechanic?” was the answer.

  193. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 7:04 am #

    Mario, you are no Clarence Darrow.

  194. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 8:21 am #

    Why is it that in my wildest imaginings I could never imagine Ted Olson or David Boies insulting people on a blog? And yet, here is Mario, resorting to schoolyard trash talk. Business must be really slow if he has time for that.

  195. avatar
    Greg September 25, 2009 at 8:38 am #

    Well, 3 parts, out of 4. And he lived his early life on the reservation. His first languages were Kansa and French. His mom apparently lived on the reservation and was a member of a tribe.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 25, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    Great mariners do not distinguish themselves by sailing calm seas.

    Great teams are not made by beating weak
    ones.

    Great battles in war are not made great by
    beating a weak army.

    Is that a quote from Don Quixote?

  197. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    to discredit sound law of the Dred Scott case which has never been the subject of any criticism of our U.S. Supreme Court or any other legal authority.

    Just for fun:

    In dismissing the complaint in Rembert v. Monroe Township Board of Education, No. 95-4818, 1997 WL 189318 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 1997), Judge Irenas wrote in footnote 10:

    “We note that plaintiffs’ brief includes an eight-page description of the ‘historical context in the instant matter’ that has very little relevance to overcoming defendants’ motion for summary judgment. First, plaintiffs cite to 19th Century caselaw that has been overruled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. See Pl. Br. at 5 (citing State v. Mann, 13 N.C. 263 (1829) (“The power of the master must be absolute to render the submission of the slave perfect.”)); Pl. Br. at 6 (citing Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1856)); see also U.S. Const. amend. XIII (abolishing slavery); U.S. Const. amend. XIV (providing the equal protection and due process guarantees); U.S. Const. amend. XV (according the right to vote to all citizens). Second, plaintiffs include generalizations about the plight of black children in America and speculate that the suspensions in the instant case are a product of the notion that ‘black children are inherently unruly.’ Pl. Br. at 8. We find that these statements do not aid plaintiffs in their endeavor to present a genuine issue of fact for trial. Generalized allegations of racism and the words of pre-abolition judges do little to help us evaluate whether the discipline in the instant case violated the Constitution.”

    Judge Irenas is a senior judge in Camden; he sometimes holds court in same building as Judge Simandle, who’s hearing Apuzzo’s case. Maybe Judge Irenas can educate you. (Or maybe you still know a few people who represented the school board from your days of representing the Monroe Township, Apuzzo.)

  198. avatar
    Greg May 27, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    I was looking for something, and I stumbled on this: Judge Field Criticized. It’s George Collins’ response to Field’s decisions. Needless to say, he’s not a fan.