Main Menu

Donofrio, Pidgeon to file suit on behalf of Chrysler dealers

scales2I’ve hesitated writing about this story because I don’t have any reliable sources (discounting the Post & Email Blog, or WorldNetDaily) to know how much is true and how much is posturing.

Nonetheless, it appears that Obama denialist attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have joined forces to represent some Chrysler dealers that lost their franchises as the result of the Chrysler bankruptcy. The dealers may have a difficult time proving that they suffered harm as the result of government action (since they would have lost their dealerships in a bankruptcy whether or not the government had intervened), but it’s a start.

They will file in the DC Federal District Court asking: by what right does President Obama hold the office, that heads the government, that administered the TARP, that bailed out Chrysler, that disenfranchised the dealers, that lived in the house that Jack built? This is what is called a quo warranto (Latin for “frivolous”) lawsuit.

Putting the silliness aside for a moment …

Leo Donofrio has claimed for some time that the only way to remove President Obama from office (short of the constitutional mechanism of impeachment) is a quo warranto action in DC. (Orly Taitz tried quo warranto, but not in DC, the only place where it can be filed.) The scant news coverage names no plaintiffs and no actual lawsuit appears to have been filed yet as of today, December 10, 2009.

We’ll just have to wait to see if the Supreme Court hands Leo his hat again.

[OK, tell me the truth. Did I overdo the hyperlinks?]

, , , , , , ,

643 Responses to Donofrio, Pidgeon to file suit on behalf of Chrysler dealers

  1. avatar
    aarrgghh December 10, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    They will file in the DC Federal District Court asking: by what right does President Obama hold the office, that heads the government, that administered the TARP, that bailed out Chrysler, that disenfranchised the dealers, that lived in the house that Jack built? This is what is called a quo warranto (Latin for “frivolous”) lawsuit.

    ftw!!

    and, as conservapedia demonstrates, you’ve still got some ways to go before being found guilty of abusing links and footnotes.

    but you might be guilty of time-traveling (“… today, january 10”).

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 10, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    The Doctor sees far.

  3. avatar
    Mary Brown December 10, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    I had never read an article in conservapedia. I will from here on out call it absurdapedia.

  4. avatar
    G December 11, 2009 at 12:27 am #

    The mere existence of “conservapedia” is quite telling. Only those that cannot accept living in reality would be so upset with every other encyclopedia reporting those “darn facts” that they would have to create their own ideological version of everything in order to seek comfort and protect themselves from the outside world.

    What is even more telling and more sad are those that are now trying to create a more “conservative” interpretation of the Bible.

    Which is also extremely ironic, because those involved in coming up with their own edits and interpretation seem to be the same type of people who hold deep convictions that the Bible text is “the literal and infallible word of God”.

  5. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 11, 2009 at 2:07 am #

    Doc!

    You have created a paragraphic work of Art!

    “They will file in the DC Federal District Court asking: by what right does President Obama hold the office, that heads the government, that administered the TARP, that bailed out Chrysler, that disenfranchised the dealers, that lived in the house that Jack built?”

    Solid Gold! I christen “Doc it!” as a new legal expression signifying the artful common sense elimination of a constipated legal premise!

    Appreciatively,
    Benji Franklin

  6. avatar
    Lupin December 11, 2009 at 5:21 am #

    What’s so scary about your lunatics is their ability to organize.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 6:42 am #

    Thanks. It one of those sentences that just seemed to build itself.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 6:57 am #

    There have been more liberal versions (translations of the Bible) of the Bible (NRSV) and more conservative versions (NIV) for a long time. Marcion, in the mid-second century, cut and pasted the Gospel of Luke to fit his own notions. Thomas Jefferson made his own edited Bible removing its supernatural parts and gave copies to every member of Congress. Some of the variation passed down to us in New Testament manuscripts themselves is due to copyists “softening” hard sayings, or harmonizing contradictory ones.

    Somebody was telling me the other day that the Bible defined “natural born citizen”. I wish I could remember the passage.

  9. avatar
    brygenon December 11, 2009 at 7:59 am #

    Odd a bird as Leo Donofrio is (He hand-carried his SCOTUS petition to Washington D.C., traveled by bus so he wouldn’t have to give his name, and changed his appearance so he couldn’t be recognized. Despite these efforts, Leo thought federal agents were alerted when an RFID tracker detected the passport he carried in his shoe. No kidding — he wrote it up.) what’s more surprising is that car dealers would be choose to be represented by Stephen Pidgeon.

    Stephen Pidgeon’s stated opinion is that Obama wants to turn the United States into Zimbabwe, and be permanent dictator. Pidgeon likes to link Obama’s policies to Robert Mugabe. I’m not extrapolating, nor interpolation, nor exaggerating, and I’m not cherry-picking African names out of many others. Check out Pidgeon on Blog Talk Radio and you can hear it in his own voice.

    I read that the named plaintiff in this action is still in business selling other makes. Does he realize who he has signed up with? What happens if his customer base finds out?

  10. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 8:19 am #

    Correction

    Quo Warranto is Latin for ‘what warrant’ or ‘by what warrant’, not, as you reported, ‘frivolous.’

    When Barack Obama was born in Honolulu he inherited British and Kenyan statuses through his British and Kenyan father. The Constitution provided an exception for folks similarly situated (such as G. Washington) but only if they were born before the adoption of the Constitution. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is ineligible for this exemption and as a restult he is ineligible to the presidency.

    If the current situation is OK with the Constitution, that is, if Barack Obama is eligible according to the intent of the framers, consider this. Prince William of Wales, a British subject, marries an Anglican American woman who bears his son in New York. That child would both be the future King of England AND would be eligible to be president of the United States. However improbable this scenario sounds, it’s technically possible. There’s no way the framers of the Constitution intended for this to happen, which is why it cannot happen according to the Constitution.

    Ask yourself this question: Why does the Constitution provide the exception for those born before the adoption of the Constitution?

    Conventional wisdom says that it’s to allow George Washington (and others) who were born in British America (before the US was founded) to serve as president. But this analysis is flawed because it discounts those who were not born in British America but were nevertheless citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Take for example William Paterson, born in Ireland, brought to British America at age 2, represented New Jersey at the Constitutional Convention, signed the Constitution, served as US Senator from NJ, served as Governor of NJ, served as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court until his death. William Paterson qualified to serve as US president even though he was born in Ireland. Therefore, the founders were much less (if at all) concerned with PLACE of birth but were totally concerned with divided ALLEGIANCE at birth. A natural born citizen of a country is a person who has no other allegiances at the moment of birth. Barack Obama was born in HOnolulu and he gained both British and Kenyan statuses through his father. He requires the Constitutional exemption which is unavailable to him because he was born after 1787.

    If the Constitutional exemption to NBC was only for those born in British America – that is, jus soli – then it would have been written so. It could have been ‘or those born in territory that became the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution’. But it was not so written.

    Before you label me a ‘birfer’ or a right wing wacko, may I make two things clear. I believe Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. I don’t care to see any of his birth certificates or newspaper announcements. I believe John McCain was born with Panamanian citizenship as a result of being born in Colon, Panama, as it is stated on his BC, and he too is ineligible to the presidency.

  11. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    Allegiance at birth? Have you ever seen a newborn? The ONLY allegiance any newborn has is to their mother’s breast (or the bottle).

  12. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 8:58 am #

    You know, there’s this blog that has posted article after article debunking everything you just posted. Maybe you should read it before you post here. Let me see if I can remember the name:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

    Just as very quick point, it has long been understood that natural born included everyone born within the borders of a country except the children of sovereigns, ambassadors or invading armies.

    I mean, come on! Before you can pretend to pontificate on the meaning of “natural born citizen” you’re going to have to explain why the founders chose the phrase “natural born,” which had a specific meaning (born in the country except to sovereigns, ambassadors or invading armies), then, having chosen that specific phrase, chose to have it mean the exact opposite. Then, having chosen to have it mean the exact opposite, why did they choose not to tell anyone!

    Oh, and you’re a birther. And a right-wing whacko. Just because you don’t, now, demand a birth certificate doesn’t mean you aren’t committing malpractice on the US Constitution.

  13. avatar
    Per Son December 11, 2009 at 9:10 am #

    I could be wrong, but wouldn’t Prince William need to abdicate to marry an American?

  14. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 9:10 am #

    Perhaps this phraseology will please: … allegiance derived from the circumstances of birth.

    Pride of heritage is a strong draw upon a person’s loyalty. Look at the gravity of St. Patrick Day parades; look at other organizations that promote the heritage and cultures of the lands of our ancestors (Mexicans, Italians, among many others.) In our federal government service, contact with foreign nationals is heavily scrutinized (and must be reported) for employees with access to sensitive information. The Constitution intended to exclude from the presidency anyone whose tie to another country was derived from birth status.

    The Catholic faith is not a citizenship nor is it transmitted to a child at birth. But that didn’t stop serious and sincere questions of John Kennedy about his allegiance to Pope, who is a foreign sovereign. (And perhaps rightly so.)

  15. avatar
    Lupin December 11, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    This may all be true, but it is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Obama was born in HI, further of a parent who was also a US citizen. Either fact makes him a native born citizen. That’s all he needs to be eligible to run for President.

    Further, he was properly elected.

    Further, the election was ratified by Congress.

    So he IS the lawful President of the United States.

    Further, Congress, not the Judiciary, is the branch entitled to remove him from office, should that become necessary.

    Further, you have a clear remedy: campaign for Sarah Palin in 2012.

    Good luck!

  16. avatar
    jvn December 11, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    You will note that the “serious questions” about JFKs “allegiance” were not of a legal nature, but rather of a political nature, that is, whether good Protestants should vote against him because of his supposed “allegiance” to the Pope.

    The same applies here. If you feel that anything in his background calls the President’s allegiance into question, feel fre to vote against him in 2012.

    Legally he is eligible and is serving as President.

  17. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    The Irish, Mexicans, Italians and others are all eligible to be President if they are born here, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or not. Even black men are eligible to be President if they were born here, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or not.

    This “national security” nonsense runs smack-dab into the simple fact that the founders chose a very specific phrase – natural born. That phrase had a very specific meaning – born within the borders of the country without regard to the citizenship of the parents. It had meant that since the 1300s. It had meant that when the American colonies were founded. It was used in the Constitutions and Charters of the original 13 colonies.

    Why did they Founders choose that term?

    Why did they change the meaning of that term?

    Why didn’t the Founders tell anyone they were changing the meaning of the term?

    The Founders changed the meaning of other common-law terms, for example, treason. When they did so, they explicitly explained what they were doing. British Common Law Treason included thinking bad thoughts about the King. American Treason required ACTS. They explained that in the Constitution.

    Other common-law terms were not changed. They were simply used in the Constitution with the assumption that everyone reading the Constitution would understand what they meant – Letters of Marque, anyone?

    So, the Founders knew what British Common Law said. They knew how to make changes to the British Common Law.

    Why didn’t they explain they were changing the meaning of “natural born?”

    Apparently, when it came to “natural born,” the Founders became morons.

    Because the Founders were morons, you can’t find a single legal scholar saying that the term “natural born citizen” meant anything different than “natural born” in British Common Law until more than 50 years after the writing of the Constitution. By contrast, you find half a dozen scholars writing that “natural born” meant the same as “natural born” meant in British Common Law as early as the 1790s.

    When the scholars start saying, 50+ years after the founding of the nation that “natural born” meant something different, they were uniformly smacked down. Lynch v. Clarke was based on the definition of “natural born.” Wong Kim Ark was based on the constant and unchanged definition of “natural born.”

    Imagine a scale. On one side is all the evidence that “natural born” did not change from its original meaning. On the other is all the evidence that “natural born” was changed by the Founders to mean the exact opposite when used in the Constitution from when used in the common law.

    There’s a ton of evidence on the first side, and an ounce of evidence on your side of the scale. And if you look at your evidence, you’ll find that it’s dried up and shriveled dicta, quotes out of context and random philosophers quoted out of their area of expertise.

  18. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    “The Catholic faith is not… transmitted to a child at birth.’

    Really? I must stop down at St Rita’s and tell Father O’Malley to stop baptising newborns. Then I’m off to Temple Israel to tell Rabbi Goldberg that he must throw out 5,000 years of Jewish law and stop considering the children of Jewish mothers as Jews. You are being absurd to pretend that people don’t inherit a religious tradition at birth and, with the exception of the Native American creeds, all of the religions practised in the US today involve allegiances to foreign people, places and ideas. Of course, people can acquire new religious beliefs later in life, but the same is true of citizenships.

    When people call those who argue as you do rascist, perhaps they are being unfair. More correctly, the implications of your policies is nativist-to question those with ethnic or religious ties to other countries. You feel more certain of the loyalty of those whose ancestors arrived many generations ago-people like Aldrich Ames, the Walker family, Robert Hansen…

    Why not simply limit the Presidency to those with NO ties to other countries? Why not a Chippewa, Sioux, Iroquois or other REAL American?

  19. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 11, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    Dear Biker,

    Technical allegiance does equate to loyalty especially magically transferred gender-favoring allegiance. For example, your bizarre interpretation of the Framer’s intent would have allowed any male U.S. citizen of their era to marry a British Queen in New York, and woo woo her into producing a Article 2 eligible U.S. “Natural Born Citizen” child about 9 months later. Patriotic loyal parenting produces allegiance. You insult the Constitution most when you try to turn it into a hangman’s racist noose.

    Benji Franklin

  20. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    You’re correct on two counts: Obama is a native born citizen of the US. Congress is the branch entitled to remove a sitting president.

    However, native born is not the same as natural born and it’s not the standard required by the Constitution.

    Congress enacted the Quo Warranto statute to delegate thier authority to challenge the eligibility of any federal office holder whose office is in the District of Columbia. Quo Warranto is in the DC Code, and has been used before. All of the Orly Taitz cases in other jurisdictions have been correctly dismissed. When Judge Carter dismissed one of her cases he cited the Quo Warranto and the US District Court in DC as the only venue with jurisdiction for this action.

    Neither elections nor acts of Congress amend the Constitution. Congress often passes laws that are found to be unconstitutional.

    This isn’t about Barack Obama. It’s about the unsettled question of constitutional law.

  21. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    Greg: That phrase had a very specific meaning – born within the borders of the country without regard to the citizenship of the parents.

    Question: William Paterson was born in Ireland and came to British American at age 2. He was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Would he have been eligible to serve as president? Why or why not?

  22. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    Scientist: “The Catholic faith is not… transmitted to a child at birth.’Really?I must stop down at St Rita’s and tell Father O’Malley to stop baptising newborns.

    You said it: BAPTISM

    The faith is not transmitted at birth, but requires an official act by the Church and by the parents.

    The questions around Kennedy were his allegiance to the Pope. They were good questions, but unfounded questions because being Catholic is not a citizenship and it’s not a from-birth circumstance.

  23. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 11:29 am #

    Quo Warranto has never been used to remove a President. Congress cannot delegate their power to impeach the President via the Quo Warranto statute.

  24. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    Wong Kim Ark was based on the constant and unchanged definition of “natural born.”

    The court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark said that Wong Kim Ark was just as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. The court did not say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed by the first Congress which included 17 members who signed the Constitution and was signed into law by President Washington, who also signed the COnstitution. NA1790 says, “…and the children of US citizens who are born beyond the seas shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

    The first Congress was less concerned (if at all) with PLACE of birth, and fully concerned with allegiances at birth.

    Later, this language was amended so that those same children were US citizens, not natural born citizens. Since NA 1790 there have been NO statutes in US code to use the term natural born citizen.

    There is no evidence in all of US code and in any SCOTUS opinion that natural born citizen was solely dependent upon PLACE of birth. Perhaps children born in the US are natural born citizens without regard to any status they may inherit from a parent, but no court or code has ever said so. Why, then, should we make the leap rather than being cautious.

  25. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    William Paterson was a natural born Irishman. He was a natural born Irishman regardless of his parentage. He was eligible because he was a citizen (naturalized) of the United States at the writing of the Constitution.

    Those who were born here before the Revolution became natural born citizens of the United States at its founding, because the nation was born at that date. There are Supreme Court cases about those folks. They were citizens regardless of their parentage.

    Those who were born here after the Revolution and before the writing of the Constitution were natural born citizens by virtue of the colonial charters and state constitutions. Regardless of their parentage.

    Those who were born here after the writing of the Constitution were natural born citizens. Regardless of their parentage.

    How does the exception for naturalized citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution give any evidence that the term natural born changed in any way?

    And why would the Founders be so cryptic? They knew what the common law said, and they knew how to change it when they needed to?

  26. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    Through his father, Barack Obama was born under the protections and the allegiance of the British Crown. According to his website fightthesmears.com, his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. This is not what the framers of the Constitution intended.

    I believe Barack Obama was born in Honolulu and has been a US citizen from the moment of his birth. While he serves as president his actions are legitimate and binding. But he is an usurper and should be removed from office by the Congress through quo warranto.

    As I have also said before, John McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was a citizen of Panama when he was born in Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama.

  27. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    DCBikerJohn: I believe Barack Obama was born in Honolulu and has been a US citizen from the moment of his birth. While he serves as president his actions are legitimate and binding. But he is an usurper and should be removed from office by the Congress through quo warranto.

    Bully for you. Who cares?

  28. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    Are Jews baptized, John?

    Good question or not, the question of a President’s religion is not a constitutional question. Just as the nonsense about two citizen parents is not a constitutional question.

    You know, there are countries that do not recognize the naturalization of their citizens. Thus, they believe that the children of their “former” citizens are still their natural born citizens. So, our citizens can give birth to children that other nations believe they have a claim on.

    Our country decided, long ago, to not let other countries dictate who could be our president. If you’re born here, we’ll decide at the voting booth whether your father’s nationality or citizenship matters. We’ll decide at the voting booth whether the fact that you’re a Catholic or a Muslim or a Mormon matters.

    In 1844, the Court in New York (Lynch v. Clarke) said it was universally understood that a political candidate’s parents’ citizenship was never a concern in elections. And, it wasn’t a concern in this election, either. No one asked if Michael Dukakis’ parents had obtained US citizenship when he was born in 1933, nor did they ask whether his parents had renounced their Greek citizenship. Taking US citizenship does not extinguish Greek citizenship, and anyone born to a Greek citizen, anywhere in the world, is a Greek citizen. If they had renounced their citizenship, Dukakis could have received Greek citizenship upon the filing of an application to the Greek government.

  29. avatar
    Rita December 11, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    DCBiker – you talk about “allegiance derived from the circumstances of birth” and essentially say that anyone who has any kind of a tie to another country should be excluded. I’ll leave some of the legal arguments and give you this hypothetical:

    Two people, a man and a woman, are born in another country, a country where speaking English is not the norm. However, they grow up speaking English very fluently. The man’s relatives worked for a British company. Both of them get into an MBA program, even though the woman is one of the few women in the program. When they meet each other, they are very “American” for their country – for example, she wears American clothes, he is a drummer in a Beatles cover band. They marry and have some kids, some of them born in the foreign country, one of them born in the U.S. They only speak English to their kids – in fact, the kid born in the U.S. doesn’t even initially know the proper name of their native language, and hasn’t been back to the “mother country”. The child born in the U.S. doesn’t know how to speak the language. They have now been living in the U.S. for decades. Now, tell me, leaving aside the fact that the case law doesn’t differentiate between native-born and natural-born, does the child born in the U.S. in this hypothetical have ANY allegiance or ties to the “mother country”?

  30. avatar
    G December 11, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    Very good points (as usual) Dr. Conspiracy!

    You are correct that the Bible has been interpreted and edited many times in the past and yes, political motivations were often behind it.

    However, many are arguing that the folks at Conservapedia, who are behind the latest “edits” are taking such political /ideological editing to a whole new level. (Which I find both extremely ironic (as I posted above) plus fairly sinister.

    Here are some good links to articles on the issue:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/1207/p09s04-coop.html

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/143126/conservative_bible_project_aims_to_delete_%27liberal_bias%27_from_the_bible/

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

    http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/12/04/2009-12-04_conservative_bible_project_aims_to_rewrite_scripture_to_reflect_conservative_val.html

    Personally, I find their need to “Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning ” to be the most bizarre and entertaining need to somehow co-opt corporate GOP strategies into their Biblical worldview.

  31. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    You must not have read Wong Kim Ark, then. Judge Gray spends at least 10 pages (pp. 655-666) discussing the descent of our citizenship laws specifically the constant and unchanged meaning of natural born. Take that out, and the decision doesn’t stand up.

    Let me break it down for you:

    Part II of the decision – “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King.” The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

    Part III of the Decision – “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    Are you unclear on what rule we’re talking about? The Court wasn’t unclear in US v. Rhodes:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    It’s this unchanging definition of natural born that makes Wong Kim a citizen. The court doesn’t say natural born citizen for the simple reason that it, unlike you, was not operating under the delusional misapprehension that there was some third type of citizen – neither natural born, nor naturalized – those born here but not natural born citizens. Everyone involved in the case realized that if WKA was a citizen, he was a natural born citizen. That’s why the losing side argued, as their capstone argument, that allowing him to be a citizen would allow him to run for President!

    And, just in case you’re curious, in Part IV of the case, Justice Gray demolishes your argument that natural born was meant to mean those born to American citizens. The losing side in that case argued that the Founders were concerned with the parents’ citizenship (jus sanguinis).

    The law of 1790 added to the definition of natural born. It is not evidence that the Founders looked to parental citizenship more than place of birth, in fact, it is stronger evidence for the counter position.

    But, anyway, another clue that you haven’t actually read Wong Kim Ark is that you are parroting Leo’s misquote of the Court’s holding:

    The court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark said that Wong Kim Ark was just as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. The court did not say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

    That’s actually not what they said. Here’s what the court really said:

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

    When you actually get around to reading Wong Kim Ark, you’ll see there is no possible conclusion to draw other than that the court DID say that WKA was a natural born citizen. It did so by saying, explicitly, that natural born whether prefacing subject or citizen means exactly the same thing, that WKA would have been a natural born subject under British law, and therefore, he’s a natural born citizen under American law, by operation of the same principle!

    It’s not, as some have suggested, dicta. Dicta is something you can excise from a case and still have a decision. This is ratio decidendi – a reason for the decision!

    It would be like me arguing:

    If A, then B
    If B, then C
    If C, then D
    A, therefore D

    Take out any of those terms and the validity of the argument goes away. If natural born citizen weren’t the functional equivalent of natural born subject, WKA is still an alien.

  32. avatar
    NbC December 11, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    However, native born is not the same as natural born and it’s not the standard required by the Constitution.

    You are correct, native born would include children born to ambassadors or invading military, which are typically omitted from the definition of natural born.
    The Courts do not advise on Constitutional Law unless there is a case or controversy. There is none.
    Congress attempted to enact Quo Warranto to remove an elected President and failed, arguing that Quo Warranto cannot be used constitutionally to remove an elected President.

    Your turn

  33. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    The president’s religion is not a constitutional question. Kennedy’s allegiance (or lack thereof) to the Pope, a foreign sovereign, was rightly questioned. He was not born under the protection of or with that allegiance to that sovereign, and therefore was Constitutionally qualified to be president.

    The First Circuit Court opinion Lynch v Clarke (1844) must be viewed in light of the subsequent Supreme Court opinion Minor v. Happerset (1874). The Supreme Court said children born in a country of parents who are its citizens are citizens BECAUSE they are natural born citizens. Throughout history lesser authorities have made claims about the definition of natural born citizen, but Minor v. Happerset is the only SCOTUS opinion that provides an operative definition. The Supreme Court did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. There are no statutes in US code that use the term natural born citizen (after the NA1790 was amended). Perhaps others are natural born citizens too, but SCOTUS has yet to declare it so.

    Michael Dukakis’ parents were widely known to have been naturalized US citizens. If you have ANY evidence to the contrary, please, please submit this. Naturalization in the United States requires, “renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince…”

    Michael Dukakis was not at birth a Greek citizen. He inherited no protection or allegiance from Greece upon his birth to two US citizens.

    Even if Dukakis had applied to the Greek government for citizenship, it would not have changed the fact that he was a natural born citizen of the United States. Perhaps the voters might have found it unseemly, but his Constitutional qualification would have been unchanged.

    To the contrary, Chester Arthur went to great lengths to hide his father’s Irish citizenship when Chester was born. He destroyed family documents, lied about his date of birth. Only recently has it been learned that Chester Arther did not naturalize as a US citizen until years after Chester was born. Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen – but no one knew it at the time, except Chester.

  34. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    If two foreigners have a child, presumably that child would at least be born under the protection and allegiance of the foreign sovereign, regardless of the place of birth. If born in the US, the child would be a US citizen from birth. I cannot find any interpretation of the Constitution that leads me to conclude that those children would be natural born citizens of the United States. Perhaps they would be, but this SCOTUS has yet to say so. This is very similar to the unsettled question of Constitutional law that surrounds the eligibility of Barack Obama, who was born in Honolulu under the allegiance of the British Crown. (See fightthesmears.com)

  35. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    Let’s cut through the nonsense, John:

    The point of an election is to air everything good and bad about the candidates and let the VOTERS decide. Then in the case of the President there is the additional layer of the Electoral College and Congressional validation. Barack Obama went through all that and is the legitimate President. If you think anyone who matters is about to overturn all that on the basis of FACTS THAT WERE WELL KNOWN BEFORE THE ELECTION, you must have fallen off your bike and hit your head (sans helmet). Ain’t gonna happen. I will gladly bet a Benjamin that it won’t happen but I have yet to find anyone on your side who believes their own nonsense enough to take my bet. What say you Johnnie-boy? Put your money where your mouth is???

  36. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Naturalization of Greek citizens in the United States does not destroy the Greek citizenship. A child born to a US citizen who has not affirmatively renounced his/her Greek citizenship is born a dual citizen – US and Greek. And the renunciation in the oath of US citizenship is not enough – the Greek Government has to accept the renunciation! (And they uniformly reject the renunciations made in rote oaths, just as the United States rejects renunciations of its citizenship made in oaths of allegiance to other countries.)

    Greeks who gain other citizenships do not lose their Greek citizenship

    A Greek will lose his Greek citizenship only if he/she officially renounces the Greek citizenship and this is accepted by the Greek state, or if he/she obtains the citizenship of another country after a permit granted by the Hellenic Republic.

    The conclusion is that a Greek who obtains the American, Australian, Canadian etc. citizenship, does not lose his Greek citizenship, unless he has received a specific permit by the Greek state, which happens very rarely, if at all.

    And you’re just wrong about the effect of WKA. Minor v. Happersett never says that Mrs. Minor is a natural born citizen. It says that women, in general, born to citizen parents are natural born citizens.

    Minor’s definition of NBC is not central to its holding that voting is not essential to citizenship. It is pure dicta.

    WKA defined natural born citizen to be exactly the same as natural born subject! It was a central holding of the case, without it, WKA doesn’t become a citizen of any sort. It was not dicta!

    WKA didn’t say, explicitly, that WKA was a natural born citizen because it didn’t feel it needed to. No one thought there was some third type of citizen!

    In your fantasy-land, there is a subset of citizens who are born here but are ineligible to be President because they are not natural born citizens.

    There is simply no evidence that this third subset existed. You and Leo keep pointing to the “as much a citizen” part of the decision and you torture the English language to come to the conclusion that this implies that third category. Well, Justice Gray was intimately familiar with Binney’s pamphlet that he was quoting (he even pointed out that the part he was quoting was not in the version printed in the law journals). It’s Binney’s pamphlet that this “as much a citizen as,” language comes from. But, reading the pamphlet, one finds that not even Binney thought there was a third category of citizen:

    The state of the law in the United States is easily deduced. The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and never was any such common law principle. There is not and never was any such common law principle. But the common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution, and at the adoption of the Constituion; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution, or since that time, by virtue of an Act of the Congress of the United States.

    There are two, and only two, types of citizen: Naturalized and Natural Born.

    WKA was not a naturalized citizen. He was a citizen.

    You want to create a new class of citizen, and there is simply no evidence that any authority, ever, has imagined this class!

  37. avatar
    Rita December 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    As Greg and others have so kindly pointed out, case law such as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has said birth and allegiance are intertwined and that just like those born in the realm of the English King are natural born subjects, those born within the U.S. are natural born citizens (with a few exceptions not relevant here).

    In any case, note that I was leaving aside legal/Constitutional discussions. I focused solely on the fact that you went on and on about Obama’s lack of allegiance because his father was Kenyan – even though Obama barely met him. I was simply pointing out one of the many situations where U.S.-born citizens have ultimate allegiance to this country, and no ties to another country, even though their parents are foreign-born. The Founders were not stupid men, and they knew this to be true as well.

  38. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    British citizens, British Overseas Citizens and British Overseas Territorial Citizens do not lose their citizenship if they take a new country’s citizenship. (Even if that country has an oath that requires renunciation of other citizenships.) Therefore, even if Obama’s dad had naturalized here, Obama would have been born a dual citizen.

    In the past, this jus sanguinis extended to grandchildren, so Obama’s children could also have been considered dual citizens, even though there is no question that both Obama and Michelle are citizens.

    Other countries extend jus sanguinis citizenship indefinitely – to infinite generations. So, a child could be born to 7th generation US citizens and still be a dual citizen.

  39. avatar
    Rita December 11, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    Oh, and in addition President obama wasn’t born under the allegiance of the British crown, as he wasn’t technically a British citizen until he walked into a British consulate, renounced his American citizenship and became a British citizen. It was only an option available to him, an option he never executed. He officially renounced his “British allegiance”. As has been stated multiple times, case law also suggests that birth and allegiance are linked – considering that President Obama was born in the U.S. and not in England, using the reasoning of the courts he would have allegiance to the U.S. and not England.

  40. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    You’re correct, Rita. For the purposes of Wong Kim Ark, allegiance is simply born here.

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    Since “born here” means allegiance for the 14th Amendment, WKA is a citizen. And since “born here” means allegiance for the definition of natural born citizen, WKA is a natural born citizen. So is Obama, regardless of whether other countries consider him a citizen, too.

  41. avatar
    SFJeff December 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    DCBikerJohn- first of all its is apparent that you are not a true Birther- because you can spell and write complete sentences. I disagree with you, but I appreciate that you are polite and write clearly.

    On to the points:
    “it’s technically possible. There’s no way the framers of the Constitution intended for this to happen, which is why it cannot happen according to the Constitution.”

    Framers intent is a scary road to go down. I am confident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for any Black man to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, nor that any woman would be eligible to be President.

    Aside from that, this whole dual allegiance issue is not and has not been the generally accepted definition of Natural Born Citizen. It isn’t what I was taught in school, and clearly isn’t what the majority of voters understood when they elected the President.

    Far from being an “ursurper”, President Obama is the legally elected and confirmed President of the United States. Elected by voters, voted in by the Electoral College, confirmed by Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    Why is it do you think that you have the true understanding of what the Constitution means by “Natural Born Citizen”, rather than 60 million voters, the Electoral College members, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts?

    Your efforts is just one of many attempts to not only remove our first African American President from office, but to discredit him by labelling him ‘foreign’.

    If your issue was the only issue being raised to attempt to remove the President, I might give some credence to your motives, but yours is just one of many theories- all designed to remove that Black man from the White House. Lets list some of them:
    a) where is the BC?
    b) born in Kenya
    c) dual allegiance
    d) adopted in Indonesia- became a child Indonesian citizen
    e) 2 U.S. citizen parents required.
    f) born in Canada
    g) mother too young to confer citizenship.
    h) father was a defacto diplomat(one of my personal favorites).

    For me, this is indicative that people who just can’t accept that a Black man with a Muslim/African name is in the White House or is a “true American”

  42. avatar
    misha December 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    “wouldn’t Prince William need to abdicate to marry an American?”

    See the Duke Of Windsor, and Wallis Simpson.

  43. avatar
    Mary Brown December 11, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Actually not so much. Many of the folks I know will not go near this. One person I talked with was interested but when they realized passages and verses would be deleted they became quite negative. People who hold these deep convictions, will I believe, hold to them.

  44. avatar
    red red rose December 11, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    DCBikerJohn, I think you are right.
    Before the 14th amendment, some states did not allow a child born in the US of a transient alien to be a citizen of the State, and they were therefore not a citizen of the United States. How does the argument that everyone born in the US was always a natural born citizen hold up to that fact?

    “Minor’s definition of NBC is not central to its holding that voting is not essential to citizenship. It is pure dicta.”
    Minor claimed that as a citizen, she had the right to vote.
    Minor was born before that passage of the 14th amendment, so the court had to determine if she was a citizen or not, before they could address the voting issue. That she was indeed a citizen, and a natural born citizen because she was born in the country of parents that were citizens, is part of the holding of that case.

  45. avatar
    Black Lion December 11, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    Here is an interesting article regarding the 1961 birth announcements of President Obama….From all places the “Post and Fail” site by our buddy John Charlton…

    “(Dec. 11, 2009) — The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.”

    So they finally come around to believing that the birth announcements are real…Of course that comes with caveats…Especially regarding the President’s mother…

    “One thing is certain about Obama: the verification of the authenticity of the birth annoucment now establishes with greater certainty the legal paternity of Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., over the child Barry. It does not provide evidence, in-and-of-itself, as to who the mother was, or whether the birth was recorded on account of a filing made by a hospital in the regular course of activities, or was triggered by an at-home-birth filing by Obama’s natural parents or relatives.”

    And then that leads to the usual mis-statement of facts that Charlton likes to push on his site….

    “The confirmation that a British subject was the legal, declared father of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., establishes more firmly the charge that he is ineligible for office, since to be president the U.S. Constitution requires that one be a natural born citizen, and no natural born citizen can have a foreigner as a parent.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/11/obamas-birth-announcement-in-1961-confirmed/

    And of course the comments are the most entertaining…

    12th Generation AMERICAN says:
    December 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM
    Can Maya Soetoro pass the DNA test as Barry/BarackJr.’s half sister?!?! This would answer one BIG question as to whether Ann Dunham is Barry’s real mother. Fair question I believe given the doubts brought forth so far?!?!!?
    The validity of the annoucement only goes to further prove Obama’s ineligibility on the grounds of not being a natural born citizen?!!??

    Really? Or this one…

    syc1959 says:
    December 11, 2009 at 8:40 AM
    Being born in Hawaii is NOT the issue. Obama is not qualified as a Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution. The newspaper announcement are not proof that he was even born in Hawaii, just that a birth took place, not to where or when. Just like the forged COLB, there is no witnesses, doctor, or other vitals.

    It is good to see our buddy Steve Cee,(or Christensen), aka Sync1959 is still pushing his forgery theory….Or this one…

    P. Barnett says:
    December 11, 2009 at 4:16 AM
    I won’t believe it until it is testified to in court that it is authentic … I can go by Berkely myself.. thanks for letting me know that it is there.

    Like you said though, it doesn’t really matter because the announcement could have been triggered by the grandma filing paperwork for a foreign birth.. Who knows if Ann Dunham was his bio mother… Obama looks exactly like his brother living in China who supposedly has a different mother.

    Also, remember that there is an affidavit out there that states the Obama’s (Ann and Barrack Sr.) weren’t living at the address according to a neighbor that said she would have remembered a bi-racial couple and baby next door.

    Good old Pam Barnett is still one unhappy lady…The birthers are a small core group of unhappy people…

  46. avatar
    Black Lion December 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    If you read the article this is how Leo explains why he things he has a case…After reading that it is obvious that he doesn’t have a clue…To think that the court will allow him to demand what authority was used and parlay that into an ability to compel documentation from the President is ridiculous. Leo is delusional…

    As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.

    The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.

    If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.

    Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are the former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.

    The goal is “to get them restored,” he said, and “put them back where they were before their contracts were rejected.”

    “Our clients are not in this action as birthers,’” he said, citing a term used for people who question Obama’s constitutional eligibility. “Our clients are here to seek redress for wrongs.”

    But the case may open doors that have been closed in other disputes over Obama’s eligibility. Most previous cases, at one point or another, have been dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have “standing” – they have not suffered direct injury for which they have a reasonable expectation of seeking redress.

    In the case of the dealers, they have suffered financial loss because of circumstances that developed with the government’s intervention in the auto industry.

  47. avatar
    Jez December 11, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    No he wouldn’t need to abdicate to marry an American. Just if she was a divorcee. Church of England rules.

  48. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    No, it was not in dispute that she was a citizen.

    There is no doubt that women may be citizens.

    The only issue before the court was whether voting was a central part of citizenship. The court did not need to determine that she was a natural born citizen, versus “just” a citizen.

    Maybe you should bone up on the difference between dicta and holding.

    Here’s a clue, the case would not have come out any differently if she had been a naturalized citizen.

  49. avatar
    SFJeff December 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    What I love about all of these doubts about everything, is how they cherry pick what they want to doubt.

    They don’t doubt that Barrack Obama Sr. was the father but do doubt that Ann Durham was the mother. They propose a DNA test on Obama’s half sister to determine whether Obama’s mother is really an American, but wouldn’t doubt that Maya is Ann Durham’s mother.

    And most importantly, they don’t believe any documentation, yet somehow blindly accepted that Bush and Clinton were eligible to be President.

  50. avatar
    ballantine December 11, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    “Before the 14th amendment, some states did not allow a child born in the US of a transient alien to be a citizen of the State, and they were therefore not a citizen of the United States. How does the argument that everyone born in the US was always a natural born citizen hold up to that fact?”

    Don’t understand your point. Are you suggesting that the states could change the definition of natural born citizen and we would have mulitple different meanings? For the original understanding of the definition of NBC, you need to look at state law at the time of the founding where all states followed the english common law rules. It wasn’t until much later than some authorities argued the common law excluded transient aliens. This was never a majority view. Regardless, no authorities I am aware of thought the states could change the definition of natural-born american citizenship. For example, the leading pre-14th amendment cases on the issue. Lynch v. Clark and Dred Scott specifially rejected the notion that state law could define national citizenship. The 39th congress did not disagree with this as they thought they were codifying existing law and no one in the debates that I am aware of thought the states could define national citizenship.

  51. avatar
    SFJeff December 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    Greg- I just re-read your post- extremely well written and you made several points I had never considered or known about.

    Thanks

  52. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Before the 14th amendment, some states did not allow a child born in the US of a transient alien to be a citizen of the State, and they were therefore not a citizen of the United States.

    The first part of your statement does not lead to the second part of your statement. Prior to the 14th Amendment, State and Federal citizenship were two separate beasts. See for example, Dred Scott, which held that regardless of what a state ruled about slaves, people of African descent could not be Federal citizens.

    In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States.

    It was the 14th Amendment which collapsed state and Federal citizenship into the same notion.

    “Natural born,” had a specific meaning at the founding. The Founders knew what those words meant. They knew how to change the meaning of words they didn’t like (treason) and there were words we know they didn’t change (Letters of Marque).

    That a person could be born in California and be a natural born (Federal) citizen but not a California citizen meant only that he was not eligible for the privileges of California citizenship.

    In part, it was this discrepancy which the 14th Amendment was written to address.

    This is the fundamental history of citizenship and the 14th amendment. If you’re going to argue about the meaning of the Constitution and the 14th amendment, you should probably know some of this!

  53. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    It is difficult to measure a person’s allegiance to a foreign sovereign. The framers of the Constitution knew one objective test: allegiance at birth.

    The framers did not intend a situation where a British subject at birth would be eligible to the presidency, except those who were born before the adoption of the Constitution. Those born after the adoption of the Constitution who were British at birth are ineligible.

  54. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    President Obama may have renounced his British allegiance. That does not change the circumstances of his birth.

  55. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 11, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    The Court said that Mr. Wong was as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. The Court did not say that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen of the United States. The two are hardly the same.

  56. avatar
    SFJeff December 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    DCBiker- I find your contention that other countries laws govern who can be U.S. President. You assert that anyone who is by circumstances of birth born both a U.S. citizen and a foreign citizen is not a natural born citizen.

    Under your interpretation of the Constitution, a country such as North Korea, that fundamentally disagrees with the United States form of government could simply pass a law making anyone born in the United States a citizen of Korea, and within a generation or two there would be no American citizen eligible to be President.

    Again the point being- under your interpretation other countries would determine who was eligible to be a U.S. citizen, not U.S. voters. Somehow I think the writers of the Constitution didn’t intend for that.

  57. avatar
    aarrgghh December 11, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    DCBikerJohn:

    The Court said that Mr. Wong was as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. The Court did not say that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen of the United States. The two are hardly the same.

    so,

    2 + 3 is as much as 3 + 2

    but

    2 + 3 ≠ 3 + 2

    hardly the same. got it, everybody?

    hardly an original argument.

  58. avatar
    misha December 11, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    “Church of England rules.”

    I like house rules in a French restaurant better. (bada-bing)

    That’s all, folks.

  59. avatar
    Scientist December 11, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    Johnny, Johnny, Johnny-I noticed you ducked my offer to bet $100. It seems you aren’t confident that your arguments will prevail. Probably wise, my friend, as the election is OVER and no one, neither judges nor courts is going to re-open it. They, unlike you poor birthers, are looking forward, not backward.

    All your arguments are like rehashing a call the umpires made in some World Series from your childhood. A diversion on a cold winter night, but it ain’t gonna change the outcome. Nope, this ball game is OVER.

  60. avatar
    misha December 11, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    @DCBikerJohn:

    Read this: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html

    I used to live in Gaithersburg, and I ride a Rebel. You make me embarrassed on both counts. Outside of Montgomery County, Fairfax County, and Arlington, DC is a wasteland.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    The point that the Court made in Wong (and this applies to your three comments) is that the jurisdiction of the United States is absolute within its borders, and so Wong, even though the Emperor of China might have claimed him as his subject, was completely under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore a citizen. The rest of the argument and citations in Wong make it clear that the language natural born citizen also applies.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:01 pm #

    So Spiro Agnew (Vice President) was likely a dual citizen at birth.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    DCBikerJohn: I cannot find any interpretation of the Constitution that leads me to conclude that those children would be natural born citizens of the United States.

    Your lack of research is not evidence. Go read this:

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

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    DCBikerJohn: Minor v. Happerset is the only SCOTUS opinion that provides an operative definition.

    But it did not provide a definition. If I were to say “everyone born before 1860 is dead today”, I am not defining “dead today”, only identifying one class of persons who are dead today. The same is true of your so-called “definition” from Minor.

    Your comment about Chester Arthur, “Chester Arthur went to great lengths to hide his father’s Irish citizenship when Chester was born” is historically false. He said he was ONE YEAR younger than he really was (how does that hide his father’s citizenship???) and burned personal papers just before he died (not when he was running for office). There is evidence that the naturalization status of Arthur’s father was known at the time. Can you give any evidence that it was not known?

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    I think you should do some independent research (and I emphasize independent). As I read your comments, I see things that are repeated from other web sites that are flat not true. You made a remark about Chester Arthur. How many Arthur biographies have you read? I read one. How many contemporary New York newspaper articles have you read? I spent an afternoon at the library reading microfilm. How many original sources have you read? I got Arthur opponent A. P. Hinman’s book through interlibrary loan because there was no copy on the Internet, and scanned it and put it on this web site. How many books on the history of American citizenship have you read? I read a very thick one.

    I spent literally days scanning results from WestLaw searches on every mention of “natural born citizen” in the federal court system. I poured over old colonial laws for hours on end.

    If you want to talk sense, and speak with some authority, don’t come in here parroting some birther web site. Go take a month off and learn what you’re talking about. There are a few hundred well-researched articles on this site, not to mention the commentary by lawyers who frequent here, but I wouldn’t ask you to take my word for anything. Go read for yourself.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    The key concept is the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient”. What the 1790 Act says is that a US citizen father is sufficient to be a natural born citizen. It does not say that it is necessary. The Act extended natural born citizenship to children born overseas to citizens. That is citizenship was extended beyond place.

    You seem to have a habit of citing that one sentence from Wong. I suggest you read the rest of it SLOWLY.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    DCBikerJohn: They were good questions, but unfounded

    This is the essential error of birthers: they think foundationless questions are good.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    It depends on how old he was when he ran for president.

  69. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    A. The court did not say that. They quoted Binney who said that. They quoted Binney in a longer sentence, out of which, and out of context you have taken the “as much a citizen as” part:

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.“

    You have to take the Binney and the Lord Coke quotes together. The child of an alien becomes a citizen the same way here in the United States as in England, by birth and becoming a natural born citizen.

    B. There is no evidence that anyone thought there was a third category of citizen. Binney, where the “as much a citizen as” quote comes from certainly didn’t think there were three types of citizen. You’d know this if you read what I’d written.

    WKA was declared a natural born citizen. He was only a citizen because “natural born citizen” meant the exact same thing as “natural born subject.” Since WKA would have been a natural born subject, he is therefore a citizen. Since he was not a naturalized citizen and there are only two types of citizen, he is a natural born citizen.

  70. avatar
    NbC December 11, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    What you fail to realize is that a child can elect which birth right citizenship he will continue. Obama clearly chose his US natural born status.

  71. avatar
    Greg December 11, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    Speaking of Spiro Agnew, in the 1968 Presidential election, you had Humphrie and Muskie versus Nixon and Agnew.

    Edmund Sixtus Muskie was the son of Stephen Marciszewski who emigrated from Poland at the age of 18. Poland is a strict jus sanguinis country that does not recognize dual citizenship. Citizens of Poland can only lose their citizenship with a petition of the government with extensive documentation. Here’s what Wikipedia says:

    Poland treats nationals of other countries whom it considers Polish citizens as if they were solely Polish. Because Polish citizenship is determined by the citizenship of a Polish parent – without any explicit limitation for the number of generations elapsed abroad for descendants of Polish emigrants – this may create problems for individuals of Polish descent born abroad who, in spite of having no ties to Poland, are nevertheless subject to all obligations of Polish citizenship, formerly including military service…

    Children of people who used to be Polish who go to Poland won’t be protected by their home nation’s consulate unless there is a treaty specifically on that point. The US negotiated such a treaty with Poland in 1972. Under that treaty, people who travel to Poland with a US passport will for the time the visa is valid be considered US citizens.

    So, in the 1968 election we had a VP candidate who was definitely a dual citizen (US/Polish) and one who was probably a dual citizen (US/Greek). One of the VPs would have been unable to access the US consulate in Poland and could have been required to serve in the Polish military.

  72. avatar
    misha December 11, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Yes, but they were white. Important difference.

  73. avatar
    chufho December 12, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    The dealers may have a difficult time proving that they suffered harm as the result of government action (since they would have lost their dealerships in a bankruptcy whether or not the government had intervened.(This is wrong as Chrysler would have to deal with each states franchise laws with each dealership and would have been required to pay each dealer according to each states laws.This was not simply a federal case but would have had to have been done in each state they had franchise contracts in.

  74. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 3:23 am #

    Greg and ballantine,

    The Founders knew that the States had and would have their own laws on how they defined their own citizens. They also knew that the States had their own laws on how they naturalized aliens. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 791 (1866). They also knew that these citizenship and naturalization laws were not uniform among the several States. The Founders in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 gave Congress the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. Naturally, the Founders also wanted a uniform definition of what a national “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” would be. The Framers abandoned state law as a basis to define in the future national citizenship in the new nation and substituted in its place a uniform national law. Both Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 538 (N.Y. 1844) (a state law case involving inheritance rights in the State of New York) and Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) confirm this in that both decisions specifically rejected the notion that state law could define national citizenship and therefore recognized that national citizenship is defined by federal law and not by any other conflicting state law.

    In Scott v. Sanford, the United States Supreme Court explained:

    “In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

    It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.”
    Id. 60 U.S. at 405-06.”

    As we can see from the above quote, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott stated that the several states after the adoption of the Constitution did not have the authority to define national citizenship in the new nation. Hence, what the Supreme Court stated in Dred Scott also shows that the holding of Lynch v. Clarke is limited only to the State of New York and does not and cannot define national citizenship. In fact, notwithstanding that Lynch recognized that national citizenship was defined by an unwritten uniform national law, Lynch explained that because there was no express New York State legislation on the question of who are aliens and who are citizens, the court went ahead and relied on the old English common law to declare what the New York State law was on the subject. The court ruled that Julia Lynch, born in New York to alien parents who were temporarily sojourning there and were therefore not permanent residents thereof and who took the infant child back to Ireland with them, was “by the law of the United States” (by inference it decided that that law was the old English common law that prevailed in the colonies) and for purposes of inheriting land in New York a “natural born citizen.” It should be noted that after the Lynch case was decided, the New York State legislature overruled it by passing a statue that provided:

    “Political Code of the State of New York (1860)
    Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:
    1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
    2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state. http://tiny.cc/NewYorkCode

    Dred Scott also recognized that the law of nations provided uniformity to national citizenship and defined the rights that attached to it. Indeed, the law of nations provided the Framers with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a standard for national citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of U.S. national law. Hence, in order to achieve uniformity in the law of national citizenship, the Framers abandoned the state definitions for citizenship based on English common law and replaced them with new uniform definitions based on natural law and the law of nations which they adopted as the law that defined national citizenship. This new national law or federal common law and not the English common law therefore defined both what a national “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” was following the adoption of the Constitution.

    Throughout American history, there has never been any doubt as to what a national “natural born Citizen” was under this new federal common law. Because of the doubts regarding what a “citizen of the United States” was, and especially because of how those doubts caused blacks to be denied that citizenship as Dred Scott ruled, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the constitutional rule adopted by Dred Scott that blacks, free or otherwise, were not members of the Founding society and therefore could not be “citizens of the United States.” This amendment only defined born and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” These were the same “citizens of the United States” which the Framers grandfathered to be President in Article II. Hence, after the Fourteenth Amendment, we still had two classes of citizens as we did at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, “citizens of the United States” found in Article I, II, III, IV and “natural born Citizens” found in Article II. The Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to nor did it alter or amend the federal common law definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. As we have seen, that definition, as confirmed by several United States Supreme Court cases, was a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is an objective status acquired at birth and cannot be gained later in life regardless of one’s subjective circumstances. There is not one United States Supreme Court case or Congressional Act which defines a “natural born citizen” in any other way. There was also no need for the Framers to provide this definition in the Constitution or to even announce to the world that they were using that definition because under all principles of law– whether natural law, law of nations, public law, civil law, or English common law– the children born in the country of citizen parents were “natural born citizens.”

  75. avatar
    brygenon December 12, 2009 at 4:32 am #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo: In Scott v. Sanford, the United States Supreme Court explained:

    Yes, Mario is actually citing Scott v. Sanford, better known as the Dred Scott Decision. It was overturned by 14’th Amendment and subsequent rulings, and is widely regarded as the worst U.S. Supreme Court decision ever.

    Why would anyone want the lawyer who lost Kerchner v. Obama to define “natural born citizen” when they can simply look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary, as a competent lawyer would do.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

  76. avatar
    misha December 12, 2009 at 7:53 am #

    “Yes, Mario is actually citing Scott v. Sanford, better known as the Dred Scott Decision…and is widely regarded as the worst U.S. Supreme Court decision ever.”

    Hey Mario: There’s been an accident on the Jersey Pike.

  77. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 7:58 am #

    Lynch explained that because there was no express New York State legislation on the question of who are aliens and who are citizens, the court went ahead and relied on the old English common law

    It’s statements like this that convince me that either you haven’t read Lynch or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

    Lynch did not rely on the “old” English common law, it explicitly found that the old English common law was the common law of this nation. It had been adopted by each and every of the 13 colonies.

    It wasn’t limited by Dred Scott to New York alone because its reasoning applied to all of the colonies. It discovered the common law of the United States, not just the common law of New York.

    You are right that there was no need for the Supreme Court to explicitly expound on the definition of natural born citizen, it had, since the 1300s been clear what it meant. Natural born was a standard phrase.

    Born here, regardless of parental citizenship.

    There is not one United States Supreme Court case or Congressional Act which defines “natural born citizen” in any different way.

    There is not one United States Supreme Court case or Congressional Act which suggests there can be another type of citizen – born here but not natural born.

    To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

    (As to your citation of Dred Scott about the impact of state laws on Federal citizenship, that is exactly what I said to red red rose. I’m not sure why you think that helps your case – prior to the 1850s there was not a single state that forbade citizenship to the children of aliens.)

  78. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 8:32 am #

    As I explained to red red rose and DCBiker, the key to Wong Kim Ark was the unchanging definition of natural born citizen. WKA cited US v. Rhodes:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.

    What does “in the allegiance” mean? Go to the oft-mis-quoted (by Donofrio) paragraph that ends “as much a citizen as…”

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    Being here, not even permanently, but simply domiciled (living) here, is sufficiently within our jurisdiction. Was Obama Sr. living in the States? He rented an apartment. He was a student here. He had a domicile here.

    There has been no question since WKA that much less connection to the US than Obama Sr. exhibited is sufficient to confer status – it is now universally accepted that anyone born here to parents who are legal aliens is a natural born citizen. (The vast majority of legal scholars are also convinced that natural born sweeps in all those born of illegal aliens – thus the phenomenon of anchor babies and the attempts to amend the Constitution and the misguided attempts to redefine natural born via Congressional action.)

    Further, there is nothing in WKA that suggests a requirement of two citizen parents. The fact that Obama’s mother was a citizen would be sufficient to make him a natural born citizen even if his father were a diplomat or sovereign or illegal alien.

  79. avatar
    Lupin December 12, 2009 at 9:18 am #

    I keep saying that Mario is doing all this to advance the KKK’s (or like-minded organizations) legal agenda, and I think this goes a long way to prove it.

  80. avatar
    Scientist December 12, 2009 at 9:19 am #

    Mario is nothing but a poseur. He sits here on a message board arguing outdated and discredited rulings. Meanwhile, while Mario was diddling himself, only a month ago a real court, the Indiana Court of Appeals, actually did what all the birthers claim they want-defined natural born citizen. Unfortunately for them, it did so as the majority of us here would have predicted. By the way, Indiana is hardly a bastion of wild-eyed liberalism. Now Mario’s excuse is that the case involved pro se plaintiffs (though if you read their brief it actually made the bogus “citizen parent” case no more foolishly than Mario’s own postings). So why doesn’t Mario hop on the next flight out of Newark to Indy and see if he can get admitted pro hac vice to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court? He could maybe even get tickets to a Colts game while he’s there. No he’d rather waste his time arguing with us here, rether than lose another one in court

    Or perhaps he knows the truth-that like the determination of whether an official committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” with regard to impeachment, it is Congress that decides whether a particular President-elect is qualified. In that decision they consider a number of factors, including whether he actually won the vote and his eligibility. In Barack Obama’s case, without objection they agreed he was. And that decision, like impeachment, is not reviewable by the courts. Poor, poor Mario, his “case” became moot almost a year ago and he missed the news….

  81. avatar
    Lupin December 12, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    “…and the attempts to amend the Constitution and the misguided attempts to redefine natural born via Congressional action…”

    Jackpot!

    I keep saying that’s exactly what Mario’s not so hidden agenda is (with zero likelihood of success IMHO) — it the agenda of white / christian supremacist organizations.

  82. avatar
    Lupin December 12, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    The Indonesians have just erected a statue of 10-year-old Obama in a spot near where his old high school used to be:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/obama-statue-erected-in-j_n_385434.html

    Note the delicate addition of a crumpled birth certificate in young Obama’s right hand, and the soaring pose suggesting than any child from NotWhitestan can grow up to become President of the United States.

    The panting you hear in the b.g. is Mario having an orgasm.

  83. avatar
    Lupin December 12, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    “As we have seen, that definition, as confirmed by several United States Supreme Court cases, was a child born in the country to citizen parents.”

    Meaning that one citizen parent is enough.

    And BTW, Vattel said “children” (plural) not “child” (singular), so by your logic no single child could even be a NBC; it would have to be “children”, i.e.: twins.

    Your use of the Law of Nations to bolster your ridiculous argument is pathetic.

  84. avatar
    kimba December 12, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    I thought that was the Indonesian passport he used to get into Pakistan!

    The inscription even starts “A boy named Barry..”

    All kidding aside, I think it is a lovely little statue.

  85. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    brygenon,

    You are a fool!

  86. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Lupin,

    Why do you continue to hide behind your extreme political views? Why do you not just for once make a cogent legal argument?

  87. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    misha,

    Yes, I know. You were DWI (dumb-witted intellectual).

  88. avatar
    Dick Whitman December 12, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    He’s an Indonesian Refugee traveling with US Documents.

    His grandmother took custody of him when he was presented to the US State Department as an orphaned or abandoned minor in Indonedia with a grandmother in the U.S.

    The US State Department provided assistance to his grandmother because she was a US citizen. Thus, Barry received expedited travel documents, transportation and an adult escort back to the US.

    It’s documented in the US State Department archives.

  89. avatar
    Scientist December 12, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    Sorry, but I feel another musical interlude coming on. This time it’s the still-very-much-with-us James Taylor:

    Country Road

    Take to the highway won’t you lend me your name
    Your way and my way seem to be one and the same
    Mamma don’t understand it
    She wants to know where I’ve been
    I’d have to be some kind of natural born fool
    To want to pass that way again
    But I could feel it
    On a country road

    Now, my question is when Mr Taylor uses the term “natural born fool”, I understand it to mean that he was born a fool, irrespective of the foolishness of his parents.

  90. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    He’s a space alien.

    He’s 150,000 years old.

    He was born to two aliens who had crashed landed on Pangaea in what would become the United States.

    He is the original natural born citizen.

    He is the same guy who became President as Calvin Coolidge, Alexander Hamilton and Richard Nixon.

    It’s all documented in the archives at Area 51.

  91. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    Lupin’s exegesis of the French in Vattel’s Law of Nations has pretty effectively eviscerated your argument that it can be used to support the two citizen parents theory.

    Why do you not make a cogent legal argument against it?

  92. avatar
    Mike December 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    as a competent lawyer would do.

    And therein lies the problem…

  93. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    Greg,

    I know how you and your people here worship at the alter of Lynch v. Clarke and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. I can understand that because those two cases are really the only hope that you have to support your arguments. What your group (strange that none of you are willing to fess up to being lawyers, and forgive me if there is at least one of you who has and I know you have one scientist “nbc” who is out of work on board) does not have in law it supplies in ridicule and ad hominem attacks. I used to play chess with a friend of mine when I was a child. Sometimes he tried to cheat me but I always caught him. He used to say, “cheat a little, win a little.”

    But really, Greg, on Lynch, what is a state court–that is deciding a state issue of whether someone should inherit some land located in the State of New York, who was fortuitously born in New York to alien parents who were temporarily visiting the United States and then who took the less-than-one-year-old baby child back to their foreign country with them where the child continued to live with her parents even up to the time of the inheritance in question, which issue arose because of the common law that was in effect in New York in 1845 which provided that aliens were precluded from inheriting lands in New York–doing finding the common law of the United States (or what it believed was that law) rather than the common law of New York and then applying that “national common law” in a way so as to allow that person to inherit that land in New York. But then, oh, by the way, the court just adds for those who may be interested that not only can this foreigner inherit that New York piece of real estate but she can also be President of the United States. While I am actually making myself laugh while writing this, I do not think the Founders would feel the same.

    The Founders were not around to take any action. But I guess we know what the People of the State of New York thought of the Lynch decision. They tossed it.

  94. avatar
    Mike December 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    Not if she were undivorced – the reason why the Edward VIII had to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson was that she was a divorcée.

    A similar situation pertains with Camilla, Princess of Wales – there was some talk at her marriage to Prince Charles that it would be a morganatic marriage, although this rather petered out. They were married in a civil ceremony, though, which negated (at least for the time being) the possible Constitutional crisis of their marriage.

    Her status should Charles ever ascend to the throne will certainly be up for debate, though – there is and was some discussion that in that event she be given a title along the lines of Princes Consort or similar, not unlike the discussions regarding Prince Philip prior to the 1957 Letters Patent which formally denoted his title.

  95. avatar
    Scientist December 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    I don’t worship any court cases. I think the people ought to be able to choose the President with oversight by their elected representatives. I believe that lawyers and judges get one vote like everybody else and sleasy lawyers who try to overturn elections after the fact should be slapped down hard.

  96. avatar
    Rickey December 12, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    The problem there is that Chrysler would have been liquidated if the government hadn’t stepped in. After secured creditors were paid with Chrysler’s assets, how much would have been left to pay dealers?

    There already have been a number of lawsuits filed by pension funds, etc. which made similar arguments about the government using TARP funds, and to date all of them have been tossed.

  97. avatar
    brygenon December 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: brygenon,

    You are a fool!

    Cry hard, loser!

    Say, remember early on — shortly after your attempt to stay President Obama’s inauguration failed but well before the Court dismissed your suit — you and your client were talking about what a nightmare it would be if you did not get Obama out of office before he appointed a Supreme Court Justice. How are you guys enjoying your nightmare?

  98. avatar
    brygenon December 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: Why do you continue to hide behind your extreme political views? Why do you not just for once make a cogent legal argument?

    Mario, most of us prefer arguments that *win* in court. In other words, not yours.

  99. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 12, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I know how you and your people here worship at the alter of Lynch v. Clarke and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. I can understand that because those two cases are really the only hope that you have to support your arguments.

    It’s called precedent, Mario. It’s what we have and you don’t.

    We keep citing Wong Kim Ark because it is so well-established.

  100. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Do you not worship at the Altar of the Swiss Philosopher Emmerich de Vattel?

    But you forget, and perhaps you are not familiar with these concepts, that in law, precedent guides how the Courts should interpret the law and the Constitution. As such, the findings in Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court clearly explained how natural born refers to the location of birth regardless of the status of the parents, help us understand how this term should be interpreted in a legal context.
    Even Vattel would accept that a child born on US soil to a US citizen, is a natural born US citizen, who when reaching the age of majority can decide whether to continue his natural born citizenship.

    We know that the New York conference on the Constitution replaced natural born with native born to avoid the confusing meaning of natural to refer to manner of birth.

    The legal precedents just do not support any of your musings.

    And the skillful people at ObamaConspiracy expose your position as lacking.
    Quite annoying isn’t it.

  101. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    Wow, Mario, your skills surely are impressive…

  102. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    I understand why you attack Lupin rather than the extremely relevant analysis presented by him that destroys your adherence to Vattel.

    We understand dear Mario… We surely do.

  103. avatar
    red red rose December 12, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Greg: No, it was not in dispute that she was a citizen.

    “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.”

    “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    “In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”

    The court established her citizenship.

  104. avatar
    ballantine December 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    More nonsense.

    “Dred Scott also recognized that the law of nations provided uniformity to national citizenship and defined the rights that attached to it.”

    No, one Justice cited Vattel and he was not defining who was a natural born citizen. Another Justice defined natural born citizen by the English common law rule. The latter was cited by the majority of the supreme court in Wong. The former was cited by no one.

    “Throughout American history, there has never been any doubt as to what a national “natural born Citizen” was under this new federal common law.”

    You are delusional. Name one court that has ever stated that a natural born citizen required parents to be citizens. There are none. Cite one treatise or legal dictionary. There are none. Have you actually done any research. They have all told us to look to the English common law. Trying to claim the common law rule really means Vattal is really pathetic. Point out one authority that says the common law required citizen parents. Doesn’t exist. Have you actually read Wong Kim Ark. The court expressly states that the English common law was our common law and such English rule not only defined “natural born citizen” under the original constutution but also defined the 14th amendment. Can you point to one legal treatise of legal dictionary that disagrees?

    For example, here is what the Heritage Foundation says:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ” Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

    I can list authority here all day conforming to this definition. Can you cite any authority at all to support your theory other than claiming cases citing Vattel for issues unrelated to who is a natural born citizen or citizenship at all somehow represents authority?

  105. avatar
    red red rose December 12, 2009 at 5:46 pm #

    A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States
    By Prentiss Webster (1891)
    http://tiny.cc/CitizenshipLaw1891

    “Their inseparable nature renders the rule necessary, that the child follows the citizenship of the parent, until he reaches the age at which he may elect to remain of the same citizenship as the parent or abandon the parent’s citizenship. This is the rule which naturally and of necessity governed in the United States prior to 1836, and by which those children of citizens of the United States became citizens.” Page 84

    “To repeat what has already been set forth as the rule prior to 1836, it must be affirmed that neither jus soli nor allegiance in the English sense and meaning had any thing whatever to do with the acquisition of citizenship in the United States.” page 94

  106. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    nbc,

    Where is scientist?

    I have much more than just Vattel to support my arguments.

    Wong Kim Ark is not a precedent for the proposition that a child born in the U.S. to one or none U.S. citizen parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That is just your wish. Wong Kim Ark only declared Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment given that his alien parents were legal and permament residents of the United States. Remember that the Framers grandfathered “citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President in Article II. But the grandfather clause has long been obsolete.

    On those “skillful people” at this site, are they lawyers?

  107. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    Mario, I am a lawyer. And here’s what Justice Gray said about Lynch v. Clarke.

    That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583

  108. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    I have much more than just Vattel to support my arguments.

    Wong Kim Ark is not a precedent for the proposition that a child born in the U.S. to one or none U.S. citizen parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That is just your wish. Wong Kim Ark only declared Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment given that his alien parents were legal and permament residents of the United States.

    Total nonsense, the Court looked at the meaning of natural born citizen and found that it was defined in the Common Law of this country. Following the same logic the Court would establish the meaning of natural born to be found in Common Law practices not your imagination.

    You have no foundation for your claims, and your insistance that we ignore WKA is quite telling, and explains why, at least for a while, you attempted to have it considered a poor ruling.
    The 14th Amendment, per those who voted on it, just put in words that which already was part of the Constitution, by declaring that anyone born on US soil is a US, natural born citizen.

    I have no idea if these skillful people are lawyers. I have found that lawyers can occasionally be skillful when they are not forced to a conclusion presented to them by their client.
    What I do find fascinating is that many of the people here have no problem disseminating and rebutting your ‘arguments’.

    Just imagine how quickly a judge would dismiss your claims. We already have an example in the recent state Court ruling about NBC.

    Bummer indeed Mario.

    History and reality are just not on his side.

  109. avatar
    Gordon December 12, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo Your attempts to dovetail in and out of Vattel as the standard for American definition of NBC looks quite tortured even to the untrained legal mind. Similarly you try to make Wong Kim Ark fit YOUR interpretation. It is a play on the same meme as the Sovereign Citizen crowd and an attempt to create a sub class of citizen born in this country. What makes your entire argument even weaker is your insistence to revisit the illogical theory that Obama wasn’t really born here at all. That last argument you need to lose altogether, because it just looks like you’re throwing a handful of sticks against the wall.

  110. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    I guess you continue to ignore these skillful people’s arguments, having come to understand how you continue to believe that there was a ban for travel for US citizens to Pakistan…
    Perhaps you have no choice given that it was a certified complaint?
    Is that how things work?

  111. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    Perhaps Mario has no choice here. Remember, he is bound to argue what is best for his client, not necessarily what is most logical or reasonable.

  112. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    nbc,

    You just love to hear yourself talk and quickly pat yourself on the back for whatever you may say. Your smuggness can work on this pro-Obama site but it will not work in a court of law. You and scientist must know each other.

    And do not tell me about how the court dismissed the Kerchner case. We know that dismissal was on standing and political question and not on its merits which is what we are arguing here.

  113. avatar
    Scientist December 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    nBc: Perhaps Mario has no choice here. Remember, he is bound to argue what is best for his client, not necessarily what is most logical or reasonable.

    nBc-Mario’s “client”? You mean this guy Kerchner? How are any of Mario’s arguments helping him? He and Mario need to accept that the election was over more than a year ago, that Congress validated the results, Obama is the President and the matter is closed (at least until 2012). Living in a birther fantasy world where some magical court of Tinkerbelle and the Tooth Fairy are going to descend from the sky and remove that evil Mr Obama in 30 days is not healthy for grown adults.

  114. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Gordon,

    I did not create any subclass of citizens. That is a figment of your imagination and your attempt at appealing to the public’s sense of fairness and justice. But there is nothing unfair or unjust in my position. From what the Framers said in Article II, we know that they envisioned “citizens of the United States” and “natural born Citizens.” The former were grandfathered for the Office of President and the latter were to be eligible for that office after the adoption of the Constitution. Today, the grandfather clause is obsolete. I have maintained that Obama may be a “citizen of the United States,” if he was born in Hawaii. I have also said that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Where is my subclass of citizens?

  115. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    Mario, the grandfather clause does nothing to suggest there is a class of citizen that is born here, gains their citizenship by dint of that citizenship, yet cannot become president. Everything in the constitution is consistent with the idea that there are TWO types of citizen – not three – natural-born and naturalized.

    There is no case in 200 years that suggests someone could be born here, become a citizen because of that birth, and not be eligible for the presidency.

    As for Justice Gray not calling WKA a natural born citizen, you seem to be unclear on the subsidiary conclusions that led Gray to conclude that WKA was a citizen. It would be like an argument going like this:

    A = B
    B = C
    C = D
    Conclusion: A = D

    I haven’t actually said that A = C, but it’s a necessary conclusion of the argument. Gray didn’t say that WKA was an NBC, but it’s a necessary conclusion of his argument.

  116. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Greg,

    In Lynch and Wong Kim Ark, the issue was whether the person was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether the person was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They are two different things as can be seen by the plain language of the Constitution and from the numerous Congressional Acts passed over the course of American history.

    By the way, did Lynch really have to decide national citizenship or just citizenship in the State of New York?

    What does the New York legislature’s citizenship statute cancelling the Lynch decision out tell us of the intended effect and scope of the decision?

  117. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    scientist,

    You are true to form. Keep up your valuable contributions to this erudite forum.

  118. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    You just love to hear yourself talk and quickly pat yourself on the back for whatever you may say. Your smuggness can work on this pro-Obama site but it will not work in a court of law. You and scientist must know each other.

    I do realize how our adherence to facts and reason may appear to some as smuggness (sic).

    And do not tell me about how the court dismissed the Kerchner case. We know that dismissal was on standing and political question and not on its merits which is what we are arguing here.

    Kerchner’s merits would fare not much better my dear Mario.

    There is really one issue: Is a child born on US soil, a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. And the answer is yes, and an even more resounding yes when one of the parents is in fact a US citizen.

    Simple

  119. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    Today, the grandfather clause is obsolete. I have maintained that Obama may be a “citizen of the United States,” if he was born in Hawaii. I have also said that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Where is my subclass of citizens?

    You believe that there are citizens who are born on US soil who are natural born, article II citizens and those who are just 14th amendment citizens. And then there are naturalized citizens. The courts however have consistently found that there are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens, and not some imaginary third class. Heck even the 14th Amendment did not create any new citizens, as much as restated what the Constitution already had stated, while rejecting the aweful Dred Scott interpretation.
    Not soon thereafter SCOTUS found much the same in WKA when realizing that in order to understand the meaning of natural born citizen, one had to look at common law practices which clearly considered anyone born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents, a natural born citizen. Especially when one already is a US citizen.

    Simple facts.

    I realize why you are now backing away from your three classes. Bouncing back and forth between two untenable positions. Tick, Tock Tick, Tock…

  120. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    In Lynch and Wong Kim Ark, the issue was whether the person was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether the person was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    So you are stating that the Court, which carefully showed the meaning of natural born citizen, somehow should be ignored?

    There have never been article II citizens who are born on US soil. You are attempting to create a 3rd class of citizen where even the history of the 14th amendment does not support such a revision.

    You are denying the obvious my dear pal. Now desperately trying to state that the courts need not have addressed the natural born part, even though it was crystal clear that born on US soil makes one a citizen and a natural born one, the two are connected.

  121. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    You are true to form. Keep up your valuable contributions to this erudite forum.

    Oh the irony my poor friend, the irony. Have you no idea?…
    At least Kerchner appears to be a paying customer and money does talk. Although talk can be cheap.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 8:27 pm #

    While it doesn’t make sense to say “Article II citizen” (since Article II neither makes nor defines citizens), it does make sense to say “14th Amendment citizen” because not all people born citizens are made so by, and have the protection of, the 14th Amendment.

  123. avatar
    Scientist December 12, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    nBc: At least Kerchner appears to be a paying customer and money does talk. Although talk can be cheap.

    Are you sure Mario isn’t paying Kerchner?

  124. avatar
    nBc December 12, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Mario misses the point

    The Framers abandoned state law as a basis to define in the future national citizenship in the new nation and substituted in its place a uniform national law.

    And used the term natural born which was commonly understood to refer to born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    You are arguing a strawman here. The issue is that the term natural born is not defined in the Constitution and thus has to be found in common law practices.

    And that dooms your argument

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: We know that dismissal was on standing and political question and not on its merits which is what we are arguing here.

    To the extent that an argument is what is going on here, I don’t see how it will ever go anywhere. I don’t find your arguments persuasive and unless you come up with some new evidence or some new chain of logic, nothing is going to change. It is possible, particularly in the run up to the 2012 election, and some case may get decided, and if it does, I would anticipate a fast track to the US Supreme Court.

    But here is a question for you: if the Supreme Court ruled specifically and favorably on President Obama’s eligibility, would you concede that you are mistaken?

  126. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    Citizen is the term that encompasses natural born and naturalized citizens. There is no court case and nothing in the Constitution that suggests any other type of citizen. Wong Kim Ark was not a naturalized. He was a citizen. By process of elimination….

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    While I will certainly look deeper at your citations, what I see here is a Boston lawyer making two assertions rather than citing cases and authorities. What Mr. Webster said is directly at odds with what the Supreme Court would say a few years later in Wong. I am trying to find out some information on just who Prentiss Webster is (without much success), and what his qualifications are as an expert commentator. I found this review of “A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States” in the Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 1891), pp. 737, showing what one academic contemporary thought of the work:

    The title of Mr. Webster’s book is misleading. The work is not primarily a statement of the law of citizenship as it is, but an expression of the views of the author as to what that law ought to be. That Mr. Webster declares these views of his to be the law of nature and of nations does not modify their purely subjective character. … He believes that there is a law of nature which is eo ipso the law of nations. He believes that this system of law overrides national (or, as he calls it, “local”) law. And of this natural law he believes that he and other writers on the subject are authoritative interpreters. When the highest courts of any country differ with him, he regards their decisions as erroneous in law.

    Munroe Smith

    Sounds like birther material to me.

  128. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    nBc: Perhaps Mario has no choice here. Remember, he is bound to argue what is best for his client, not necessarily what is most logical or reasonable.

    No, he is ethically bound to refrain from advancing frivolous arguments, and to so advise any client who wants to retain him.

    And in any case, he’s got no obligation to argue his case with strangers on an online blog. I don’t know of any respectable lawyers who do that.

  129. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 9:15 pm #

    What your group… does not have in law it supplies in ridicule and ad hominem attacks

    This is pretty rich. Want to count the Mario originated ad hominems just on this page? I count 9.

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Naturally, the Founders also wanted a uniform definition of what a national “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” would be.

    I continue to object to conflating the definitions of natural born citizen with the qualifications for a natural born citizen. But reading your argument, this is the first pothole, because you can’t produce any EVIDENCE that the Founders wanted any such thing and the fact that the Constitution didn’t provide any language furthering such a goal is pretty strong evidence that it wasn’t true. You have a mature, mostly college educated crowd with several attorneys here. You can’t get away with potholes in your argument here and you darned sure can’t get away with such with a judge.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    Ok, if this is true, explain to me how the” government action” bypassed all those state laws. Do you think the executive branch can wave it’s magic wand and make contracts and state laws go away? No, it can’t, but a federal bankruptcy judge can, and that’s why your comment is nonsense.

  132. avatar
    Scientist December 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    red red rose: “Their inseparable nature renders the rule necessary, that the child follows the citizenship of the parent, until he reaches the age at which he may elect to remain of the same citizenship as the parent or abandon the parent’s citizenship.

    I agree with Dr C that there is no particular reason to treat this as other than Mr Webster’s opinion, which along with $3 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. That said, applying those words to Barack Obama, he would follow “the citizenship of the parent”. Since the 2 parents had different citizenship, the question is which one? The case is certainly stronger to follow that of the custodial parent in whose home country he lived all of his life other than a few years, as opposed to following the citizenship of the parent he only saw briefly a couple of times and in whose home country he never spent more than a few weeks.

  133. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    nbc,

    My pal, your argument is twisted and nonsensical. Then at the end you make your grand finale which gets no support from what you say.

    Also, this statement makes no sense: “There have never been article II citizens who are born on US soil.” Are you serious?

    The quality of your work has really gone downhill.

  134. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Greg,

    You say that “citizen” encompasses “natural born.” Then would you be so merciful and explain to me why “Citizens” were grandfathered to be eligibile for the presidency by Article II and “natural born Citizens” were the new standard after adoption of the Constitution. If the two categories meant the same thing as you want people to believe, why did the Framers grandfather only “Citizens” and select only “natural born Citizens” to be President eligibile after the adoption of the Constitution?

  135. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    Greg,

    How short our sight is. You get as you give.

  136. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 10:14 pm #

    nbc,

    I guess the cat had your tongue.

  137. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Expelliarmus,

    I thought this forum was to educate the public. Are you telling me that I cannot join you in that endeavor?

  138. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    The United States Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott. Was Dred Scott mistaken?

  139. avatar
    Ray December 12, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    “Natural Born Citizen” is stated in the constitution and defined by the Supreme Court. The article below explains the 4 cases decided by the Supreme Court which defines “Natural Born Citizen” – Put the kool-aid down for just a minute and read what the Supreme Court has to say below:

    4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen” IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN

    by John Charlton

    Emmerich de Vattel, c/o Online Library of Liberty

    (Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

    Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

    First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

    Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

    The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

    Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

    The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

    In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

    Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

    Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

    Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

    John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

    William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

    Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

    Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

    Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

    Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

    Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

    Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

    The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

    WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

    In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

    In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

    Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.” CONCLUSION

    Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

    Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

  140. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    The grandfather clause allows people who weren’t born here but nobly served their country during the revolution to become President, if they had naturalized before the signing of the Constitution.

    “Citizen” is not the same as “natural born,” since “citizen” includes both natural born and naturalized.

    Are you implying that the Founders did not grandfather in citizens who were naturalized before the signing of the Constitution?

  141. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    Ray, come on. Don’t just copy and paste nonsense that we’ve debunked here on this website a thousand times before.

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    Ray, I’m not all that fond of you posting other web sites content here. If you have something to say yourself, feel free. Let

    Generally, what “Charlton” says is crap (falsehoods and misrepresentations). If you buy into Charlton, then all 50 state secretaries of state were wrong, the majority of the voters were wrong, the entire Congress was wrong and the entire Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice who swore Obama in to boot. What vaulted arrogance!

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 12, 2009 at 10:40 pm #

    Typical Apuzzo, answer a question with a question.

    While I can read an answer into your question, I would prefer for you to answer it plainly. Then we can get to your question (which you already know the answer to).

  144. avatar
    Greg December 12, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    Hey, Dr. Conspiracy, what causes some of the posts to be invisible to me? For example, right now, in this thread, I can’t read your most recent post, which starts, “Typical Apuzzo…” nor can I read Mario’s comment about Dred Scott or his response to Expelliarmus.

  145. avatar
    Mary Brown December 12, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    I can be dense but does this 14th amendment definition Ray swears by limit the rights of those folks like African Americans who were not citizens before that? Is this just a way to reinvent Grandfather laws by another name. Since the demographic of this country is changing, it almost seems to me that these folks want to set up some class of citizen with fewer rights. Am I crazy? Does this go beyond President Obama? I may have read something like that here before, as I am this minute recalling. Help.

  146. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    brygenon,

    Patience my boy, patience.

  147. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    brygenon,

    Youth and immaturity are often the reason for poor thinking.

  148. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 12:16 am #

    ballantine,

    After reading your response, I think I understand why you call yourself ballantine.

  149. avatar
    red red rose December 13, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    New Englander and Yale review, Volume 15 (1857)
    http://tiny.cc/NewEnglanderYaleReview1857

    “To the proposition that the original citizens of the United States contained free negro citizens as well as white citizens, we add another that the present body of citizens of the United States is made up in part of the descendants of these original citizens, both white and black. The children of the original citizens were born citizens, and the same is true of their descendants down to the present time. This is a principle of public law, and the Constitution takes for granted the operation of this principle in speaking of the class of natural born citizens. We have, then, natural born negro citizens as well as natural born white citizens, descendants of the original citizens of the United States.” page 489

    A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States
    By Prentiss Webster (1891)
    http://tiny.cc/CitizenshipLaw1891

    “It cannot be denied, however, in this connection that the term “native born” was and is in use; its application was not and is not with the same reason therefore, as is found in the English common law. Its use was and is, purely in imitation as a term, of the same term, in the English law. Strictly interpreted its meaning was and is, partus sequuntur patrem, i.e., the child follows the citizenship of the parent.
    The rule was well laid down by Vattel sections 216-220: “By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular; for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights but extraction.”
    page 85

  150. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 12:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I am happy to learn that we have some smart people reading these comments.

    So you want me to accept that the Framers wanted a uniform definition for naturalization but not one for “natural born Citizens?”

  151. avatar
    chufho December 13, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Its a giant leap to suppose chrysler would have been liquidated. After reading these comments it is easy to to see obama bias while ignoring the facts yes facts that are easily understood by anyone that Mario Apuzzo has lain for all. If anyone believes that that a saudi national and his wife while visiting the U.S. deliver a child that that child would be a natural born U.S. citizen is nuts.

  152. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 1:31 am #

    nbc,

    Since you love that Pakistan travel so much:

    In 1981, Pakistan was characterized by martial law, civil war, U.S. Embassy attack, all resulting in loss of life.

    HARVARD HUMAN RIGHTS JOURNAL

    Before September 11, 2001, the United States characterized the Pakistani government as an unstable regime with a tarnished history of corrupt dictators, military coups, and territorial violence along its borders.[1] Following the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, Pakistan became a leading partner in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, thrust into a position to bring “international criminals” to justice and to act as a hero for the “civilized” world.[2] Indeed, one of the lessons of September 11 is that exigencies often spur credulity. United States concerns with Pakistan’s human rights problems lost significance once Pakistan agreed to stand with the United States against terrorism.

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/khan.shtml#Heading7

    Pakistan, with martial law and a civil war going on, did not sound like a place to which Americans would so freely travel to in 1981, although there were probably some who did go. You will have to ask Obama why he decided to go there under such conditions.

    And by the way, do not forget to ask him what passport he used to travel there. You keep insisting that you want proof of a “travel ban” to Pakistan. The real issue is what passport did Obama use for his travel there. The “travel ban” is a red herring. I have yet to see anyone answer this question. Rather, you and your supporters avoid answering that question and rather respond by just repeating the same old thing about there being no “travel ban” to Pakistan.

  153. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    Still no travel ban and the passport is likely to be the same passport he used to return form Indonesia: His US passprot.

    Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Of course not

  154. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 13, 2009 at 1:42 am #

    Where in the archives? Oh right, you’ve never given any real proof. So by your own standards, that makes you a lying usurper.

    Why do you hate the Constitution, Sven?

  155. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 13, 2009 at 1:46 am #

    So Mario “Aggrieved by an uppity negro? I’ll fight for you!” Apuzzo is now resorting to citing Dred Scott? Really?

    Dude, I know the KKK pays well, but they’re still calling you a f’n’ guido behind your back.

  156. avatar
    red red rose December 13, 2009 at 2:00 am #

    The 14th Amendment, per those who voted on it, just put in words that which already was part of the Constitution, by declaring that anyone born on US soil is a US, natural born citizen.

    Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty (2005)
    http://tiny.cc/allegiance270
    Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize, makes very clear that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.
    The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, “When we talk about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that its “a full and complete jurisdiction.”

    It looks like the ones that were voting on it were saying that anyone born in the US with a foreign allegiance was not a US citizen.

  157. avatar
    red red rose December 13, 2009 at 2:18 am #

    nBc:
    The courts however have consistently found that there are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens, and not some imaginary third class.

    Where?

    Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/738/case.html
    “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native.”

    Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 540 540 (1840)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
    “…was a native citizen of the United States, having been born in the State of New Hampshire.”

    Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958) from dissent
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/356/44/case.html
    “But we made it when we adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and provided that the native-born is an American citizen. Once he acquires that right, there is no power in any branch of our Government to take it from him.”

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.”

    The two types of citizens are native born (born in the US) and naturalized (born elsewhere). A natural born citizen is a native citizen that had two US citizen parents at the time of birth.

  158. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 2:18 am #

    Why did Obama decide to go to Pakistan in 1981? Maybe he read the New York Times travel piece about traveling there!

    LAHORE, A SURVIVOR WITH A BITTERSWEET HISTORY

    By BARBARA CROSSETTE; BARBARA CROSSETTE IS AN ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES.
    Published: June 14, 1981

    History has dealt the lovers of Lahore more than their share of broken hearts. This graceful and cultured city, with a history that stretches by some accounts back into the days of the epic Ramayana, passed through many conquering hands – Hindu, Mogul, Persian, Afghan, Sikh and British -on the way to becoming an intellectual center of the Indian subcontinent, only to be relegated with the partition of British India to the status of a provincial Pakistani capital.

    What passport did he travel on? There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that he needed anything other than the US Passport that got this NY Times Journalist into Pakistan! There’s not a hint of ANYTHING that could lead any thinking person to suspect that he traveled on a non-US passport!

    What possible basis do you have for suspecting that Obama traveled on a non-US passport?

    I have yet to see you answer this question! Instead, you keep repeating the same nonsense about how it just does not seem like a great place to travel to. “De facto” travel ban. Martial Law.

    Sorry, bud, the New York Times disproved this red herring on June 14, 1981!

    Because Pakistan is an Islamic nation, most tourist attractions and all mosques are closed to visitors on Fridays. The Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (with an office in the Faletti’s Hotel complex and information publications available at major hotels) maintains up-to-date lists on museum opening hours, as well as on city tours.

    For more information write to Pakistan International Airlines, 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 (212-949-0477) or to the Pakistan Mission to the United Nations, 12 East 65th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021 (212-879-8600).

    Yeah, it was a truly scary place. With a tourism development corporation.

  159. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 13, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    Greg,

    Perhaps you can’t see them too well because Doc is transparently right and Mario is transparently wrong!”

    Opaquely,
    Benji Franklin

  160. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    The Sheriff,

    Does it really matter?

  161. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    Hmm. Public law? Where have I heard that before?

    Wong Kim Ark:

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

    Part IV of WKA. You might want to read it.

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

  162. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 13, 2009 at 2:50 am #

    Gee Mario,

    When Vattel says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” you parse the “or” to mean “also called”, thereby claiming the two terms are equivalent, presumably arguing that his “redundancy” was purposeful to make sure the reader understood the two classes named were being treated as one.

    But when the Constitution says, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” you parse the “or” to mean a delineation of two different pathways to eligibility, when the same language can be reasonably parsed as the Framer’s explicitly defining “Natural Born Citizenship” as “statutory citizenship equivalent to that extant in the colonies at the time of the writing of the Constitution.”

    A little consistency please in parsing the word “or”. Do you want us to believe you’re just being “Mario” OR stupid?

    Benji Franklin

  163. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    Professor Eastman is advancing a theory rejected by the court in Wong Kim Ark. You can read the briefs in the case and see the same arguments being raised. They were rejected. His organization (The Claremont Institute) advanced the same arguments in an amicus brief (with him as counsel) to the Supreme Court in the Hamdi case, arguing that Constitutional rights should not be extended to him because his parents were guest workers here temporarily when he was born. Again, the Supreme Court rejected those arguments!

    I guess the third time’s the charm? We’re supposed to pick up this losing argument and run with it?

    James C. Ho did a pretty good job of putting those out-of-context quotes of Professor Eastman back into context and shows how the writers of the 14th Amendment meant no such thing. I encourage you to read his article because he did the historical research that Eastman did not.

  164. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 2:58 am #

    What you lack in legal response, you make up for in ad hominem.

  165. avatar
    Whatever4 December 13, 2009 at 3:04 am #

    “New Englander and Yale review, Volume 15 Article VII: the Negro Race” is about the justices’ opinions in Dred Scott. The paragraph is pulled from the middle of an academic discussion about whether the status of free Negreos as citizens existed in the US. There are pages of laws from the early colonists on who gets to be a citizen. (All saying mere birth in the US, BTW)

    The authors in that paragraph are trying to prove that free negroes in most states have been citizens from the beginning, and are now. It’s limited to citizenship discussion on that narrow point, and they choose the narrow example to prove their point. (The paragraph quoted is one of the few spots in the article where ancestry even comes up.) They are saying that unlike Justice Taney found in his decision, Free Negroes existed at the founding and became citizens, and since their children are also citizens, (and so on) that free negroes in 1857 were also natural born citizens of the states. There’s also a discussion on whether or not states could pick and choose who got to be citizens, and whether the US could. This was before the 14th amendment said that a citizen of a state was a citizen of the US.

    They didn’t need to complicate it with naturalization, or intermarriages, or manumission, or any other way of obtaining citizenship.

  166. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 3:11 am #

    Do you think that child is a citizen but just not able to be President?

    That’s what Mario’s arguing. The Claremont Institute at least had some cajones and stuck to their guns, saying that that child would not be a citizen at all.

    Chrysler would have been liquidated. There simply was not enough financing available for them to enter restructuring.

  167. avatar
    Whatever4 December 13, 2009 at 3:15 am #

    HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF
    DEFENSE, et al.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/507/case.html

  168. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 4:29 am #

    “Does it really matter?”

    It should.

  169. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 4:46 am #

    “You were DWI (dumb-witted intellectual).”

    Mario, as a counselor, you should be more precise in your use of language.

    “Dumb” is an archaic term for mute. You meant “dim witted,” which I am assuredly not. It’s like the time you called me “a jerk and a fool.”

    Jerk: “Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.”

    Fool: “a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.”

    So first, you were being redundant, and second, a lawyer should not be using slang, which is imprecise.

    I think of myself as the classic fool: “a professional jester.” And by noting how many times I got your goat, I have succeeded.(bada-bing)

    Don’t forget to tip your waitress, and drive safely.

  170. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 4:48 am #

    You forgot to add he’s a Flying Dutchman.

  171. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 4:50 am #

    “Where in the archives?”

    The archives are permanently preserved by the Galactic Federation. I thought it was common knowledge.

  172. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 4:55 am #

    “I guess the cat had your tongue.”

    No, Max bites my hands.

  173. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:04 am #

    “Why do you not just for once make a cogent legal argument?”

    Oh the irony!

    Bis repetita placent.

  174. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:10 am #

    I note with interest that Mario, who is prompt to refute many other arguments, has repeatedly NOT denied my contention that he is in effect working to further some extreme right wing organization’s legal agenda.

  175. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:12 am #

    I am not worthy! 🙂

  176. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:17 am #

    “I have much more than just Vattel to support my arguments.”

    I’m glad you do because really Vattel doesn’t support your argument.

    Me, I stay away from all the discussions on Lynch, WKA, etc. because I freely admit that’s not my field at all. I enjoy reading them but I can’t offer a learned opinion.

    I can on Vattel, however, and I wish you’d stop using him. Makes me wonder what else you’re misrepresenting.

  177. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:32 am #

    Mario:

    “I have maintained that Obama may be a “citizen of the United States,” if he was born in Hawaii.”

    Not conceding an inch, are we, even in front of overwhelming evidence.

    I know you’re not being truthful here, because you do know that Obama was, in fact, born in HI, but you’d rather come across as a lunatic for your cause, I suppose.

    Mario:

    “I have also said that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.””

    Thereby creating a mythical third class of citizen out of very thin air.

    What this is is of course the thin end of the edge, reflecting the legal agenda of your ideological predecessors such as Gordon.

    First we disenfranchise a whole class of not-white, not-christian, vaguely-foreign people by making them not-NBC.

    Second, we expand the positions barred to them beyond the Presidency, like: “oooo can we trust a NOT-NBC to be Secretary of State?” “oooo can we trust a NOT-NBC on the supreme Court?”

    (I ‘d bet good money that if you polled “should someone who is not a natural-born citizen of the United States be appointed to (say) the Supreme Court?” you’d get 30% to 40% who’d say no.

    Last word go to Mario:

    “But there is nothing unfair or unjust in my position.”

    I rest my case.

  178. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:35 am #

    Please kill me now.

  179. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:37 am #

    “If anyone believes that that a saudi national and his wife while visiting the U.S. deliver a child that that child would be a natural born U.S. citizen is nuts.”

    Careful, your bedsheets are showing.

  180. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:41 am #

    Mario is KKK-lite, using what used to be called during the Cold War the salami technique (ie: the Russians taking over West Germany one town at a time).

    Mario thinks he can succeed by targeting a very narrow focus. Thin end of the wedge as i said.

    The Claremont Institute and other even more radical right wing organizations want to cut to chase and disenfranchise non-white, non-christian, etc. people.

    There you are, refighting your Civil War in 2010.

  181. avatar
    Lupin December 13, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    It is exceedingly clear that Vattel used the plural parents meaning anyone parent; in the same fashion as he used the plural children when he also meant a child.

    Mario’s logic would lead one to assume only twins or triplets or quadruplets etc could be NBCs.

    Regarding the passport we know now that Obama visited Provence at about the same time, where he was identified as an American, hence he used an American passport.

  182. avatar
    ballantine December 13, 2009 at 8:24 am #

    Type of response from someone who has no argument. I’ll ask again, please provide any of the following:

    (1) One case in history that says a natural born citizen requires citizen parents,

    (2) One authority from the founding era defining natural born citizen or native with your definition,

    (3) Any authority that there was a federal common law adopting your definition,

    (4) Any authority that a 14th amendment citizen or native born citizen is different that a natural born citizen.

    You can make assertions and mistread case law all you want, but you are not convincing anyone. The rest of the world knows what the common law rule was and see that all early legal authority points towards this rule. Your attempt to redefine the common law does no impress anyone.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 8:25 am #

    red red rose: The two types of citizens are native born (born in the US) and naturalized (born elsewhere). A natural born citizen is a native citizen that had two US citizen parents at the time of birth.

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the citations you listed. No one doubts that the phrase “native born citizen” exists, and that the courts use it. What you didn’t provide was any citation where a court or used “native, naturalized and natural” as three distinct classes. Your citation from Schneider shows just the opposite–natural and native used as equivalents. The courts frequently used native born and natural born interchangeably (for example in your own citation from Schneider).

    1) Can you find one example in all the history of the United States where someone born a citizen outside the United States was called “naturalized” by a court?

    2) Can you find precedent in all the history of the United States where someone born a citizen of the United States in the United States was designated a quality of citizen differently because of the status of the parents?

    I leave you with this from Minor v Happersett:

    These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners

    and this from Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913) where “native citizen” is used as the presidential qualification.

    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827

    even Emerich de Vattel (in translation) makes native and natural equivalent:

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

  184. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 8:48 am #

    red red rose: It looks like the ones that were voting on it were saying that anyone born in the US with a foreign allegiance was not a US citizen.

    The law of the land (the 14th Amendment) says “jurisdiction”. The courts have already decided that those born in the United States (ex. ambassadors) are fully under the jurisdiction of the United States. That is a settled question.

    Hundreds of thousands if not millions of US citizens today have parents who are not citizens. What’s your point? Obviously (and the case was made in the Wong opinion at length) having foreign national parents does not make one not subject to the jurisdiction of the Unites States.

  185. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    Yea, but US Citizens could still pick up a 30-day visa for free at the airport. So what’s your point.

    I hear the sort of nutty idea that Obama would have been “safer” in Pakistan traveling on a non-US passport (which doesn’t seem to be true based on the NY Times travel articles). But US Citizens travel overseas today all the time on US passports, but pretending to be Canadians. Traveling around with a US passport hidden in one’s belt wallet doesn’t constitute a “kick me” sign on the back.

  186. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 8:55 am #

    chufho: Its a giant leap to suppose chrysler would have been liquidated

    Since that’s exactly what the bankruptcy court did, I would say not even a step is required, much less a leap.

    chufho: If anyone believes that that a saudi national and his wife while visiting the U.S. deliver a child that that child would be a natural born U.S. citizen is nuts.

    You’re wrong. Ask any immigration lawyer.

  187. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 9:09 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: So you want me to accept that the Framers wanted a uniform definition for naturalization but not one for “natural born Citizens?”

    That’s an interesting question. If, as you suggest, the Framers wanted a uniform definition for non-naturalized citizens and they didn’t provide for it, then I guess the felt that there was no need to change the status quo. Naturalization procedures varied widely between the states, justifying the Framers’ concern over uniformity. Citizenship for those born in the states, was however, universal and never required citizen parentage. Demonstrating that Congress wanted to go further, they passed the 1790 Act to extend citizenship to the children of citizens born overseas and even called those “natural born” too (in contradiction to your precious de Vattel).

    The concept of a citizen parent requirement for the status of “natural born citizen” is simply not there when you look at the Framers.

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 9:09 am #

    OK, you have proved that there were bigots in history.

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    A lot of this stuff is comes from anti-immigration groups.

  190. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    The “test widget” is broken. If a comment doesn’t appear on the first page, the link to it won’t work. I’ve been pestering the author to fix it. If you just page through the comments with the Older Comments link, you will see them eventually — not the best of solutions.

  191. avatar
    ballantine December 13, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    “Its a giant leap to suppose chrysler would have been liquidated.”

    No one knows for certain, but pretty much everyone involved in the process thought that neither GM or Chrysler would be able to secure private debtor-in-possesion financing if they had to file prematurely. Thus, without a bailout or post-filing government financing, no one involved in the process thought they could survive as going entities. Can find plenty written on this from google.

  192. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Alexander Porter Morse was the attorney who signed an amicus brief at both the appellate level and at the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark arguing that citizenship in the US was jus sanguinis.

    He lost.

    Undaunted by his loss, in 1904, he published an article in the Albany Law Journal entitled “Natural-Born Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of the President.” It was in this article, as far as I can tell, that the first attempt at theorizing a class of citizen born here who would not be eligible for the Presidency.

    The article was essentially unsourced and self-contradictory. It argued, for example, that natural-born must include those born abroad to US citizen parents because historically the phrase natural born subject included those children. Why should children of aliens born here be excluded when the ancient phrase natural born subject more clearly included them than those born abroad to citizen parents? Morse doesn’t really say.

    So, that’s where it comes from. Morse’s original briefs in WKA were more coherent than Mario’s, but they tread the exact same ground. The folks who wanted to limit the rights of children born to aliens tried in Lynch v. Clarke. They tried in the California Chinese cases (in re Look Ting Sing, WKA, etc.). They lost.

    The birthers are recycling tired retreads of the Know-Nothings.

  193. avatar
    Greg December 13, 2009 at 10:53 am #

    Everything I’ve read says the meaning of “natural born” was universal at the Founding. Naturalization might have been different between the different states, but “natural born,” was universally understood.

    Born here, regardless of parental citizenship.

  194. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    Bailouts were started by Nixon, with Lockheed – so it was Republicans who started this whole concept. Second, the Swedish government is not going to rescue Saab. So much for socialism.

    And Chrysler was formed from the bankruptcy of the Maxwell Motor Company. No Iaccoca to the rescue this time.

  195. avatar
    misha December 13, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    I went to Israel when there was a travel advisory from the State Department. As my friends and family said “only you would go to a war zone for a vacation.”

    But I did travel with a Galactic Federation passport. I didn’t want them to know I was American.

  196. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo says:

    Pakistan, with martial law and a civil war going on, did not sound like a place to which Americans would so freely travel to in 1981, although there were probably some who did go. You will have to ask Obama why he decided to go there under such conditions.

    Mario,

    Are you serious? You incorporated the “Pakistan travel ban” into your Complaint and you didn’t even bother to do some basic research about why Obama made the trip?

    It’s all there, in Jake Tapper’s report of April 8, 2008:

    In 1981 — the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University — Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend’s family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.

    So Obama went to Pakistan with a college friend whose family was from there. How sinister! How improbable!

    Are you familiar with the history of the Philippines? Did you know that in the late sixties and seventies the Philippines was facing a Communist insurrection and that the country was under martial law from 1972-1981? Yet Americans freely visted the country, and in fact thousands of retired American servicemen chose to make their homes there.

    And quit trying to weasel out about the supposed travel ban. You know perfectly well that there would be no questions about Obama’s passport but for the claim that there was a travel ban. For once in your life, man up and admit that you were wrong.

  197. avatar
    kimba December 13, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    Leo’s and Mario’s “audience” are the type of travelers, if they have a passport and have ever traveled outside the US at all, who go to Europe on a tour, wear their white Nikes, Ohio State sweatshirts and billed caps, want to know where to find some real food, and wonder why everyone knows they’re an American. Those are the “targets” for anti-Americanism overseas.

  198. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    It looks like the ones that were voting on it were saying that anyone born in the US with a foreign allegiance was not a US citizen.

    To those who do not read the discussion, it may indeed appear such.

    When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

    Complete jurisdiction means that one is not protected by for instance diplomatic immunity from being held bound by the local laws.

    When the 14th Amendment was pending in the Senate of the United States Mr Doolittle moved to insert after the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof the words excluding Indians not taxed. His avowed object in so amending the measure was to exclude beyond all question from the proposed grant of citizenship tribal Indians whc since they were in a sense subject to the jurisdiction of the United States might be regarded as embraced in the grant. The proposition was opposed by Mr Trumbull and other friends of the proposed constitutional Amendment upon the ground that the words Indians not taxed might be misconstrued and also because those words were unnecessary in that the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof embraced only those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States which could not be properly said of Indians in tribal relations….

    Said Mr Trumbull It is only those who come completely within our jurisdiction who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens Congress Globe pt 4 1st sess 39th Cong pp 2890 2893 Alluding to the phrase Indians not taxed he remarked that the language

    Understanding of context helps.

  199. avatar
    nbc December 13, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    More on allegiance and Trumbull

    During the debates In the senate In January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: “All persons born In the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.” Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked “whether It will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?” Mr. Trumbull answered. “Undoubtedly;” and asked, “Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Mr. Cowan replied, “The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.” Mr. Trumbull rejoined, “The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is Just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, “without distinction of color,” should be omitted as unnecessary; and said: “The amendment, as It stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent; and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.” And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought It better that they should be retained, to remove all possible doubt.

    Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pt. 1, pp. 408, 573, 574.

    furthermore in WKA, r. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin’s Case, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

    “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.”

    Understanding these terms helps resolve these issues quite easily.

  200. avatar
    Scientist December 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    Let me see if I can simplify this. The debates and various statements, in and out of context are all very interesting, but the actual words incorporated into the 14th Amendment are what is determinative. The key clause reads “and subject to the jusrisdiction thereof”. Now supposing one really wanted to exclude the children of aliens and dual citizens. One could accomplish that by inserting a single 4-letter word so that the clasue would read -“and subject to the SOLE jurisdiction thereof”. Then the clause would be clear; if you fall under any other jurisdiction (as would most children with even a single alien parent), sorry, no automatic citizenship for you.

    But the clause of course doesn’t say “SOLE jurisdiction”, it simply says “jurisdiction”, meaning that the child can have multiple other citizenships by birth without impacting their US citizenship by birth (natural born citizenship). Whatever the intent might have been, you are stuck with the actual words that made it into the final version. Thus, in order to restrict US citizenship by birth (natural born citizenship) and forbid birthright US citizens from holding other citizenships would require amending the 14th Amendment.

    It’s really that simple. The 4-letter word that isn’t in there.

  201. avatar
    nBc December 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Seems that Mario has caught a mistake on my part to avoid arguing the matter. That’s a common approach when the facts do not support one’s argument.
    So let’s rephrase:

    The Constitution mentions “natural born citizen” but does not define its meaning. As such the Courts have ruled quite consistently that one has to look at common law of those days to understand its meaning. The meaning was found in WKA to be guided by English Common law which was largely used to determine citizenship. As such, anyone born on US soil was not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen. The same logic which led the court to determine that WKA was a citizen leads to the other inevitable conclusion that such a citizen could in fact run for president.
    Courts and legislative and legal opinions all clearly support this.

    In other words, the 14th Amendment merely clarified the meaning of terms used in Article II 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.

    Subject to the jurisdiction has to be interpreted by realizing that this was added to specifically exclude children born to foreign dignitaries, invading military and Indians not taxed.
    Jurisdiction and allegiance go hand in hand with location of birth.

  202. avatar
    nBc December 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    Mario’s question is a foolish one as it ignores the purpose of the grandfather clause and of course, as Greg so skillfully explains, citizens include natural born as well as naturalized so they are not equivalent. A logical flaw on Mario’s part well exposed.

  203. avatar
    nBc December 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    Greg:
    This is pretty rich. Want to count the Mario originated ad hominems just on this page? I count 9.

    Mario is delightfully self-contradicting

  204. avatar
    Black Lion December 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Sven, it is good to see you are bringing back your ridiculous refugee status argument….What about your consular passport theory? You bringing that one back also? Did you forget when it was eviserated back when you originally presented it? You’re a funny guy…

  205. avatar
    nBc December 13, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    Sven is back to make Mario look reasonable 🙂

  206. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 13, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    I would just add that Obama’s college friend was quite wealthy. This is quite typical: wealthy foreigners send their children to be educated at US colleges… poor families can’t afford to do so.

    So when the friend extended the invitation it probably quite attractive — in the sense that Obama was being invited to visit an exotic locale with very comfortable accommodations.

    The question isn’t why he would go — the question is why any young person would ever pass up such an opportunity if it came their way?

    And of course Obama would have traveled on his US passport — it would have been pretty tough to obtain any other sort of passport at that time. Indonesian passports expire after 5 years, so even in the unlikely event that Obama could have held an Indonesian passport at age 10, it would have long since expired when he went to Pakistan.

  207. avatar
    nBc December 13, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    And we know that Obama returned as a US citizen from Indonesia, which presumes a US passport.

  208. avatar
    rigs December 13, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo:

    I am licensed to practice law and read and agree with the majority of posters here.

    I have found it is generally not a good idea to discuss litigation strategy on a public forum. Thus, while you might enjoy the banter here (and I certainly do), it does not serve your client well.

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    I continue to wonder if this is really Hyderabad in Southern India or Hyderabad in Pakistan.

  210. avatar
    chufho December 13, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    S. R. 511
    Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

    Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

  211. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    Rickey,

    The only ones weaseling are those on this site who insist to talking about a travel ban. Really, do you think people raising this issue care about the travel ban. It’s the passport, stupid!

  212. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    misha,

    Is that all that you have to say for yourself?

  213. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    Benji Franklin,

    I hope the real Benji Franklin had more brains than you did.

    I guess the Framers just did not tell us what to call all those millions of people to be born in the future.

  214. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    misha,

    I hear the place is quite pleasant? Were you well received?

  215. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    Hey nbc,

    Now I understand how Obama did it. He used his “passprot.’ HaHaHaHaHa

    You know what they say about people in glass houses.

  216. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    Greg,

    Hey, really. The guy read a piece in the New York Times and got on a plane a checked the place out. Get a life.

  217. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    Benji,

    I take that to mean you are a little Benjamin.

    I do not know if I ever met a person that I liked who started any sentence with “Gee Mario.” Wow, what does that say about you?

  218. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 13, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    Obama has a US Passport.

    We know that he had a US Passport at age 10.

    We know that he has a US passport now.

    So what’s the point? Clearly he could have and did travel to Pakistan in 1981 with his US Passport.

  219. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I know who difficult it is for you and your flock here to follow simple points. Its the passport, not the travel ban. Cut the crap!

  220. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:28 pm #

    Rickey,

    Yea, he said to his friend, “let’s go and get our butts shot.

  221. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 13, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    rigs,

    Thank you for your opinion. Now can you provide me with the factual and legal foundation for it.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 13, 2009 at 11:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I know who difficult it is for you and your flock here to follow simple points. Its the passport, not the travel ban. Cut the crap!

    I find such petty insults beneath someone who claims to be a professional. I would think a lawyer with your tenure wouldn’t have such a thin skin.

    It is you who made a false statement in a certified complaint. The fact that you continue to dodge and weave and refuse to admit this fact in the light of conclusive evidence to the contrary is beyond any rationale I can think of.

    The passport is just a diversion. There is no hint of any reason to think Obama had anything but a US Passport. To continue suggesting something without reason is, well, it’s irrational.

    Thank you for continuing to provide bunk to fuel this debunking website.

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: It’s the passport, stupid!

    Did you lie about that in the Kerchner complaint too?

  224. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 12:12 am #

    While I agree with Secretary Chertoff and Senator Leahy, that understanding is far from universal. (If this were the case, then there would have been no need for a hearing or a Senate resolution supporting Senator McCain’s candidacy.)

    I presume that by making the citation, you are suggesting that the meaning of the statement is as if it read “only if you are born of American parents” which is not what it says, nor what what either intended. For example, Senator Graham voted for SR 511, but he wrote to a constituent:

    Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.

  225. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    Well said

  226. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    Oh, the beautiful irony of it all.

    I have found it is generally not a good idea to discuss litigation strategy on a public forum. Thus, while you might enjoy the banter here (and I certainly do), it does not serve your client well.

    Do you agree or disagree Mario? And what does your client think of this?

  227. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 14, 2009 at 12:17 am #

    Golly, Mario!

    You confessed:

    “I do not know if I ever met a person that I liked who started any sentence with “Gee Mario.”

    How sad. I’ll bet your sainted mother started many sentences with precisely those words.

    But I didn’t; look again, Mario. It wasn’t the beginning of a sentence. It was a congenial salutation meant to comfort you in your season of public embarrassment.

    No footnotes in the history books for you, Mario. Racial hatred is not enough by itself. With a hapless legal strategy, and cloaked in incompetence, you’re a Lee Harvey Oswald without the courage or the rifle.

    Thankfully,
    Benji Franklin

  228. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 12:20 am #

    rigs: Thus, while you might enjoy the banter here (and I certainly do), it does not serve your client well.

    I don’t know how much you have followed the extra-legal aspects of the Kerchner case. The legal briefs are only a sideshow. The real intent is the publicity, evidenced by newspaper ads in the Washington Times by Mr. Apuzzo’s client, the most recent of which shows a chimpanzee with the label “courts”.

    Birther AD

    Kerchner v. Obama is a smear campaign, dressed up as a lawsuit. It is as fake as the allegations it makes.

  229. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    Kerchner is not a happy dude.

  230. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    Rewriting history again?

  231. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Do not tell me about the high moral ground. You and this site need many lessons on that score. You are the epitome here of hate, riducule, prejudice, racism, and extreme politics. You just do not have it in your natures to carry on a civil debate about an important subject.

  232. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 12:54 am #

    Expelliarmus,

    If he had all these U.S. passports, why hasn’t one surfaced with all the requests that have been made to see at least one?

    The only thing that I see on this site as evidence of any U.S. passport is that “he must have had one.”

    This is not difficult.

  233. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 12:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You just don’t like to lose, do you?

  234. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 12:59 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Now you hit a nerve talking about rewriting history. You and your flock here and others are great at it, even trying to write Vattel out of U.S. history. You and your sheep have some nerve calling him some Swiss philosopher who wrote some book. Why don’t you call for a live debate between me and you so that we can really lay the cards out on the table?

  235. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Again Mario is entertaining us with his incredible ironic comments.
    Does he have no idea how descriptive these are of his own musings?

  236. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    Because a passport is protected by privacy laws?

    Just an educated guess.

    So you ‘argument’ amounts to: given the lack of evidence this must be seen as evidence of lack of a passport?

    Is that it?

    Hilarious

  237. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    Unlike you, Dr C has yet to experience what losing is really about…

  238. avatar
    NbC December 14, 2009 at 1:13 am #

    Why don’t you call for a live debate between me and you so that we can really lay the cards out on the table?

    You stand no chance my dear friend. No chance at all.

  239. avatar
    Lupin December 14, 2009 at 1:31 am #

    Since Mario started with his inane quip abour “passprot” above…

    Mario: “You are the epitome here of hate, riducule, prejudice, racism, and extreme politics…”

    I’ll stand for “riducule” (whatever that is). That sounds fun. Mario can have the rest.

  240. avatar
    Lupin December 14, 2009 at 1:44 am #

    I return again to the truth behind Mario’s shenanigans.

    His actions (not just the suit but the surrounding publicity, etc) are the thin end of the edge, reflecting the legal agenda of ideological predecessors such as George Gordon.

    (I have quoted chapter and verse from The Precepts here, which Mario has not denied.)

    The tactic appears simple:

    First disenfranchise a whole class of not-white, not-christian, vaguely-foreign people by making them citizen but not Natural Born Citizens.

    Second, expand the positions (arguably) barred to them beyond the Presidency, like: Secretary of State or a seat on the Supreme Court.

    Does anyone here want to bet that if Rasmussen polled the question: “Should someone who is not a natural-born citizen of the United States be appointed to the Supreme Court?” (for example) you’d get 30% to 40% of noes?

    This is not about Obama’s eligibility, which is a convenient lever to move the prejudiced masses. This is far more toxic than that.

  241. avatar
    Mike December 14, 2009 at 3:00 am #

    You just don’t like to lose, do you?

    Wow.

    Mario, you’re projecting so much we could use you to set up a drive-in movie theater.

  242. avatar
    Mike December 14, 2009 at 3:03 am #

    What’s your next source, Mario? The Protocols? Mein Kampf?

  243. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 14, 2009 at 3:32 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Dr. Conspiracy,
    You just don’t like to lose, do you?

    Well, obviously you do like losing.

    What I don’t get is the desire to bask in your losses. Most lawyers would prefer not to have their failed cases so well publicized.

  244. avatar
    Lupin December 14, 2009 at 5:53 am #

    I’m too busy just right now to find the link to the copy of Gordon’s Precepts (the founding text of the KKK) which I found on Google Books (as the appendix to a book on the KKK) and posted here a couple of weeks ago.

    (Perhaps Dr. C could find and archive that link somewhere?)

    The entire notion of redefining “natural-born citizen” not simply as someone born within the US (known exceptions excluded) and limiting it, in effect, to white, christian people of “American” ancestry (ie WASPs) (the irony being that Mario himself would not be a NBC under such rules) is clearly detailed and hammered in there.

    If there is a common spring from which Mario and Donofrio’s rhetoric flow, it is not Vattel but Gordon’s Precepts.

    Definitely worth a read.

  245. avatar
    Scientist December 14, 2009 at 7:35 am #

    I wonder if Mario would provide straight and direct answers to a few questions:

    1. Obama announced his candidacy in January 2007. His father’s citizenship was a matter of public record at that time. By fall 2007 it was clear that Obama had a serious shot of winning and after the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, his odds of getting the nomination were at least 50:50. So, where were you all that time Mario? If you had real concerns and were a true patriot, surely you would have wanted to spare the country the trauma of electing an “ineligible” candidate and then having to go through the long drawn out process of trying to remove him post hoc. If there really were an ineligible candidate, it would be far better to remove him from the ballot BEFORE the election, no? Yet during all that time between January 2007 and November 2008, where was Mario?

    2. Mario says the courts should rule on a definition of “natural born citizen”. Of course one court (the Indiana Court of Appeals) has, though not the way Mario would like. Unless appealed, the ruling stands. So I ask again, where is Mario? Why is he not in Indy appealing to the Indiana Supreme Court?

    3. I have on many occasions offered a friendly wager to birthers on numerous sites that Barack Obama will complete his term (or terms) untroubled by anything related to his birth circumstances. Never has any birther been confident enough in their position to accept. So I ask again, where is Mario?

  246. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 7:51 am #

    The book is “Precept” by George W. Gordon, a Confederate Army officer, and one Klan’s first members. I did not find the text on Google Books.

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 7:56 am #

    I don’t like to see irrationality win over rationality, logic over illogic, and revisionist history over history. Personally while I have a mild distaste at losing, I am certainly mature enough to accept it when I do.

    I didn’t start this web site to support a particular point of view, just to debunk whatever was bunk. It just turns out that one side in this debate is mostly bunk, which makes it appear that I’m in an advocate’s role.

  248. avatar
    Lupin December 14, 2009 at 7:59 am #

    I have also asked Mario to provide us with any information whatsoever (articles, blog postings, briefs, etc.) indicating that he has ever cared about any constitutional issues, even bogus ones (e.g.: income tax is unconstitutional), prior to him being hired as a mouthpiece / sock puppet litigator by what is clearly some kind of right-wing / white supremacist movement.

    He has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the issue while maintaining his transparently meretricious position.

    Mario reminds me of the wonderful MURPHY BROWN episode where Wallace Shawn (the Siciian from PRINCESS BRIDE) played a guy who got elected to congress by appealing to every wacko right-wing conspiracy nut/racial supremacist in Arizona (I think?), and then found himself faced with actually preaching the message that had got him into office.

    He was being interviewed on TV by Murphy, and had a little pile of index cards outlining “his” positions. Every time Murphy would ask him a question, he’d shuffle through the cards and find out what his opinion was. Every time, it was worse than the last.

    He got this wonderful progressively queasy look every time he’d find out his position on some topic (a sort of “oh, god — I have to say THAT?” look).

    The climax was something like:

    Murphy: “But what you’re suggesting sounds like SLAVERY!”
    Stuart: (shuffles through deck, winces…) “Slavery is such an ugly word…”

    There was also a wonderful exchange that went:

    Murphy: “You can’t possibly believe these things!”
    Stuart: “Apparently… I do.”

    At least, Wallace Shawn’s character had scruples; Mario, evidently, has none.

    Otherwise it’s exactly the same thing.

  249. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 8:01 am #

    Debate a professional advocate live? Surely you jest.

    But speaking of history, I would be quite interested in yours. How did you happen to hook up with Mr. Kerchner. It has been reported that you are representing him for no fee, and one wonders what your motivation was to accept the task and how the relationship got started.

  250. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    So who’s ideas do you think were more influential to the founding of America, de Vattel, Locke or Hume?

    No one is trying to write de Vattel out of American history, just to follow the historical record as to what his influence was, and in the matter of citizenship, it appears that he was out of line with the British common law heritage of the American colonies and not at all influential except where certain persons of your anti-immigrant predilection go to find support for your ideas.

  251. avatar
    Lupin December 14, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    Here is the link:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6O_XYBMhNYAC&lpg=PA38&ots=fMf0ocKh3O&dq=George%20Gordon%20Prescript%20Order%20Klan&pg=PA409#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    (Actually it’s under PRESCRIPT, not PRECEPTS. My bad.)

    Those interested in researching the KKK’s definition of “Natural-Born Citizen” (and by extension Mario’s) should check the following passages:

    APPENDIX B.
    P. 421. Qualifying interrogatories.
    P. 428.
    P. 429. Prerequisites to Citizenship in the invisible empire.
    P. 430. Article II. Object & Purpose.
    P. 431. Article IV. Membership.

    I can’t cut and paste since it’s a pdf doc. I think it would be worth archiving this somewhere.

  252. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 14, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    The guy who cites Dred Scott freely has nothing to say for himself on that either.

    I hope Kerchner’s money is worth it, ’cause it really has to suck not having any pride in one’s own self.

  253. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 14, 2009 at 8:43 am #

    Next up: Doc taking the Losing Attorney on his offer, and to have Kapo Mario duck out like a coward then somehow still claim victory.

    Same as it ever was.

  254. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 14, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    1.) Throw bombs.
    2.) Play the victim card when bombs are thrown back.
    3.) …
    4.) Show yourself to be a gigantic thin-skinned tool who has no pride in himself or his law degree.

    Wait, no, that’s not how it went in South Park…

  255. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    And just so we’re clear, saying that “if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” does NOT imply the reverse – that if you are NOT born of American parents you are not a natural-born American citizen.

    Not only am I a lawyer, I tutored future lawyers on the LSAT. This is LSAT 101.

    “If A then B” means the same as “If NOT B then NOT A.”

    If you are NOT a natural-born American citizen, then your parents were not American.

    “If A then B” does NOT mean the same as “If NOT A then NOT B” nor does it mean the same as “If B then A.”

    A. If you study, you’ll get an A.
    B. If you did not get an A, you did not study.
    C. If you do not study, you will not get an A.
    D. If you got an A, you must have studied.

    If A is our statement, then B is the only proper conclusion you can draw from it. C and D are logical fallacies.

    Using SR 511 to say anything about Obama’s citizenship is a logical fallacy.

  256. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 8:55 am #

    You’re the paid legal advocate arguing that Pakistan was SO terrible a place to travel to in 1981.

    In 1981, Pakistan was characterized by martial law, civil war, U.S. Embassy attack, all resulting in loss of life.

    My citation to the New York Times article was to show just how horrible and terrible and scary Pakistan was in 1981. So horrible, terrible and scary that they wrote a travel article about it.

    That the other side did not move to strike these parts of your “verified” complaint and sanction you for failing to do the basic research required by Rule 11 it is proof positive that Obama has NOT spent millions on these issues.

    You’re lucky, Mario, that they JUST moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim.

    Perhaps you should get a copy of the rules of civil procedure?

  257. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 9:01 am #

    Its the passport, not the travel ban.

    If he was traveling to Mexico, France, Germany, would you be asking what passport he traveled on?

    What possible reason do you have to doubt that he traveled on a US passport?

    The NY Times article from 1981 proves that it was not that unusual or difficult or weird for Americans to travel to Pakistan on a US Passport!

    Simple logic, Mario. If Pakistan isn’t that difficult to travel to, then there is no reason to doubt that Obama traveled on a US Passport.

    That’s why YOU put the travel ban in YOUR “verified” complaint.

  258. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 9:05 am #

    Why don’t you call for a live debate between me and you so that we can really lay the cards out on the table?

    I call for a live debate between you and me so that we can really lay the cards out on the table.

  259. avatar
    Scientist December 14, 2009 at 9:14 am #

    I don’t even need the New York Times. I know personally an American who travelled to Pakistan on a US passport in the early 80s. In those days, other than Peshawar and a few parts of Karachi, Pakistan was much safer than many neighborhoods in New York City.

  260. avatar
    Whatever4 December 14, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    The first part of Leahy’s comments make it clear that this is about NBC status by NOT being born on US Soil.

    “Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

    Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

    Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.”

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

    That was the full extent of the “Hearings” held on McCain’s eligibility.

  261. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    I know that there are comments where the widget will send me to the last page and I can find the comment by clicking back through the older comments.

    There are others, however, where I cannot find the comment within any of the older comments.

    Your comment talking about “Typical Mario…” for example, does not show up on any of the older comments pages. I’m wondering if there’s an issue with the nesting – you had mentioned that sometimes your comments can be outside the normal limits of the page.

  262. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    Your comment “Debate a paid advocate live…” also is not visible to me. I’m pretty sure that’s a nesting thing, since Mario’s comment doesn’t allow me to respond directly.

  263. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    Yea, he said to his friend, “let’s go and get our butts shot.

    Like the New York Times travel writer said “I think I’ll write an article about how beautiful and calm Pakistan is so that Americans will go there and get their butts shot?”

    Why do you keep stating that Pakistan was a terrible place to go while ignoring the New York Times travel article?

    . You and your sheep have some nerve calling him some Swiss philosopher who wrote some book.

    Vattel was in influential Swiss philosopher who influenced the Founders on international law. There is no evidence he influenced them on citizenship.

    In one of your recent articles, for example, you cite Thomas Lee’s article, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute” for Vattel’s influence:

    The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite.

    (Emphasis Added) I don’t think anyone here would dispute Vattel’s influence on international law. And with the exception of the partial dissent in The Venus (about domicile), a concurrence in Dred Scott, and the dissent in Wong Kim Ark, all of the Supreme Court’s citations to Vattel are confined to international law.

    Indeed, when you go to Professor Lee’s article, you find a view of Vattel more in line with our view than yours:

    But at the very least, it seems fair to look to The Law of Nations—and secondarily to the foundational treatises by Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf—when Blackstone and other evidence is silent or lacking on a key point, particularly as to the definition and scope of safe conducts at international law.”

    Of course, we know that Blackstone was not silent on the issue of citizenship. He expounded the common law view. And we know that citizenship is never an international law issue. It is always the domestic law that controls. Defining citizenship is one of the principle features of national sovereignty.

    You want to rewrite history to make Vattel more important than he was and infinitely more influential on the issue of citizenship. You want to rewrite history to make Vattel’s view of citizenship more universally accepted than it really was at the founding. You wrote, in that same recent article:

    The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was.

    In fact, at the time of the founding, most “civilized” nations operated on the same principle of jus soli as England.

    At the time of the founding, England granted citizenship to all those born within its borders, without regard to their citizenship. France granted citizenship to all those born within its borders, without regard to citizenship. Robert Joseph Pothier wrote in his treatise on French Citizenship, that “Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran§ais, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise…” In other words, the true and natural citizens of France are those born within its borders. It was, in fact, the law of almost all European nations that citizenship was jus soli.

    Even by the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, it was not a universal understanding of nations that “natural born citizenship” required birth in the nation to two citizen parents. Only Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway imposed Vattel’s rule. Holland, Denmark and Portugal applied jus soli and France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia allowed the children of aliens to get the full rights of the natural-born if certain conditions were met. For example, France, Denmark, Portugal and Holland considered the child of aliens to be a citizen unless that child declined French citizenship before coming of age.

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

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

    that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First. Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country.

    A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.

    Story’s Conflict of Laws, 47, § 48

    You and history are not on speaking terms, Mario. So, I don’t think history needs you to defend it against our alleged rewriting.

  264. avatar
    chufho December 14, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    Greg,people with longer fingers are better at math also a dove is a pidgeon but a pidgeon is not a dove, you are overlooking the conclusion reached in the statement.Otherwise no conclusion would have been concurred.

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, S

  265. avatar
    Dick Whitman December 14, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    Breaking news with Leo Donofrio

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Americas-Two-Unconstitutional-Presidents

  266. avatar
    Black Lion December 14, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    This doesn’t help Leo’s case if he ever decides to file it…

    The Supreme Court will not hear Indiana Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/121409zor.pdf

    09-285
    IN POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL.

    The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950).

  267. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    Because it’s a Christmas tree and because it’s a fir, we can conclude that it’s an evergreen tree.

    Does that mean that both of those things are required to conclude that a tree is an evergreen?

    Does that mean that only firs that are Christmas trees are evergreens?

  268. avatar
    nBc December 14, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Nothing new here. Collins btw was the losing lawyer in Wong Kim Ark. That he attempted to save face is not very remarkable.

    Chief Lawyers for Appellant
    Solicitor General Holmes Conrad, George D. Collins

    Collins made many of the same arguments Donofrio and others are making and lost overwhelmingly at the SCOTUS hearing.

    As I said, old news

  269. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    Not breaking and not news. This is just a recapitulation of Leo’s basic Arthur thesis.

    Of course, there is no evidence that Arthur hid his father’s naturalization status. There is no evidence that it would have mattered to anyone. George Collins argument was soundly rejected by the Court in Wong Kim Ark – he was the signing attorney on the amicus brief filed in that case.

    This is just more of the same. This time with a picture.

    Yawn.

  270. avatar
    Black Lion December 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Sven, there is nothing to see here in regards to this article….It is rehashed crap from Leo.

    This paragraph is hilarious…

    “A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term, that had the President seen it, would have concerned him. “Are Persons born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof?” was published in the American Law Review in Sept. /Oct. 1884. Collins thesis reverberates through history: “… are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens there of?” Collins relies on two sources in particular for his answer.”

    The writer is so disingenous that she fails to mention that Collins was the LOSING attorney in the Wong Kim Ark case. So his argument was already heard and dismissed. There is nothing new here. Leo must be getting desperate….

    Then this part of the article was just misinformation….

    “Barack Obama has hidden the truth right in the open, it has never been an issue of where he was born, it was who he is the son of. A British, Kenyan National. In the instant when Citizenship is decided, birth, he was British, Kenyan, and American. By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation. A citizen? Yes, but not one that is solely native, solely natural, to the United States, and the United States alone.”

    The writer obviously does not understand what a natural born citizen is. She must be John Charlton’s secret persona…

    And finally we get to the actual point of the article, which is just a rehash of the previous articles…

    “Barack Obama has hidden the truth right in the open, it has never been an issue of where he was born, it was who he is the son of. A British, Kenyan National. In the instant when Citizenship is decided, birth, he was British, Kenyan, and American. By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation. A citizen? Yes, but not one that is solely native, solely natural, to the United States, and the United States alone.”

    Again nothing new. The birthers must be getting desperate because they are rehashing the same debunked information. However the dismissal by the SCOTUS of the pension fund doesn’t really help Leo. And when is he actually going to file this case? When Nathan Deal actually gets around to mailing his letter to the President?

    A commenter to the article had the best response…

    Mr. Left says:
    quo warranto is just a birther wet dream
    one good thing, it keeps the wing nuts preoccupied so they don’t cause any real trouble.

  271. avatar
    Black Lion December 14, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    My response above was for this so called article…The reply should be here…

  272. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    Collins wrote his article in 1884.

    This was 2 years after the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. It was in defense of this that Collins wrote his article:

    The Chinese, for instance, are a people foreign to us in every respect; they have resided amongst us for upwards of thirty years, and during the whole of that time they have rigidly adhered to the peculiar customs, habits and methods of their forefathers. Although all this time surrounded by American civilization it has wholly failed to make any impression upon them; they segregate themselves from the mass of people and establish a colony according to Oriental ideas in order that they may live in a manner similar to those in China; they are antagonistic to our civilization; know nothing and refuse to know anything of our institutions and are utterly incapable of self-government; they do not come here animus manendi, but as soon as they obtain a competency, either by their labor or otherwise, they return to their native land to enjoy it….

    Now it is evident that such persons are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the important privileges of an American citizen, a title which it was the aim of our ancestors to make as proud as that of king; and yet under the common-law rule they would be citizens.

    The same year as this article, 1884, In re Look Ting Sing was decided by Justice Field. This case was the death knell of Collins’ theory. It was the most influential of the Chinese cases. Justice Field was on the Supreme Court at the time and was riding circuit when he wrote that opinion. He was on the Court when it heard the case of Wong Kim Ark, but retired before the decision came out, making it a 6-2 decision.

    And, of course, this article does not make the case that Arthur would have been ineligible for the Presidency, it makes the case that he would have not been a citizen.

    There are only two options in Collins’ view for those born here – alien or natural born citizen.

    That is, of course, the view of the Founders. None would have imagined a third class of citizen – born here but ineligible for the Presidency. We don’t see that possibility until after Wong Kim Ark, when Collins and other internationalists (like Alexander Porter Morse) retrenched and, in the face of their loss in that case, argued that natural born was only operative in the Presidential qualification clause, therefore, WKA didn’t make a natural born citizen, but just a citizen.

    This view, of course, was counter-factual and a novel interpretation. Before WKA there was nobody who thought that there could be someone born here, become a citizen because of that birth, but not be eligible for the Presidency.

  273. avatar
    Dick Whitman December 14, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    Does the Court know you’ve dismissed Leo’s case?

  274. avatar
    Scientist December 14, 2009 at 12:40 pm #

    Dick Whitman: Does the Court know you’ve dismissed Leo’s case?

    Yes. When Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in that was what is called in poker a “tell”. It showed that he and his colleagues considered all birther cases nonsense and that all of them were rendered moot when Congress accepted the election results without objection.

    Unfortunately Leo is not even a good enough poker to read such an obvious tell. Nor, obviously, are you.

  275. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    Did I say that Leo’s case had been dismissed? No. Is that article about any breaking news in Leo’s case? No. It’s a recap of Leo’s theory of Chester Arthur. BS that’s been debunked here and elsewhere numerous times.

  276. avatar
    nBc December 14, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    It’s not that Leo’s “case” has been dismissed, rather an overview of why Leo’s arguments fail. As to the “case” there are worse problems to deal with than the eligibility argument. Getting standing in a bankruptcy proceedings, will be incredibly unlikely. Arguing the constitutionality of President Obama’s actions is so indirect that it will be rejected as well.
    Since Quo Warranto does not apply to the President, as legislative history so clearly shows, I have to ask you “what case”?

  277. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Lupin,

    The Framer’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not discriminatory. Under the Framer’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, any person born in the United States to citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of race, color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical condition.

  278. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    The law saying that no one could marry outside their race was not discriminatory. No one could marry outside their race, regardless of race, color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or physical condition.

    Maybe you’re too old to have studied this sort of thing in law school.

    Even pretending for a second that the Framers had this in mind, do you really think this view, which would say that two citizens, one born to an American mother and alien father couldn’t be President, and the other born out of wedlock to an American mother and alien father could be President, would constitute equal protection under the 14th Amendment?

    But, regardless, that wasn’t the Framer’s definition of “natural born citizen.” That’s your definition of “natural born citizen.”

    Generally, when legal scholars say that X is the Framer’s definition, they can point to something written by a Framer saying, “this is our definition.”

    You, by contrast, have nothing of the sort.

    You have a set definition of “natural born,” more than 400 years that the Framers must have known about since they used common law terms throughout the Constitution.

    You have a distinct absence of the Framers detailing any changes to the term “natural born.”

    You have half a dozen or more contemporaries of the Framers saying they did not intend a change in the term.

    You have an influential state court case (cited numerous times in the Supreme Court and in other state and federal cases) tracing the unchanged meaning of the term.

    You have a Supreme Court case explicitly finding that the term did not change.

    Against this you have a Swiss philosopher quoted numerous times for his views on international law and almost never for his views on citizenship. (And the times he’s cited on citizenship it’s as often to say that citizenship follows the father as it is to say that citizenship requires both parents to be citizens.)

    As they used say in some circles, “Your karate is weak, Mario.”

  279. avatar
    chufho December 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    Greg, would an artificial christmas tree still be an evergreen

  280. avatar
    Scientist December 14, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    chufho: Do you have to be hit on the head in order to get it? The election is OVER, FINISHED, DONE and Obama won. He is President. Your liking or not liking it doesn’t change the fact. Like any President his actions (not his holding office) can be challenged in court. In the Chrysler case they were and the plaintiffs lost-also over, finished, done.

    This is no different than Cindy Sheehan suing over the Iraq War because Bush didn’t win Florida. That election too was over, finished, done. You would have laughed at that case, I’m sure. This is even more frivolous. since at least in Cindy’s case human lives were involved.

  281. avatar
    chufho December 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    “I have not yet begun to fight”
    I believe the Florida election was visited by the supreme court as should the eligibilty issue

  282. avatar
    Scientist December 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    chufho: I believe the Florida election was visited by the supreme court as should the eligibilty issue

    BEFORE Congress certified the results and the President was inaugurated. They were candidates Bush and Gore, not President. And the Congress could have over-ruled the court and thrown out the Florida electoral votes. Of course the Congress was Republican then, so that wasn’t going to happen.

    Once Congress certifies and certainly after inauguration, courts have no jurisdiction. Read the decisions of Judges Carter, Land, etc. You can try again in 2012 when he becomes candidate Obama again. Till then, you’re just wasting your time (which I don’t care about) and the court’s time (which I do).

  283. avatar
    SFJeff December 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Mario- as everyone here knows- you are wrong- but wrong in the way of your usual lies.

    I accidentally clicked on your name and went to your webstie and saw your Dec 6 list of lies and smears. How can you really sleep at night spewing forth that what you know is either a lie or intended to mislead? I was going to copy some of them, but the biggest loser of them all is asking why President Obama didn’t make his Grandmother availible for press interviews in February of 2008. The sad history of you- and the birthers- is that if she had sworn on a bible in front of reporters that Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii- you and the rest would be impugning her truthfulness.

    The long list of the multiple reasons why you think President Obama was not eligible is ample evidence that this is not a constitutional issue for, its that you want that uppity black man out of the white house. You call the President the ursurper, but in reality, you are the one advocating Courts overthrowing a legally elected President. If anyone should be called a traitor, its you and your ilk.

    I used to have some minimal respect for your posts, but your website just took care of it for me.

  284. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Would anyone born on a US military base be a natural born citizen?

    Would McCain have been a natural born citizen if he had been born in California and not on a military base?

    The same logical fallacy that says the Senate Resolution on McCain makes Obama a non-natural citizen can be used to say that only those born abroad on US military bases are natural born citizens.

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, S

    Logic is hard, I understand, but the Senate is not saying that only those with 2 citizen parents are natural born citizens. They are saying that when talking about people born abroad, we can say with certainty that those born to two citizen parents and on a US Military base are natural born citizens.

    If I say that all men are alive, that doesn’t imply that all women are dead. Except to idiots.

  285. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Mario, if the Founders adopted Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, why did they:

    1. Reject the equivalence between the words “native-born” and “natural-born?” We’ve pointed to dozens of cases which state that those born here to alien parents are native born citizens, yet you make a distinction between the two concepts.

    2. Reject the other categories put forward by Vattel. As I’m sure you are aware, in section 212 of Vattel’s book, he states that those born here to aliens do not become citizens of any sort, at best, per section 213, they become perpetual inhabitants. Apparently, according to you, the Founders adopted Vattel’s “natural born citizen” but did NOT adopt his “perpetual inhabitants.” And the writers of the 14th Amendment did not speak, either, of “perpetual inhabitants,” but, again, according to you, made those children of aliens into “citizens.” Just not the same sort of citizen as a natural born citizen, enjoying all the perks of citizenship except being able to run for President.

    In short, it appears that the Founders read Vattel very poorly, since they only adopted his definition of natural born citizen. They left the rest of his citizenship distinctions in the ashcan of history.

  286. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    Greg: Logic is hard

    Actually, the two logic courses I had in college were about the easiest classes I ever took.

  287. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    SFJeff: Mario… How can you really sleep at night…?

    You should look at what time of the night Mr. Apuzzo posts some of his messages.

  288. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    I swear I didn’t go looking for this; it just popped into a drop-down list.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_in_New_Jersey

    Does the face in the cartoon look familiar?

  289. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    Oh crap.

    I sent this email to the author:

    Your article really does a disservice to the discussion.

    There is not one shred of historical evidence to support the claim you make that Chester A. Arthur hid his father’s immigration status, nor one shred of evidence that the fact was unknown to his opponents. Quite the contrary.

    Democrat lawyer A. P. Hinman spent months digging into Arthur’s eligibility, including visiting his home town (contemporary report in the New York Times, December 1880 — check the microfilm at your local library). He even wrote a 100-page book on the subject (available through interlibray loan), titled: “How a British subject became president of the United States” that is full of investigative reports, affidavits and interviews. We can be fairly certain that Hinman was well aware of the father’s naturalization status because of this letter he received (and published in the book):

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
    and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
    the U. S.
    The naturalization by law of a father before his child
    attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
    such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    This is exactly the true scenario for Arthur’s father: his father naturalized before his son reached age 21 (of course Arthur was born in the United States and not Canada as Hinman was trying to prove and so the child was already native born).

    It appears that the rest of the world knew too, this too from Hinman’s book:

    PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
    A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
    THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
    (By cable to the Herald.)
    London, December 12, 1881.

    …Arthur even refrains from making comments
    on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
    which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
    also born Irishmen like the President.

    A bit of advice: Internet blogs are not an authoritative source of historical information. You have been had by Leo Donofrio and his followers.
    I think you should publish an apology.

  290. avatar
    milspec December 14, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    A bit of a thread jack, my collage roommate’s girlfriend’s parents had a home in the Barbados. Beach house with servants (not part of my upbringing). Spent 4 years there over winter break. I did travel there with my US passport.

  291. avatar
    SFJeff December 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    Mario- you are quite a piece of work.

    You put a claim in a law suit that there was a travel ban on travelling to Pakistan and therefore Obama must have been travelling on a non-U.S. passport there.

    When it is pointed out that there was no ban- defacto or not- you then try to protest that the issue is the passport not the travel ban. But your travel ban claim is the only way you had to establish any doubt that he used his U.S. passport. No that the travel ban claim has been thoroughly refuted, do you admit your mistake?

    Nope. You now claim he should show his passport just ‘because’.

    Mario- your website if full of lies and innuendo. You have no moral high ground at all. Lies and innuendo are your stock in trade.

  292. avatar
    SFJeff December 14, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    Oh and by the way- in the 1980’s you couldn’t get a better passport to travel on than a U.S. passport. It was almost embarressing to show my U.S. passport and be whisked through Customs ahead of folks from pretty much anywhere else. A U.S. passport was golden. There was no worries about terrorists or negative feedback. The worst that ever happened to me was my buddies Greek mother who yelled about the American’s in Lebanon.

  293. avatar
    SFJeff December 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Scientist- you should know by now that Mario is highly allergic to straight answers.

  294. avatar
    SFJeff December 14, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    “Under the Framer’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,””

    I missed that- where in the Constitution do they define NBC again Mario?

  295. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    SFJeff,

    I’m sorry if you feel that way, Jeff. But in a debate, there are always at least two sides. My essays are my side. I do not just make the things up. We will just have to agree to disagree.

  296. avatar
    nBc December 14, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    And I ignore the questions from others who point out the gaping holes in your arguments

  297. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

    About Madelyn Dunham, you cite this article. WTF? It doesn’t have a thing to do with her. How does this article, which relates an interview with Stanley Dunham’s classmate, show that Obama refused to make Madelyn Dunham available to the press?

    And, I’m sorry, but do they practice law differently in New Jersey? About Minor, you write:

    The Court was very specific in defining “natives, or natural born citizens” as requiring not only birth in the country but also citizen parents and in stating that the Framers would have defined the terms as such. In mentioning “some authorities” going further in defining “citizens” (without reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents), the Court surely did not say that the Framers maintained any such position on citizenship. Rather, the Court was referring to “some” commentators who had made such an argument. The Court also did not say that these other “authorities” considered these other children to be “natural born citizens.”

    Where I practice law, when the court says “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts” that means they have not solved these doubts and it would be considered lying to the court to say, for example, that the case said that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents or that the Founders would have defined it as such.

    This isn’t a difference of opinion, Mario. The Court said:

    For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    It is not simply another “side” in the debate to represent Minor that way, it’s a lie. Do they define lie differently in New Jersey?

  298. avatar
    Rickey December 14, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo says:

    The only ones weaseling are those on this site who insist to talking about a travel ban. Really, do you think people raising this issue care about the travel ban. It’s the passport, stupid!

    You’re not only a weasel, you’re pathetic and disingenuous.

    Everyone knows that your evidence-free conclusion that Obama traveled to Pakistan on a foreign passport flows directly from your evidence-contradicted premise that there was a travel ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. The supposed travel ban is the only reason anyone would have to suspect that Obama did not travel on a U.S. passport.

    Your premise has been definitively proven to be flawed, so it follows that your conclusion is flawed. You know this to be the case, which is why you obstinately refuse to admit that your premise is a lie.

    You don’t get to see Obama’s passport for the same reason that you can’t see my passport and I can’t see your passport. Whether you are the president or a publicity-seeking ambulance chaser, you are protected by the same privacy laws.

  299. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 14, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    Greg,

    1. I have stated that during the Founding “native born citizen” meant the same as “natural born citizen.” I also said that it is not until later that to distinguish persons who were citizens by being born on U.S. soil from citizens by naturalization that the word “native born citizen” took on a more loose meaning, i.e., it no longer meant “natural born citizen” but rather a person who was a U.S. citizen by simply being born in the U.S. without any reference to the person’s parents.

    2. After the Constitution was adopted, per the Founders and early Congresses, the children born in the U.S. to alien parents were not citizens. They had to naturalize, just as their parents did. When their parents naturalized, they automatically naturalized if they were minors. Wong Kim Ark changed this but did not change the definition of “natural born Citizens,” for it only changed the meaning of a “citizen of the United States” which is only the first step in the journey of those “citizens of the United States” parents being able to create a “natural born citizen.” Hence, Vattel’s view that “perpetual inhabitants” were not full citizens and that their children followed their condition was accepted by the Founders and early Congresses. I am sure that you know that today we have persons who are called “legal permanent residents” who are not U.S. citizens. They carry a “green card.” These are today’s “perpetual inhabitants.” These individuals can be prohibited from entering the United States or even be removed from it under conditions specified in our immigration laws.

    In short, the Founders not only read Vattel very clearly but also adopted his main views on citizenship.

  300. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    Mario, some questions for you:

    1. If it was clear by the time of Wong Kim Ark that there was a distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” such that everyone reading the decision at the time would realize that Wong could not run for President, why didn’t George Collins, the preeminent thinker on this topic, make that point in his amicus brief? Instead, he argued that Wong, if he was a citizen, would be eligible to run for President.

    2. If it was clear that WKA made Wong only a citizen, why did the dissent in the case not realize it? They wrote:

    The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was [born in the empire, regardless of parent’s citizenship].

    And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.

    3. If it is clear that Wong Kim Ark did not make children of aliens eligible to become President, why did the dissent in that case think that it did? In arguing that the children of our citizens born abroad should be considered natural-born citizens, the dissent writes:

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

    What is the dissent talking about if it is clear that those born of aliens would never be eligible for the Presidency?

  301. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: In short, the Founders not only read Vattel very clearly but also adopted his main views on citizenship.

    They were just ashamed to admit it in public. Mario, I’m sure you know that the Ku Klux Klan was formed after the Civil War, not the Revolutionary War.

  302. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    1. So, what’s the dividing line. When is the first case that says X is a native born citizen, but really means “citizen born here but not a natural born citizen?”

    2.

    After the Constitution was adopted, per the Founders and early Congresses, the children born in the U.S. to alien parents were not citizens.

    Factually untrue.

    As pointed out in Wong Kim Ark, it wasn’t until around 50 years after the founding that anyone doubted that the children of aliens were anything other than citizens.

    Name one state or colony or Congressional act before 1835 that said that the children of aliens were not citizens.

    As to naturalization, that’s not the same as perpetual inhabitants. Vattel deals with naturalization separately from perpetual inhabitants. And if those green-card holders have a child, they don’t also become green-card holders. They become citizens. In Vattel’s view, they would become green-card holders, and have the same right of “perpetual inhabitation” as the parents.

    So, I guess if someone is here on an H-1B visa as a software engineer and they have a child, that child, in Vattel’s United States would also be a software engineer?

  303. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 12:20 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: showing what one academic contemporary thought of the work

    This is also an opinion from Munroe Smith.

    ‘Birther material’ Dr. C is what I called oposing material.

  304. avatar
    chufho December 15, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    explain quo warranto

  305. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 12:43 am #

    ballantine: you need to look at state law at the time of the founding where all states followed the english common law rules.

    only that this was not the case. Some states adopted jus sanguinis and some other jus soli at the time of the original constitution. Not all states were following the British natural born subject doctrine.

  306. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 15, 2009 at 12:49 am #

    Lupin,

    You left out world domination.

  307. avatar
    G December 15, 2009 at 1:05 am #

    I felt the same way when I took various logic classes in college too. However, I was quite surprised by how many of my classmates completely struggled in those same classes. I honestly think that a lot of people, for whatever reason, really have a difficult time grasping how logical structure and logical analogies work.

  308. avatar
    chufho December 15, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    Greg , you seem to have a hard time staying focused we are looking at the tree not the forest, no one infered that anyone born on a military base is a nbc and yes maccain would have been a nbc if born california the answer you seek is the fact he was born to u.s. citizens. but you have maybe struck gold in a premise for a game show (read a fact than twist it around)or fast and loose

  309. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    “explain quo warranto”

    An excellent question. Quo warranto would be invoked, for example, when I trim my cat’s nails. He vocally, and physically, rebels against my insistance in cutting down his talons. So, an animal rights lawyer like Mario, Leo, or Orly will take him as a plaintiff and bring a lawsuit against me for violating his civil rights.

    I will contact the ACLU, since I am entirely within my rights as his guardian and benefactor.

    It’s really a simple case, but those three attorneys insist on making a federal case of it. Hence, quo warranto as opposed to a simple warrant.

    If you have any more legal questions, I would be more than happy to explain them, such as why a legitimately elected president should be hounded out of office.

  310. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 15, 2009 at 1:31 am #

    SFJeff,

    Is that what you would tell the U.S. Supreme Court? Evidently, your knowledge of how constitutional law works is quite shallow.

  311. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 1:36 am #

    “Evidently, your knowledge of how constitutional law works is quite shallow.”

    As is yours.

  312. avatar
    chufho December 15, 2009 at 1:37 am #

    Your wrong

    The common law writ of quo warranto: a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.

  313. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 1:38 am #

    “Your wrong”

    No, you’re wrong.

  314. avatar
    nbc December 15, 2009 at 1:40 am #

    Irony alert… My Goodness Mario, have you no sense of humor…
    Remind us again, what is the Framers’ definition of NBC again? Or is it the Mario’s definition?…

  315. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 15, 2009 at 1:55 am #

    Scientist,

    I like how you finish your argument by showing the compassionate side of you. Your argument becomes more convincing that way.

  316. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 15, 2009 at 1:57 am #

    Scientist,

    You really are a good American. You even care about the court’s time.

  317. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 2:02 am #

    If that is the case (I don’t have any learned opinion on what your Founders said or thought), then surely Obama is a Natural-Born Citizen, since one of his parents is a citizen.

    The only possible loophole you can exploit is to state that citizenship is transmissible ONLY by the father, not the mother. Which you don’t.

    Therefore you don’t have a case, even if your premise is true.

  318. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 2:04 am #

    Yes, avoid the issue as usual.

    When you’re not projecting your faults on others, you refuse to answer in straightforward matter.

    Do you deny being associated with right-wing supremacists? A simple yes or no will do.

  319. avatar
    chufho December 15, 2009 at 2:15 am #

    By simply trivializing the importance of quo warranto you are invoking a disservice to the foundation of the great free country in which you reside

    British Nationality Act 1948

    Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

    Citizenship by descent.

    5.—(1) …a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

  320. avatar
    nbc December 15, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    You wanna give it a try? It might work.

    But I doubt it

  321. avatar
    chufho December 15, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    why a legitimately elected president should be hounded out of office

    if you make a purchase in good faith and find out you have been misled you should be intitled to a remedy it takes both parties to make a legal transaction if one portrays oneself as medical dr. and then is later found fraudulent they then face legal ramifications

  322. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 2:26 am #

    “By simply trivializing the importance of quo warranto you are invoking a disservice”

    By dismissing the trauma to my cat, you are doing a disservice to animal rights.

  323. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 2:31 am #

    “if one portrays oneself as medical dr. and then is later found fraudulent they then face legal ramifications”

    Like Orly portraying herself as a lawyer, or Leo portraying himself as anything other than a mediocre poker player. Or Mario portraying himself as anything other than an ambulance chaser.

  324. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 15, 2009 at 2:31 am #

    Greg,

    You said you were so good in logic and even taught LSAT courses to future lawyers. Well let’s follow your Wong logic. You say:

    1. The Dissent and Collins said if Wong is a “citizen” he is also a “natural born citizen.”

    2. The Majority knows that the Dissent and Collins said that if it finds that Wong is a “citizen,” then he would also be a “natural born citizen.”

    3. The Majority found Wong to be a “citizen.”

    4. Therefore the Majority agreed that Wong is not only a “citizen” but also a “natural born citizen.”

    Surely you do not believe that number 4 necessarily follows from numbers 1, 2, and 3?

  325. avatar
    chufho December 15, 2009 at 3:05 am #

    guardian and benefactor

    if you think the goverment is my guardian and benefactor than you are mistaken the goverment is my servant
    where have you accumulated your logic

  326. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 3:15 am #

    White supremacist attorney Mario Apuzzo would like us to believe that, according to the Founders, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation.

    This twisted interpretation would of course disenfranchise every child from non-citizen Latino parents born in this country.

  327. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 3:19 am #

    “This twisted interpretation would of course disenfranchise every child from non-citizen Latino parents born in this country.”

    Which is exactly their goal. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  328. avatar
    red red rose December 15, 2009 at 3:39 am #

    Greg: .
    Name one state or colony or Congressional act before 1835 that said that the children of aliens were not citizens.

    Gee, yesterday it was “name one act before 1860″…. did someone find something?

    A Treatise on the Law of Citizenship in the United States
    By Prentiss Webster (1891)
    http://tiny.cc/CitizenshipLaw1891
    WHO WERE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1836?
    “The citizens of the United States, at this period, were the children of such former English subjects as had optated to become citizens, and such foreigners as had become legally naturalized.” page 88

    “The first generation descended from the founders of the government and born in the United States were now in full age, enjoying full rights and privileges of citizenship, as the children of parents who were citizens by choice under the treaty of 1783. The second generation were born, and by virtue of birth of citizens of the United States, were following the citizenship of their parents under the rule of extraction.
    When the first generation became of age each person so descended of a citizen of the United States, expressly or impliedly, himself became a citizen of the United States, or emigrated and became a citizen elsewhere.” page 88,89

  329. avatar
    red red rose December 15, 2009 at 4:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: We can be fairly certain that Hinman was well aware of the father’s naturalization status because of this letter he received (and published in the book):

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a *native* of the U. S.
    The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    This is exactly the true scenario for Arthur’s father: his father naturalized before his son reached age 21 (of course Arthur was born in the United States and not Canada as Hinman was trying to prove and so the child was already native born).

    Not so fast.

    You are assuming that Bayard (and Hinman) thought that a child born to an alien parent on US soil was a native citizen. Bayard’s definition of a *native* citizen (and natural born citizen) was a child born on US soil to citizen parents.

    Thomas F. Bayard was a US Senator from Delaware between 1869 and 1885, which includes the Chester Arthur administration (1881 – 1885). Bayard became Secretary of State in 1885.

    In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19579587/Nation-Article-Bayard

    He never would have considered Arthur a “native citizen” or a “natural born citizen” only because he was born on US soil. Citizen parents were required.

  330. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 6:44 am #

    Well, why did Hinman ask if the naturalization of Arthur’s father could make Arthur a natural born citizen?

  331. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 6:50 am #

    Did I say that they followed from 1 and 2? No. Reading comprehension is ALSO tested on the LSAT.

    I am asking why the dissent, who were there when the case was argued, who, presumably participated in the oral argument, who read the opinion, thought the opinion decided Wong was made a natural born citizen?

    How did the dissent miss what is obvious to a DWI lawyer 100 years removed from the case?

    Do you plan on answering the questions?

  332. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 6:59 am #

    and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials

    A. The judiciary can remedy violations of the Constitution by public officials in many other ways. If you don’t like the Obama bankruptcy actions, present a case that THEY violate the Constitution. They will be overturned.

    B. Quo warranto is NOT a remedy allowed to attack the validity of a sitting president. The methods of removing a President are listed in the Constitution.

    C. 8 USC 1401 – (written in 1952) – “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – Obama was born a natural born citizen of this country, by OUR laws. Whether he was the citizen of another country by THEIR laws is irrelevant.

  333. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 7:05 am #

    In 1995, Obama wrote a book, Dreams from My Father, in which he told, in explicit detail, of his father. It has sold millions of copies and has been translated into at least 9 different languages.

    In 2004, Obama gave a speech that was watched by 38 million people. In it, he stated, right at the front, that his father was a foreign student born in Kenya.

    Who misled you? The dozens, if not hundreds of law professors and legal scholars who think that the citizenship of Obama’s dad is irrelevant to his status as a natural born citizen?

  334. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 7:23 am #

    Chufho, please. Pay attention. You pointed to that sentence as requiring 2 citizen parents. It does not. Your logic is flawed. You’re pretending that all evergreens are fir trees because fir trees are evergreens.

  335. avatar
    Scientist December 15, 2009 at 7:26 am #

    Mario-Did you miss my challenge for a $100 bet that Obama completes his term(s) untouched by any of these cases or are you so lacking in confidence in the rightness of your position that you’re afraid to put your money where your mouth is? If the latter, that would be the one sensible position you’ve taken in the last year.

  336. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 7:26 am #

    Some of us have real clients with real injuries, Mario. Every minute you waste with a case that is, in my opinion, sanctionably groundless, is a minute the court can’t be hearing a real case. The child rapist case. The death case. The personal injury case.

    Yeah, the court’s time is a really trivial thing to worry about.

  337. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 7:31 am #

    Now I can’t see red red rose’s response to me that starts, “Greg: Name one state or colony or Congressional act…” It should be comment 29962, but I can’t find it anywhere. I looked backwards and forwards through the comments. I looked at the post it was responding to.

  338. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 7:49 am #

    I can’t see it either in the public UI. This is the comment:

    Greg: .
    Name one state or colony or Congressional act before 1835 that said that the children of aliens were not citizens.

    Gee, yesterday it was “name one act before 1860‘…. did someone find something?

    A Treatise on the Law of Citizenship in the United States
    By Prentiss Webster (1891)
    http://tiny.cc/CitizenshipLaw1891
    WHO WERE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1836?
    “The citizens of the United States, at this period, were the children of such former English subjects as had optated to become citizens, and such foreigners as had become legally naturalized.” page 88

    “The first generation descended from the founders of the government and born in the United States were now in full age, enjoying full rights and privileges of citizenship, as the children of parents who were citizens by choice under the treaty of 1783. The second generation were born, and by virtue of birth of citizens of the United States, were following the citizenship of their parents under the rule of extraction.
    When the first generation became of age each person so descended of a citizen of the United States, expressly or impliedly, himself became a citizen of the United States, or emigrated and became a citizen elsewhere.” page 88,89

  339. avatar
    Scientist December 15, 2009 at 7:51 am #

    So now you want courts to enforce campaign promises as a legal contract? Please, take a pill (or several) and go lie down.

  340. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 7:54 am #

    red red rose, You miss my point entirely.

    I don’t care what Bayard’s opinion was, only that he was addressing the true situation of Arthur’s father in a reply to Hinman’s question, from which we may draw the conclusion that Hinman knew it.

    That is, knowing the true facts of Arthur’s father’s naturalization, Arthur opponent Hinman did not raise the issue in a 100-page book, from which one can infer that he didn’t think it was relevant (which it wasn’t). Hinman and Arthur were both New York lawyers and surely at least one of them was aware of the New York Chancery Court’s opinion from 40 years before stating that the children of aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens.

    There was no coverup.

  341. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 8:02 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: 1. The Dissent and Collins said if Wong is a “citizen” he is also a “natural born citizen.”

    To which I add:

    2. President Obama is a citizen

    3. Therefore the Dissent in Wong and Collins would say he is a “natural born citizen”.

    I was in the 95th percentile in the GRE math exam.

  342. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    chufho: By simply trivializing the importance of quo warranto

    If a court ever accepts such a case against Obama, we’ll give it front page coverage.

  343. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 15, 2009 at 8:57 am #

    That is one article that birthers have been promoting for some time.

    If you look at the entire article itself, you will see that they also claim the preceding Secretary changed his mind somewhere between 1881 and 1883. So, between 1883 (or 1882 – and Bayard’s answer to Hinman dates from January 1881)) and the decision in Wong Kim Ark, the Secretaries of State (note: not the courts, and that is in the article as well) interpreted “under the jurisdiction of the US” as meaning anyone with another nationality. Actually, that is what this article asserts, and I wonder if that is 100% the truth, because I have read somewhere (cannot trace it back) that the father of that “German subject, born in Ohio” was not present in the US at the time of his son’s birth. If they really changed their mind, I suspect it is easy to guess why: they were afraid of the repercussions of the 14th Amendment on the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    The whole problem with your argument is that the Doctor is not saying that Bayard knew about Arthur’s British nationality, but THAT HINMAN KNEW. Why else would he have asked a question about naturalization of the father during the minority of his son – and the language of the response suggests Bayard did not know the question was about Arthur.

    I would also like to point out to whoever it may concern that DAVID Eisenhower was born before Wong Kim Ark was decided. So were all his German forefathers, of course. Are we now arguing that Ike was not even a US citizen when born?

  344. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 15, 2009 at 9:18 am #

    mishaLike Leo portraying himself as anything other than a mediocre poker player.

    Actually, I have come to know Leo a little bit better. He is a failed lawyer – said so himself. He is a less than mediocre poker player. How good he still is at chess, is different to ascertain, since he has a habit of leaving tournaments when it looks like staying on would cause his ELO (I kid you not) rating to go down. He also thinks he is the Paraclete. Kibbitzer at law, poker, chess and religion.

    However, as a natural born Italian, he does have some musical skills. So, Leo, here is to you, from the Alps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FbqFkICtjI
    (“Everybody comes running, when you mention Leo”)

  345. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    Hear, hear! Bravo!

  346. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 10:13 am #

    Take 2 Xanax, and call me in the morning.

  347. avatar
    Mike December 15, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Given that Mario has been spectacularly the loser in every instance so far, from court to this blog’s comments, I’d say it is the other way around…

  348. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    One fact about the Wong Kim Ark case which seems to have been overlooked is that the district court decision which the government appealed to the Supreme Court apparently did in fact declare that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. From the government’s Supreme Court brief:

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen therof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitting him to land.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

    Thus, even the government conceded that the district court ruling said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen, in spite of the fact that neither of his parents were citizens. Since the district court ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court without modification, it follows that the Supreme Court also ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen.

  349. avatar
    SFJeff December 15, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    “if you make a purchase in good faith and find out you have been misled you should be intitled to a remedy”

    Luckily for you, the Constitution does have remedies. Any President can be impeached and convicted by Congress.

  350. avatar
    SFJeff December 15, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    “if you think the goverment is my guardian and benefactor than you are mistaken the goverment is my servant”

    Guardian: Armed Forces, Coast Guard, FBI, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, U.S.D.A., FDA
    Benefactor: Social Security, Medicare, the Interstate Highway System, The Park Service.
    Servant: The government is the servant of THE People, not a person. As a person, you cannot ‘fire’ the President. As the people, we through our elected representatives can ‘fire’ the President.

  351. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mario Apuzzo: 1. The Dissent and Collins said if Wong is a “citizen” he is also a “natural born citizen.” To which I add:2. President Obama is a citizen3. Therefore the Dissent in Wong and Collins would say he is a “natural born citizen”.I was in the 95th percentile in the GRE math exam.

    His father did not domicile in the U.S., so the answer is no.

  352. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    So you are saying President Obama is not a citizen?

  353. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So you are saying President Obama is not a citizen?

    Well, not under WKA ruling.

  354. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    Domicile. Big word. Do you know what it means? Did you know that you cannot determine a domicile by looking retrospectively at a person’s actions, but must determine that person’s intentions at the time of the event in question.

    So, what evidence do you have about Obama Sr.’s intentions when his son were born? I think the fact that he had gotten married and had a child give a pretty strong indication that at the time of his child’s birth, he had formed the requisite intention to stay in the country to have formed a domicile.

    Anyway, what is it with you guys and failing to read any of the reasoning of the case. Wong’s citizenship didn’t hinge on his parents’ domiciling in the country, it hinged on his parents allegiance to the country. Where did that allegiance come from? By their simple residence in the country!

    It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

    independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

    The law isn’t just about finding the holding of the case, it’s about figuring out what reasoning went into that holding and whether that reasoning will apply to the next set of facts.

  355. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    Greg,

    You can throw that LSAT stuff around all you want. It’s not going to get you any medals or make you any smarter.

    You were trying to convince people that Wong Kim Ark did find that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” You used the dissent’s and Collins’ position that Wong would then be eligible to be President if the Court ruled that he was a citizen to prove your point. You might fool others on this site but you do not fool me.

  356. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:06 am #

    Poor misha, resorting to cat tales.

  357. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:15 am #

    misha,

    How do you stand yourself?

  358. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Greg,

    You forgot about his place of birth. It would be nice to have some transparency on that score.

  359. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Scientist,

    You finally said something funny.

  360. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    Lupin,

    Do your fans a favor and learn how to write a sentence that makes sense.

  361. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    Poor Mario, resorting to a Constitutional poseur.

  362. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 1:26 am #

    Rickey,

    The holding of a case gets its life from what the court said not what you assume it thought.

  363. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 1:29 am #

    Just think, my wife lives with this 24/7.(bada-bing)

    Actually, our Taiwanese neices think I’m a riot.

  364. avatar
    NbC December 16, 2009 at 1:52 am #

    Let that be your first lesson Mario…

  365. avatar
    NbC December 16, 2009 at 1:53 am #

    Honolulu Hawaii as his COLB states.

  366. avatar
    chufho December 16, 2009 at 1:54 am #

    Whats the matter your cat got your tongue and I mean no disrespect to the cat
    I am an animal lover

  367. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 2:00 am #

    After you.

  368. avatar
    Rickey December 16, 2009 at 2:01 am #

    Mario,

    The district court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling.

    What part of that do you not understand?

  369. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 2:02 am #

    misha,

    An advocate is someone who is everything he or she has to be. We are all advocates at one time or another, including you and Dr. Conspiracy.

  370. avatar
    chufho December 16, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    These exist in sevice to we the people

  371. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 2:04 am #

    No, but I got your goat.

  372. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 16, 2009 at 2:42 am #

    Dear Mario,

    You wrote: “You forgot about his place of birth. It would be nice to have some transparency on that score.”

    What a vacuous complaint! From someone who endlessly claims he can see right through Obama’s C.O.L.B.

    Here’s a score for you, Mario; fifty some ODD cases to NOTHING!

    Translucently,
    Benji Franklin

  373. avatar
    Lupin December 16, 2009 at 3:03 am #

    Actually I was quoting verbatim (but without quote marks), cut and paste, your sock puppet from the Columbia Examiner!

    You fell right for it!!!

    Of the irony!

  374. avatar
    Lupin December 16, 2009 at 3:06 am #

    White supremacist sock puppet litigator Mario, when repeatedly confronted with absolutely incontrovertible evidence that he is factually wrong on a specific issue, will simply not respond and move on to some ad hominem attack.

    “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.” Al Gore.

  375. avatar
    chufho December 16, 2009 at 3:12 am #

    “What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith…”

    Like this

  376. avatar
    Lupin December 16, 2009 at 4:05 am #

    Which, if true, I suppose, would definitely bar him from being a NBC? Is that your point?

    To paraphrase your former Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, one can’t be too careful about the Macacas.

  377. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 4:15 am #

    @chufho:

    And your point is?

  378. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 7:01 am #

    The holding of a case gets its life from what the court said not what you assume it thought.

    So, when the court said in Section II of the case (pp. 655-658) that natural born subject meant born in England regardless of the parents’ citizenship and in Section III of the case (pp. 658-666) that the US phrase “natural born citizen” meant the exact same thing, that’s what gives the holding its life?

    And, when in Section IV of the case (pp. 666-675) where the court rejects the notion of citizenship following the condition of the parents, that gives the holding its life? And in Section V (pp. 675-694) where the court says the 14th Amendment did not limit the definition of natural born citizenship, that is part of the life of the case?

    Then, why do you only ever pay attention to the holding, Mario?

  379. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 7:08 am #

    Let me speak slowly, Mario.

    Yes, I was trying to convince people that WKA found Wong a natural born citizen. I did not, however, say that Obama’s eligibility followed from the opinions of the dissent or Collins.

    My point, which is reinforced by your refusal to understand my simple question, is that you have misread Wong Kim Ark. My point is that if yours is such a common-sense interpretation of the case then the dissent or Collins would have figured it out.

    My simple question is if your interpretation is right, why didn’t the dissent or Collins figure it out?

  380. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 7:10 am #

    Are you back to place of birth? Given up on Vattel?

  381. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    nbc,

    Oh, how the rats scuttle to claim victory!

  382. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    That’s kind of harsh, I don’t think you’re a rat!

  383. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 10:07 am #

    Actually, I think we can all answer the question I posed.

    You only pay attention to the holding in Wong because to do otherwise would eviscerate your case. In order to represent your client, you feel you have to misrepresent Wong. Since there is no way to distinguish the reasoning of Wong, you think you have to pretend that the reasoning didn’t happen.

  384. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 10:11 am #

    I also said that it is not until later that to distinguish persons who were citizens by being born on U.S. soil from citizens by naturalization that the word “native born citizen” took on a more loose meaning, i.e., it no longer meant “natural born citizen” but rather a person who was a U.S. citizen by simply being born in the U.S. without any reference to the person’s parents.

    So, when the Supreme Court said in Luria v. US:

    Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

    That implies that the “native citizen” is eligible for the Presidency, right?

    Can we agree, then, that “native” was synonymous with “natural” at any time before Luria was written in 1913?

  385. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    Greg,

    You seem to have forgotten about due process.

    Also, you say you are so concerned about the court’s time. Why do you not support the idea that Obama simply produce his birth certificate? Would that not be a great savings in court time, money, and aggravation?

  386. avatar
    Scientist December 16, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    Mario-All birther cases were rendered moot by the following Supreme Court ruling in January 2009.

    http://www.reobama.com/images/12PM_InauguralAddress_SwornIn_ChiefJustice_JohnRoberts_Reuters.jpg

  387. avatar
    Black Lion December 16, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    But Mario aren’t you also pushing the ridiculous Vattel theory that Obama is ineligible because both of his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth so he is not a “natural born citizen”? So how could releasing his BC solve anything? In other words the BC is just a strawman for the untimate prize, which for you is removing the rightfully elected President of the US.

  388. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    You have no due process right to bring cases without any grounding in fact. 60+ cases have been dismissed because the plaintiffs involved, including Kerchner, weren’t injured in the case.

    Why doesn’t Obama just release his birth certificate?

    Have you read your complaint recently? Your case would not go away with the release of the birth certificate.

    You sued Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, the Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi. Your complaints against every non-Obama defendant is based on their failure to verify his birth certificate.

    In addition, you allege he is not qualified based on his father’s citizenship, his alleged adoption by his step-father, and his alleged travel on a foreign passport.

    Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But
    such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

    For non-lawyers, you can look at Phil Berg’s long, long list of requested documents from the DNC, Obama and others for a glimpse of why no sensible defendant would ever accede to this sort of legal blackmail. “Just release this one document, and this will all go away.” Or consider that Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton was on-going for the entirety of his Presidency.

    Finally, remember that standing is an important doctrine. Obama won’t be President forever, and this isn’t the only issue that affects all Americans that people will want to sue on. By what right do you seek to petition our courts, what injury was suffered? And how do you distinguish Kerchner’s injury from the injury I suffer when taxed for a plan I don’t agree with?

  389. avatar
    ballantine December 16, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    Mario,

    Just keep making stuff up without citing any authority.

    “I also said that it is not until later that to distinguish persons who were citizens by being born on U.S. soil from citizens by naturalization that the word “native born citizen” took on a more loose meaning, i.e., it no longer meant “natural born citizen” but rather a person who was a U.S. citizen by simply being born in the U.S. without any reference to the person’s parents.”

    Name one early authoriy defining “native born” in accordance with your definition. There are none. It was without exception defined by place of birth by all early authority and even in the constitutional convention. I suggest you read Kent, Bouvier, Duer, Hilliard, Pomeroy, Townsend, McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville. And exactly what later authority distinguishes these terms? Wong Kim Ark certainlty doesn’t.

    “After the Constitution was adopted, per the Founders and early Congresses, the children born in the U.S. to alien parents were not citizens.”

    Cite one early case or scholar that supports this. Again there are none. Since you clearly have not done much research on this I suggest you look at the following which all disagree with you:

    Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. At 120 and McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 356 (1824)); Horace Binney, Alienigenae of the United States, 2 Amer. Law Reg.193, 203, 204 (1854); Lynch v. Clark, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 246 (1844), Garder v. Ward, 2 MassJames Madison, The Framers’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789). A partial list of other early authorities Gray could have cited as evidence of the continuance of the rule of Calvin’s Case in the United States would include Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795), St. George Tucker, supra, at 365, William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829), William Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States, pg. 165 (1933), American Jurust and Law Magizene, supra, pg. 251, Bouvier Law Dictionary, pg. 265 (1843), George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated, pg. 274 (1868), George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866); Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813), Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822), Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829), Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Barzizas v. Hopkins, 2 Randolph, 276 (1824); Crandall v. State, 10 Conn. 339 (1834), Trezevant v. Estate of Henry Osborn, 3 Brev. 29, 30 (S.C. 1812) and West v. West , 8 Paige. 433 (NY 1840).

    “Wong Kim Ark changed this but did not change the definition of “natural born Citizens,” for it only changed the meaning of a “citizen of the United States” which is only the first step in the journey of those “citizens of the United States” parents being able to create a “natural born citizen.”

    It is clear you’ve never actually read Wong Kim Ark. The court held that thet 14th amendment was declaratory of the law that existed before its adoption and that law was the english common law. The court did not change anything and all early authority supports its view.

    Also, you can keep saying that the court did not define “natural born citizen” all you want bbut for those who can read like the Indiana appeals court, the court clearly states that “natural born citizen” should be defined by the english common law and that the english common law rule that made children of aliens contined to prevail after the revolution and under our consitution. The court then cites authority specifically defining natural born citizen in accordance with the english common law. Not really that difficult to understand if one doesn’t have an agenda. The fact that the court didn’t call him “natural born” means nothing after the court made clear that the 14th amendment and the Art II. were both defined by the same common law rules.

  390. avatar
    nbc December 16, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Why do you not support the idea that Obama simply produce his birth certificate? Would that not be a great savings in court time, money, and aggravation?

    He has… That has not stopped other from coming up with imaginative ideas about natural born citizenship.

  391. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    Why do you not support the idea that Obama simply produce his birth certificate? Would that not be a great savings in court time, money, and aggravation?

    I get it now. That’s a hilarious joke, Mr. Vattel!

  392. avatar
    nbc December 16, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Don’t be too harsh on yourself Mario…

  393. avatar
    SFJeff December 16, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    Chufho, your muslim faith is immaterial. I would imagine that, and the fact that he doesn’t know you is why John McCain hasn’t talked about it.

  394. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    Dear Greg,

    Thanks. Mario is not too stupid to know that you have eviscerated him on each and every point. He hangs around here because he likes us more than he likes his embittered clients! He blushes to us for stooping so low by hinting that he is nobly baring the burden of non-judgmental advocacy. He has traded advocating for the unjustly accused for advocating for the unjust accusers. Oh how he dances to avoid answering your substantive questions. He would run from facing you in court on these subjects; he’d have no where to hide!
    Thanks again for your monumental contributions here!

    Sincerely,
    Benji Franklin

  395. avatar
    SFJeff December 16, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    “if you think the goverment is my guardian and benefactor than you are mistaken the goverment is my servant”

    “These exist in sevice to we the people”

    These exist to guard the people of the United States and to benefit the people of the United States- not you the person object to.

    The government, in order to lawfully protect the people of the United States may do things that you.

    As an example- the CPSC might rule that an item that you manufacturer violates Child Safety rules and order a recall of all of your product. You as the individual may suffer, but the CPSC is acting legally to protect “we the people”. This is the compact we make with our goverment.

  396. avatar
    SFJeff December 16, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    “why a legitimately elected president should be hounded out of office”

    A good example of how a legitimately elected president should be hounded out of office is Richard Nixon. He abetted the breaking of the law for political purposes, and obstructed justice of an actual crime. As EVIDENCE emerged pointing towards President Nixon’s culpability, the political pressure increased upon him and Congress to act. If he had not resigned he would have been impeached.

    Of course, in Nixon’s case there was both evidence and actual public interest. I don’t remember anyone ever asking Nixon to prove that he wasn’t at the Watergate Towers that night.

  397. avatar
    Black Lion December 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    Someone posted the following comment from our good buddy Leo…From reading it you can tell he believes that he is a legend in his own mind…No wonder why he and Mario could not get along…Their massive egos along with their misreading of Wong, there was probably no room for anything else to be acomplished…

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/further-analysis-of-the-scotus-decision-for-in-re-chrysler-dated-dec-14-2009/

    “…I admit, none of this analysis seems equitable, fair or even possible. But there is a trend in law and government now where important issues are based on tongue twisting complex interpretations of statutory construction which appear to obviously say one thing but which – under an intense microscopic review of the technicalities – actually say something vastly different and in a language written in Martian legalese and translated by intellectual harbingers of tidy chaos preaching esoteric unholy scripture based upon what the meaning of is isn’t…”

  398. avatar
    Rickey December 16, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    Of course, Obama’s religious beliefs aren’t relevant to anything regarding his eligibility, but chufho unsurprisingly took Obama’s slip of the tongue out of context. Obama was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and he immediately corrected himself.

  399. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why do you not support the idea that Obama simply produce his birth certificate? Would that not be a great savings in court time, money, and aggravation?

    I think this little remark, and it’s millions of replications on the Internet and in chain emails is the single greatest factor in the persistence of Obama conspiracy theories. It works because it is simple and caters to the frequent acceptance of the adage: “where there is smoke, there is fire.”

    However, this argument only works on the ignorant. I know of only one case (Essek v Obama) where perhaps production of a birth certificate would have resolved the case; however the judge dismissed the case before Obama even had the opportunity to offer the certificate.

    And the argument only works on people who do not really believe in the American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes when “there is smoke” it’s just somebody blowing smoke.

  400. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    In my other secret identity, I am an advocate for truth, justice, and the American way.

  401. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: You forgot about his place of birth. It would be nice to have some transparency on that score.

    Clean your glasses.

  402. avatar
    ballantine December 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    Yes, legends in their own minds. Before I practiced law, I thought I was so clever in coming up with novel, inventive interpretations of legal authority and actually thought someone would care. Didn’t take long to find out that judges have little patience for such amateur antics. They can read and know the limits of honest interpretation. The twisted, tortured interpretations from these amateurs just ensures they will not be taken seriously by any court, as the record shows.

  403. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    “Oh, how the rats scuttle to claim victory!”

    Are you going to represent them?

  404. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    I lived through that. I was being sarcastic about Obama and Clinton. I think Clinton was payback for Nixon.

    Of course, Agnew was shaking down contractors. I still remember the newspaper account of one contractor, who said he drove in from Baltimore, and gave Agnew $5K cash in his Executive Office building chambers.

    And I remember, when the story first broke, how Agnew said it was a smear campaign by the media and liberals!

  405. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    Ah yes, the nattering nabobs of negativism.

  406. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 16, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    ballantine,

    Let us ask ourselves who is doing the “twisted, tortured interpretations.” You and your supporters tell us that a British feudal and monarchial “natural born subject” is the same thing as a Constitutional Republic U.S. “natural born Citizen.” You would like to read Article II “natural born Citizen” out of the Constitution. You are happy with just the 14th Amendment. Then you take the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and say it means only being physically present on U.S. soil when in any event you have got to be physically present on U.S. soil in order to be born here. I can keep on going but this is enough for now.

  407. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    You and your supporters tell us that a British feudal and monarchial “natural born subject” is the same thing as a Constitutional Republic U.S. “natural born Citizen.”

    It’s not just us, Mario. It’s the Supreme Court and other courts. The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.” That’s the Supreme Court in Wong quoting the Supreme Court of North Carolina. And Wong quoting Kent: “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.”

    You would like to read Article II “natural born Citizen” out of the Constitution.

    Nope. The 14th Amendment is declaratory of what was in Article II. It’s just that YOU are reading Article II incorrectly.

    Then you take the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and say it means only being physically present on U.S. soil when in any event you have got to be physically present on U.S. soil in order to be born here.

    I’m sorry that you don’t like the law of Wong Kim Ark. It says, “It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides…”

    The law’s against you. I hold out hope that this is just posture for your client. But accusing us of a “twisted” interpretation of the law, when we are, in fact, quoting from the cases is an assault on common sense.

  408. avatar
    ballantine December 17, 2009 at 12:12 am #

    Of course, your replies are just the same old insults with no legal authority to back them up as we all know you have no legal authority. Maybe that works in DWI cases, but it is not very useful in constitutional cases. Let us look at your latest nonsense:

    “Let us ask ourselves who is doing the “twisted, tortured interpretations.” You and your supporters tell us that a British feudal and monarchial “natural born subject” is the same thing as a Constitutional Republic U.S. “natural born Citizen.”

    Of course, that is what all early authority, without execption, says. Please cite any authority to the contrary. Of course, you cannot. It is clear you have done no research but I assume you can read. Let’s just look at Wong kim Ark, for example:

    “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.”

    Gee, Natural Born Subject has the same meaning as Natural Born Citizen. Let’s look further:

    “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States….The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution….The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    Pretty clear that “natural born citizen” is to be defined by the English common law if you can read english.

    “therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    Gee, the rule that made children of aliens natural born subjects continued after the declaration and prevailed under the original constitution. Is it really the case that you can’t read?

    I keep challenging you to produce one early authority defining natural born citizen in accordance with your definintion. You can produce none. The same can be said of your definition of “native born,” your defintion of the “common law” or your claim that citizenship descended from parents rather than from place of birth. If you want, I can cite a multitude of authority on each of these points.

  409. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2009 at 12:20 am #

    You are once again forgetting the logic involved: The Constitution leaves the term natural born citizen undefined and thus the Supreme Court has ruled that one has to look at common law to understand how the term was used. In the prevailing common law, the fact was that anyone born on US soil was a natural born citizen.

    Subject to jurisdiction thereof was added to exclude a small group of people who did not fall under the jurisdiction, such as children born to ambassadors, invading military, Indians not paying taxes and born on foreign ships.

    It’s all so simple Mario, I cannot comprehend why you are still struggling with these simple facts.

    PS: There is no common law history that the child follows the status of the father…

    Ouch…

  410. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    Excellent points, Mario lacks support in facts. But his fiction is marvelous… But why spin such a fallacious story? What’s the intent?

  411. avatar
    chufho December 17, 2009 at 3:52 am #

    Again this is in service to we the people
    are you unable to care for yourself

  412. avatar
    chufho December 17, 2009 at 4:12 am #

    let me tell you all your tap dancing does not change the fact that obama refuses to show his birth certificate and all of your critical thinking does not surpass that a natural born citizen which is very easily understood to be born to to two US citizens
    the courts will confer to think anything other than this shows a lack of honor if anything you should be asking these same questions, early someone posted that illegal aliens would be disinfranchised by the finding that obama is not a natural born citizen and before any of you reply read all of everyones post you seem to focus on only a small portion and then it makes you look stupid thats right stupid by the way ben nelson has casterated himself by trying to pull something to gain for nebraska he is out classed by the chicago style politics,
    thats right use of the bat works everytime

  413. avatar
    Lupin December 17, 2009 at 4:20 am #

    “intellectual harbingers of tidy chaos” would make a good title for a comic-book.

    I love comics but I don’t think that writing like Stan Lee helps his case.

  414. avatar
    Lupin December 17, 2009 at 4:28 am #

    Mario: “You and your supporters tell us that a British feudal and monarchial “natural born subject” is the same thing as a Constitutional Republic U.S. “natural born Citizen.””

    Would it be incorrect to state that, if I were to replace “British feudal and monarchial “natural born subject”” in the preceding quote by “child born on US soil of Mexican parents” your reasoning would be exactly the same?

    This is why your definition of “natural born citizen” (which is actually the white supremacist definition) is profoundly racist.

  415. avatar
    chufho December 17, 2009 at 4:31 am #

    you need to practice a hell of a lot more you have no clue what a judge thinks you are still in the bush leagues

  416. avatar
    misha December 17, 2009 at 4:58 am #

    @chufho: Is English your native language, or do you write in birther speak?

  417. avatar
    Scientist December 17, 2009 at 6:39 am #

    chufho: have no clue what a judge thinks

    Coming from the side that is 0-60 in cases that have gone before judges.

  418. avatar
    ballantine December 17, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    “PS: There is no common law history that the child follows the status of the father…”

    I assume the claim with respect to the common law relates to Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 NY 356 (1863) and its progeny. Ludlam looked to the English common law to define citizenship under the Constitution (sound familiar). However, the court held that the English common law included citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis) as well as by locality of birth (jus soli). This position was clearly contrary to almost all English and american authoritities on the common law. Kent, for example, called such a “dormant and doubtful” principle. Several later cases cited Ludlam for this proposition but neither Ludlam nor any of these cases ever challanged the validity of the basic common law principle of locality of birth. Wong Kim Ark, by the way, rejected the notion that the common law included citizenship by descent.

  419. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    Elsehwere, Orly’s first smart move has been to hire a lawyer to appeal Judge Land’s sanctions.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24233365/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-et-al-APPEAL-E-Brief-Tendered-Appellant-PCRQHR4P

    Mr. Levy also is a graduate of William Howard Taft University, but his brief is a model of legal scholarship compared to the nonsense which Orly routinely spews.

    http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/dr-jonathan-harris-levy-166507

  420. avatar
    SFJeff December 17, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    “Again this is in service to we the people
    are you unable to care for yourself”

    Exactly my point- the government serves the people- not you the person. The government protects we the people, and provides benefits to we the people that we(as individuals) would not have.

    So the government is not YOUR servant, it is our collective servant. We the people elected the President, and we the people, through our elected representatives can remove him. You, the individual, propose to ursurp the rights of We the People, by negating the results of our vote.

  421. avatar
    SFJeff December 17, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    Chuffo- you are becoming more and more amusing.

    President Obama has shown his birth certificate. Who else should he be showing it to? Does he have an obligation somewhere in the Constitution to provide a copy to every citizen personally?

    “that a natural born citizen which is very easily understood to be born to to two US citizens”

    First of all- if you really believe this- why do you care about the Birth Certificate? If you really think his father being Kenyan disqualifies him, then what could the Birth Certificate show that would be meaningful? Clearly you are just concerned about getting the President out of office, not whether he is really eligible or not.

    Secondly- you have been shown very clearly that there is nothing in the Constitution that says both parents must be citizens. This has all been made up by Mario and his Birther brethren. There are no courts or legal scholars or anyone else with any gravitas that believes this to be true.

    The rest of your post frankly is incomprehensible.

  422. avatar
    aarrgghh December 17, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    no one but a birfer can take birfers seriously with such a spotless record of cosmic fail — because being a birfer means being never right but always certain.

  423. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    Typo on page 5. This is much more interesting that most of the stuff we get. I’ll be waiting to see what the appeals court says.

  424. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    chufho: let me tell you all your tap dancing does not change the fact that obama refuses to show his birth certificate

    Obama showed his birth certificate in June of 2008. [Image of first monkey with eyes covered comes to mind.]

    chufho: natural born citizen which is very easily understood to be born to to two US citizens
    the courts will confer to think anything other than this shows a lack of honor

    To the extent that I understand this mangled sentence fragment, I believe that you are saying that you are the authoritative judge of the Constitution and the courts are wrong if they disagree with you.

    Now let me leave you with a concept you may find useful: punctuation.

  425. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    I noticed that the appeal brief doesn’t address the fact that Orly accused Judge Land of treason, but of course Levy wants to downplay or ignore Orly’s most outrageous statements. I will give him credit for recognizing that this appeal is not the place to re-argue the underlying case. Remember when the birthers were chirping that this appeal would open the door to discovery about Obama? It was never going to happen and Levy isn’t even going to try.

  426. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 17, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Dear NBC,

    That’s the giveaway – Mario’s story is WAY too fallacious for him to believe. He’s too smart. It’s more likely that he’s just enjoying having sport with those of us who actually passionately care about the Constitution. His amoral high ground, entitles Him to serve his client’s Obama damaging desires by reducing the Constitution to a bizarrely apprehended, purpose-built piece of toilet paper. It’s to our credit that we don’t recognize it right away, as just another sociopath’s art form. He never expects to have a trial. Anti-Obama newspaper adds depicting all the controlling legal authorities as monkeys? That’s just to guarantee him his Klan discount. As to why he keeps coming back here to get eaten alive? Read the drivel spouted by the crowd he’s representing – hated filled dullards all – and you can see why he’s here hoping to get petted; he likes us a lot more!

    Benji Franklin

  427. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 18, 2009 at 2:51 am #

    I notice that most of the Obama supporters on this site have their “common laws” confused.

    Wong Kim Ark (1898) rejected the notion that the common law included citizenship by descent. Clearly, such a position cannot be reconciled with Minor v. Happersett (1875) which declared that the “common law” definition of “natural born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents. If one did not notice, this is Vattel’s natural law and law of nations definition. Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, relying on natural law, told us and the court so ruled in Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) that the law of nations was part of the common law and that Vattel was the standard to follow when defining what the law of nations said. Even the Founders use of the word “native” to describe a citizen does not exist in English common law.

    Hence, we can see that during the Founding, there was English common law and American common law. The two were not the same. When it came to defining citizenship which impacted significantly the relations among nations, the Framers did not use for the new Constitutional Republic the outdated feudal and monarchial English common law which was not the standard among civilized nations. Rather, the Framers chose American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This was Vattel’s definition of a “native, or natural-born citizen.” Wong Kim Ark only used the English common law to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the standard that applied to the original citizens before the adoption of the Constitution. This was the same analytical approach that Lynch v. Clarke took in 1844. But since we know that the Framers in Article II grandfathered “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible for the Presidency and called for only “natural born Citizens” to be so eligible after the adoption of the Constitution, and the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 took “natural born citizen” and made it just “citizen,” we can reasonably conclude that to the Framers and Founders the two classes of citizens were not the same. Hence, the definition that defined what a “citizen of the United States” was during the Founding did not define what a future Article II “natural born Citizen” was. While the former may have been defined by English common law, the latter was defined by American common law that followed the Vattel natural law and law of nations definition. Obama is not eligible to be President because he does not and cannot meet the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” a definition that has been confirmed by several Supreme Court cases and which to this day has never been changed by our Supreme Court.

  428. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 18, 2009 at 4:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Wong Kim Ark (1898) rejected the notion that the common law included citizenship by descent. Clearly, such a position cannot be reconciled with Minor v. Happersett (1875) which declared that the “common law” definition of “natural born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents

    If it can’t be reconciled, it means that Minor v. Happersett was overruled (or modified) by Wong Kim Ark, and Wong Kim Ark is the governing case law.

    That’s how it works Mario: If you have a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1875, and then 23 years later the Supreme Court comes along and says something else — the most recent holding governs. Everything and anything that is inconsistent in a previous case must be either reconciled or discarded.

  429. avatar
    Gordon December 18, 2009 at 4:53 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:Minor v. Happersett can be more narrowly be defined as a woman’s suffrage case, not a case that in any real way defines citizenship. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

    The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. I’m surprised you cited it in as an NBC issue. It’s generally only cited for the proposition that the Constitution does not confer the right to vote. However, as the decision relates to women’s suffrage in particular, it is no longer good law. The Nineteenth Amendment dealt with that issue quite nicely.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

  430. avatar
    Gordon December 18, 2009 at 5:03 am #

    Levy’s bio says he writes in Russian. If he understands Russian that will be a major help the The Oily One, who can write her briefs in a more coherent manner in her native language, to be translated by Levy.

  431. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 18, 2009 at 6:49 am #

    Hey, it was Apuzzo to was claiming (falsely) that Minor defined the term natural born citizen. However, it was an essential part of the decision that Mrs. Minor was a citizen. The argument affirms that that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized.

    As I have said from the start, the only way for the denialists to use these court cases to their advantage is to argue that President Obama is a naturalized citizen. This is consistent with de Vattel who specifically called children born of aliens in England “naturalized.” However improved their legal chances from this tack, it is so counter intuitive to the general public as to be useless for smear purposes.

  432. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 18, 2009 at 7:00 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Alexander Hamilton, relying on natural law, told us and the court so ruled in Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) that the law of nations was part of the common law and that Vattel was the standard to follow when defining what the law of nations said.

    But citizenship in the United States is not a component of the law of nations (international law).

    Mario Apuzzo: during the Founding, there was English common law and American common law. The two were not the same.

    However, when we look at the colonial and early state legislation what do we find? Citizenship was always granted based on place of birth, and occasionally extended in cases of parentage (which is basically the English common law then, and the law of the United States today).

    Mario Apuzzo: Framers chose American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This was Vattel’s definition of a “native, or natural-born citizen.”

    And this is an assertion without foundation or evidence, a statement of what you wish were true, not what you can show. Rather what was true, which we know from the most important early commentator on the Constitution, William Rawle (as cited by the US Courts in various cases):

    …Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

  433. avatar
    kimba December 18, 2009 at 7:45 am #

    Or like is in fashion today with birthers, ” There are natural born citizens and then there are natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes and only “we” decide who fits that category, on a case by case basis of course” Which has also proven to be so convoluted as to be useless for smear purposes.

  434. avatar
    Greg December 18, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    But since we know that the Framers in Article II grandfathered “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible for the Presidency and called for only “natural born Citizens” to be so eligible after the adoption of the Constitution, and the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 took “natural born citizen” and made it just “citizen,” we can reasonably conclude that to the Framers and Founders the two classes of citizens were not the same

    We don’t need any of that to conclude that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.

    Citizen = natural born + naturalized citizens.

    There is no THIRD class of citizen.

    You have not a scintilla of evidence that there is.

    Minor would have been decided the same if the woman in question had been a naturalized citizen. This means that the definition of natural born citizen is dicta. If it found a non-English common law basis for the definition of “natural born citizen” that was rejected by Wong Kim Ark. It was rejected explicitly!

    And don’t try to pretend that he rejected it only for the “citizen” and not for the “natural born.” His reason for rejecting it was because “natural born” did not include citizenship by descent.

    Now that we’ve established, conclusively, that Wong rejected the notion that natural born contained jus sanguinis in any sense, we can conclude that Obama DOES meet the definition of natural born as it exists in the law today.

  435. avatar
    Greg December 18, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    Her citizenship may have been essential, but neither side argued that she was NOT a citizen. The reasoning of the case, that voting was not an essential part of citizenship, would not be disturbed if Minor was a natural born or naturalized citizen. It’s definition of natural born, then, is dicta.

    Because it wasn’t briefed or argued by either side, in fact, it was admitted by the pleadings that she was a native-born citizen, the definition of natural-born was not subjected to any scrutiny. That makes citing the definition especially troubling.

    The fact that Minor explicitly refused to answer the question of children of aliens means the definition can be classified as obiter, or “mere,” dicta. What it did state, that children of citizens born here are, without a doubt, citizens, is more on the order of a tautology than a definition. What else could they be? In America, there are only citizens (naturalized and natural born) and aliens. Except for slaves, there was no third group.

  436. avatar
    Scientist December 18, 2009 at 8:54 am #

    Mario-All of your outdated sources might be of historical interest. But trying to use them today would be like a modern astronomer quoting ancient astronomers to try to convince us that the Sun orbits the Earth, while ignoring Copernicus, Galileo and every modern source.

    Here is something from 2008, from the prestigious Michigan Law Review, by Gabriel J Chin, Chester H. Smith Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration and Policy, University of Arizona.

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/chin.pdf

    The relevant passage reads as follows:

    Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens. There is also a strong argument that those obtaining citizenship at birth by statute are natural born citizens, well articulated by Charles Gordon in Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma.

    I will repeat so maybe you will get it: “Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.”

    So this “controversy” is simply made up nonsense propounded for purely political motivations.

  437. avatar
    Lupin December 18, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    White supremacist attorney Mario Aouzzo says: “…Minor v. Happersett (1875) which declared that the “common law” definition of “natural born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents. If one did not notice, this is Vattel’s natural law and law of nations definition.”

    If by “parents” you mean either parent (or failing that, the father), you’re correct.

    If you mean both parents, that’s not what Vattel says.

    Keep pretending though. It’s amusing.

  438. avatar
    Greg December 18, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    Remember when Mario was arguing that the common law could not be as described in Lynch v. Clarke because the New York Assembly changed the law (16 years after Lynch)?

    The New York Assembly passed a resolution condemning Rutgers v. Waddington. It was an extremely unpopular opinion at the time.

    Even Vattel acknowledged that citizenship is something that nations can vary on.

    § 20. Each nation is mistress of her own actions, when they do not affect the perfect rights of others.

    A nation then is mistress of her own actions so long as they do not affect the proper and perfect rights of any other nation — so long as she is only internally bound, and does not lie under any external and perfect obligation. If she makes an ill use of her liberty, she is guilty of a breach of duty; but other nations are bound to acquiesce in her conduct, since they have no right to dictate to her.

    and:

    § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

    It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.

    In Vattel’s view, the Law of Nations is divided into necessary laws, voluntary laws, conventional (treaty) law, and customary law. Only the first is an immutable and inviolable law. Obviously, since there is no outrage in Vattel’s work toward Britain’s naturalization at birth of the children of aliens, it cannot be a “necessary” law of nations.

    But, anyway, this is all part of Mario’s attempt to make Vattel the end-all-be-all of interpreting “natural born.” This is complicated, of course, by the fact that the Constitutional Convention debated what was meant by “law of nations.” At no point did they mention that they were changing the commonly understood term, “natural born” to accord with the law of nations.

    That’s kind of a big oversight!

  439. avatar
    ballantine December 18, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Mario,

    So much nonsense I don’t know where to begin.

    “Wong Kim Ark (1898) rejected the notion that the common law included citizenship by descent. Clearly, such a position cannot be reconciled with Minor v. Happersett (1875) which declared that the “common law” definition of “natural born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents. If one did not notice, this is Vattel’s natural law and law of nations definition.”

    Pretty simple to reconcile. The dispositive question for Obama is whether children of aliens are natural born citizens. Minor declines to address such subject. It doesn’t say they are not and doesn’t say the common law didn’t follow jus soli. It just says there was some doubt whether locality of birth alone “without reference to citizenship of parents” confers “natural born” status. Of course, the English common law never confered natural born status without reference to the parents as there were exceptions to the general rule and much debate on the exception in America. You grasp onto this orbital dicta in Minor that makes no definitive statement and ignore the page after page of Wong Kim Ark specifically defining the common law in this country soely in accordance with jus soli.

    “Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, relying on natural law, told us and the court so ruled in Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) that the law of nations was part of the common law and that Vattel was the standard to follow when defining what the law of nations said.”

    He says it is part of the common law, not that it replaced it. The law of nations was international law and dealt with issues such as war, neutrality, trade. The common law was municipal and national law dealing with real estate, inheritance, contracts, and eligiblity for office holding. They are entirely different spheres of law. Hamilton and others meant the law of nations supplemented the common law as on international issues there was no common law rule. You can cite no authority saying Vattel’s rule with respect to citizenship became our common law. Can you not comprehend the authority after authority cited in Wong saying the english common law rule was our rule?

    “Even the Founders use of the word “native” to describe a citizen does not exist in English common law.”

    Fact free statement. You have not cited one example of the founders using the word “native” other than its meaning under the commmon law. Why do you make stuff up.

    “Hence, we can see that during the Founding, there was English common law and American common law.”

    Not really. All the states adopted the common law that existed in the colonies before the revolution. This was substantially the same as the English common law with minor differences as our local precedent was not followed in England. All early authority shows the English common law rules with respect to citizenship were followed in this country and you can cite no authority to the contrary.

    “Rather, the Framers chose American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Another fact free assertion you can no authority to back up.

    “Wong Kim Ark only used the English common law to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States” under the standard that applied to the original citizens before the adoption of the Constitution.”

    Again, it appears you have not read the case. It said “natual born citizen” should be defined by the English common law, it said the English common law defined citizenship before adoption of the 14th amendment, and said the 14th amendment itself was declaratory of the Englisch common law. It is not ethical to misrepresent cases in the manner you do.

    “But since we know that the Framers in Article II grandfathered “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible for the Presidency and called for only “natural born Citizens” to be so eligible after the adoption of the Constitution, and the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 took “natural born citizen” and made it just “citizen,” we can reasonably conclude that to the Framers and Founders the two classes of citizens were not the same. Hence, the definition that defined what a “citizen of the United States” was during the Founding did not define what a future Article II “natural born Citizen” was.”

    This doesn’t even make sense. Obviously a naturalized citizen is generally not seen as “natual born.” How does that help you definition of “natural born?” Besides if you actually research the issue, pretty much all scholars say the grandfather clause was added to apply to the foreign born founders like Hamilton. For example.

    “It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

    “The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president ; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1884)

    “The necessity of citizenship by birth, precludes this, by rendering it impossible for any foreigner ever to be a candidate. The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)

    “Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)

    “The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States pg. 170, 1885

    “The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)

    In the end, you cannot cite any early authority to back your position. Your whole argument seems to try to pretend Minor says something it doesn’t, to pretend Wong and the multitude or authority contradicting you doesn’t exist or trying to say they say the opposite of what they really say. When you see us cite authority after authority or read Wong citing authority and authority saying you are wrong, do you just block it out?

  440. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 19, 2009 at 5:27 am #

    Expelliarmus,

    No, it does not work that way when one case defines one thing and another case defines something else.

  441. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    The two are easily reconcilable: First of all Minor was still about location but expressed some concerns about born to aliens since the issue of allegiance and jurisdiction was still being developed.
    Wong Kim Ark recognized that common law did not distinguish between born to us parents or alien parents.
    Calling it irreconcilable does not make it so Mario.
    Of course, when one is committed to a position chosen by one’s client, it’s often hard to apply the necessary logic.
    Just saying.

  442. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    PS: When SCOTUS overrules itself, as you seem to imply erroneously, the former ruling has to be rejected as precedent.
    Surely you can grasp this?

  443. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    The idea that the US common law was based on descent lacks, as usual any foundation in reality. All Mario can do is point to Vattel who himself accepts that when it comes to citizenship, the law of Nations is not absolute and depends on local customs and laws.

    The concept that descent played a role in US citizenship

    The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

    Which is of course correct, even in England, the Jus Sanguini parts were not common law but enacted in statutes. The same in the US when it was attempted to include foreign born children born to US citizen father as natural born.

    It’s important to distinguish between common law and statutory law my dear counsel.

  444. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, relying on natural law, told us and the court so ruled in Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) that the law of nations was part of the common law and that Vattel was the standard to follow when defining what the law of nations said.

    Again Mario is confusion common law and laws of nations. That the law of nations may be part of common law does not mean that it guides the citizenship issues, in fact even Vattel observes that when it comes to citizenship, the Law of Nations has little power and relevance.
    For obvious reasons because citizenship is determined by municipal law while law of nations describes how nations interact.
    Of course, what Hamilton said is hardly precedent, as he was arguing in favor of his client (a familiar concept Mario?).
    The Judge was careful to rule while avoiding a clear precedent and the New York Assembly was quick to reject the ruling and the case was settled.
    So to call this ‘precedent’ is somewhat on flaky grounds.
    You’re so close and yet, bound to support his client’s position, you fail to reach the obvious conclusion. That’s too bad.

  445. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Obama is not eligible to be President because he does not and cannot meet the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” a definition that has been confirmed by several Supreme Court cases and which to this day has never been changed by our Supreme Court.

    You are almost correct, except for the introductory part. Because of these Supreme Court cases Obama is a natural born citizen.

    All the data is there and yet, forced to reach his client’s conclusion, Mario twists and turns…

    Of course, citizen and natural born are not the same, as most of us know that citizens include naturalized citizens. However non-naturalized citizens are in most cases natural born. Certainly anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen, by birth on US soil.
    Such is the clear common law interpretation.
    The attempt of early congress to extend citizenship to foreign born children indicates that there is no Vattel principle to be found in common law and statutory law was needed. As such, foreign born children require, unlike under Vattel, to be designated natural born or foreign born.

    All this is of course undermining the concept that Vattel’s citizenship principles were part of common law tradition as both the UK and US felt it necessary to spell this out in statutory law and in case of the US, the natural born part was quickly removed.

    All this of course serves to severely undermine your position Mario.
    Did you even realize this?

  446. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    When it came to defining citizenship which impacted significantly the relations among nations, the Framers did not use for the new Constitutional Republic the outdated feudal and monarchial English common law which was not the standard among civilized nations. Rather, the Framers chose American common law which had its origins in natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Of course, in true Mario fashion, he fails to present ANY relevant evidence to support his claims and his claims were rejected by the Courts and is contradicted by the state Constitutions and rulings of those days. If, as Vattel accepts, citizenship is a common law/municipal law issue and not a Law of Nations issue, then we have to accept the obvious conclusion.
    Mario is wrong per Common Law tradition, per legal rulings, per legislative actions, per historical background and per Vattel.

  447. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    As Nolu Chan explains

    In stating the case presented to the court, George D. Collins representing Appellant (United States) wrote at 2:

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen….

    Ouch…

  448. avatar
    nbc December 19, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    Most of Mario’s ‘arguments’ were raised by the appellants in the case and rejected by the Supreme Court.
    It’s not just what the Court found but what it rejected that should settle the case for Mario

  449. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Wong Kim Ark is controlling.

    Either it can be reconciled with Minor v. Happersett or it can’t.

    If it can’t — which is YOUR claim — then the MORE RECENT Supreme Court controls. That’s just the way the law works.

    The main holding of Minor was legislatively overruled with the passage of the 19th Amendment in any case – so its a disfavored case to be viewed and cited with caution. You know you are on a weak footing if you have to rely on cases expressing a view that has been long since rejected through a Constitutional Amendment.

  450. avatar
    Rickey December 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    It occurs to me that Mario’s interpretation of “natural born citizen” would exclude Americans who were adopted at birth and do not know and cannot learn the identity of their birth parents.

    I have a friend in Texas who adopted an infant who was given up for adoption at birth. The boy’s birth certificate shows that he was born in Texas, but the mother’s name is redacted and the father is listed as “unknown.” Texas law protects the identity of the birth mother. The only way they will reveal her identity is if they can locate her and get her permission.

    How could the boy possibly prove to Mario’s satisfaction that he is a natural born citizen? Even if he could learn the identity of his birth mother, how could he prove that his birth father was a U.S. citizen?

    Of course, even if my friend’s son one day runs for president, Mario will never raise an objection because the boy is white and has an anglo surname.

  451. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Expelliarmua: You know you are on a weak footing if you have to rely on cases expressing a view that has been long since rejected through a Constitutional Amendment.

    Recall that Mario’s other big citation came from Dred Scott. Is there a pattern here? It seems that historically in those rare cases where the court’s ideas align (however tangentially) with Mario, the people have found the result repugnant and taken action to correct the problem.

    To the extent that Kerchner and Apuzzo’s views represent others in history, they are those that have not prevailed.

  452. avatar
    Scientist December 19, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    The arguments made over parental citizenship not only fail on the basis of law, they fail on the basis of common sense and science. It goes even beyond adoption. Anyone who has ever watched daytime TV knows that while maternity is pretty easily established paternity is always open to question. Are we to require DNA testing of Presidential candidates to ensure that the father named in the birth certificate is indeed the sperm donor? And if he isn’t, how do we prove that the unknown father is indeed a US citizen? What about where the father is dead, do we dig him up for DNA? What if he was cremated? When do we settle these questions, before or after the election?

    At the root of the birthers arguments is a kind of neo-Lamarckian theory of genetics. They have to postulate a natural born citizen gene (NBC) that has yet to be identified in the human genome. How the US allele of this gene differs from the Canadian or Nigerian or Thai allele is a mystery. Yet, whatever this gene is, it can be altered in a heritable fashion by the simple expedient of a citizenship oath.

    Since the high water mark of Lamarckian genetics was the work of Lysenko in the USSR under Stalin, I can only conclude that the birthers are nothing but a bunch of commies.

  453. avatar
    nBc December 19, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Speaking of children following the condition of their parents, especially the father, Horace Binney observed in his paper Alienegenae that

    There is no reasonable doubt existing at this time, nor has there been in England, for nearly four hundred years, that the common,law acknowledges no such, principle, but, to use Lord Kenyon’s language in Doe v. Jones, 4 Durnf.& East. 308, that “the character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only.

    Binney observes that only through statutory law, the common law principle was extended to include children born to native parents born abroad. In the US, it was through an act of Congress that Children born abroad to a US father would still be regarded a natural born US citizen. Congress later removed the “natural born” part, perhaps aware that it could not extend natural born status through statutory provisions.

    It is thus clear, that contrary to the musings of some, that there is no foundation for the concept that the child follows the condition of the father, at least not in common law prevailing in England and the United States.

    In Minor v Happersett the Court observed that Common Law practices were necessary to understand the definition of Natural Born. Clearly rejecting the jus sanguini thought, the Court observed that

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens

    In other words, a child born to one or more US citizens on US soil would definitely be considered a natural born citizen, while the issue surrounding children of aliens was less well established.Of course, the Court clearly establishes in its dicta that it is not necessary to resolve this question.
    The question itself was resolved in Wong Kim Ark where the Court clearly established how Common Law supports that any child born on US soil is a natural born citizen, as long as it is born under full jurisdiction of the United States, excluding thus children born to foreign dignitaries, invading military, Indians not paying taxes.

    Ending any and all confusion the Minor Court also observed that

    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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]” 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.

    Showing that there are two and not the mythical three kinds of citizens.

    Mario cannot appeal logically to Minor to support his position and his confusion that Minor is contradicted by Wong Kim Ark is one of his own design.

  454. avatar
    NBC December 19, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Blackstone similarly observed in Commentaries 372

    When I say that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. <b?The common law indeed stood absolutely so, with only a very few exceptions : so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, ” for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s ” English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late ” troubles.” And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, – that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects z: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw.III.st.2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, -and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants ‘.

  455. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 19, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    Rickey Martin,

    McCain was white with an anglo surname. I believe there were law suits filed against him on the question of whether he was a “natural born Citizen.”

    Keep up the brilliant work.

  456. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 19, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    To Various Commentators,

    You state that Minor v. Happersett’s discussion on the citizenship status of Minor is dicta. Dicta is that part of a judicial case which is not necessary for the court to reach its central decision which we call the holding. Such statements or opinions are merely informative or explanatory. Being extraneous material, they do not directly address the specifics of the case. They are not authoritative or binding because of the circumstances by which a court makes those statements or gives those opinions, for the court usually offers them without having gone through a deliberative process that is characterized by reflection, argument, examination, or full consideration of an issue. As we can see from a close examination of the Court’s decision, the Court’s opinion or statements regarding Mrs. Minor being a “natural born Citizen” is not dicta.

    The question the court had to determine was whether Minor had a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV which applies only to “Citizens of each State.” Hence, the Court had to first determine whether Minor was a “citizen of the United States” which would also make her a citizen of the State of Missouri, the state wherein she resided. The Court declared that Minor was a citizen under the federal common law and being a “person” was also a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    With regard to finding Minor a citizen without reliance upon the Fourteenth Amendment, the court resorted to American common law which had its basis in natural law and the law of nations and not in feudal and monarchial English common law. It explained that the nation was a political community made up of people who joined in political associations for their own general welfare. It said that these people were the nation’s members and therefore its citizens who received protection from the nation and in return they gave their allegiance to the nation. The Court explained that in a nation with a republican form of government, these members are called citizens and that being called a citizen connotes nothing more than being a member of the nation. The court explained that whoever was a member of one of the original States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became “ipso facto a citizen” or a member of the nation created by the adoption of the Constitution. As one will note the court referred to the United States as a “political community” populated by members with political rights. We know that such political rights include voting which historically distinguished republican citizens from crown subjects. The Court made no mention of being born in the allegiance of any one individual which is what the English common law provided when it said that “natural born subjects” were born in the perpetual allegiance of the King. Indeed, “[s]ubjects are members of the commonwealth, under the king their head.” Jacob’s, Williams’, and Cunningham’s Law Dictionaries.

    The Court explained that the Constitution provided for three classes of citizens: “natural born citizens,” “citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,” and naturalized citizens. Hence, it found that future citizens after the adoption of the Constitution would come about by birth or naturalization. It said that “natives, or natural-born citizens” were those children born in the country to citizen parents. It added that some authorities go further and include as “citizens” children born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents. I recognize that many commentators have provided on this site many of these other authorities mentioned by Minor. It then said that as to the first class, there has never been any doubts that they were citizens. But as to the second class, there have been doubts. Let us keep in mind that this is the United States Supreme Court speaking and not a lower court or some commentator.

    The Court found that citizenship in the United States did not depend on the gender of the person and therefore, as Minor was born in the United States to United States citizen parents, the Court declared her without any doubt a “natural-born Citizen.” These citizenship concepts as expressed by the Minor Court had their origins in natural law and only applied to a republican form of government and not to a monarchy. These natural law concepts can be easily found in Samuel Pufendorf’s, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003), Book II, Chapter 6 (1691)(“Moreover, Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges: Or else Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming the said Society, or their Descendants, whom we call Indigenae, or Natives.”) and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 211-212 (1758 French edition, 1759 first English translation). The Court added that if she had been born in the United States of alien parents, there would have been a doubt if she was even a “citizen.” Note that Vattel at Section 214 stated that in England, “the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the childen of a foreigner.” Given the Court’s explanation as to who were the original citizens of the new nation, we can understand why the court had doubts on whether if Minor was born in the United States to alien parents she was even a citizen, for her parents would not have been members of the United States and by her being simply born on its territory did not carry with it any indicia of adherence and commitment to the nation and therefore did not make her a member thereof. Hence, by what the Court said regarding being born in the country to alien parents, we can see that if Minor had been born in the United States to alien parents, it had no doubt she would not have been a “natural born Citizen.” As to whether she would have been even a citizen, the Court left that question for another day. The Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment was neither needed to make Minor a citizen nor did it change the citizenship rules it espoused.

    Wong Kim Ark answered the question that Minor left open for another day. It decided in 1898 that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanent residents and not working in a diplomatic capacity was a “citizen of the United States.” But the Wong Court only decided that under the old English common law that prevailed in the colonies Wong deserved to be a member of American society as were those persons who were, without any reference to the citizenship of their parents, simply born in the colonies during the colonial period and adhered to the Revolution. Recognizing and confirming Minor’s definition of a “native, or natural-born citizen” to be a child born in the country to United States citizen parents, it did not declare Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” Wong also did not say that it was overruling Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Wong did not say that in defining a “natural-born citizen,” the citizenship of the child’s parents is irrelevant.

    As we can see, the Court’s decision that Minor was a “natural born citizen” is an indispensable part of its decision. The Court’s statement as to Minor’s citizenship status was necessary because the Court had to apply the privileges and immunities clause which only benefits citizens. The Court spent a good part of the case analyzing the history of citizenship in the United States and explaining what a “natural born Citizen” was. Hence, the statement was a necessary part of its final decision that Minor, even though she was a “natural-born citizen,” did not have a constitutional right to vote and could be prevented under Missouri’s constitution and laws from voting because she was a woman. Finally, any discussion of the Nineteenth Amendment in this connection is not relevant and only a red herring.

  457. avatar
    ballantine December 20, 2009 at 12:47 am #

    Really, your posts are making less and less sense. Minor held that even if one was a citizen, it didn’t give the right of sufferage. The discussion of “natural born citizen” is completely extraneous. You can keep pretending Minor defined “natural born citizen.” Of course, for those who can read know that declining whether the term applies to a class of people means it is not defining the term.

    It is pretty simple, the sole issue with respect Obama is whether children of aliens are natural born and Minor declines to look at such question. Thus, claiming the case is authoritative with respect to Obama is simply unethical. Of course, for those of us who practice law, Minor really devastates you case, as it tells us to look to the common law and you cannot cite any authority that the common law every required citizenship parents. Minor doesn’t say that nor does you Hamilton quote. He doesn’t say the law of nations replaced the common law and such makes no sense as they are completely different spheres of law.

    Your comments on Wong make no sense whatsoever. You can keep pretending that Wong didn’t define natural born citizen but you are apparently the only one on the planet who can seem to read basic english.

    “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States….The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    Seriously, my five year old would understand that the court is stating that “natural born citizen” is to be defined by the english common law. The court goes on:

    “and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    What don’t you understand the english common law rule regarding children of aliens continuing after the declaration and prevailing under our constitution.

    Let’s look at some authority the court cites:

    “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…”

    Our common law is the same as England. Pretty clear. Natural born citizen the same as Blackstone’s definition of natural born subject. Pretty clear.

    “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

    A rule based upon “place of birth.” Where did I hear that. Seriously, do you just pretend these quotes don’t exist”

    Let’s look at the court’s other citations to the common law:

    “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

    “that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

    “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.”

    “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.”

    “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law…”

    Gee, without exception, the court’s mention of common law in this country meant the english common law. Where is mention of your new federal common law in this case or any legal authority in our history?

    The court then specifically rejected Vattel’s rule of descent.

    “Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”

    The court then affirms that the 14th amendment adopted the english common law rule:

    “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

    Hence the Wong’s court’s discussion of natural born citizen is important to it’s holding that thet 14th amendment was declaratory of existing law and such law was the english common law that continued to define citizenship in this country after independance.

    I really am sorry as I don’t like to be nasty, but your your reading of these cases is dishonest and will be laughed out of any court.

  458. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 1:37 am #

    There is not much sense left in Mario’s arguments.
    Sadly so

  459. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    What a miserable interpretation of what the Court really said.
    Making things up do not make them so my dear confused Mario.

  460. avatar
    Whatever4 December 20, 2009 at 3:19 am #

    GREAT list… are these incorporated in The Great Mother of All pages?

  461. avatar
    Lupin December 20, 2009 at 5:42 am #

    But not by you, I believe.

    Obviously you and/or your white supremacist client(s) didn’t care so much about McCain’s eligibility.

    You only file suits to disenfranchise children born (on US soil) from “non-white” people.

  462. avatar
    Lupin December 20, 2009 at 5:45 am #

    Am I correct in believing that discriminating between father and mother would be unconstitutional?

    (ie: born of a mother-citizen, not OK; born of a father-citizen, OK.)

  463. avatar
    Lupin December 20, 2009 at 5:50 am #

    white-supremacist attorney Mario continues to state that: “It said that “natives, or natural-born citizens” were those children born in the country to citizen parents.”

    Perhaps.

    But where on Earth do you get to interpret this as meaning BOTH parents instead of A parent? (As anyone would normally interpret a sentence like this.)

    Can you quote an actual source that says BOTH parents.

    Is there any such source?

    Even Vattel doesn’t agree with you on this.

    If you can’t, your entire argument falls apart just there.

  464. avatar
    Lupin December 20, 2009 at 5:56 am #

    I have no problem being nasty.

    The way I see it, Mario is a willing mouthpiece for old fashioned white supremacist theories which have long been rejected.

    As someone pointed out, he is obligated to support his client’s beliefs in the matter, but unlike, say, the lawyers who DEFENDED the Nazis at Nuremberg, in this case Mario is prosecuting to promote an appalling agenda. That is rather repulsive IMHO.

  465. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 20, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    Lupin: Am I correct in believing that discriminating between father and mother would be unconstitutional?

    No. Current law distinguishes between fathers and mothers when determining the citizenship of children born overseas to one US Citizen parent.

    http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

    This was affirmed (5-4) by the Supreme Court in TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS.

  466. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 20, 2009 at 9:02 am #

    Not yet.

  467. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 20, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    Apuzzo: I believe there were law suits filed against him on the question of whether he was a “natural born Citizen.”

    There are at least two lawsuits about McCain’s eligibility that I know of, the most notable being Hollander v. McCain. My suspicion is that both Hollander and Berg were defrauded by con artists with fake documents (McCain “birth certificate” is a clumsy forgery, and the Shuhubia affidavit certainly smells like a fraud), resulting in their lawsuits. All the other birthplace lawsuits are more or less are copycats. The other big factor is the raft of smear books about Obama that came out before the election by folks like Jerome (swiftboat) Corsi.

  468. avatar
    Lupin December 20, 2009 at 10:58 am #

    Interesting. But the different treatment appears to apply only to children born out of wedlock. I can understand the distinction being made in that case.

    But I see not differences for children born in wedlock, right?

  469. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 20, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    Lupin,

    Did you ever consider that I did not file any lawsuits againt McCain because being born to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the military interests of their county he is a “natural born Citizen?”

    You really do need to get off your race and white supremacist soap box. You are making a mockery of yourself.

  470. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 20, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    Lupin,

    As usual, you are wrong again. No one is making any distinctions between mothers and fathers. That is all in your imagination.

  471. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 20, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    ballantine,

    You go on and on and on and miss the point. Wong’s English common law only applied to determine if Wong should be a “citizen” as existed before the adoption of the Constitution. The ENGLISH common law does not apply to define who shall be President of the United States. Can you just imagine what the Founders would think of your theory?The law that defines the eligibility requirements to be President is our own AMERICAN federal common law that got its life from natural law and the law of nations.

    P.S. Mr. Ballantine, does your little brain have the capacity to make an argument without adding personal attacks and ridicule?

  472. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    Which shows your “jus soli + jus sanguinis” theory of citizenship is a convenient fiction.

  473. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    Mario, the Founders were, in your universe, morons who chose a term, “natural born,” which meant jus soli, – and in the opinion of Wong, only jus soli! You would have us believe that all the evidence that “natural born” did not change meaning before the Constitution or after is all to define citizenship, but none of it goes to define “natural born” citizenship?

    Where, exactly, does Wong say that there is a class of citizen that is born here, but not eligible for the Presidency?

  474. avatar
    ballantine December 20, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Pretty funny for you to talk about personal attacks as most of your posts on this site consist of little else.

    “Wong’s English common law only applied to determine if Wong should be a “citizen” as existed before the adoption of the Constitution.”

    You clearly didn’t read the quotes I cited. The court held the 14th amendment was declaratory of the existing law which was the English common law that continued after the revolution and prevail under the original constitution. This is after it said that natural born citizen was to be defined by the english common law and quoted multiple authroities defining it by scuh common law. These were important predicates to its holding that the 14th amendment incorporated the English common law. It is the most substantial authority on the issue of whether a child of aliens is natural born as Minor declined to address the issue and can’t be cited as authority on such issue.

    “The ENGLISH common law does not apply to define who shall be President of the United States.”

    Don’t you feel silly at this point saying the same thing over and over with no quthority to support it. Take a look at the string of quotes below from all the leading early authorities who somehow didn’t get your memo.

    “Can you just imagine what the Founders would think of your theory?”

    I think you need to do more research on the founders. The founder’s defined allegiance by place of birth and no one in the convention raised parentage or Vattel on these issues and many founders didn’t fear foreigners at all. In their generation and for decades following, you cannot cite one person defining “natural born” or “”native” by your definition.

    “The law that defines the eligibility requirements to be President is our own AMERICAN federal common law that got its life from natural law and the law of nations.”

    Amazing that you say the same thing over and over without being able to cite one authority. When you look below and see quote after quote defining our commmon law and our rules of citizenship by the english common law or see Wong Kim Ark base it’s holding on the fact that our commmon law was the english common law do you just block it out? Again, name one authority saying the our common law or citizenship was different that the english common law of citizenship.

  475. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    Wong’s English common law only applied to determine if Wong should be a “citizen” as existed before the adoption of the Constitution. The ENGLISH common law does not apply to define who shall be President of the United States.

    On the contrary, the term natural born was left undefined and thus had to be found as used in common law. There it was clear that it meant born on US soil to any parents.

    Your continued assertions that American Common Law relevant to citizenship came from natural law and law of nations is contradicted by courts, history, legislative history and more.

    Time to learn a history lesson or two my dear Mario and perhaps show how it was law of nations that guided citizenship law when this was explicitly rejected.

  476. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    Where, exactly, does Wong say that there is a class of citizen that is born here, but not eligible for the Presidency?

    In Mario’s imagination

  477. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Did you ever consider that I did not file any lawsuits againt McCain because being born to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the military interests of their county he is a “natural born Citizen?”

    Not per common law tradition my dear friend. Per Common Law tradition, such children were born aliens.
    Which is why Congress had to explicitly add the birth of such people to be covered by statutory law.
    If your argument were that US ‘common law’ came from natural law and law of nations, then the addition of statutory law would have been unnecessary.

    And why would Congress have to declare in a non binding decision that McCain was natural born?
    It does not make sense.

    But then again, nothing much makes sense when not constrained by one’s client’s requirements.

  478. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Cat bit your tongue Mario 🙂

    I understand, Facts an be soooo disturbing.

  479. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    PS: In fact the Court was hearing objections to the lower court finding that Wong was a natural born citizen.
    Wong Kim Ark’s equivocation of natural born and citizen at birth further shows how these concepts are basically equivalent.
    There are two kinds of citizens: natus or datus, born or granted.

  480. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    You clearly didn’t read the quotes I cited. The court held the 14th amendment was declaratory of the existing law which was the English common law that continued after the revolution and prevail under the original constitution.

    Yes, it’s a fallacy that the former colonies suddenly rejected English Common Law. While surely there may not have been one Common Law since the states had their own variants, it is clear that in order to appreciate the meaning of the term natural born, one has to look at English Common Law practices. Remember how for instance in the New York Constitution, the term natural born was replaced with native to avoid confusion as to the manner of birth.
    Native and natural born: born on US soil regardless of the status of parents under full US jurisdiction
    The latter, jurisdiction and allegiance are often misinterpreted. All it means that one is under full protection of the law, which excludes children born to foreign dignitaries, invading military and Indians not paying taxes.

    It’s that simple…

  481. avatar
    nbc December 20, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    Pretty devastating.

  482. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 20, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    The English common law is the source for what was meant by the phrase “natural born Citizen” when place in the Constitution, to the extent that there is any uncertainty of meaning. The Framers knew what that phrase meant — if it didn’t have a commonly understood meaning, they would have defined it.

  483. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 20, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    nbc,

    Now that we know about my imagination, let us explore yours. The Constitution has three classes of citizens, “natural born Citizens,” “citizens of the United States,” and naturalized citizens. May we have the benefit of your most powerful intellect and ask that you kindly define for our listening audience each class as the Framers envisioned it.

  484. avatar
    Rickey December 20, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo says:

    Rickey Martin

    Is addressing me that way supposed to be an insult? Does that make you a homophobe as well as a racist?

    McCain was white with an anglo surname. I believe there were law suits filed against him on the question of whether he was a “natural born Citizen.”

    None filed by you, I’ve noticed. Did you ever demand that McCain show his birth certificate? I didn’t think so.

  485. avatar
    NBC December 20, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    he Constitution has three classes of citizens, “natural born Citizens,” “citizens of the United States,” and naturalized citizens.

    That’s like saying that there are three kinds of chess pieces, white, black and ‘chess pieces’ when in fact there are only two:

    Citizens: Natus and Datus, natural born and given/naturalized

    Hope this clarifies this really simple issue.

  486. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 20, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    ballantine,

    I note that you did not include Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 decision of the United States Supreme Court, in your string of “authorities.” Remember that the Minor Court said that “some authorities” maintain that a child born in the country of non-citizen parents was a “citizen” and that it had doubts about such a proposition. I am sure the Minor Court was well aware of all of the pre-1875 “authorities” you cite and discounted them as the final word on who may be a “citizen” of the United States.

    Other than citing and commenting upon Wong, you do not cite any U.S. Supreme Court cases which support your theory that the Framers used ENGLISH and not AMERICAN common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new Constitutional Republic. I have cited several but you never mention them other than to say that I have misinterpreted them or that what they say is dicta. I like how you tell everybody what Wong allegedly says about “natural born Citizen” but of course in your mind that is not dicta.

    I also like how you and others here equate an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” in effect ignoring and thereby nullify critical parts of the Article II presidential eligibility clause, i.e., the words “natural born.” Also, Wong only defined what a “citizen of the United States” is. When referring to a “natural born Citizen,” it cited and quoted from Minor v. Happersett. Hence, if anyone has a vivid imagination, it is you and your supporters here.

    The best for you that I can say about your string of citations is that they support the definition of a “citizen of the United States” that existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, as explicated by Wong Kim Ark. They do not support the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” that came into being after the Constitution was adopted. You will note that the commentators cite no authority when they refer to “natural born Citizen.” Rather, they only offer their own personal opinions regarding the meaning of that term. Rawle is a great example of one who offers his personal opinion on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” without any cited authority to support it. In addition to the commentator’s personal circumstances, it would be interesting to know what social, economic, and political forces where at work when these commentators made these statements.

    Finally, may I ask you why you and your followers would support a theory of who may be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military which only weakens our nation? Remember that John Jay wanted a “strong” check on foreign influence creeping into and invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military. Why would you and your supporters opt for a theory on who is Article II eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military which does not give specifically to those singular and all-powerful offices and generally to the United States the most protection possible from foreign influence? I do not believe that your theory on who may be President and Commander in Chief of the Military is consistent with what the Framers wanted for the new nation.

  487. avatar
    Scientist December 20, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    Matio-The “foreign influence” argument is a complete red herring. The US-born child of US citizens dating back to the Mayflower could be the bought and paid for agent of a foreign power or powers. The child of 1 or even 2 non-citizens could be the most loyal of Americans. That’s why we have campaigns where the candidate’s opponents get to critique their record and we get to look at them up close and personal. I trust that process a lot more than allowing skeezy lawyers to come in after the fact and file suits.

    Let me do a reductio ad absudem on your position. An American girl, Josie, marries a doctor from Spain, Jose, and gets pregnant. He studies for his citizenship exam, passes with flying colors and they are on the way to the swearing in when she goes into labor. They detour to the hospital where she gives birth. He goes to the judge the next day, explains the situation and is sworn in. Mario says the child can’t be President. But if they go to the ceremony and he gets sworn in and she goes into labor on the way home, no problem. The child is the same, the parents are the same. Anything that produces a ridiculous result is bad law.

  488. avatar
    Scientist December 20, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

    By the way, Mario, nothing you ever cite is <130 years old. You and your sources are outdated. In science, we don't cite Aristotle's long diproven speculations on the geocentric universe or homunculi as guiding our present knowledge. When old ideas are superceded by more recent discoveries and ideas, we discard them. And so, I discard you and yout quaint theories.

  489. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Mario, if there are THREE categories of citizen, tell us, this part of the constitution:

    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    So, ONLY those who are born here, but ineligible for the Presidency can be Senators?

    In my opinion, Mario, this proves that “Citizen of the United States” is a group of citizens which includes natural-born and naturalized.

    If “Citizen of the United States” are those born here, but ineligible for the Presidency, then the “nine years” a Citizen of the United States doesn’t make sense.

  490. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 20, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    Dear Mario,

    When obscure phrasing is “explained” in great detail, as proving exactly what a novel argument needs it to prove, the literal parsing standards (interpretation of the written words) should not reverse their perspective to serve the needs of a favored meaning being argued for by the person doing the explaining.

    You have inconsistently AND selectively parsed similarly articulated passages from Vattel and the U.S. Constitution, to create “phantom” support for your particular point of view. They are identically comma-separated series of phrases, employing the key word “or”.

    In the following quote from Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, I agree it seems obvious that Vattel intended the “or” to mean “also known as” (synonymous with “in other words”.)

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Let’s try the substitution: The natives, (in other words) natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    He seems to be saying that the two are equivalent; they define each other. In Vattel’s era, the savages of North America are natural born citizens. We can have confidence in that interpretation because the words make sense and there are no competing alternatives that would drastically change the literal inference we have chosen in deciding what the translator meant.

    Now let’s apply the same construction to the following passage from Article 2 in the U.S. Constitution which states:

    “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…..

    Let’s try the substitution: “No person except a natural born citizen, (in other words) a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible…..

    Aha! They TOO are saying the two are equivalent; they define each other. The Framers want future readers of their words to know that this new term “Natural Born Citizen” means “citizenship” as it existed in the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. THEY CLEARED UP THE DEFINITION within Article Two itself!

    Your competing interpretation, makes no sense AT ALL! Why would the Framers leave the definition of such an important specification (NBC) in dispute from the very beginning? It is apparent that they didn’t, once your self-serving, and Framer-demeaning parsing is rejected. Your deception asks us to believe that the framer’s couldn’t grandfather themselves and chew gum with the same words.

    Not so! By viewing the phrases as explanatorily establishing unity between “Natural Born Citizen” and ” citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution “, we see that the grand fathering STILL TAKES PLACE for the original colonial and foreign born Patriots and the new term of art is defined for it’s American debut. Your need for un-specifically differentiating between them, by arbitrarily invoking the “opposing” sense of the word “or”, insults the Framer’s composing skills by throwing the interpretation of their words up for grabs, and then suggests we “catch” their meaning by reference to a Vattel quotation that you insist must be parsed oppositely!

    Happily,
    Benji Franklin

  491. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Mario, George D. Collins argued that if we let Wong Kim be President, then the evil Chinese could be President.

    Wong’s answer was pretty compelling. Paraphrasing, if the second coming of Confuscious ran for President and convinced the American people that he was the best for the job, then it says more the American people than the so-called “evil” Chinese.

    In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton talked about how to curb the dangers of foreign influence. You know what he talked about? How we spread the election of the President among the people, the electoral college, and then the legislature. He didn’t mention “natural born.”

    Anyone who thinks about the natural born citizen clause for more than 5 minutes realizes that it is an anachronism that, even properly interpreted serves no function these days. Bob Hope was not a natural born citizen. I can think of no one who epitomizes American values more, however. Madeleine Albright, Arnold, Granholm, Kissinger. We have ways of dealing with foreign influence that are MUCH better than wondering whether the accident of birth makes these people more likely to favor the country they happened to be born in. Subject them to the scrutiny of a national election.

    That’s when the clause is properly interpreted. When it is misinterpreted by nut-jobs and whackaloons, it leaves the realm of anachronistic and becomes downright asinine! Obama is going to be more sympathetic to the nation his father was from, even though his father left him when he was 2, he grew up in an third country, and never had any significant contact with his biological father – and didn’t much care for him after the little contact they did have?

    [Minor] it had doubts about such a proposition

    This is a lie, and I don’t know why you keep repeating it, since no one here is buying it. It said there was no doubt about X, and it did not have to figure out Y. When a case says that about Y, it is a nullity on the question of Y. It did not address Y. It does not concern itself with Y. It cannot be cited as precedent for Y. It is as if it did not happen when talking about Y.

    An example:

    There is no doubt that squares are rectangles. Some say that other four-sided objects are rectangles as well, but since we are discussing a square, we need not decide that issue today

    Did I say that only squares could be rectangles? Did I even say that I had doubts that other objects could also be rectangles? No. I left it open.

    When Wong discussed Minor, it pointed out that it did not answer Y, and moved on to the ONLY case that required distinguishing – Elk.

    You know WHY Wong quoted Minor? It quotes it twice, once to show that common law must be sought to define “natural born,” and then cites Smith v. Alabama:

    The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

    Later, it cites Minor to prove that Slaughterhouse did not and could not have decided the issue of “natural born,” because the same Justice who wrote Slaughterhouse wrote Minor, which left the issue OPEN!.

    The best for you that I can say about your string of citations is that they support the definition of a “citizen of the United States” that existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, as explicated by Wong Kim Ark.

    Right. Everyone used the term “natural born,” to mean one thing, but the Founders chose the exact same phrase to mean something else, and didn’t tell anyone. When commentators talk about “natural born,” they really mean “Citizens of the United States,” a phrase that THEY didn’t use, but the Founders did, meaning “natural born,” which they had used for a different meaning, all without telling anyone.

    The more you talk, Mario, the less sense you make.

  492. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    Other than citing and commenting upon Wong, you do not cite any U.S. Supreme Court cases which support your theory that the Framers used ENGLISH and not AMERICAN common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new Constitutional Republic.

    Mario, you just keep proving over and over how poorly you have read Wong Kim Ark.

    The case is divided into 7 sections. Each section is headed with a Roman numeral. Roman numeral III discusses how American common law was, on the definition of natural bornEXACTLY THE SAME!

    It cites:

    The Charming Betsy
    Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor
    Blackstone’s Commentary
    Doe v. Jones
    Shanks v. Dupont
    Story’s Conflict of Laws
    McCreery v. Somerville
    Levy v. McCartee
    Dred Scott
    United States v. Rhodes
    Garder v. Ward (1805)
    Kilham v. Ward (1806)
    State v. Manuel (1838)
    Lynch v. Clark, (1844)
    Kent’s Commentaries
    Binney – Alienigenae of the United States

  493. avatar
    NBC December 20, 2009 at 11:29 pm #

    I note that you did not include Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 decision of the United States Supreme Court, in your string of “authorities.” Remember that the Minor Court said that “some authorities” maintain that a child born in the country of non-citizen parents was a “citizen” and that it had doubts about such a proposition. I am sure the Minor Court was well aware of all of the pre-1875 “authorities” you cite and discounted them as the final word on who may be a “citizen” of the United States.

    You are again letting your beliefs affect the facts of the Minor decision which did not discount anything other than by observing that it did not need to address these issues. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court finally addressed these issues and found that any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents was, by English Common Law, which guided US Common Law, a natural born citizen.

    Remember that John Jay wanted a “strong” check on foreign influence creeping into and invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Hence, the rejection of naturalized citizens.

    Your ‘arguments’ are becoming quite ‘begging the question’ Mario. What is the problem? Too hard to address the facts?

    Figures.

  494. avatar
    NBC December 20, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    How unable Mario is to read Wong Kim Ark. But we should not be too hard on him. He has the duty to argue his client’s position, regardless of the facts.

  495. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    Mario, it’s a simple question. Does voting become an essential part of citizenship if Minor was a naturalized citizen? If she was, what you claim is a third type of citizen – the “Citizen of the United States?”

    No – voting is, according to Minor, not a part of citizenship, neither natural born, naturalized or other.

    Therefore, defining natural born with respect to Minor is dicta, pure and simple.

  496. avatar
    NBC December 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    The more you talk, Mario, the less sense you make.

    Hear hear

  497. avatar
    Greg December 20, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    His duty to zealously advocate for his client does not trump his duty of candor to the court. And even in New Jersey, lawyers are bound not to knowingly “make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.”

    His representation of what Minor said is objectively false and he must know it by now.

    Of course, his ethical troubles probably started long ago.

    A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, nor assert or controvert an issue therein unless the lawyer knows or reasonably believes that there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law.

    I don’t see how anyone could claim to “reasonably” believe what Mario is putting out. Reasonableness is an objective standard – what would the average lawyer do with this? Would they ignore a hundred plus years of clear jurisprudence? And is there a “good faith” argument for modifying the law as it stands? He clearly hasn’t presented one, since he won’t acknowledge that the law is different from what he is advocating.

  498. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 21, 2009 at 2:44 am #

    Scientist,

    You are really out doing yourself.

    Let me do a reductio ad absudem on your position. A Mexican girl, Josie, marries a doctor from Spain, Jose, in Mexico. She gets pregnant in Mexico. About 8 months later they decide to take a vacation to the United States. They are just about ready to cross the border from Mexico into the United States when she goes into premature labor. They detour to the hospital where she gives birth to the child in Mexico. Scientist says the child can’t be President. But if they crossed the border and Josie had the child in the United States, no problem. The child is the same, the parents are the same. Anything that produces a ridiculous result is bad law.

  499. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 21, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    Scientist,

    You are starting to get boring.

  500. avatar
    nbc December 21, 2009 at 3:01 am #

    Mario seems to believe that if he counter with a ridiculous scenario that it somehow makes the one provided above irrelevant.

    Poor Mario as logic may not be his strongest suit.

  501. avatar
    nbc December 21, 2009 at 3:03 am #

    You’re a funny dude Mario… I guess you find anyone who shows the level vacuity in your arguments to be boring.

    I do understand why you avoid dealing with the real issues…

    Figures…

  502. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 21, 2009 at 3:13 am #

    Benji Frankin,

    I will answer you in two ways, one based on logic and one based on historical interpretation:

    1. Children born in 1800, 1810, 1820, to the present, were not a “natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.” I guess no one can be President.

    2. St. George Tucker, (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831) said in his “Treatise on the Constitution” (1803):

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”

    St. George Tucker, Treatise on the Constitution (1803)

    3. Justice Story also maintained in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that permitting a citizen, other than a natural born citizen, to be President of the United States was an exception to “the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.” III J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Section 1473 (Boston: Little, Brown: 1833).

    In his works Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution’ originally published in 1833, Story writes of the eligibility requirements for the office of President under Article II and explains how foreign influence should normally be kept out of that office:

    Ҥ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigor, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.

    § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicile, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.”

    Justice Joseph Story, Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution’ originally published in 1833 provided online by University of Chicago.

  503. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 21, 2009 at 3:24 am #

    nbc,

    Hence, not rejection of naturalized citizens but rejection of foreigners. Children born in the country to non-citizen parents were foreigners. They needed to be naturalized.

  504. avatar
    Scientist December 21, 2009 at 5:57 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Scientist, You are starting to get boring.

    Mario-You completed that task some time ago.

  505. avatar
    Greg December 21, 2009 at 6:23 am #

    Of course, there’s not a scintilla of evidence of that, Mario. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark present evidence that that had never been the case – that no child of a non-citizen born in this country had ever “needed to be naturalized.”

  506. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2009 at 7:38 am #

    I keep telling you, that if you want to be “true to de Vattel” and at the same time stop ignoring the elephant in the room (British common law), you will have to call Obama a “naturalized citizen”. De Vattel wrote:

    “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

    You’d still be wrong, but the inconsistencies would be fewer. You wouldn’t have to explain away all those cases where the court talks about two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. You wouldn’t have to overturn Wong Kim Ark. All you would have to do is convince the public that what they always knew was wrong, and you have already had remarkable success in that already.

  507. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    It is the inclusion of these citations that reveals how you think, that a child born and raised (except for 4 years) in the United States is a “foreigner” because of the genes from a father who he hardly knew. This is very much the same kind of an argument a white supremacist makes.

  508. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    Nonetheless, that is what the law is. If you think the law is bad then there are options available to you to try to change it. Falsifying history is not on