Main Menu

Kerchner’s “don’t ask don’t tell” ad

I must admit that this is a catchy title for an ad in the February 8 Washington Times, described by Charles Kerchner at the Apuzzo “Right Answers” blog. The ad takes an interesting departure from the usual “legal” approach taken in trying to make Obama ineligible by changing the legal definitions underlying the  requirements in the US Constitution.

Kerchner denies that the requirements to be president are a matter of the Constitution, common law, legislation or court decisions, but rather that being president relies on the laws of nature.

While this approach may work personally for Charles Kerchner, it’s not likely to convince anyone that matters, unless it be voters in 2012.

292 Responses to Kerchner’s “don’t ask don’t tell” ad

  1. avatar
    bondwooley February 13, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    People will look back with astonishment that at one time, we tolerated a communication gap in the military:

    http://bit.ly/9YNli3

    (satire)

  2. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 13, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired) wrote … Many people do not know there is a difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “Citizen” of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges.

    But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “natural born Citizen” cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise “The Law of Nations – Principles of Natural Law” Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874).

    Well said, Charles.

  3. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    “i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country.”

    Except that is emphatically NOT what Vattel wrote.

  4. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    With a PhD in Biochemistry, I feel I am pretty familiar with the laws of nature, especially those pertaining to living organisms. Citizenship is not among them. Natural organisms don’t recognize human constructs like nations, borders or citizenship. Does Mr Kerchner or Sven believe that bears stop at Customs when they cross from the US into Canada or vice versa?

  5. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    As a licensed optician, with two related degrees, the laws of nature do not recognize political boundries.

    Denialists can write whatever drivel they want, but what are they going to say when Cory Booker announces?

    Don’t bother with DC is not a state. Al Gore was born there.

  6. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    “Does Mr Kerchner or Sven believe that bears stop at Customs when they cross from the US into Canada or vice versa?”

    Didn’t you see the special lane for elk and caribou?

  7. avatar
    BlackLion February 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Dr. C, our old buddy Steve Craig has been making the same noise over at the ROSL. I think they all have decided on this new line of attack. Craig is a bit delusional, especially since his case was dismissed, but that is basically the crux of his new argument…It is kind of interesting that they are so similar…

  8. avatar
    BlackLion February 13, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Over at tROSL, Linda once again attempts to disparage the good Doctor…But doesn’t have the guts to challenge him on his blog…FYI…

    Linda says:
    February 13, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    Loren: So now the documents that you previously said hadn’t come to light yet, in fact came to light a year ago? And all that time they’ve been posted and/or linked to on some random, unnamed, unspecified page of your website?

    My apologies, you are correct. I admit to have forgotten about a link to a doc that was sent to my Reps in DC in 2008.

    As far as making it easy on you all I give you the same respect that your most linked & regurgitated so called legal scholar gives us:

    “The Great Mother of all Native Born Citizenship Pages”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/the-great-mother-of-all-native-born-citizenship-pages/

    Yep, all kinds of imaginary links here.

  9. avatar
    BlackLion February 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    And is attempting to use Story to support her inane arguments…

    Linda says:
    February 13, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Joseph Story; http://www.archive.org/details/commentariesonc04storgoog

    First, the place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents. Patris originem unusquisque sequatur*. This is usually denominated the domicil of birth or nativity, domicilium originis. But, if the parents are then on a visit, or on a journey, (in itinere), the home of the parents (at least if it is in the same country) will be deemed the domicil of birth or nativity.

    Secondly, the domicil of birth of minors continues, until they have obtained a new domicil. Thirdly, minors are generally deemed incapable, proprio marte, of changing their domicil during their minority; and, therefore, they retain the domicil of their parents; and if the parents change their domicil. that of the infant children follows it; and if the father dies, his last domicil is that of the infant children.

    Dig. Lib. 50, tit 1,1. 27, §2; Pothier Pand. Lib. 50, tit. 1, n. 18; Somerville v. Somerville, 5 Vesey, 750, 786, 790; 2 Domat, Public Law, B. 1, tit 16, § 3, p. 462; Id. art 6; Post, $ 47.

    a Cod. Lib. 10, tit 31,1. 36; 2 Domat, Public Law, B. I, tit. 16, § 3, art. 10; 1 Boullenois, Observ. 4, p. 53; Voet, ad Pand. Lib. 5, tit 1, n. 91, 92, 100. See Scrimshire r. Scrimshire, 2 Hagg. Eccl. R. 405, 406; Cochin, (Euvres, Tom. 5, p. 5, 6; Id. 698, 4to. edit.

    3 Dr. Laeber’s Encyc. Amer. art Domicil; Pothier, Cout d’Orleans, ch. 1, art 10.12; Somerville e. Somerville, 5 Vesey, 750, 787; 1 Boullenois, Observ. 4, p. 53.

    4 Dig. Lib. 50, tit 1,1.9; Pothier, Pand. Lib. 50, tit 1, n. 3.

    * Fifthly; Children born upon the sea are deemed to belong, and to have their domicil in the country, to which their parents belong.6

    ^ 49. From these considerations and rules the general conclusion may be deduced, that domicil is of three sorts; domicil by birth, domicil by choice, and

    i Vattel.Lib. l,ch. 19, § 213.

    a The Venua, 8 Cranch, 278, 281; The Frances, 8 Cranch, 335; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 12; Bempde t>. Johnstone, 3 Ves. 198, 202; The Friendschaft, 3 Wheaton, R. 14; Ommany .. Bingham, cited 5 Ves. jr. 756, 757, 765.

    3 Ibid.

    Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19, § 217; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 13, 27; The Josephine, 4 Rob. 26.

    5 Ibid.

    s Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19, § 216; Dr. Leibert Encyc. Araer. art Domicil.

  10. avatar
    Jules February 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    The advertisement states: “His being a British subject does not expire. Once a Brit, always a Brit per British nationality law.”

    Any UK immigration lawyer would laugh at such a misstatement of British nationality law.

    When Kenya became independent, Kenyan citizens ceased to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of the Kenya Independence Act. However, they retained their British subjecthood and Commonwealth citizenship by virtue of sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 as amended by section 2(1)(a) of the Kenya Independence Act 1963. However, their status as British subjects was abolished on 1 January 1983 by section 52(8) and Schedule 9 of the British Nationality Act 1981*.

    In Obama’s case, his British subjecthood and Commonwealth citizenship following Kenyan independence were a function of his Kenyan citizenship. However, Obama only held Kenyan citizenship until he was 23; Article 97 of the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his Kenyan citizenship in 1984** because he held Kenyan citizenship on his 21st birthday and did not choose to renounce his US citizenship and formally declare allegiance to Kenya by his 23rd birthday. When he ceased to be a Kenyan citizen, he was no longer in the class referenced in section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 and thus lost the entitlement to British subjecthood that he previously had under section 1(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948. Thus, Kenyan law would have caused him to lose his British subjecthood even if the relevant provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 had not already came into force to deprive Kenyans in general of such status.

    *The status of British subject technically remained in existence for a small class of people covered under sections 30 and 31 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The extent of this class is described at this page on the UK Border Agency web site.

    **Article 97(7) of the Kenyan Constitution does allow the Kenyan Parliament to pass a statute that extends the deadline by which a dual citizen must renounce his non-Kenyan citizenship in order to remain Kenyan. I do not know if such a statute had been passed, but I would seriously doubt that Kenya would have extended it far enough to be relevant.

  11. avatar
    milspec February 13, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    I want my 2 minutes back.

  12. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 13, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Slowly but surely, with every continuing failure, the bedsheets and gas-doused crosses in the birthers’ closet slip out a little more.

  13. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Amazing, no?

  14. avatar
    Lupin February 14, 2010 at 3:34 am #

    My first thought when I saw the ad was, “Mario must need money.”

    Why else they would bother otherwise?

  15. avatar
    DCa February 14, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    I see Mario is “fundraising” again. The guy is actually getting smarter and building new markets of suckers to hit up for money. The man is a grifter plain and simple. Birthers are his mark.

    Losing in court is the whole point, with each ‘defeat.’ holding the interest of the scam’s marks making small donations (tax free gift transfers I suspect)coming in. Each dismissal brings the opportnity to file appeal and milk the herd of birthers for a few months.
    Rinse.Repeat..He’s been at for over a year. I’d love to see his tax return!

  16. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    From my non-lawyer perspective, it doesn’t seem that anything these birther “attorneys” do bears much resemblance to what real attorneys do. For example, (please, any of you lawyers here feel free to correct me) I would guess that most of you have never filed a motion for reconsideration in your entire career, yet these guys seem to trot one out every time a judge rules against them. To my naive perspective, it seems foolish to expect the same judge that just ruled against you to change his mind when there are no new facts or law. And he can’t consider arguments you “forgot” to make when you had the chance. I can understand an appeal to a different, higher court, but these motions to reconsider seem pointless and silly.

  17. avatar
    IceTrey February 14, 2010 at 10:29 pm #

    If everyone who is granted US citizenship at birth, i.e. born a citizen, under any circumstances is a “natural born citizen” then why doesn’t Article 2 just say “No person except a born citizen…”? The word natural in this context is unnecessary. It is redundant. It’s like saying “No person except a born born citizen…”.

    Laws are made by men. They are inherently artificial. The laws concerning citizenship can and have been changed. Conditions which make one a statutory citizen today may not apply tomorrow. The legal dictionary at Dictionary.com gives this definition for “natural”, “b : being in accordance with or arising from nature esp. as DISTINGUISHED FROM OPERATION OF LAW”. Why you people can not comprehend that there is a difference between “natural born” and “statutory” citizens is beyond me.

  18. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    Because natural born has a clear meaning in common law?

    Duh…

  19. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    I believe that was the original phrasing by Hamilton, which was changed to the more common terminology ‘natural born’

    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

  20. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    In nature, there is no such thing as citizenship. It only exists in human laws. Natural organisms usually live where they were born, though those that are mobile may move about freely following food supplies. They certainly don’t pay the slightest attention to national boundaries.

  21. avatar
    NBC February 14, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    During the New York Convention on their Constitution the phrase

    natural born

    was renamed to

    native born

    to avoid confusion with the manner of birth

    How much more evidence do you require?

  22. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 15, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Scientist,

    Now I know where all that climate warming science comes from.

  23. avatar
    misha February 15, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Hi Mario!!

    What’s the difference between an incontinent dog with food aggression, and a birther?

  24. avatar
    misha February 15, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    Mario:

    Check out my ode to communism!

  25. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Actually we do. It’s your side who does NOT understand the definition.

    Starting with Vattel which your side continually misinterprets. (Willfully IMHO.)

  26. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2010 at 1:46 am #

    A quack lawyer who believes in quack science. Why am I not surprised?

  27. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    Really? I give you a legal dictionary definition of “natural” as being distinguished from the operation of law. Yet you continue with no rebuttal evidence to just make up what you think it means. Show me the common law that defines “natural born” or stfu.

  28. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    You just made my case. Natural organisms live were they are born. Fine. So how can you say that a person who is a citizen can be natural when they are born overseas?

  29. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    What? no you’re really just making shit up. Vattel is quite clear on the definition. I ask again why not just say “a person born a citizen” if to be natural is to be born a citizen regardless of circumstances?

  30. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    Now you’re going to claim that the term “natural born” is MORE COMMON than just “born”. That’s ridiculous to the point of absurdity. “Born” is simple and straightforward. Why add the adjective “natural” to it at all if it means the same thing? The word “natural” modifies the word “born”. It makes it unique from just the word “born” by itself does it not? Yet you people inexplicably try to deny that fact.

  31. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 2:39 am #

    “Natural organisms live were they are born”

    Umm some do, some don’t.

    Wierdest argument ever.

  32. avatar
    myson February 15, 2010 at 5:10 am #

    As Obama was born in the US, ur arguments really doesn’t apply to him anyway. Thanks for trying !!!!

  33. avatar
    misha February 15, 2010 at 5:33 am #

    Hi Myson!

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    Emerich de Vattel didn’t write the US Constitution.

  35. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    Human originated in East Africa (not too far from where Obama’s father is from). They are now found all over the globe, from the Arctic to Antarctica. Maybe some day soon on other planets. That is natural. Wherever one lives is home.

    Citizenship is an artificial construct that simply doesn’t exist in nature. When the monarch butterflies come back from Mexico each spring, do they stop at the border?

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    There are two kinds of citizen from the point of view of presidential eligibility, and two kinds only: natural born and naturalized – those BORN citizens, and those later MADE citizens. If you want to make “natural” mean something special, then you have to account for its use in both phrases. Go read something by a real American rather than some Swiss dude.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/obots-in-history-william-rawle-1759-1836/

  37. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    A few interesting tidbits from the Olympics:

    Hannah Kearney, who won a Gold for the US, has a Canadian mother, but was born in the US. She could be President of the US or Prime Minister of Canada.

    Jason Lamy Chappuis, who won a Gold for France, was born in Montana and lived there until he was 5. He could be President of the US or President of France.

    Dale Begg-Smith, who won a Silver for Aistralia, was born in Vancouver. He could be Prime Minister of Australia or Canada.

    All of the above is quite natural. They and their families are following in the footsteps of the early humans who left Africa and populated the globe.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    IceTray: Yet you continue with no rebuttal evidence

    Oh dear, another foul-mouthed jerk who doesn’t have a clue.

    Legal dictionary?

    NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

    Independently of the constitutional provision it has always been the doctrine of this country except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves and their descendants that birth within the limits and Jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. In the case of Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the limits and allegiance of the United States whatever the situation of his parents was a natural born citizen and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession In re Look Tin Sing (U. S.) 21 Fed. 905, 909.

    The term natural born citizen of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. The natural born subjects of a monarch comprise all persons born in the allegiance of the King United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.

    Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.

    Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases By West Publishing Company

    I also found this in the same dictionary:

    NATURAL BORN

    The term “natural born,” as sometimes used, means bastard; born out of wedlock. Bouv. Law Dict. On the other hand, it has been held that “natural,” in a statute providing that adopted children shall have all the rights of natural children, means legitimate. Burns v Allen (Ind.) 9 Am. Law Reg. (O. S. 747). Under Rev. St. § 4425, as amended by Act 1881, giving a right of action for injuries occasioned by negligence and providing that, in case there be no husband or wife, or they fail to sue, the minor child or children of the deceased, whether such minor child be the natural born or adopted child of the deceased, shall have such right, etc., the words are simply used to show that adopted children and the adopting parents are to have the benefit of the act, the same as in case of children by procreation Marshall v. Wabash R. Co., 25 S. W. 179, 180, 120 Mo. 275.

    Another way to look at it is that “natural born” citizens (born citizens) contrast to naturalized citizens (adopted citizens).

  39. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2010 at 7:55 am #

    In case you missed the various posts we had on Vattel eight months or so ago, here is the shorter version.

    Vattel (who, by the way, talks about natives, not “natural-born citizens — that term is a later English-speaking invention) claims that, in order to be born a native, one of your parents must also be a native. He then goes in the next sentence to declare that it should be the father, but it could be the mother if the couple is unwed.

    Now if we discount the more, er, male chauvinistic and outdated 19th century attitudes vis vis males abd females, it is obvious that Obama would meet Vattel’s criterion to be declared a native, hence a natural-born citizen.

    End of story, at least as far as Vattel is concerned.

    As they say, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  40. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Vattel is quite clear indeed.

    You’re the ones who are either totally incapable of translating a couple of straightforward French sentences, or more likely, willfully misinterpreting them.

    Before you ask, yes I am French, and yes I am a lawyer.

    It would never occur to me to mistranslate and misquote an American law treatise before a French court and I really wish you idiots would stop misquoting that honorable and learned Swiss gentleman (who also wrote ,many other good texts beside his Treatise).

    Vattel does NOT bolster your case it all, it destroys it almost entirely.

  41. avatar
    Lupin February 15, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    Here is the original Vattel text. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

    § 212. Les citoyens sont les membres de la société civile : liés cette société par certains devoirs, et soumis son autorité, ils participent avec égalité ses avantages. Les naturels ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays de parents citoyens. La société ne pouvant se soutenir et se perpétuer que par les enfants des citoyens, ces enfants y suivent naturellement la condition de leurs pères, et entrent dans tous leurs droits. La société est censée le vouloir ainsi, par une suite de ce qu’elle doit sa propre conservation; et l’on présume de droit que chaque citoyen, en entrant dans la société, réserve ses enfants le droit d’en être membres. La patrie des pères est donc celle des enfants ; et ceux-ci deviennent de véritables citoyens par leur simple consentement tacite. Nous verrons bient´t si, parvenus l’âge de raison , ils peuvent renoncer leur droit, et ce qu’ils doivent la société dans laquelle ils sont nés. Je dis que pour être d’un pays, il faut être né d’un père citoyen ; car si vous y êtes né d’un étranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans être votre patrie.

  42. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    If you like dictionaries, here are some more:

    “Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)

    “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).

    “Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.” William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.” Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980)

  43. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    The gentleman representing Jamaica is a natural born U.S. citizen, whose father had Jamaican citizenship.

  44. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    So you’re saying that “de parents citoyens” does not mean “of citizen PARENTS (plural)”? I admit I only took a few years of French in school but I do believe that an “s” on the end of a word still makes it plural in either language. Seems pretty clear to me.

  45. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    Again nothing but obfuscation. No, he didn’t write the Constitution, but he was READ by those who did. If you reject that fact then you’re just a liar.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-founding-fathers/

  46. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Did you even read “Scientists” post that I was replying to? He was the one who made that argument. Way to ignore your own side.

  47. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Way to ignore the ongoing argument. Again what about those born overseas? This isn’t just about Obama it’s about all citizenships.

  48. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    Those who wrote the Constitution also read Shakespeare, who said “A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

  49. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    The monarch butterfly spends the spring, summer and early fall in the US and Canada and the winter in Mexico. What is its citizenship? Does it stop at customs when it crosses borders?

    There is NO CITIZENSHIP IN THE NATURAL WORLD.

    Therefore, your argument is absurd.

  50. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Once again I ask, if “natural born” means the same as “born” then why use the adjective “natural” at all. Born is born or it’s not. There is no reason to use “natural born” if it means the exact same thing as “born”. You’re saying that the Framers, some of the most literate men in history just threw that word “natural” in there just for fun. If they used the word “natural” to MODIFY “born” then they did not intend them to have the same meaning.

  51. avatar
    IceTrey February 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    You do understand words can have several meanings don’t you? Just because “naturalized” has “natural” in it doesn’t mean that the definition in each circumstance is equivalent.

  52. avatar
    Whatever4 February 15, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    IceTrey: Again nothing but obfuscation. No, he didn’t write the Constitution, but he was READ by those who did. If you reject that fact then you’re just a liar.

    No one is saying that de Vattel wasn’t read and discussed by the Framers. He was. NOT for citizenship and relations within a nation though, but for relations between nations. Most of your quotes (which require signing up, which I chose not to do) seem to be from Volumes 3 and 4 (Of War, and Of The Restoration of Peace).

    It’s like Martha Stewart — I love her cooking, decorating, style, and housekeeping books. But when she covers exercise and doing taxes (which she does), I pretty much ignore her. There are far better resources for those areas than Martha.

  53. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    I have at least one parent. You have at least one parent. Together, we have parents. Does that mean that our parents are married?

    When you talk about our parents, they are plural, because we, you and I, are plural.

    The sentence after the plural parents has plural fathers. I guess only those children who are born of gay adoptive parents are natural born?

  54. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    I cannot find a single founder who said, “I think Vattel’s definition of citizenship is right.” By contrast, I can find dozens of founders who wrote that Calvin’s Case was the correct definition of citizenship. They made their case for independence, in part, by citing Calvin’s case – it said that citizenship was a contract of mutual obligation, and those born within the state, whether of citizen parents or not, owed an obligation to the state and the state owed them an obligation.

    In addition, the founders cited Blackstone a hundred times as often as they cited Vattel – his definition was the same as Calvin’s case. The ratio has continued, or gotten greater. He might have been cited a thousand times more often, now, than Vattel, when one is talking about the founding of the nation.

    There’s simply no evidence that the founders credited Vattel’s definition of citizenship.

    Anything that suggests otherwise is simply a baldfaced lie!

    Prove me wrong, Icetrey, find me a single founder that cites Vattel when talking about citizenship.

  55. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Did you read all of Scientists’ post? Let me point you to the end:

    They certainly don’t pay the slightest attention to national boundaries.

    So, if some animals live where they are born, and some don’t, but none pay attention to national borders, WTF are you talking about?

  56. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    And you’re saying that the Founders, some of the most literate men in history, picked a phrase, “natural born,” which had a legal meaning more than 400 years old, which had been used in the states and colonies since they were formed, to mean the exact opposite of what it had meant for the past 400 years. Without telling anyone. Without a single note to posterity to ignore the 400 years of meaning for the term.

    “Homicide” means the taking of a human life. You’re telling us that the Founders changed the meaning of “Homicide” to mean “peanut-butter parfait,” because some Swiss philosopher that the Founders read defined it that way.

    The Founders knew how to change the meaning of Common Law terms – “treason” was defined in our Constitution in almost exactly the same way as the Common Law version, except our “treason” didn’t include thinking bad thoughts about the leaders.

    Are we to assume that the Founders were only morons when it came to “natural born?”

  57. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    The phrase “natural born,” was first written in an English statute in around 1350. A major case was written in 1608, called Calvin’s Case. That case said that if an alien came into the country, he owed a duty to the sovereign. That duty was so strong that “if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King…”

    Natural born are those who owe a natural obligation to the sovereign. It excludes those who don’t owe a natural obligation to the sovereign. If foreigners in the land owe a natural obligation to the sovereign so that their children are natural born citizens, then who is excluded?

    The children of ambassadors, foreign sovereigns, and invading armies.

    If the founders had said “only those born here” can be President, that would have allowed the children of ambassadors, foreign sovereigns and invading armies to become President.

    You have three simple questions to answer, IceTrey.

    1. Why did the Founders change the meaning of “natural born” from what it had meant since 1350?

    2. Why didn’t the Founders tell anyone they were changing the meaning?

    3. If they didn’t tell anyone why they were changing the meaning, then how can we know for sure that they WERE changing the meaning?

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    IceTrey: You do understand words can have several meanings don’t you? Just because “naturalized” has “natural” in it doesn’t mean that the definition in each circumstance is equivalent.

    I certainly agree with what you say there. So if the word “natural” has a different meaning in “naturalized”, what does it mean in that context? The “ized” suffix means “made”. We may say then that “naturalized citizen” means “one made a natural citizen.” So what does “natural” mean in that phrase? I asked Apuzzo, but he never would answer.

    The Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins said:

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

    And the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett said:

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

  59. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    IceTrey: If everyone who is granted US citizenship at birth, i.e. born a citizen, under any circumstances is a “natural born citizen” then why doesn’t Article 2 just say“No person except a born citizen…”? The word natural in this context is unnecessary. It is redundant. It’s like saying “No person except a born born citizen…”.
    Laws are made by men. They are inherently artificial. The laws concerning citizenship can and have been changed. Conditions which make one a statutory citizen today may not apply tomorrow. The legal dictionary at Dictionary.com gives this definition for “natural”, “b : being in accordance with or arising from nature esp. as DISTINGUISHED FROM OPERATION OF LAW”. Why you people can not comprehend that there is a difference between “natural born” and “statutory” citizens is beyond me.

    Ice Trey, first of all, you are a total TOOL and a dishonest con artist! Gee, I like how you think you are being serious by referencing “dictionary.com” as a “law dictionary” (it is just an online dictionary, not specifically a law dictionary, you idiot) and then you choose to selectively pick and choose a single meaning, definition “b” as somehow being the be-all, end all authority of the definition of the word “natural”.

    Gee, why don’t you list ALL of what the defintion meanings are UNDER YOUR OWN reference? Well, since you did not, in full disclosure, here is their entire definition for the word “natural” :

    nat…u…ral  /ˈn¦tʃərəl, ˈn¦tʃrəl/ Pronunciation [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]

    –adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
    2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
    3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
    4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
    5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
    6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
    7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
    8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
    9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
    10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
    11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
    12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
    13. consonant with the nature or character of.
    14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
    15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
    16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
    17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
    18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
    19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
    20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
    21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
    22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
    23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
    24. Music. a. neither sharp nor flat.
    b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.

    25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
    26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
    27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
    28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
    29. Cards. a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
    b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.

    30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
    31. Afro (def. 1).

    –noun 32. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.
    33. Music. a. a white key on a piano, organ, or the like.
    b. the sign ♮, placed before a note, canceling the effect of a previous sharp or flat.
    c. a note affected by a ♮, or a tone thus represented.

    34. an idiot.
    35. Cards. blackjack (def. 2b).
    36. Afro (def. 2).
    37. (in craps) a winning combination of seven or eleven made on the first cast.
    38. a natural substance or a product made with such a substance: an ointment containing mink oil and other naturals.

    Of course, the biggest irony of all is that you seem to fit definition meaning #34!

  60. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    DICTIONARY.COM “LEGAL DEFINITION” OF “NATURAL”

    IceTrey: If everyone who is granted US citizenship at birth, i.e. born a citizen, under any circumstances is a “natural born citizen” then why doesn’t Article 2 just say“No person except a born citizen…”? The word natural in this context is unnecessary. It is redundant. It’s like saying “No person except a born born citizen…”.
    Laws are made by men. They are inherently artificial. The laws concerning citizenship can and have been changed. Conditions which make one a statutory citizen today may not apply tomorrow. The legal dictionary at Dictionary.com gives this definition for “natural”, “b : being in accordance with or arising from nature esp. as DISTINGUISHED FROM OPERATION OF LAW”. Why you people can not comprehend that there is a difference between “natural born” and “statutory” citizens is beyond me.

    Well, my cut and paste cut off after the first section of the full set of definitions for “natural” from your dictionary.com…

    …there are a number of additional uses and sections there, which I’ll leave for everyone else to review, with the exception of the one area which they do refer to as their “LEGAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION”, which I’ll paste below.

    Notice that the disingenuous IceTrey “conveniently” ignored and did not provide the VERY FIRST definition (1) and instead, only went for (2b).

    Here is the FULL listing under that section:

    Legal Dictionary

    Main Entry: natural
    Function: adjective
    1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong —see also NATURAL LAW, NATURAL RIGHT
    2 a : existing as part of or determined by nature natural condition of the land> b : being in accordance with or arising from nature esp. as distinguished from operation of law —see also NATURAL PERSON —compare ARTIFICIAL c : arising from the usual course of events natural result of the accident>
    3 a : begotten as distinguished from adopted b : being a relation by consanguinity as distinguished from adoption
    4 : ILLEGITIMATE natural child> —naturally adverb
    Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

  61. avatar
    Black Lion February 15, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    And that is why the birthers always end up with an “epic fail”…They never conduct legitimate research, cut and parse the research that they may do to fit their preconcieved belief that the President is guilty….Amazing…

  62. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 15, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I am really surprised at either your ignorance or your dishonesty. If you have been doing your homework on this eligibility issue, you would know better than to call Vattel a “Swiss dude” and try to tell the public that William Rawle is somehow more influential than Vattel.

    Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often said that his theories served as the backbone for American independence. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 547 et seq., passim (1909).

    This is only one source and I will not get into so much of the information which shows who Vattel was and the tremendous influence that he had on the Founders and the making of our nation.

    Please let me know which one it was for you to make the statement that you made, ignorance or dishonesty. I can forgive your ignorance but not your dishonesty.

  63. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Hi Mario!

    What’s the difference between an incontinent dog with food aggression, and a birther?

    In computers there are motherboards and daughter cards. What about the card for the evil step-mother?

  64. avatar
    nbC February 16, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    Mario: Please let me know which one it was for you to make the statement that you made, ignorance or dishonesty. I can forgive your ignorance but not your dishonesty.

    Pot Kettle Black… Dr C however can speak for himself but it is sufficient to point out that Vattel’s impact on citizenship rules, an issue of municipal law, was minimal. That’s self evident when reading the early court cases.

    I assume the appeal is not going too well?

  65. avatar
    nbC February 16, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    Mario explains it so well

    The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States,

    International law, not municipal law.

    Thanks for playing…

  66. avatar
    nbC February 16, 2010 at 12:28 am #

    Dr C is correct to point out that in order to understand the extent of influence of Vattel on issues of citizenship, which is guided by municipal law, not international law, a fact admitted to by Vattel, one has to look at experts who have researched to what extent Vattel’s teachings had any relevance to this issue.

    Time after time, the facts show that Vattel’s influence was limited to issues of international law.

    Them are the facts

  67. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    And then this reference

    Professor Reeves thinks that the “impress of the law of nature upon the American ideas of the law of nations seems upon the whole not to be great.” His view is apparently influenced by the tendency of American lawyers to depreciate natural law ideas. J. S. Reeves, “The Influence of the Law of Nature upon International Law in the United States,” American Journal of International Law, III (1909), 547.

    Hmmm, time to get the paper… Something does not add up

  68. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    In the third class are duties connected with the control of private persons and commerce. It is sometimes asserted that states are bound to acquiesce in the immigration of foreigners and the emigration of inhabitants; the naturalization of aliens and the expatriation of citizens; and the importation and exportation of goods. If the state were really under an international obligation to acquiesce in these matters, if it had no legal right to say who should enter or leave its territory, who should form its citizenship and what commercial policy should be pursued, the regime of territorial state sovereignty would be at an end. The United States has certainly not acted upon this theory in its entirety. It has passed laws prohibiting immigration not only of various classes but of whole races, and laws expelling aliens after they have arrived. In its diplomatic correspondence, instead of maintaining acquiescence in emigration as a duty under international law, it has considered it a duty of states to prohibit the emigration of certain classes.* Even less has unlimited admission to citizenship been permitted by law. Large classes and whole races are permanently excluded from this privilege. Laws permitting naturalization have been framed with reference to national policy, not international duty. By admitting the right to restrict emigration, the right to prevent the loss of its citizens by expatriation is admitted. Whether the citizens who have emigrated and reside abroad may expatriate themselves, acquire citizenship in another country and claim the. privileges of the new citizenship on returning is a different question. The United States has maintained that the recognition of the right of expatriation is a duty of international law, but all nations have not given assent to this doctrine.

  69. avatar
    Lupin February 16, 2010 at 1:46 am #

    As G says, the meaning is crystal clear.

    1. the sentence reads just like “children whose parents are members get in free” does in English. Do you read that as meaning that BOTH parents must be members to get in free? No. It means ONE parent must be a member.

    2. To avoid ambiguity (although there is none), Vattel goes on to say that the children “suivent la condition de leur père”, ie: they inherit the nationality of their father (and I spared you the footnote which states that they inherit their mother’s if the couple is unwed), thereby masking it unassailable that ONLY ONE citizen parent is required.

    There is no support for your case to be found in Vattel, none whatsoever.

  70. avatar
    chufho February 16, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    ICE TREY is right you all are just mistating what the founders meant and you dont need to speak french to know
    there is a distinction for a reason born of two citizen parent period end of story and you know it but you want to caress each other with condensending comments

  71. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 2:20 am #

    Scientist,

    Please forgive me for weighing in here. But since you seem to be a naturalist, maybe you can explain to me what do they mean when they say birds of a feather flock together.

  72. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 2:21 am #

    “you dont need to speak french to know”

    You can’t even speak English.

  73. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 2:23 am #

    Mario: I am a communist!

  74. avatar
    Lupin February 16, 2010 at 3:49 am #

    If you purport to quote a French legal text and rely on it to support your theory, it is important to understand the language so you can understand its actual meaning.

    The “two citizen parents” is a LIE (no other word for it) fabricated by I don’t know who, but it will NEVER EVER pass muster in the real world of legal scholars and experts, because Vattel expressly states the exact opposite.

  75. avatar
    Lupin February 16, 2010 at 3:56 am #

    Meretricious Mario:

    “Please let me know which one it was for you to make the statement that you made, ignorance or dishonesty. I can forgive your ignorance but not your dishonesty.”

    This pretty much sums up my feelings about you regarding Vattel.

    Perhaps you might have been excused once for misinterpreting what Vattel wrote, but at this point, having clarified without the shadow of a doubt, that he NEVER endorsed the so-called “twofer” rule, quite the opposite in fact, ignorance in your case is no longer an acceptable excuse.

    You are, plain and simply, dishonest and unethical, and I look forward to the day you will be sanctioned by your courts.

  76. avatar
    Lupin February 16, 2010 at 4:00 am #

    I hope you and your tribe of neanderthal bigots get to live long enough to see Presidents José Gonzales or Lee Chang.

  77. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    @chufho: Since you are not fluent in French, I’ll tell you. DeVattel required one parent to be a wolf.

    Learn French, will ya?

  78. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 4:17 am #

    “live long enough to see Presidents José Gonzales or Lee Chang.”

    That is exactly what is going to happen.

  79. avatar
    Mike February 16, 2010 at 6:31 am #

    In language terms, it’s called agreement.

    Typically, languages require that cases, verb forms, etc. agree across changes – thus, “we have parents” is correct for two people with different parents, and perhaps only one of each. It implies a general plurality rather than a specific one.

  80. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2010 at 7:21 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: maybe you can explain to me what do they mean when they say birds of a feather flock together.

    No problem Mario. It means that if you hang around with folks in white sheets, people will naturally assume you are one of them.

  81. avatar
    Greg February 16, 2010 at 7:40 am #

    Mario, you are one to talk of ignorance and dishonesty. Your citation of international law to make the case that Vattel was influential in domestic affairs – like citizenship – is blatantly dishonest. And it only works when you are pandering to the ignorant!

    By the way, this is only one of many sources you could cite? How about you go back to your other citation:

    Thomas Lee (University of Chicago Law), in his essay, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute,”

    You cited that in one of your other blog posts. Reading Professor Lee, however, puts Vattel in his proper place:

    “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.”

    1. Vattel is only influential on international law. Any other statement is an out-and-out lie!

    2. In international law, Vattel is still less influential than Blackstone!

  82. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 16, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    Wong Kim Ark says hi again.

    Y’know, all this screeching about ‘denial’ makes me think there’s someone neck deep in a river in Egypt – and it ain’t us.

    Admit it, you know full well the President’s fully qualified and Constitutionally legal.

  83. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    “I am really surprised at either your ignorance or your dishonesty. If you have been doing your homework on this eligibility issue, you would know better than to call Vattel a “Swiss dude” and try to tell the public that William Rawle is somehow more influential than Vattel.”

    Clearly on the issue of American citizenship, Rawle was more influential as there is no evidence any early american authorities looked to Vattel. You can exaggerate the influence of Vattel all you want, but the law of nations was hardly mentioned at the convention and was only raised when speaking of issues of international law. The supreme court always looks to the common law to interpret the constitution because it is full of english legal terms and much of it is expressly based on english law. They are not going to change based upon your weak arguments.

    Rawle himself said the law of nations was part of the common law,just like Blackstone said, and hence provided rules of decision on issues of international law. However, they and everyone else in such period, in this country and abroad, considered citizenship a matter of municipal law and, search as you may, you cannot find any auhority to the contarary, other than claiming cases say things they don’t say.

  84. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    nbC: Mario: Please let me know which one it was for you to make the statement that you made, ignorance or dishonesty. I can forgive your ignorance but not your dishonesty.Pot Kettle Black… Dr C however can speak for himself but it is sufficient to point out that Vattel’s impact on citizenship rules, an issue of municipal law, was minimal. That’s self evident when reading the early court cases.I assume the appeal is not going too well?

    You are wrong about citizenship and national character being determined by municipal law. Municipal law only affected civil rights which were involved in ordinary transactions that were normally of a local character. But when it came to political rights which were more general in nature, the general principles of the law of nations applied. Acquiring or losing a national character was surely a political right and not a civil right. Hence, it was the law of nations that applied to determine national citizenship and nationality and not mere municipal law or the common law used by the states. The only time muncipal law (local common law) was applied as the rule of decision was when the public law or the law of nations itself directd that the political law or municipal law of the nation were to supply the rule of decision. See Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830).

    On how the appeal is going, why do you make such childish statements? You know that the defendants have yet to file their opposition brief and have requested a 14-day extension to do so. Would you care to explain what makes you think the appeal is not going too well? I’ll be waiting.

  85. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Mario: my cat bit me. Can I charge him with assault and battery?

  86. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:11 am #

    Mario: are there rabid squirrels in Gramercy Park?

  87. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Mario: what is my chance of being attacked by a coyote in Central Park?

  88. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Mario: is it legal in NJ to keep a pet coyote?

  89. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    You can try to rely on Shanks all you want, but Story, who wrote Shanks, never said citizenship was governed by international law. As has been pointed out numerous times, on the same day Story issued an opinion that clearly stated allegiance and American citizenship were determined by the common law rules. You are simply trying to read support into Shanks that is not there and ignore the statements by the same Justice on the same day that clearly states anyone born on US controlled soil was an American citizen regardless of birth.

    “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 the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 Juy, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

    This is pretty much the case with all your arguments as you cannot find any court or early authiority that actually states a natural born citizen requires citizen parents. Simply doesn’t exist. Nor is there any authority that citizenship was based on international law, just like the supreme court said on Wong Kim Ark.

    I wouldn’t take to much comfort in the government requesting and extension. The frivolous cases go to the bottom of the pile.

  90. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    Mario: my wife and I shop at the Mt. Laurel Costco. Why is the one in NJ better than the one in King Of Prussia?

  91. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    “I’ll be waiting.”

    Will you be waiting in the sitting room, or sitting in the waiting room?

  92. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    Mario: “I’ll be waiting.”

    Are you waiting for a bus, or for Amtrak?

  93. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Mario: some people keep a pet pot belly pig. Could you help me convince them to go to a shelter instead, and adopt a homeless cat or dog?

  94. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    Mario: Do you think the WCTU will bring back the Volstead Act?

  95. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Mario: which do you think has a better future: the Otto cycle engine, or the Diesel cycle engine?

  96. avatar
    Mike February 16, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    Wow. That’s possibly the most disingenuous reading of law I have ever seen.

  97. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    Mario:

    Who do you think was worse: Mussolini or Attila The Hun?

  98. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    Mario: my cat caught a mouse, and presented it to me. Should I try to nurse it back to health, or should I let it die?

  99. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    Mario is being a stick in the mud today.

    Mario – do you drive a Toyota?

  100. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    Scientist,

    What happened to all your “science.” Scrapping at the bottom of the barrel, are we? Just think if your boss could see you for what you really are.

  101. avatar
    Greg February 16, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Mario, your appeal to international law is wrong for two reasons – citizenship is determined by municipal law, and international law was not settled on Vattel’s definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, Mario, even if we could rely on Story’s decision in Shanks that international law settles citizenship, he clearly believed that international law felt that jus soli controlled.

  102. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    Mario: “Just think if your boss could see you for what you really are.”

    OK. What is truth and what is fable?
    Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel?

  103. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    Mario: a man leaves Chinatown, driving to the Mt. Laurel Costco at an average of 50 MPH, stopping five times, for five minutes each.

    Another man leaves Chinatown at the same time, on a bicycle, at an average of 15 MPH, but doesn’t have to stop along the way.

    Who will arrive at the Costco first?

  104. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    One more than one occasion, the United States Supreme Court has defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. One such case is the Dred Scott case. Now I know that you are all going to scream about the case, but its definition of a “natural born Citizen” was later confirmed by Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark and that definition is still good law today.

    Why do I refer to the Dred Scott case. The Obama supporters here all scream together that Vattel only referred to a “father” and nothing more when referring to the citizen parents of the child to be born in the country. Much of that screaming is done by Lupin and Misha. Lupin even wants me to get sanctioned by the court for my legal positions.

    Well, in the Dred Scott case we can see that our own Supreme Court took the words “father” and “fathers” from Vattel’s writings and replaced them with “person” and “parents,” respectively. If Vattel were to be interpreted to mean that he was referring just to a “father” or “fathers,” the Court would not have presented Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is the way it did. Now, let us take a look:

    As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said:

    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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

    We can see from what the Court wrote that it took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively.

    The Court also repeated that “for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .” Note the Court said “a” foreigner, meaning that only one foreign parent is sufficient to disqualify the child from being a “natural born Citizen.” Simple logic will tell you that if the child is born in the country of even one parent who is an alien, he will “be born there of a foreigner [and] it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .” Hence, one alien parent is sufficient to disqualify the child from being a “natural born Citizen.”

    This is convincing evidence that our United States Supreme Court has always looked to Vattel when defining a “natural born Citizen” and never to the English common law and that the Court has always required that both parents of the child be citizens at the time the child is born in the country in order for that child to be considered a “natural born Citizen.”

  105. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Mario: are you fluent in Italian?

  106. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Mario: communism is viable on a kibbutz. Do you think it would ever work here?

  107. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    Mario: do you think Obama is a reincarnation of the Buddha?

  108. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Mario: do you like Frank Sinatra? Do you have any of his records?

  109. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    Mario: do you think the Dred Scott ruling could be applied to pets?

  110. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    Mario: “One such case is the Dred Scott case. Now I know that you are all going to scream about the case”

    Not at all. I want my cat to be considered 3/5 human. I think he deserves human civil rghts. Don’t you agree?

  111. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    Mario: My cat is illiterate. Do you think I could teach him to read Yiddish?

  112. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Whatever the 1850s Supreme Court might or might not have thought, it’s the current Supreme Court that counts. You know, the Court that swore Obama into office and has declined to hear every single challenge.

  113. avatar
    NBC February 16, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    One more than one occasion, the United States Supreme Court has defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. One such case is the Dred Scott case. Now I know that you are all going to scream about the case, but its definition of a “natural born Citizen” was later confirmed by Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark and that definition is still good law today.

    Hahaha… Revisionism at its best. Minor never accepted Dred Scott and left the issue of born to foreign parents for a later court. Soon thereafter, in WKA, the Court, referring to English Common Law established once and for all that any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents was a (natural born) citizen.

    You’re lucky that you cases do not get to the stage of merits….

  114. avatar
    NBC February 16, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    Thanks Greg, poor Mario can return to the drawing board… A little late thought, with his 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals running closer and closer to dismissal

  115. avatar
    NBC February 16, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    It was a single court whose ruling caused the 14th amendment being passed. Legislative discussions surrounding the 14th Amendment left no doubts that children, regardless of the status of their parents, if born on US soil would become US citizens at birth (natus).

    History is not kind to Mario.

  116. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    Mario,

    You are not really citing the concurrance of one justice in Dred Scott and claiming it is the opinion of the court, are you? Did you really go to law school? Did you read Justice Curtis’ opinion which was later cited by the majority of the supreme court? Why is Danial’s opinion more important than Curtis’? I suggest you do a search and see which opinion was cited more. Even the recent Indiana court opinion cited Curtis.

    And are you are still claiming that Minor defined “natural born” when all it did was say there were doubts under the common law about children of aliens, but neither agreed or disagreed with such doubts and decided not to examine such doubts. You are citing a case as authority on Obama that declined to address the only issue relevant to Obama’s eligibility. I cannot believe someone who went to law school would not understand this. And claiming Wong Kim Ark support your theory is delving in delusional Orly country. You see Orly facing bar sanctions? If yo don’t stop misrepresenting case law, you will be next.

  117. avatar
    NBC February 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    But but but… The dissenting opinion (aka the losing side) referred to Vattel. Of course the dissenting opinion also confirmed the impact of the majority opinion… An interpretation Mario seems to want to avoid at all cost.
    The Government just got its extension to respond to Mario’s musing and the response is due March 8.

    His client interpreted this ironically as evidence of Mario’s superior claims…

    You cannot make this stuff up…

  118. avatar
    G February 16, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    On how the appeal is going…You know that the defendants have yet to file their opposition brief and have requested a 14-day extension to do so.

    Well, at least Mario did provide one useful update for us here.

  119. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    “Thanks Greg, poor Mario can return to the drawing board… A little late thought, with his 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals running closer and closer to dismissal.”

    Or perhaps he should prepare to defend himself against sanctions. Frivolous in legal terms means not supported by existing law or a good faith argument for an extension of modification of existing law.

    What arguments does he have before the court. The 1st amendment requires congress to respond to his grieves. Doesn’t even make sense much less being supported by any legal authority. He claims Congress can’t make him feel insecure without due process of law. Again, doesn’t even make sense. No one who went to law school could actually think they can sue congress if they cut the defense or law enforcement budget so that they feel insecure. Congress is obviously immune to such actions and the 5th amendment could never protect such intangible, subjective feelings. He then claims some kind of right under the 20th amendment without a shred of legal authority to support it. The language of the 20th amendment grants no individual rights nor does it impose any duties on congress. Of course, he throws in the obligatory 9th amendment claim found in pretty much every frivolous constitutional lawsuit. The ninth amendment has never been recognized as a source of any right, and even it it were, quo warranto was not an individual right under the common law. Not sure I have ever seen more frivolous claims.

  120. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    And that appears to be the position in America during the 19th century. For example, Paschal, Pomeroy and at least 3 people in the 14th amendment Congress (including the heads of both judiciary commitees and the author of the Civil Rights Act) viewed the jus soli rule of the english common law as the universal rule. I know there are more, but I will need to go find them.

  121. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Or perhaps he should prepare to defend himself against sanctions. Frivolous in legal terms means not supported by existing law or a good faith argument for an extension of modification of existing law.

    They will never get to his claims really, as they will throw it out on procedural constitutional grounds.
    And that will be the end of it. Lucky Mario…

  122. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    However, if he continues to make plain misstatements of law in his legal briefs, someone may make a complaint to the New Jersey bar.

  123. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    Perhaps, but who really cares…

  124. avatar
    Greg February 16, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Mario, you surely know by now that it’s Taney’s decision that was the opinion of the Court. Daniel was a mere concurrence.

    Horace Gray and John Lowell published a review of Dred Scott in 1857 which tore Taney a new one for misstating the history of citizenship. It sounded themes that would be repeated in Wong Kim Ark:

    The Constitution of Massachusetts was formed during the Revolutionary War, and several years before that of the United States. It contains numerous passages which clearly show that it is intended for all inhabitants without exception–for all who were subjects of Great Britain. It uses the words “people,” “citizens,” “subjects,” and “inhabitants,” as entirely synonymous and convertible terms.

    And, later:

    For a clear statement of the law of New York, as well as of the general doctrine on this subject, we cannot do better than quote from Chancellor Kent, “whose accuracy and research no one will question,” as Chief Justice Taney well remarks, on page 416, in speaking of the very note from which the following passage is taken: “It is certain that the Constitution and statute law of New York, (Const. art. 2; N. Y. Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 126, sec. 2,) speak of men of color as being citizens, and capable of being freeholders, and entitled to vote. 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. Blacks, whether born free or in bondage, if born under the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, are natives, and not aliens. They are what the common law terms natural born subjects. 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. The privilege of voting, and the legal capacity for office, are not essential to the character of a citizen, for women are citizens without either; and free people of color may enjoy the one, and may acquire, and hold, and devise, and transmit, by hereditary descent, real and personal estates. The better opinion, I should think, was, that negroes or other slaves, born within and under the allegiance of the United States, are natural born subjects, but not citizens. Citizens, under our constitutions and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the United States, or naturalized under the law of congress. If a slave born in the United States be manumitted, or otherwise lawfully discharged from bondage, or if a black man be born within the United States, and born free, he becomes thenceforward a citizen, but under such disabilities as the laws of the States respectively may deem it expedient to prescribe to free persons of color.” 2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 258, note b.

    And

    To the same effect is the opinion of the supreme court of North Carolina, as delivered by Mr. Justice Gaston, which we cite at some length, both for its great intrinsic merit, and to show that these views are not confined to any one section of the country: “According to the laws of this State, all human beings within it, who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman law between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to our institutions. Before our Revolution, all persons born within the dominions of the king of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did exist in the British colonies. Slaves were not, in legal parlance, persons, but property. The moment the incapacity or disqualification of slavery was removed, they became persons, and were then either British subjects or not British subjects, accordingly as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British king. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent upon a European king to a free and sovereign State; slaves remained slaves; British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; foreigners, until made members of the State, continued aliens; slaves manumitted here became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina; and all free persons, born within the State, are born citizens of the State.” “It has been said that by the Constitution of the United States, the power of naturalization has been conferred exclusively upon congress, and therefore it cannot be competent for any State, by its municipal regulations, to make a citizen. But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage. Emancipation is the removal of the incapacity of slavery. The latter depends wholly upon the internal regulations of the State; the former belongs to the government of the United States. It would be a dangerous mistake to confound them.” State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 24, 25. And this was again recognized as the settled law of that State, in State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell, 253.

    Horace Gray, then, had been working on the citizenship research that went into Wong Kim Ark for 41 years before he wrote the decision, 24 years before he was appointed to the Supreme Court.

    The review calls Justice Daniel “a judge notorious for his eccentricities of constitutional interpretation….” Daniel, of course, used the Vattel quote to conclude that African-Americans, since they were not part of society, could not be citizens. He didn’t conclude that African-Americans could be citizens but not natural born citizens, did he, Mario? Given that African-Americans clearly can be citizens, how, then, are we to conclude by citation to Daniel, that the children of aliens can be citizens but not natural born citizens?

  125. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Have we not been down this road with Mario before, with devastating results for Mario’s interpretations?

  126. avatar
    brygenon February 16, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: On how the appeal is going, why do you make such childish statements? You know that the defendants have yet to file their opposition brief and have requested a 14-day extension to do so. Would you care to explain what makes you think the appeal is not going too well? I’ll be waiting.

    It’s sure going well on your blog, Mario. You guys talk yourselves into believing your case is great, just like you did before you lost in the NJ District Court. You win in your head, on your blog, and in your paid advertisements in Reverend Moon’s paper, but Mario, that’s it for you.

    The defendants are in no rush. Time is on their side, as are the facts and the law. Remember early on — shortly after your attempt to stay the inauguration failed but before the District 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?

    Now your case is before the very same court that affirmed the dismissal of Berg v. Obama http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Berg-Obama-Appeal-Decision.pdf. One bit to note — because it concerns you, Mario — is that word in all caps right at the top: “PRECEDENTIAL”.

  127. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    On how the appeal is going, why do you make such childish statements? You know that the defendants have yet to file their opposition brief and have requested a 14-day extension to do so. Would you care to explain what makes you think the appeal is not going too well? I’ll be waiting.

    Just a hunch based on history.

  128. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Great find Greg. Kent and Gaston found their way into his later opinion.

  129. avatar
    IceTrey February 16, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    Jesus. The word “naturalize” means “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen”. Again, just because it contains the word “natural” doesn’t mean it refers directly to “natural born”. The word “homely” has “home” in it but does it have anything to do with houses? No. The word “ready” has “read” in it but it doesn’t have anything to do with books does it?

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    Minor v. Happersett? Isn’t that the decision that said:

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

  131. avatar
    IceTrey February 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    You’re making the false argument that “natural born citizen” means the same as “natural-born subject”. This argument has been destroyed to many times to recount here.

  132. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Depends on how far it is.

  133. avatar
    IceTrey February 16, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    If anything definition 1 supports my case since I define NBC from natural law while you fools define it from English common law which is not even the law of the US.

  134. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    Hamilton’s original proposal used the term born, I guess they felt it necessary to clarify by referring to a term better understood in Common Law.
    Note that the NY Convention, when discussing natural born clause, changed it to native born to avoid confusion as to the manner of birth…

    Once one understands how the term was used in those days, everything falls neatly in place.

  135. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    0 for 64 and we’re the fools, got it.

  136. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    IceTrey: The word “homely” has “home” in it but does it have anything to do with houses?

    As a matter of fact, it does

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homely

  137. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    Misunderstanding the Rulings of the US Supreme Court that when defining terms used in the Constitution one resorts to common law practices. The common law practices of those days wrt nationality where, as the Courts showed, based on English Common Law.

    Major Fail

  138. avatar
    Bob Weber February 16, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    Touché, Scientist!

    Scientist:
    No problem Mario.It means that if you hang around with folks in white sheets, people will naturally assume you are one of them.

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2010 at 7:05 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I am really surprised at either your ignorance or your dishonesty

    But I am not surprised by your cheap insults.

    I have written about the importance of William Rawle here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/obots-in-history-william-rawle-1759-1836/

  140. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

    IceTrey: I define NBC from natural law while you fools define it from English common law

    You can define it however you like. Your definition is quite honestly irrelevant. Congress, without defining the term, decided that Barack Obama was qualified, hence that he is an NBC. The Supreme Court obviously agrees, since they inaugurated him and haven’t even bothered to hear any of the cases.

    You and Mario and the rest may want to flatter yourselves that your arguments are so damned brilliant that the Court will all of a sudden reverse itself and somehow (even though they lack the power to do so) remove from office the same guy they inaugurated a year ago. Sorry, even if Mario was F Lee Bailey combined with Daniel Webster and looked like Spencer Tracy, courts don’t reverse themselves in a year. So play with your “definitions” all you want. The real world could care less.

  141. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    But I am not surprised by your cheap insults.

    The best money can buy 🙂

  142. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    NetFliks

  143. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    Mario: do pets go to heaven?

  144. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    ballantine,

    What, you gave up arguing your ridiculous English common law theory, that the Framers used the English common law to define who could be President. Now you are mining my brief for support of your bastardized arguments? Haughty ballantine.

  145. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Mario: do you wear cheap suits?

  146. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    Mario: do you think pets should have a Bar Mitzvah?

  147. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    Mario: what do think is the future of the NYT print edition?

  148. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    Berg is a different case.

  149. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 16, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Why do you not try to answer my question rather than evading the point.

  150. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    Do you think Berg is a Mossad agent?

  151. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    Mario: “rather than evading the point”

    What’s your point?

  152. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    You have a lot of precedent that contradicts you my dear Mario.

    Good luck. If you ever get past the issue of standing that is.

  153. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    @NbC: do you think Mario can write a coherent brief?

  154. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    He did answer your question. Read his posting on Rawle who actually described the foundation of law in our country.
    Of course the belief that the US would abandon its Sovereign Powers to decide who is and who is not a citizen to international law is hard to support.
    In fact, dear Vattel discussed the same where municipal law can run counter to what he believes to be ‘natural law’.
    To understand what was meant with the term Natural Born we have various court rulings clearly establishing that the meaning of the word follows from English Common Law.

    History is hard to deny.

  155. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    @NbC: do you think Mario can write a coherent brief?

    There is a difference between coherent and one founded in supporting historical facts, and legal precedents. He seems to be quite able to make his arguments, but it seems to me that the foundation of his arguments are lacking.

    Of course, we unlikely will get to resolve this as the Courts are likely to continue to reject these lawsuits for obvious Constitutional deficiencies.

    Of course, Mario will disagree with me, that’s his job and I wish him well. In the end, if history is a reliable indicator of the future, we will see another case fizzle.

    I cannot wait the response by the DOJ which will likely focus on the reasons of rejection not why Vattel should or should not be used to determine the meaning of a term which by any and all standard appears to be so well founded in Common Law of those days to mean ‘born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents’.
    If the Founders really had meant to follow Vattel they would have made it clear in the text of the Constitution, and not use a term so well understood.
    Hamilton proposed ‘born in the US’ as an eligibility requirement, the founders clarified ‘natural born’ to clarify the exclusion of a minor group of children.

  156. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    @NbC: It seems Mario is ignoring my questions. I think they are valid, and not “jackass.”

    What a stick in the mud.

  157. avatar
    Greg February 16, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    What, you gave up arguing your ridiculous English common law theory, that the Framers used the English common law to define who could be President.

    It is, by definition, not ridiculous to argue as the Supreme Court does:

    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    And:

    The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

    You, by contrast, have argued that the Founders rejected English Common Law. That they redefined a term that had a settled definition both in English Common Law and in its usage in the colonies.

    You do so without a single source that suggests the Founders intended to change the meaning of the term.

    You and your arguments are ridiculous, Mario.

  158. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    @NbC: It seems Mario is ignoring my questions. I think they are valid, and not “jackass.”

    Most of your questions have been quite off topic and distracting. Luckily this forum allows you to read what interests you and ignore that which doesn’t

  159. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    As Greg points out the major problem with his claims is that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled otherwise.
    What is even more ironic is that many of the same claims Mario proposes were raised during Wong Kim Ark’s case and explicitly rejected.
    Like Mario, the Attorney did his best to present a case but the court was not convinced.

  160. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Read more here

    it’s best to study history…

    In a fascinating twist, the birthers are arguing many of the same arguments which were put forward by the Government and rejected by the Court in Wong Kim Ark. Thanks to our friends at the UC Hasting College of the Law Library, we have copies of the reply briefs submitted by the Appelant (the United States) and the Respondent (Wong Kim Ark)

  161. avatar
    brygenon February 16, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: Berg is a different case.

    Mario, what did you think the “PRECEDENTIAL” designation means? “Berg is a different case” decided on grounds that apply to your case.

    What the Court wrote of Berg also holds for Kerchner:

    The essence of Berg’s complaint is that the defendants, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress – a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obama’s eligibility through various means – have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.”
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Berg-Obama-Appeal-Decision.pdf

    Mario, do you think the defense — the guys who beat you in the District Court — will cite the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ precedential opinion on Berg v. Obama in their brief? I do.

  162. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    The Reply brief of the Respondent observes how ridiculous such an argument is

    We should have supposed it difficult to find a question more widely separated from the domain of international law than the status of a citizen in any country. It would seem as if the right of citizenship was for each country to determine for itself, and that any nation would guard with jealous interest the right to decide who should be its members. That is to say, it is a matter of local and national law, as distinguished from International Law and the United States would be the last to surrender the privilege of determining, by its own law, who were or were not its citizens.

    “” The answer to the question, Who is a citizen ? is different in different States, and depends on the laws and constitution of each.” (Aristotle, Politics, Book III „ c. s. 2 and 3.)

    This preposition of the government has, we think, arisen from a mistaken notion as to the true character of the question in this case, and it seems somewhat remarkable that the Solicitor-General should take the position that the Government of the United States is to be administered, not in accordance with the laws of the United States, but in accordance with the law of nations, and,that the vital question of who compose the great body o their citizens is to be determined, not by the law of the United States, but by the rules of international law.

    Ouch…

  163. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    Mario, what did you think the “PRECEDENTIAL” designation means? “Berg is a different case” decided on grounds that apply to your case.

    Precedential makes it a potentially relevant case. Mario can attempt to argue that his case is somehow different, but we shall have to wait how succesfull such an argument will be.

  164. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    I forgot, the 3rd Circuit motions panel has not returned its verdict on whether Mario should be allowed to file his motion due to its excessive length.

  165. avatar
    NbC February 16, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    The court in its wisdom addressed the “it’s international law” claim and rejected 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. Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own Constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

    It’s an uphill battle all the way from the 1800’s…

  166. avatar
    brygenon February 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    misha: “live long enough to see Presidents José Gonzales or Lee Chang.”That is exactly what is going to happen.

    And the first female president, the first Latino president, the first Asian-American president, and the first gay president are all going to have to put up with bigots saying that’s the only reason they got elected.

  167. avatar
    nbc February 16, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    Why would Sven care about such ‘silly’ details anyway?

    Geez

  168. avatar
    brygenon February 16, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    NbC: Precedential makes it a potentially relevant case. Mario can attempt to argue that his case is somehow different, but we shall have to wait how succesfull such an argument will be.

    With 60-some birther cases behind us, I think we can predict how successful Mario will be, with or without the Berg precedent. The precedent is just another nail in the coffin.

    Mario’s case got dismissed on standing and jurisdiction, same as Berg’s. Mario’s case isn’t different in any way relevant to the Court’s reasoning in affirming the dismissal of Berg.

  169. avatar
    Ballantine February 16, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Yes, the ridiculous English common law theory that has been endorsed by the supreme court on multiple occasions and is in every constitutional treatise and law dictionary. Do DWI lawyers bother to buy Blacks Law Dictionary or any actual legal treatise?

  170. avatar
    misha February 16, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    “Most of your questions have been quite off topic and distracting.”

    Not to argue, but that crowd deserves derision.

  171. avatar
    nbc February 16, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    I understand what motivates you. To each their own. As I said, I find them only mildly distracting. I do share your frustration.

  172. avatar
    Ballantine February 16, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Oh, and by the way, to reiterate, your arguments before the 3rd circuit are embarrassingly frivolous. Hard to believe anyone who went to law school could think they could sue a legislature for making them feel insecure. Wait, I think me and a few million people want to sue Bush.

    Finally, are you going to correct the plain mischaracterizations of law in your brief or risk sanctions like Orly? Maybe you should read the rules of professional conduct. This is really not a game.

  173. avatar
    nbc February 16, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    Bygenon: Mario’s case got dismissed on standing and jurisdiction, same as Berg’s. Mario’s case isn’t different in any way relevant to the Court’s reasoning in affirming the dismissal of Berg.

    That’s my understanding as well, but IANAL

  174. avatar
    brygenon February 17, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    nbc: That’s my understanding as well, but IANAL

    I’m not a lawyer either, but we could hardly do worse than Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Gary Kreep, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, Andy Martin, and Mario Apuzzo.

    Obviously Mario’s constitutional interpretation is bunk, his attempt to stay President Obama’s inauguration was silly, and he lost his case in the NJ District Court, but that’s not the worst of it. Mario Apuzzo didn’t even get basic procedure right. He was allowed to amend his complaint just once; he did so twice, without permission nor leave from the Court.

    Bad as Mario is at his job, note that when people have asked him about how the Third Circuit Berg v. Obama precedent effects his appeal, he has given quick and vague answers, such as, “Each case stands or falls on its own facts and applicable law that is argued in the case.” And, “Berg is a different case.” No one, not even Mario, has said the Berg precedent is inapplicable.

  175. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 17, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Greg,

    You have some nerve trying to sneak your Minor quote past people. The reference in the decision to “common law” surely was not to the English common law but rather to Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Were to you see in Minor any reference to the English common law? Do you see anything in the opinion that talks about the Kings, and the Queens, and the dominions, and castles? The lying and wishful thinking that goes on here is incredible.

  176. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often said that his theories served as the backbone for American independence. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 547 et seq., passim (1909).”

    Did you actually read this article?

    Page 551: As the contest with England progressed Americans turned from the argument based upon the legal rights of Englishmen to those founded upon the natural rights of man. With this change the somewhat popular notions of the law of nature were made use of. James Kent read Grotius and Pufendorf while pursuing his studies. Hamilton, Burr, and R. R. Livingston had the same master. Hamilton and probably the others were grounded in these authors. In February, 1775, Hamilton, then eighteen years of age, advised the “Westchester Farmer to apply himself without delay to the study of the law of nature: “I would recommend to your perusal Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might recommend other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend diligently to these, you will not require any
    others.” In John Adams’s Novanglus of 1774 we find Grotius, Pufendorf, and Barbeyrac quoted along with his favorites, Locke and
    Harrington.

    Seems pretty clear that the author puts Vattel among many philosophers of natural law.

    You can see my posts below about Justice Story’s assessment of the law of nations – it was consistently in favor of jus soli.

    I love it when opposing counsel misquotes sources, Mario. I love to use the citations they have based their case on to bash them over the head. For example, this source, which you clearly haven’t read, says this about natural law:

    Specific instances of the incorporation of the law of nature into the law of nations, as interpreted by Americans, are few. For this apparently negative result certain causes may be mentioned: (1) the spirit of the law of nature, the jus naturae, was really alien to lawyers whose thought lay within the common law;…

    p. 560

    And, on the next page:

    The spirit of the common law, which exalts the case and neglects the text-writer, has always dominated our courts.

    You got an extension to write your brief, Mario. What did you spend your time on, if not reading the sources you cite?

  177. avatar
    chufho February 17, 2010 at 1:55 am #

    your an idiot why the dr. lets you post is

  178. avatar
    chufho February 17, 2010 at 1:59 am #

    it wont last

  179. avatar
    chufho February 17, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    lets all run over cats

  180. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    “…since I define NBC from natural law…”

    No you most certainly do NOT.

    We have established that.

  181. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    You have some nerve trying to sneak your Minor quote past people. The reference in the decision to “common law” surely was not to the English common law but rather to Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    You clearly cannot read, Mario. You missed the string citation:

    Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465.

    Tell me something, Mario. Do cases generally cite themselves?

    I was obviously not quoting Minor. That’s something that anyone who can read would realize.

    I was quoting Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654. I left in the string citation, so that anyone who can read would see that Gray was referencing Minor, and also Ex Parte Wilson, Boyd v. US, Smith v. Alabama, Kent’s Commentaries, and Justice Bradley in Moore v. US.

    Is there anything in any of these cases that speaks of English common law?

    How about Smith v. Alabama:

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

    124 US 465, 478.

    It seems obvious that you still haven’t read Wong Kim Ark all the way through.

    You know, Mario, I keep checking these obscure sources you cite, like JS Reeves 1908 article in the American Journal of International Law, or Thomas Lee’s article about the Alien Tort Statute, or John S. Wise’s “Treatise on American Citizenship,” and so far, you have misrepresented each one. So, you have some nerve accusing anyone of lying or wishful thinking!

  182. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 2:20 am #

    Maybe you can work with Mario to get a breathalyser installed on your keyboard.

    Friends don’t let friends post drunk.

  183. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    “Lupin even wants me to get sanctioned by the court for my legal positions.”

    If by “legal positions,” you mean lying and deceiving, yes, that’s correct.

    And I’m hardly the only one to feel that way, I suspect.

    “We can see from what the Court wrote that it took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively.”

    You completely miss the point here, on purpose as usual, I suspect. Of course, Vattel’s original emphasis on the father has to be replaced by the more gender-neutral “parent”. This is what I have been saying for months.

    What Vattel did not do is create the odd “two-fer” rule that you made up. So now that you sort of admitted to it, stop saying it.

    Then, your own quote states clearly “a person who is a citizen” NOT “two persons” or “citizens” plural. ONE parent citizen, not two. Your quote. End of story.

    The rest of your “simple logic” that follows is neither simple nor logical.

  184. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    Of course, now we also know that Mario’s legal position is based on the KKK’s founder’s legal doctrine.

  185. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    I’d be inclined to think that Mario secretly wants to lose, because that way he will able to bilk his client and the deluded neanderthals out there who support that cause for more money.

  186. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    You have some nerve trying to sneak your Minor quote past people. The reference in the decision to “common law” surely was not to the English common law but rather to Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Wow Mario, Greg points out how Minor does not support you and you accuse him.

    Fascinating denial…

  187. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    Ouch, Mario on the defense again… Lovely how he accuses only to be shown to be less than careful in his reading….

    Wowsers. Mario may pray his case is not heard on the merits, but just confirmed on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction/standing. In fact, the merits are not even up for appeal, just the lack of standing.
    When will you know if the Motion Panel will allow your overlong brief?

  188. avatar
    Lupin February 17, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    I think it is important to state again that, while I do object to Mario’s legal positions which are racist and bigoted, straight out of the KKK doctrine, the reason I want him sanctioned is not for that, but for his MISREPRESENTATIONS and outright LIES in his pleadings.

    There is a difference.

  189. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:48 am #

    That’s just not fair. Even if he holds to an opinion in the Dred Scott ruling, one should not call that the KKK’s founder’s legal doctrine.

    Mario’s doctrine is based on a flawed understanding of nationality and citizenship laws and precedent in our country and confuses Vattel’s relevance in International Law with a relevance in issues of municipal law such as who is and is not a citizen.
    The alternative is just untenable, a nation would never abandon its sovereign right to make these decisions which have NOTHING to do with international law.

    When you finish reading WKA you may remember Justice Grey’s comments

    t 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.

    But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and

    “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”

    and

    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 as 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.

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

    As I said, ouch quite some precedent to overcome, and not the only one…

  190. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:49 am #

    Spell check.. Spell check… Don’t worry, it may be hard to finish a 10 word sentence but other kids have shown it can be done.

  191. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    I’m not a lawyer either, but we could hardly do worse than Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Gary Kreep, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, Andy Martin, and Mario Apuzzo.

    It’s hard to do worse when none have won a case on the birther issue… Does that make me feel better? Not really…

  192. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    The spirit of the common law, which exalts the case and neglects the text-writer, has always dominated our courts.

    wow, the site I found online suggested that this article was not exactly what Mario made it out to be. Time for an Amicus brief 🙂 Or a little birdie… Nah, this is not about the merits, it’s about standing.

    I will see if I can find the actual text of this article. I wonder where Mario got the idea? Time to do some additional research.

  193. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 2:57 am #

    Was the Mario quote even in the article cited?

  194. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:08 am #

    I see no evidence that Mario actually used the Reeves reference in his filings… If I am wrong, I’d like to see a reference 🙂

  195. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 3:08 am #

    Was the Mario quote even in the article cited?

    Backbone doesn’t appear in the article. Perhaps this is what Mario is misrepresenting:

    As regards neutral duties and rights, we come nearer to the law of nature. It is true that Wolff held that neutrality was an abnormal condition for a state, but Wolff held more to the law as based upon
    practice. Vattel’s development of the idea of neutrality was based upon the law of nature: that by the law of nature nations are in a state of peace and have a right to remain so. The great development to which American diplomacy gave to the doctrine of neutrality in 1793 (which Genet connected with the ” aphorisms of Vattel ” 24), had its origin at the very beginning of American independence. Its foundations were laid by those Continental text-writers who held that by the law of nature the natural state of nations was peace and not war; that peace was the normal and war the abnormal condition. Vattel in using this axiom develops the idea so far as to lay down the rule that neutrality includes not only the right to abstain from war, but the duty to observe ” a strict impartiality toward the belligerelnt
    powers.” With this doctrinie the committee must have been familiar. Later as developed under Washington it became the basis for America’s great contribution to the law of nations and indeed, for the vindication of her independence. (p. 559)

    So, Vattel developed a strong neutrality philosophy which Washington used for his non-interference doctrine – which vindicated our independence.

  196. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:17 am #

    Mario Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often said that his theories served as the backbone for American independence. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 547 et seq., passim (1909).

    The closest so far p. 549

    At the time of the American Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular if nor most authoritative of the Continental writers

    Nothing matching ‘backbone’. I wonder what passim means

    Passim
    Throughout or frequently; here and there. Used in textual annotation to indicate that something, such as a word or passage, occurs frequently in the work cited.

    Hmmm, that does not seem to match

  197. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:24 am #

    There is this one on p651

    the law of nations early crept into American courts in connection with questions of prize, a subject to be dealt with according to international practice;

    Remember the Venus case…

    Note: Mario appears to be making the same flawed argument as made by the Govt in Wong Kim Ark, that there is no US Common Law. But that is not what the Supreme Court states. It states that when terms in the Constitution remain undefined its meaning should be found in common law practices and for citizenship this was clearly English Common Law not a vague and ambiguous reference to Vattel.
    I am looking forward to Mario presenting us any direct claims by the Founders that Natural Born should be interpreted in the meaning Mario proposes Vattel should be read in translation?
    It is clear, time after time that the term natural born has a well understood common law meaning of born on US soil regardless of the status of the parents.

    Now I have the full Reeves article to read. Good thing it was searchable…
    If Mario locates the cite, I’d be most grateful for an update.
    If not, well done Greg, I should have followed my gut feelings.

  198. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:27 am #

    See my reference above which gets closer but still no cigar

    At the time of the American Revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular if not the most authoritative of the Continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Vattel are scattered in about equal numbers in the writings of the time. Possibly after the Revolution Vattel is quoted more frequently than his predecessors. References were frequently made also to other writers who
    discilssed the law of nature in its broader sense: to Burlamaqui, in his Principles of Natural and Politic Law, to Rutherforth, in his Institutes of Natural Law (founded upon Grotius). The law of nature played a part in the legal philosophy of the eighteenth century some what as did the doctrine of natural rights in the political thought of
    that era. Unfortunately the two were often confused.

    SJ Reeves ‘in passim’, wow that sounds impressive…

  199. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    Found it

    Kinji Akashi Cornelius van Bynkershoek: his role in the history of international law; Volume 4 of International law in Japanese perspective, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998

    p. 149, Including the “in passim”

    That darn Japanese perspective 🙂

    Sloppy…

  200. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 4:18 am #

    Another good find

    James Houston Gilmore Notes of a course of lectures on Vattel’s Law of nations
    J. Blakey, 1891

    So far as Mr Vattel states the doctrine on the subject of citizenship in this section he states it correctly but there are other questions on this subject not noticed by him which it would be well to state. These have reference to the following 1 Children born of the subjects of one power in the territory of another 2 Illegitimate children born of a foreign mother 3 Foreign women who have married the subject of a State. Upon these points the doctrine in United States is 1 That children of foreigners born here are American citizens if they elect to declare themselves so whilst the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States unless the 14th amendment has changed this doctrine upon which there is a difference of opinion

  201. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 5:27 am #

    Vattel’s relevance to US and the concept of Neutrality is one thing but that is clearly a affecting the dealings of nations.

    Deciding who may and may not be a citizen however never has been an issue of international law.

    In a somewhat ironic manner the Dred Scott case which ruled that states may determine the status of people within its territory is of particular and perhaps overlooked interest.
    I believe that was the only non Obiter Dicta…

    Ironically that undermines any appeal to Vattel or at least Mario’s concept of some mythical law of nations guiding how individual states/nations determine who and who are not citizens of their state…

    Luckily the 14th Amendment rectified the argument by restoring the original intent of the Constitution.

  202. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 17, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    Greg,

    You accuse me of not being able to read. That is your and your supporters’ typical comments.

    You attempt to avoid answering me by simply blaming it on Wong Kim Ark for citing Minor v. Happersett. But you will not get away so easy. Let us take a look at Wong Kim Ark.

    Wong Kim Ark concluded that the English common law is to be used to define what a “citizen of the United States” is under the Fourteenth Amendment. It cited, among other cases and authorities, Minor v. Happersett to support its conclusion. The Court’s citation of Minor v. Happersett is misplaced, for that case does not support the Court’s conclusion that English common law is to be used to define national citizenship. The Minor case is very important because that case dealt directly with the question of how we define national citizenship (what is a “citizen” and what is a “natural born citizen”) in the United States. Minor showed that it is not English common law but rather American common law that had its basis in natural law and the law of nations that was to be used to define national citizenship. The reference in the Minor decision to “the common law” surely was not to the English common law but rather to American common law which was based on Vattel’s definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” that came from natural law and the law of nations. Reading the Court’s definition of a “citizen” and “natural born citizen, ” with the latter requiring that at the time of birth the child’s parents be citizens, shows clearly that the definition was taken from Vattel and not the English common law. With births in the country, the English common law used the jus soli basis for citizenship while “the common law” used by Minor used the jus sanguinis basis. The English common law did not make citizenship of the child’s parents any condition for “natural born subject” status when the child was born in the King’ dominions. There simply is no reliance in the Minor case on any English common law. If you or anyone else find any there, you are simply making it up.

  203. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Mario,

    You just keep embarrassing yourself with this nonsense. Wong cited Minor first for the proposition that natural born citizen should be defined by the common law, and Wong made clear it was the english common law. He cited it later only to make clear the slaughterhouse court was not “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded” from the 14th amendment. The court had already comprehensively examined and defined the common law rule much earlier in the opinion. Can you not comprehend the quotations from Justice Swayne and Curtis cited in Wong expressly defining the term by the English common law. Do you just pretend they dont exist?

    You are aware that the dissent in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that majority had defined natural born by the English common law. They apparently can read. Again, there is nothing in Minor that says it is defined by anything other than the english common law and the court takes no position on the status of chilren of aliens no matter how you try.

    Try reading slowly:

    The court began its analysis by stating that “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States'” and that “[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Id. at 654. Accordingly, “[i]n 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….'[t]he 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.’ Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 465, 478 (1888).” Id. at 654-55. The court then goes on to define in detail the jus soli English common law rule of Calvin’s Case, concluding as follows:

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

    Id. at 658. (emphasis added). Hence, the English common law rule of Calvin’s Case that defined allegiance by place of birth and made children of aliens natural born subjects “continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established” or, in other words, was incorporated into the Constitution. In case there was any doubt to the applicability of such principle to the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, the court goes on to quote the only two Supreme Court justices who had specifically defined “natural born citizen” at such point, first citing Justice Curtis in his famous Dred Scott dissent:

    “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”

    Id. at 662. The court then cited Justice Swayne in U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866):

    “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.”
    Id. at 662-63. The court went on to cite multiple authorities stating that “citizen” and “subject” were interchangeable terms, id. at 663-65, and authority after authority stating that allegiance and citizenship at birth in the United States had always been determined by place of birth under the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case, id. at 650-67, before holding the 14th Amendment to be declaratory of such jus soli common law rule. Id. at 693. Wong Kim Ark’s discussion of “natural born citizen” was technically dicta, it was necessary to the court’s holding. Once the court decided that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of existing law, it needed to tell us how the existing law was consistent with the original Constitution, our ultimate law.

    Try doing some research on this stuff. Maybe start here:

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

  204. avatar
    misha February 17, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    Mario: don’t you have any clients who have a bad Toyota?

  205. avatar
    Black Lion February 17, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Mario, I suppose you think that former AG Edwin Meese is wrong when he states the following? We both know that he knows a bit more about the law that you do and he has a total different view than you but consistent with everyone else that has informed you that you were wrong. So which is it? You are right and everyone else is wrong?Interesting…

    “As early at 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790) . . . . Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

    Meese, Edward, Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 190 (2005).

  206. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:… it is not English common law but rather American common law that had its basis in natural law and the law of nations that was to be used to define national citizenship.

    I must say that is a novel concept.

  207. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Mario and his client’s motivation is clear. I give you the following, taken directly from Mario’s appellate brief:

    “Concerning Obama, we are not attacking the wisdom or soundness of government action or asking the Court to assume any authority over some other co-equal branch of government. Plaintiffs’ action against him is not an action against the government. We are now suing him because plaintiffs do not like him, because of a generalized feeling of discomfort about his occupying the Office of President..”

    Once again, Mario admits in his OWN BRIEF that “We are now suing him because plaintiffs do not like him, because of a generalized feeling of discomfort about his occupying the Office of President..”

  208. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    The Heritage Guide to the Constitution has even more direct language on Wong Kim Ark, but what do they know:

    “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, pg. 190 (2005)

  209. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    “We are now suing him because plaintiffs do not like him, because of a generalized feeling of discomfort about his occupying the Office of President.”

    Gee, I can’t understand why the courts won’t find standing in these cases. I mean if a generalized feeling of discomfort isn’t sufficent to remove a sitting president, what is?

  210. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    You accuse me of not being able to read. That is your and your supporters’ typical comments.

    You accused me of attempting to sneak a quote of Minor v. Happersett past the audience. A careful reading, any reading, in fact, would have shown that the quote cited Minor, so could not be Minor.

    You attempt to avoid answering me by simply blaming it on Wong Kim Ark for citing Minor v. Happersett. But you will not get away so easy. Let us take a look at Wong Kim Ark.

    Read the quote again.

    WKA cites Minor for the proposition that we must look beyond the words of the Constitution to find the meaning of the term NBC.

    It does not cite it for more than that.

    I did not imply that it did.

    Minor does not say that it is rejecting English common law, now does it? Of course it doesn’t, otherwise, you wouldn’t say this:

    The reference in the Minor decision to “the common law” surely was not to the English common law but rather to American common law

    Beware lawyers saying “surely.” If the court had said as much, you would quote them, not interpret them.

    For the proposition that English Common Law was not rejected, the court cited Smith v. Alabama:

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

    Smith v. Alabama, of course, is a DIFFERENT decision than Minor v. Happersett.

    Smith v. Alabama, decided 14 years after Minor v. Happersett, said there was no American common law. Zero. None. The only exception was Constitutional interpretation, where we rely on English Common Law and ITS history.

    So, what is obvious to you today in 2010 (surely they weren’t talking about English Common Law) was, apparently, unrecognized by by the court in 1888. They didn’t even try to distinguish Minor v. Happersett, which, according to you, stood for the proposition that there was an American Common Law known to all judges and that it was fundamentally different than English Common Law.

    Basically, Mario, you’re trying to re-write all of Constitutional jurisprudence on the back of a single sentence in Minor. And that single sentence doesn’t even adopt jus sanguinis because it didn’t reach that question – it simply said there were no doubts that those born here to citizens were, themselves, citizens.

  211. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    Greg,

    Why don’t you stop for just one time to be so dishonest. Can you simply explain to me how Minor could be referring to English common law when it defined a natural born citizen as a child born in the country to citizen parents? Show me where there is any clue whatsover in the case that the Court looked to English common law in defining national citizenship. Show me that there is still a little integrity left in your body.

  212. avatar
    misha February 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    “Show me that there is still a little integrity left in your body.”

    After you.

  213. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why don’t you stop for just one time to be so dishonest.

    The dishonesty is mislabeling the comment in Minor as a “definition” which no competent reader would do. The court was giving a “sufficient condition” not a “necessary condition”. Not to beat a dead horse here, but this is YET ANOTHER example of the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. And what is so aggravating is that you have known this from the beginning.

    Further you are abusing the context in which the comment appears. The court was addressing citizenship specifically, not natural born citizenship. It is abundantly clear from the following from Minor that IF the court concluded that someone was born a citizen, they are a natural born citizen.

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

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    That has to be a typo, “now” for “not”.

  215. avatar
    misha February 17, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    “because of a generalized feeling of discomfort about his occupying the Office of President.”

    GWB made me miserable.

  216. avatar
    nbc February 17, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    YOu cannot blame Mario for trying…

  217. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    There really seems to be some learning impairment here. You can believe what you want, but for the rest of the world and actual lawyers, when a court declines to address an issue like the status of aliens under the common law, it is not defining the term with respect to such people. It is simply a fact that no majority opinion in our history has ever said a natural born citizen has to have citizen parents. Minor in no one way says that, unless you are really delusional. It only says there have been doubts and neither agrees or disagrees with such doubts. To claim it defines the terms is simply dishonest. I believe in your brief you actually say the court took ownership of such doubt by saying it said such status was doubtful. Simply not true, to be kind.

    I hope you have figured out the differance between a majority opinion in Dred Scott and a one Justice concurrence by now and will stop claiming such court supports your definition.

    Finally, when American legal authority talks of the common law, they mean the english common law as adopted in this country. There is no other common law other than in your imagination. You find a quote by Hamilton saying the law of nations is part of the common law and think that means it superseded the common law. That quote comes from Blackstone and means the the law of nations provides rules of decision on international issue for which there is no rule under the common law. The law of nations never superseded municipal law on any topic. You cite George Mason who, if you read the virginia debates, was actually suggesting the English common law be adopted in the constitution itself since we would have no common law rights otherwise (since we had no common law of our own without such adoption). He was not saying that our common law was different than England.

  218. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Show me where there is any clue whatsover in the case that the Court looked to English common law in defining national citizenship

    I’ll put it in numbers so you can understand:

    1. We have to look outside the Constitution to find the meaning of some of the terms there – Minor v. Happersett.

    2. We look to English Common Law – Smith v. Alabama.

    Wong cited Minor for number 1, and Smith for number 2.

    They are two different cases.

    Show me where in Minor the Court said, clearly and unequivocally, that we do not look to English Common Law? Because Smith v. Alabama (again, a different case than Minor) said that there was NO American Common law except when interpreting the Constitution and there we look to ENGLISH COMMON LAW and ITS history. It didn’t continue “except when we’re talking about citizenship, as seen in Minor v. Happersett.” How could Smith v. Alabama conclude what it did if Minor had clearly said that there was no English Common law?

    I won’t hold your integrity at stake, Mario, as I know you lost that long ago.

    On integrity:

    Mario, you’ve shown time and again, that you have no integrity. You will misrepresent cases, statutes, and scholarly articles to make your point.

    Claiming that Minor defined natural born citizen, when it did not reach the issue is but one example.

    Another recent example was the attempt to claim that JS Reeves 1908 article said that Vattel was the backbone of our Revolution. It said no such thing. And it is clear that you plagiarized that sentence about backbone from the book that NBC identified – right down to copying the passim citation. And you compounded this sin by failing to read the article itself, which does not support the contention.

    You’ve also done it with your attempt to pass off John Wise’s Treatise as saying that Dutch law was more important in our founding than English law. He did no such thing. Dutch law was important, according to Wise, in forming public schools, and the transfer of property by deeds.

    Also using Professor Thomas Lee’s article on the Alien Tort Act to claim that Vattel was more important than Blackstone when the article said the exact opposite.

    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.

    I can understand trying to pass these lies off on a fawning blog-reading audience, Mario. What I cannot understand is trying to pass them off on other professionals. Do you really think we’re not going to go look up the articles you cite?

    Don’t lecture me on integrity, sir. You have none.

  219. avatar
    G February 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Yeah, want to place bets on that? How the record so far? What is it now, 60+ cases that have gone absolutely nowhere? Zero luck so far on any appeals or FOIA requests either.

    Keep dreaming Chufho. Reality and history aren’t too kind to you, are they?

    Nothing is likely to change in favor of you silly birthers and your ill-conceived challenges based on false premises.

    But hey, keep trying and keep failing.

  220. avatar
    nbc February 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    It helps when one check one’s submissions to the Court for accuracy…. I double checked the filed document on SCRIBD and it shows now not “not”.

    Sloppy

  221. avatar
    nbc February 17, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    Classic… Reminds me of Monthy Python’s Black Knight

    [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s last leg off]

    BLACK KNIGHT:
    Oh? All right, we’ll call it a draw.
    ARTHUR:
    Come, Patsy.
    BLACK KNIGHT:
    Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!

  222. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    I think Mario was just, at long last, being honest. The entire birther “case” is simply about the fact that they don’t like Obama and he makes them uncomfortable. That is true whether it is his race, his ideas, his “funny-sounding name” or all of the above.

  223. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    The next sentence starts, “Rather we maintain,” so it is clearly a typo.

    However, it is almost Freudian in its revelation. It is clear from pages 36-37 that they ARE suing because they feel a generalized discontent about the President.

    For sure, Obama, if he were a legitimate President and regardless of whether they voted for him or not, would have the constitutional duty to provide for the plaintiffs’ protection, safety, security, and tranquility. In return, being assured that he was a “natural born Citizen” and otherwise eligible or his office, they would trust him and therefore consent to submit to his legal authority over them.

    and

    Hence, given that the President regularly makes life and death decisions, it cannot be denied that plaintiffs are personally and directly affected in a concrete way by everything the President does and does not do. The Court can take judicial notice of former Vice President, Dick Cheney’s actual words regarding Obama’s administration’s request to move the trial of the 9/11 conspirators to New York City. Cheney’s words were: “I think it’s likely to give encouragement, aid, and comfort to the enemy.”…With such statements made by the former Vice-President, plaintiffs have very good reasons to fear Obama.

    And, on page 40: “If Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” plaintiffs cannot trust him to protect them.”

    The injury, in short, is that the plaintiff’s lose trust of the President unless he assures them that he is an NBC. They won’t lose their house to rising sea levels. They won’t lose the right to speak, or even to bring a nearly meritless lawsuit in Federal Court. They might lose a few winks of sleep over the fact that the President that Dick Cheney thinks is already aiding and abetting terrorists is doing so because he’s not really allied with the United States.

    Oh, and their injury is particularized to them, individually, because they care about the issue!

  224. avatar
    nbc February 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    That’s it?… And they really believe that this grants them standing…

    Hilarious

  225. avatar
    Black Lion February 17, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Greg, temendous response….Mario when cornered by you and the others here attempted to shift the onus of his numerous examples of misleading and misquoting on to the individuals that have caught him in the act.

  226. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    Yes, his primary standing argument is premised on the silly assertion that feeling secure that one’s president does not have duel allegiances is a liberty interest protected by the 5th amendment. Simply not a serious assertion.

  227. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Wow… That seems to be a bit far fetched.

  228. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    misha,

    I do not know what the bears think but I can guarantee you I know what the Department of Homeland Security thinks.

  229. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Well Misha, you finally got Mario’s attention. Ironic isn’t it 🙂

  230. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    Far-fetched is putting it mildly. Skirting the borders of sanctionably frivolous is another way of putting it.

  231. avatar
    NBC February 17, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Well, perhaps in addition to referring Mario to the precedential ruling in Berg, the Court may also want to consider sanctions. I believe appeals courts have some leeway there..
    I doubt they really care too much. A simple dismissal is much cleaner…

  232. avatar
    misha February 17, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    (bada-bing)
    .

  233. avatar
    Lupin February 18, 2010 at 6:46 am #

    I refer you to Gordon’s which I have mentioned and quoted before, with links to the whole text, that mirrors the definition used by Mario.

    KKK indeed.

  234. avatar
    Greg February 18, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    I think there are parallels between the birther movement and the tax-evaders and white supremacists. White supremacists, for example, love the idea of 14th Amendment “statutory” citizenship, as distinguished from their own, real, citizenship. That they call it “preamble” citizenship doesn’t make it that much different from “natural born citizen.”

    That’s not to say that Mario is necessarily a tax-evader or white supremacist, just that his arguments are the same. I think the overlap is that all these groups have gotten their material from the same source. They all parallel the arguments made by the amicus in Wong Kim Ark. The arguments are ancient and have been long discredited.

  235. avatar
    NBC February 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    What happened to Mario I wonder 😉

  236. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    Greg,

    I already showed how you and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, citing Minor v. Happersett for the proposition that English common law defines national citizenship, are in error. Minor does not have one word in it that refers to the English common law and you have not produced any even though I have challenged you to do so.

    Now you attempt to escape me by citing Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888). You and your team (and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark) have been citing Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888), a case that does not involve any issue concerning national citizenship, for quite some time in your feeble effort to prove that the Founders used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Your reliance on that case is highly misplaced. In that case, the defendant-appellant argued that the State of Alabama did not have the power to pass a statute regulating his operation of a passenger train. For not getting the prescribed license to operate the train from the local authorities, the train engineer was charged, indicted, and jailed by the local sheriff. The defendant-appellant argued that the Alabama statute, since it regulated passenger train transportation, infringed upon Congress’s exclusive power over interstate commerce. The Court held that the state of Alabama had the power to pass the statue and criminally punish the defendant-appellant for violating it and that the statute was not an infringement of Congress’s exclusive power of interstate commerce and denied the writ of error and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

    In the decision, the court explained that the matter of regulating passenger trains and their carriage is a local matter belonging to the States. The court explained that in the absence of any Congressional Act preempting the field, the State has all the power to make all the necessary laws to protect the safety and welfare of the people using the trains within its borders, even if that regulation should incidentally affect interstate commerce.

    The part of the case that you are always quoting is the following (I have added more context to your usual quote):

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England, as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591. A determination in a given case of what that law is may be different in a court of the United States from that which prevails in the judicial tribunals of a particular state. This arises from the circumstance that the courts of the United States, in cases within their jurisdiction, where they are called upon to administer the law of the state in which they sit or by which the transaction is governed, exercise an independent though concurrent jurisdiction, and are required to ascertain and eclare the law according to their own judgment. This is illustrated by the case of Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, where the common law prevailing in the state of New York, in reference to the liability of common carriers for negligence, received a different interpretation from that placed upon it by the judicial tribunals of the state; but the law as applied was none the less the law of that state. In cases, also, arising under the lex mercatoria, or law-merchant, by reason of its international character, this court has held itself less bound by the decisions of the state courts than in other cases. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Carpenter v. Insurance Co., Id. 495; Oates Bank, 100 U. S. 239; Railroad Co. v Bank, 102 U. S. 14.
    There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which, therefore, is gradually formed by the judgments of this court, in the application of the constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject, and constitutes a common law resting on national authority. Moore v. U. S., 91 U. S. 270.”

    This statement does not prove in any way that the English common law is the law that provides the rule of decision for defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The court only explained that in that case there was no applicable federal common law that could serve to displace the state statute. The court further said that the states do use common law for their local matters which they adopted from the English common law and that in the absence of any statue statute abrogating that law, that common law provides the rules of decision.

    The court explained that there could be an exception to the statement that there is no common law of the United States. It said that the exception arises when there could be a body of federal common law developed from the court interpreting a provision of the constitution which is framed in the language of the English common law. The court said that such interpretation would produce a body of federal common law that could then provide the rule of decision in a given case. The court also said that the Alabama statute still provided the rule of decision in the case of regulating passenger trains in Alabama and did not fall under the exception.

    It is telling that the court stated: “In cases, also, arising under the lex mercatoria, or law-merchant, by reason of its international character, this court has held itself less bound by the decisions of the state courts than in other cases. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Carpenter v. Insurance Co., Id. 495; Oates Bank, 100 U. S. 239; Railroad Co. v Bank, 102 U. S. 14.”
    Hence, the court is stating that on international matters, the Federal court will not be bound by any state law and rather will apply federal law. We know that that federal law could be the constitution, a treaty, a Congressional statute, the law of nations, or even federal common law. Nor does the constitution itself on its face tell us that the “natural born Citizen” clause is “framed in the language of the English common law.” The issue is whether the clause should be interpreted by the English common law and we cannot conclude that it should simply because this case makes a sweeping statement that the constitution’s “provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    On the contrary, citizenship is not a matter controlled by municipal law. In the absence of a constitutional provision or Congressional Act which provides the rule of decision and proper guidance, citizenship falls under the law of nations and federal common law. This body of law is, indeed, United States law and not foreign law. This fact is confirmed by our United States Supreme Court (except for Wong Kim Ark) during our history always applying public law or the law of nation to resolved issues concerning national citizenship. I have been arguing this point for some time, advising that the Framers did not rely on English common law to define national citizenship but rather natural law and the law of nations which became federal common law. I have added that on local state matters, the states have continued to be guided by principles of the English common law.

    In short, the Alabama v. Smith decision does not prove that the “natural born Citizen” clause is to be defined under the English common law.

    It is quite obvious that you have not correctly read the Smith v. Alabama decision.

  237. avatar
    Mike February 19, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    Mario:

    You should write novels, you’re that creative. Creative, however, does not translate to either winning or insightful – your interpretation is crucially flawed.

    You are relying on a misstatement which mischaracterises the law; to wit, you claim that others are saying that natural-born citizen is governed by common law.

    Even notwithstanding the reception statutes passed by the various States, nobody here ahs argued that natural-born status is meaningfully governed by common law; how could it be? US common law, inasmuch as it exists, continued to grow as a distinct legal corpus the moment that the colonies achieved independence, much in the way that US English differs from English at its root.

    What has been argued, however, is that the common law used terms with distinct, clearly identifiable meanings, developed through stare decisis. These terms are used in the Constitution, and unless they are defined differently or in opposition to the traditional common law definition, as with treason, one can assume that the meaning is the same.

    In short, while English common law does not control, in the absence of statute, subsequent judicial precedent or Constitutional change to the contrary, it does define.

  238. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Now you attempt to escape me by citing Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888). You and your team (and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark) have been citing Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888), a case that does not involve any issue concerning national citizenship, for quite some time in your feeble effort to prove that the Founders used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.”

    Well, you know. I’m not a lawyer and so I have to copy the work of “my betters.” So in this case when Supreme Court Justice Gray plus five of the other justices sign onto an opinion where THEY cite Smith v. Alabama in a citizenship case, and say that, speaking generally, that definitions in the Constitution come from English common law, I follow their lead. The citation is bold, and plain and unequivocal.

    And you, where do you find such support for an idea of citizenship that not only isn’t law, but that nobody even heard of until it was fabricated out of nothing only a year ago?

    You say that Greg hasn’t read Smith v. Alabama correctly. But by implication you say that a 6-2 majority of the Supreme Court hasn’t read Smith v. Alabama correctly either. That is hardly credible. [See, I’m being nice today.]

  239. avatar
    Lupin February 19, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    “With births in the country, the English common law used the jus soli basis for citizenship while “the common law” used by Minor used the jus sanguinis basis.”

    Even if that were true (and I don’t have an informed opinion on that point), because Obama’s mother was an American, a gender-neutral Vattel (which you admitted yesterday was necessary) would consider Obama an indigene, or NBC in your vernacular.

    You can’t escape it, there is NO two-parents requirement in Vattel. None whatsoever.

  240. avatar
    Lupin February 19, 2010 at 10:01 am #

    Even Dred Scott, as quoted by Mario, uses the singular when talking about a parent who is a citizen.

    And Vattel most certainly does not require two parents-citizens.

    I’d like to know exactly where the myth (because that is what it is) of the two parents citizens rule started.

    Even if one were to follow jus sanguinis (and I’ll leave you to debate your own cases on the subject), Obama’s mother would still be enough to make him a NBC.

    The nationality of the Other Spouse (husband or wife) does not matter.

  241. avatar
    Black Lion February 19, 2010 at 10:01 am #

    But that is what Mario relies on. He believes that this is his fawning audience, and as such attempts again to perform verbal felattio on the readers in order to ignore the obvious inconsistencies in his so called research.

    He intentionally tries to confuse the reader in regards to why Justice Gray cited Smith v. Alabama. He attempts to make people believe that instead of a 6-2 decision in Wong, somehow only Gray believed that English Common law defined what a NBC was. He wants the reader to forget that his same argument was used by George D. Collins in his appealant brief to the SCOTUS and was implictly rejected by the Court.

    In other words Mario does what he can to diminish the Wong ruling because he and the other birthers know that it is the ruling that defines what a natural born citizen is. In the past year we have seen them do everything from attempt to assassinate the character of Gray to saying that the ruling does not implictly designate Wong a NBC.

    This is just par for the course for Mario. He somehow thinks that he knows more that 6 former SCOTUS justices and renowned constitutional scholars like Ed Meese, Ted Olsen, Jill Pryor, or Akil Reed, all who have stated that a NBC is someone born in the US regardless to the citizenship status of their parents. Mario may think that he is on the level of these legitimate constitutional law scholars so his opinion somehow carries the same weight as theirs. And somehow if he had published an article before 2007 with such opinions, we may believe him. But he didn’t.

    He decided to become the mouthpiece for a disgrunteled former Navy Commdr. and his brand of hate and dislike. Selling his soul to push a theory that as a true legal scholar, has no legal standing. But galling most of all is how he attempts to belittle other legal experts that have eviserated his so called theories by implying that somehow they misread rulings. Mario, you are one of a kind.

  242. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Mike,

    You are the one who is mistating or revising the debate and attempting to confuse the issue. You throw things together but do not present your point clearly and consistently.

    You and your team have argued that it is the English common law that defines a “natural born Citizen.” I have argued that it is American common law (natural law that became the law of nations which the Founders adopted as American law as is evidenced by Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 and various United States Supreme Court cases which I have cited) that provides that definition. What is ironic is that you and your colleagues are the ones that want to use foreign law (English common law) to determine an American issue and you accuse me of doing so when I am relying on a body of law that is confirmed right in the Constitution as a valid source for rules of decision for our courts to apply.

    Also, your attempt to sneak the English common law back into the equation by saying that if there is no other rule that applies, “it [the English common law] does define” is just another rehash of your same argument which now you say you are not making. It would be nice if you could make up your mind as to what you want to say or do you no longer know what your position is? Are you lost at sea, searching for a way home?

    I would gain some confidence and faith in your position if you could at least clearly and consistently present it.

  243. avatar
    ballantine February 19, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    More nonsense Mario,

    The importance of Smith v. Alabama is brought up is that Wong Kim Ark as support faor its determination that “Natural born citizen” should be defined by the english common law. Like it or not, the supreme court has for 220 years interpreted terms it light of the common law. For example:

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).

    And it is just simply false that the supreme court has defined citizenship by something other than munucipal law. First of all, WOng Kim Ark is the only case to directly address the issue and the cases you cite provide no support for your decision. The Venus has nothing to do with citizenship. Shanks had nothing to do with citizenship at birth but the status of a minor in a revolution and never says citizenship was to be governed by international law. Have you still not read Story’s opinion from the same day in Inglis expressly defining citizenship at birth by the common law. How about his decisions in McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824) and Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 (1832) where he also adopted the common law view.

    Have you figured out yet that the language from Dred Scott you cite is the concurring opinion of one justice, not the court? And finally, have you figured out that the court in Minor takes no position on whether children of aliens are natural born no matter how much you wish to the contrary. It is simply not authority on the issue. As Wong Kim Ark states, there is no legal authority to support the proposition that citizenship was even determined by any rule of international law.

  244. avatar
    Mike February 19, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    Mario:

    Rather than get sucked back into your quicksand non-argument, I refuse to engage you.

    For someone who allegedly passed through law school and the bar, you seem determined to demonstrate ignorance.

  245. avatar
    Black Lion February 19, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    ballantine, great points as usual. But we know that Mario will ignore you and the obvious points you make which are backed up with actual case law. He has to pretend to be obtuse in order to continue to push is discredited theory or Kerchner won’t be too happy with him.

  246. avatar
    ballantine February 19, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    It is pretty simply, all early scholars and case law define the term “natural born citizen” in accordanace the common law and we have cited authority after authority to support it. Also, the only supreme court case to make a definitive statement on the issue is Wong Kim Ark and it confirms the common law interpretation. Hence, all modern law dictionaries and treatises define the term by the common law. This is reality.

    On your side, you cannot point to one majority opinion in US history at any level saying a natural born citizen requires citizen parents, you cannot point to any legal authority in the founding era or early republic connecting the term to Vattel and (3) you cannot point that any statements by the framers that actually connects the term to Vattel, only your own speculation about what the framers intended.

  247. avatar
    nbC February 19, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    Mario: You are the one who is mistating or revising the debate and attempting to confuse the issue. You throw things together but do not present your point clearly and consistently.

    Oh his points are clear and consistent Mario. And not he is not misstating the debate.

    Speaking of lack of clear representation, do you care to explain you Reeves ‘quote’…

    Funny guy this Mario

  248. avatar
    nbC February 19, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    Poor, Mario. Balantine again has show his claims and arguments to lack merit.

    Good luck in Court Mario… But should you not be focusing on the standing argument which looms as a large sword of Damocles over the Kerchner lawsuit.

  249. avatar
    nbC February 19, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    This statement does not prove in any way that the English common law is the law that provides the rule of decision for defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Mario, Mario, Mario, you just quoted the relevant language and now insist that it does not support the well reasoned and oft applied principle that when the Constitution leaves words undefined, its meaning should be found in the English Common law of those days.

    Reading comprehension Mario, simple reading comprehension…

  250. avatar
    SFJeff February 19, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    “I’d like to know exactly where the myth (because that is what it is) of the two parents citizens rule started.”

    Because Vattel’s requiring only one citizen parent wouldn’t make the black man illegible.

  251. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    And please remember, Obama is not our first president born in the US to a US citizen mother and a foreign father.

    It’s not as if this is a new situation.

  252. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    ballantine,

    Making things up, also. You are the one who has no support (other than the erroneous Wong Kim Ark case) for your theory that the Framers used the English commmon law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Not even Justice Gray went that far, for he only defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by resorting to colonial English common law. I have provided plenty of historical sources for my postion. You, my friend, are the one without evidence, not me.

  253. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Black Lion,

    So now you are covering the propoganda shift. Where are you legal arguments?

  254. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Mario: Do you know if pets go to heaven?

  255. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    Mario: should I give my pet a Bar Mitzvah?

  256. avatar
    nbC February 19, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    Mario: Making things up, also. You are the one who has no support (other than the erroneous Wong Kim Ark case) for your theory that the Framers used the English commmon law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Not even Justice Gray went

    Shamelessly Mario continues to accuse others why failing his ‘made up’ quote from Reeves… Hilarious.
    Needless to say, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that when the Constitution leaves words unexplained or undefined, its meaning should be sought in the English Common Law of those days.
    Furthermore, the suggestion that International Law somehow prohibits countries from determining for themselves who are and are not citizens is preposterous and was rejected by the Courts. While the Law of Nations, in a very general sense, had been introduced into English Common Law and precedent, which became the foundation for US law, the law of nations was mostly focused on international trade, prize of war, and issues of neutrality.
    There is just NO evidence that the Founders or the Courts ever considered the Law of Nations to determine the municipal laws on Nationality and Citizenship.
    In fact, faced with the realization that the Common Law did not extend citizenship to children born abroad to US citizens, the earliest Congress passed a law to do so, clearly indicating that Vattel was NOT the guiding principle in Citizenship Common Law.

    that far, for he only defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by resorting to colonial English common law. I have provided plenty of historical sources for my postion. You, my friend, are the one without evidence, not me.

    Hilarious… Much of these ‘historical sources’ have been shown to not really support Mario’s interpretation. Perhaps there are some issues with reading comprehension here but I see a clear argument on the side of Justice Grey.

    It is clear from history that the 14th Amendment definition merely reflects the Founders’ principles as outlined in the Constitution. The historical debates continue to stress this fact. Thus the ‘complaint’ that Justice Grey merely defined the term citizen runs counter to history and a reading of Justice Grey’s well documented arguments where he outlines that the terms natural born and citizen remain undefined in the Constitution and that their meaning should be sought in English Common Law. He then outlines that English Common Law extends natural born citizenship to any child born on its soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    Somehow Mario sees that as evidence for his unsupportable adherence to a Vattel interpretation for which there exists NO historical foundation… None at all…

    Sure Vattel was used for International Law issues, and Common Law, through such luminaries as Blackstone and others served as a foundation for municipal law.

    As the Commentaries of Blackstone flooded this country just before the Revolution, American statesmen and jurists of that day knew Coke, through Blackstone; with his doctrines amended and expanded by the changes the Revolutions of 1640 and 1688 had wrought in the ancient Constitution as it stood in 1632. Thus trained and influenced the founders of the Republic epitomized in our first state constitutions the modern English Constitution as Blackstone had defined it.

    Time after time the facts appear clearly against Mario.

    Fascinating how he keeps coming back for more. Perhaps he too realizes that the argument will never be heard in any US Court, in any foreseeable future?

  257. avatar
    nbC February 19, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    Should we be surprised that you do not seem to recognize his legal arguments? Or perhaps you recognize them but you fail to comprehend their impact?

  258. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Mario: my cat is not circumsized. Can he still be Jewish?

  259. avatar
    ballantine February 19, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

    Mario,

    Fact free response. None of your sources hold up, as has been repeatedly pointed out on this blog. Justice Gray said that both Article II and the 14 amendment were based upon the English common law, as anyone who read can easily see. The relevant provisions of the case have been posted over and over on this blog for people who want to educate themselves. If you don’t want to read the case yourself, try reading what actual conservative scholars say about it:

    “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, pg. 190 (2005)

    http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8N3UeXeesC&pg=PA221&dq=Edwin+Meese,+et+al,+THE+HERITAGE+GUIDE+TO+THE+CONSTITUTION&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen&f=false

  260. avatar
    Greg February 19, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    I already showed how you and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, citing Minor v. Happersett for the proposition that English common law defines national citizenship, are in error.

    I didn’t cite it for the proposition that English Common Law defined citizenship.

    Gray didn’t cite it for the proposition that English Common Law defined citizenship.

    I’ve said this twice now. Do I need to explain how citations work, Mario?

    Here’s where Wong cites Minor:

    In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    Do you see English anywhere in that paragraph?

    I don’t.

    So, I don’t know why you keep repeating the lie that Gray or I referred to Minor as saying that English Common Law defined the issue.

    It does not, since it makes no reference to English or American Common Law.

    Here’s what Minor said:

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.

    Now, Mario, do you see English Common Law there? No. Do you see “American Common Law” there? Also, no.

    On the contrary, citizenship is not a matter controlled by municipal law

    I’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding municipal, or if you really are this terrible a lawyer. Do you realize that “municipal” in this context refers to “domestic” law, as opposed to international law, not city law as opposed to federal law, right?

    Does Westlaw not work in New Jersey? Lexis? The fact that citizenship is fundamentally an issue of domestic law and not international law is one of long-standing and well-supported precedent, going back at least as far as Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 US 99, 162 (1830) (“each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens”).

    This fact is confirmed by our United States Supreme Court (except for Wong Kim Ark) during our history always applying public law or the law of nation to resolved issues concerning national citizenship.

    Except, they didn’t. If there was one court that unequivocally said it was rejecting English Common Law and redefining “natural born,” in accordance with international law, you’d be citing it up and down.

    I have been arguing this point for some time, advising that the Framers did not rely on English common law to define national citizenship but rather natural law and the law of nations which became federal common law.

    Entirely without any evidence. Your evidence amounts to Minor’s failure to reach the issue of the children of aliens, Venus’ citation of Vattel to address the issue of domicile (not citizenship), and a thoroughly discredited concurrence in the worst decision in the history of the nation!

    Oh, and the fact that one scholar of natural law in a section of his book which was never cited by a single founder, mentioned a definition of natural born that you find helpful.

    Of course, you have to ignore the fact that there was no international consensus about Vattel’s definition. As Senator Trumbull said in explaining the 14th Amendment:

    It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    That’s why Justice Story was able to write 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.

    Let’s be clear then:

    1. There is no evidence the founders relied on international law, natural law, or Vattel to define “natural born.”

    2. There was no international or natural law consensus on the definition of “natural born” to mean what you claim Vattel meant.

    There’s no evidence the Founders used English Common Law? That’s just BS!

    There’s a reason why Tucker was writing in 1803 that the law of natural-born was the same here as in England.

    There’s a reason why William Rawle wrote in 1829:

    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.

    There’s a reason why James Kent, described by your favorite case Dred Scott, as someone “whose accuracy and research no one will question,” wrote:

    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.

    There’s also a reason why Justice Story said in Inglis:

    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

    4. Natural born was a term of art understood by all the Founders. It was a term of art with 400 years of history in English courts and in colonial charters and laws. The Founders knew how to change the meaning of terms of art, like they did with “treason.”

    Not even Justice Gray went that far, for he only defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by resorting to colonial English common law.

    Not true. Wong is a citizen, according to the decision, because the rules of citizenship were the same in the United States as they were in England.

    The same rule [born here = citizen regardless of parental citizenship] 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.

    That’s why the court approvingly cited approvingly 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.

    WKA, 169 U.S. 649, 662

    It is quite obvious that you have not correctly read the Smith v. Alabama decision.

    I suggest you use Shephards and see what the Supreme Court has made of Smith v. Alabama. It is good law. It stands for what it was cited for. Between you and more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent, I’m going to have to go with the latter.

  261. avatar
    Black Lion February 19, 2010 at 2:54 pm #

    I don’t need to rehash what Greg, Ballantine, and NBC have so skillfully done, and that is eviserate your ridiculous argument…Mario think about it. You can’t find one judical scholar or constitutional expert that comes close to agreeing with you. What is that? Is it because everyone other legal mind in the world is wrong but you? Or is it the much more likely scenario, which is that you don’t have a clue. It has been established law in the US since 1898 that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Where was your outrage in 2006? Where was your so called De vattel theory? What most of the legal minds on this blog can’t understand is why do you think arguing the same theory that George D. Collins did in 1898 would somehow bring about a different result? The court decided 6-2 to reject his argument and the so called De Vattel theory. That was clear in the decision and in the dissent. But somehow you think that 100 years later you can argue and think that no one would notice. Simply amazing…

    Just as a reminder what real judges said about your ridiculous theories…

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    So Mario, no matter how you try and parse quotes and imply that a ruling meant something different than it really did, you are left with nothing but a case that is heading for another dismissal.

    Let me help you out by reminding you what standing means….

    Standing….
    Standing is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. It is a very important concept, without which courts would drown under the weight of cases they can’t meaningfully resolve. Too many people think a court is like Solomon—you go to it for a decision on anything that bugs you. Courts are actually an administrative mechanism for resolving technical legal disputes that can be framed in specific ways.
    There are three standing requirements:

    (1) Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
    (2) Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
    (3) Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

    The cases to date have not met those requirements, and because of that have been dismissed. You and the former Commander have nothing but your dislike of the President of the United States. And we can all see that…

  262. avatar
    ballantine February 19, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Not only did Trumbull say the english common law was the rule of all countries or the univeral rule, so did Wilson, the house judiciary chaiman of such congress and Rep. Thayer. In fact, it seems that such was the view of many prominent commentators of such period, such as Paschal and Pomeroy, as well as Story, as you pointed out. In fact, I am not sure I have seen any american commentator state that anything other than the jus soli english rule to be the rule of international law with respect to citizneship at birth. Mario’s citations, of course, have nothing to do with citizenship at birth. I guess Vattel wasn’t that influential after all.

  263. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 19, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    The Wong Kim Ark case is binding legal precedent. It is the seminal case and essentially the starting point for any legal argument.

    You don’t have to like the case or agree with it — but to characterize it as “erroneous” is nothing but hubris. When the Supreme Court decides something, that becomes the law. When a decision is supported by a strong majority of the court, and cited and followed for more than a century — it is solid authority that cannot be overcome by citation to historical referents or court opinions that precede the decision you challenge.

    To the extent that Wong Kim Ark is inconsistent with any earlier case, it must be taken as either distinguishing or overruling the previous case.

    I mean — a historian could argue the wisdom of Marbury v. Madison as well — certainly, at the time, the case could have been decided differently. But it has become the established law of our nation and it is not going to change.

  264. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Black Lion,

    All rhetoric and no substance. I am interested in you showing me how I am wrong. Your reliance on “others” to do the talking for you is pathetic.

  265. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Mario: do you think Orly was a streetwalker in Moldova or Romania?

  266. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Greg,

    So now you are abandoning your position that English common law defined a “natural born Citizen.” Don’t you think that it is a little too late now to do that. Look at all the comments on this blog made by your team and all the postition papers on how the English common law decided it all. You are not only unbelievable but very deceitful.

    And all your arguments and citations are totally irrelvant to the issue. We are defining “natural born Citizen” not “citizen.” Try again.

  267. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    Is my cat a natural born citizen?

  268. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    nbc,

    My year book from when I graduated from eight grade is filled with messages from eight graders who told me “good luck in high school.”

  269. avatar
    nbc February 19, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    Sad story…

  270. avatar
    nbc February 19, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    You are not only unbelievable but very deceitful.

    Hilarious just like the black knight in Monty Python. You’re a riot Mariot

  271. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    My yearbook is filled with messages “the next Al Goldstein.”
    .

  272. avatar
    Greg February 19, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    So now you are abandoning your position that English common law defined a “natural born Citizen.”

    What on earth would make you think that?

    And all your arguments and citations are totally irrelvant to the issue. We are defining “natural born Citizen” not “citizen.” Try again.

    Still demonstrating how poorly you read, aren’t you?

    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

    There, I put it in bold for you. Did you read it that time?

  273. avatar
    nbc February 19, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    Ohh, hyphenated… No wonder Mario failed to recognize it.

  274. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Greg,

    You are the one who not only cannot read but also cannot really think. None of the cases you cite involved defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the context of someone running for President. I know how you conveniently conflate a “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Your problem is that the Framers did not conflate them as you do.

    Do you really think there would have been any debate on whether any of the people in any of your cases were citizens if they were “natural born Citizens?” I do not understand your logic. They do not know whether they are “citizens.” The court declares them “citizens” and then they magically appear as “natural born Citizens” whose status no one has any problem recognizing from the beginning. Your logic and position is absurd.

  275. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Mario: you and your crowd should get ready for ’12, when Jindal runs.

  276. avatar
    nbc February 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    You are the one who not only cannot read but also cannot really think.

    Now that’s double ironic my dear Mario. Note the absence of any evidence

    None of the cases you cite involved defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the context of someone running for President.

    True and misleading.

    However we do know the following simple and trivial facts

    1. Definition of terms left undefined by the Constitution should be found in Common Law of those days.
    2. English Common Law is the prevailing Common Law of the early US and clearly shows how natural born citizen refers to any child born on US soils, regardless to the status of the parents.

    It’s that simple really.

    You want to argue that somehow these precedents should be ignored in favor of your imaginative but not very well supported claim that the Founders, when using the term natural born citizen, a term which in a previous version of Hamilton’s Constitution was represented by “born a citizen”, somehow used the term commonly understood as such to mean something quite different and that the definition should be taken from a source which has no relevance to the issue of citizenship of nationality.
    Even your pal Vattel agrees that local municipal law overrides any abstract Law of Nations concept when it comes to citizenship.

    Now show us how Vattel’s Law of Nations or any form of the Law of Nations made it into US Common Law in a form relevant to the discussion.

    There is just no historical evidence to support your position. Logic, history, legal precedent all point to a much simpler explanation.

    But that’s one you, for obvious reasons I believe, refuse to accept.

    Too bad the argument will never be heard by the courts. Lucky Mario..

  277. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: None of the cases you cite involved defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the context of someone running for President.

    The last time we had someone running for Vice President, born in the US to a Irish national father, no one raised a question. But just let a black guy try the same stunt — well you have to draw the line someone. While Greg perhaps didn’t cite Lynch v. Clarke, that comment was in the context of someone running for President:

    The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

    Mario Apuzzo:I know how you conveniently conflate a “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Your problem is that the Framers did not conflate them as you do.

    Now I must declare a foul against you here. You have said this many times, and it is as much false this time as the previous times. Of course everybody here knows that naturalized persons are citizens, but not “natural born citizens.” If you wanted to honestly characterize the position you should say that it is those born citizens and natural born citizens which are being considered the same. Just use that straw man on the less sophisticated readers on other forums. But to the substance, do you channel the Framers? Just where do you get such notions? Give me one single drop evidence supporting “the Framers did not” so that I won’t think you pulled the idea out of somewhere I won’t mention.

    And Vice-Chancellor Sandford, in Lynch, seemed to make that conflation, and not only that seemed to believe that the entire legal community agreed with him. So you see Mario, if you’re right, you’re just about alone in your profession to realize it.

    1 am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.

    The legislative expositions speak but one language on this question. Thus the various acts on the subject of naturalization which have been passed by Congress presuppose that all who are to be benefited by their provisions were born abroad. They abound in expressions of this sort, viz.: the country ” from which he came;” all ” persons who may arrive in the United States;” the country whence they migrated is to be stated, and the like. This language is inappropriate to a person who was born here, and wholly inapplicable to one who has always resided in the country. If Julia Lynch had remained here till she was of age, the argument in regard to her citizenship would be no different, because during the intervening time she would have been incapable of election. In this state, the constitution adopted by the people in 1822, provides that no person except a native citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the office of governor. Native citizen is used as contradistinguished from citizens of foreign birth, and as a term perfectly intelligible and definite. It is based upon the assumption that there was a known rule of law, ascertaining who were native citizens of the United States ; and as has already been shown that there was no such rule known, except that of the common law. In various statutes which have been enacted from time to time for more than fifty years past, to authorize aliens to take, purchase, hold and convey real estate, the expression used by the legislature in declaring the extent of the rights granted, is that they are to be as full as those of ” any natural born citizen,” or of ” natural born citizens.” (See Laws of 1806, ch. 164, §1,3; of 1807, ch. 123; of 1808, ch. 175 ; of 1812, ch. 240; of 1825, ch. 310; 1 Rev. Stat., 720; and many others, both general and particular in their application.) In one statute, passed April 27, 1836, Laws of 1836, ch. 200, the alien was to hold land as fully as if he had been a naturalized or natural born citizen ; as if those two constituted all the classes of citizens known to our laws. In the numerous colonial statutes of naturalization to which I have already referred, the expression which is used, is ” natural born subjects.” Both expressions assume that birth is a test of citizenship; and the continuance of the language subsequent to the Revolution and to the Federal Constitution, shows that the effect of birth continued to be the same as it was before.

    The statutes in favor of aliens, enabling them to take, hold and dispose of real estate, have been very general throughout the United States. I refer to the following as exhibiting the similar use of the term ” natural born citizen of the United States,” in contradistinction to aliens, or foreigners not naturalized. In New Jersey, the act of January 22, 1817. (Elmer’s Digest, 6.) In Pennsylvania, the act of February 11, 1789; which says natural born subjects, instead of citizens. This act was continued in 1792 and again in 1795. (3 Carey and Bioren’s Laws, 299.) In 1799, a similar statute, using the same language as in those of New York, (6 ib.,38.) So in 1807; (Act of February 10th;) and again March 24, 1818. (Purdon’s Digest, 39,40 : Ed. 1836.) In Delaware, act of 1811, ch. 172: 4 Laws of Delaware, 483. On the 11th of June, 1788, a statute was enacted in Delaware, giving to all foreigners then or thereafter residing there, on taking the oath prescribed, all the rights and privileges “of natural born subjects of this state,” except the holding of offices, to which they were entitled after five years residence. (2 Laws of Delaware, 921, ch. 174, b) For similar laws, using the same language—See Laws of Georgia to 1820, p. 182, Act of Feb. 7, 1785; Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1838, p. 67; Rev. Stat, of Wisconsin, 1833-9, p. 179 ; Laws of Michigan, ed. 1833, p. 282,’ Act of March 31, 1827.

  278. avatar
    Greg February 19, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    None of the cases you cite involved defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the context of someone running for President.

    You’re right, no one has ever successfully sued a Presidential candidate. That doesn’t mean the courts haven’t defined Natural Born Citizen.

    The thing is, Mario, that you have invented this difference between “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen.”

    Just as there are no cases of a President or presidential candidate being successfully sued, there are zero cases imagining someone who could be born here, in the United States, become a citizen because of that birth, and yet not be a natural born citizen. There is no case that even imagines such a distinction.

    It is simply a fiction invented by Mario Apuzzo.

    You have a very high opinion of yourself, Mario, if you think that your fictions should have legal force.

    If there was no distinction between “a citizen because you were born here” and “natural born citizen,” then when a court defines the former, they define the latter.

    You’re creating a whole new beast, Mario, and you have a huge hurdle to overcome, and you aren’t even a millimeter off the ground. Where does a court explicitly say that there is some new class of citizen? Where does a court lay out the rights and restrictions of this new class of citizen?

    Above I said that it was a fiction of Mario. That’s not entirely true. It’s, in fact, a common fiction attempted by tax-evaders and white supremacists. They argue, for example, that white people are preamble citizens and black people are 14th Amendment, statutory citizens. With a little white out and a few dozen labels saying “natural born,” your briefs could be a complete recycling of the attempted distinction between “preamble” and 14th Amendment citizens. Just slap that label on top of every instance of “preamble.”

    So, there are dozens and dozens of cases rejecting any carved out fictional distinction. If you are born here, you are a citizen, and there is only one kind of citizen if your citizenship is because you were born here, Mario.

    That’s what the court cases say.

    I do not understand your logic. They do not know whether they are “citizens.” The court declares them “citizens” and then they magically appear as “natural born Citizens” whose status no one has any problem recognizing from the beginning

    I realize you are deathly afraid of doing any actual reading, Mario, but take a good long look at the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. The dissent knew that by making Wong a citizen, from his birth, the court was making Wong a natural born citizen. Why do you think the dissent concluded that that was what the court was doing? Why do you think you are smarter than these two accomplished Justices? Why do you accept their reasoning about Vattel, but not their reasoning about what Wong meant?

    The dissent specifically noted the oddity of allowing the children of Chinese people to run for President!

    Do you really think there would have been any debate on whether any of the people in any of your cases were citizens if they were “natural born Citizens?”

    So, because some people had an issue with their citizenship they cannot be natural born citizens?

    Did people have an issue with African-Americans being citizens, Mario?

    Would there have been any debate if African-Americans had been “natural born citizens?”

    But, you know what, the government and the government’s amicus put forward your argument when they were talking about Wong. He couldn’t be a citizen because Vattel controlled, and the US was a jus sanguinis state because England was an agrarian state, with lords and kings, and surely the framers meant to distance themselves from England in defining citizenship.

    The court rejected the argument. There is simply no evidence that the US rejected British Common law in defining citizenship. They quoted the exact same cases you cite – Shanks, Venus, Dred Scott, Minor. And in analyzing those cases, the court found no deviation from English Common Law.

    And yet you want us to believe that the cases deviated just a little bit from English Common Law. That, despite none of the cases dealing with a President (as you admit above), they all have some subtle deviation unseen by anyone for more than 200 years. So, the Constitution adopts the English definition of “natural born,” but only to make people “citizens,” but not “natural born citizens. That’s your position?

    Your position, Mario, is not simply absurd and illogical, it is frivolous.

    Make your next brief a thousand pages, Mario. It will still not be worth the paper you print the cover page on.

  279. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    “If you are born here, you are a citizen, and there is only one kind of citizen if your citizenship is because you were born here, Mario.”

    The native born, vs natural born, was invented by Leo Donofrio, and amplified by Orly and Mario.

  280. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo February 19, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Ballantine,

    You maintain that the English common law provides the definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Among other cases that you have cited to support your position, you now cite Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925) and provide the following quote from the decision:

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).”

    My Response:

    Well, I guess you guys are running out of cases that support Wong Kim Ark’s reliance on English common law to define national citizenship of the United States. What happened with citing and explaining the cases that Justice Gray used to justify using English common law to define national citizenship? I see that now you are looking for other cases that were not only not cited by Justice Gray but even come after the Wong Kim Ark case.

    This case, Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) does not support your position that English common law should be used when defining national citizenship. As the Smith v. Alabama case that you and your fellows love to cite is not about citizenship, this case is also not about citizenship. This writ of habeas corpus case is about the President’s constitutional power to grant pardons. The defendant prison warden argued that the plaintiff prisoner should stay in jail and the prisoner plaintiff argued that he should be released. The President had pardoned the prison for a contempt of court, causing his one-year jail sentence to be commuted and compelling him to only pay a fine. The Justice Department still had the prisoner jailed, contending that the President did not have the power to grant pardons for contempt which was the offense of which the prisoner was convicted. The Attorney General of the United States filed an amicus brief and contended that the President did have the power to pardon contempts and that the prisoner should therefore be released. It is interesting to see that there was a real battle between the Justice Department and the Attorney General on a question involving the President’s powers under the Constitution.

    The prisoner brought the habeas corpus action against the prison warden. The warden argued that the President’s pardon powers under the Constitution extended only to offenses committed against the United States (except for impeachments) and that a contempt is not one of those types of offenses. Hence, he argued that the prisoner should stay in jail. The prisoner and the Attorney General argued that the President does have the power to pardon contempts and that the prisoner should therefore be freed from jail.

    The Court analyzed what was the meaning of the President’s pardon powers were as of the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court looked to the English common law in determining the extent of the President’s pardon powers. In that connection, the Court explained what the pardon powers of the English Kings were. The court found evidence that the Founders gave the same meaning to pardons as did the English in their common law and that there was no effort in the Convention to define or change the meaning of the word. The Court found that the English King had the power to grant pardon’s for contempt and that the President’s power was similar to that of the King. The Court also found that contempts were also crimes. The Court also found no separation of powers problem in giving the President such pardon powers. Finally, the Court found that the Constitution has entrusted the pardon power to the President with the expectation that he will not abuse it.

    As we can see, there is no citizenship issue here. The English common law was relied upon because it concerned pardons, an area that is strictly domestic in nature and does not affect relations between nations such as citizenship does. As I have previously said, the principles of the English common law continued to be applied in our courts to resolve local state matters but not on matters affecting our relations with other nations.

    It is also important to understand that a pardon is not a subject of the law of nations and the Court would therefore not look to the law of nations to define such a power. Hence, the court was justified in looking to the English common law for a point of reference when no other law provided the needed rule of decision needed to define the President’s pardon powers.

    As we can see, this case does not support any notion that the English common law would supply the rules of decision when it comes to defining national citizenship and its concomitant political rights that are to be exercised in a constitutional Republic rather than in a hereditary monarchy. Rather, public law or the law of nations provided those rules and the English common law was abrogated accordingly from providing any such rules.

    Additionally, there is evidence that the English common law was not used to define all terms in the Constitution. There are many examples but I will share only one with you at this point. James Madison in The Federalist Papers No. 42 tells us that the definition of piracies was taken from the law of nations and not from English common law. In defining piracies, it was necessary to define felonies on the high seas. He explains that felonies had a loose definition in the English common law and varying meanings in English statues. He says that in the absence of adoption of those standards by statute, neither the English common law nor English statutes should be used to define these felonies. He said that the State inconsistent codes were not a practicable source for the definition. Finally, he said that the English common law and English statutes would be “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in providing the meaning. Hamilton therefore gave it to the law of nations to provide that needed uniform definition.

    Do you have any other Supreme Court cases that support Justice Gray’s using English common law to define national citizenship? You have yet to produce one.

  281. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    Hi Mario: how does radar work?

  282. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Do you have any other Supreme Court cases that support Justice Gray’s using English common law to define national citizenship? You have yet to produce one.

    Q: How many Supreme Court precedents does it take to screw your case?

    A: One.

  283. avatar
    misha February 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Mario: how many conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?

  284. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    Greg: I didn’t cite it for the proposition that English Common Law defined citizenship.

    Greg, it’s called a “straw man” argument. Since Apuzzo can’t answer your real argument, he makes up something else and answers that. It’s the same with his [groundless] complaint that you conflate “citizen” with “natural born citizen.”

    Mario cheats.

  285. avatar
    Greg February 19, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    Do you have any other Supreme Court cases that support Justice Gray’s using English common law to define national citizenship?

    National citizenship? I thought you were pretending that none of the cases I cited were appropriate because they dealt only with citizenship and not with natural born citizenship?

    Anyway, here’s an incomplete list of cases and authorities that support our side.

    The Charming Betsy:

    Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can devest himself absolutely of that character…

    2 Cranch, 64, 119.

    He didn’t say “a person born within the United States to two citizen parents,” did he, Mario?

    Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) 3 Pet. 99 – English law on citizenship was the law of the colonies.

    Both Inglis and Shanks were written by Justice Story, whose treatise on Conflict of Laws said:

    ‘there are certain principles which have been generally recognized, by tribunals administering public law [adding, in later editions, ‘or the law of nations’], as of unquestionable authority’; and stated, as the first of those principles: ‘Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country.’ Story, Confl. Laws, 48.

    McCreery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. 354 – The case makes no sense unless the court assumed that the child of an unnaturalized alien was a citizen of the United States.

    Levy v. McCartee (1832) 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115 which was about an inheritance after the revolution, British Common law applied.

    Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393 dissent, Justice Curtis said:

    ‘The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

    U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Supreme Court Justice Swayne, riding circuit wrote:

    ‘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.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

    In addition to these, there are State Supreme Court decisions showing that the term “natural born” had not changed in any respect.

    MA – Gardner v. Ward (1805) 2 Mass. 244
    NC – State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b. 20, 24-26.

    Then there’s the oft-cited lower court decision:

    NY – Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

    It was supported by Secretary of State Marcy in 1854, AG Black in 1859 and AG Bates in 1862.

    Chancellor Kent, described in Dred Scott as an authority “whose accuracy and research no one will question” wrote:

    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.’

    I guess no one can question his accuracy except Mario.

    Horace Binney wrote in his influential pamphlet in 1853:

    ‘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 of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned [namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to], 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.’

    Can you find a single Supreme Court case that, in a citizenship matter, says explicitly that they reject the British Common Law?

  286. avatar
    Ballantine February 20, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Mario,

    I have no idea what your point is. No one ever said that Ex parte Grossman said that the englsih common law should define citizenship. It is merely one of many cases looking to the English common law to interpret the constitution. You can look yourself and try to find a Scalia case on the original consitution that does not cite Blackstone or the english common law. While not every provision of the constitution is based upon english law, most of it is, and for 220 years english law has been the primary reference point in interpreting the document.

    Getting back to our point, Wong Kim Ark tells us we should look to the enlgish common law to define the natural born citizenship clause. Unfortunately for you, it is the only supreme court case to examine this specific issue. The majority cites early authority after early authority to support its conclusion. The dissent pretty much cites no authority. Not a very hard case at the end of the day.

  287. avatar
    NBC February 20, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    pwned again.

    Will Mario never learn that he will be outclassed as long as he holds to these silly concepts?

  288. avatar
    Lupin February 20, 2010 at 3:43 am #

    May I boil it down to something even simpler?

    Even if Mario was correct, and somehow the jus sanguinis rule applied to the definition of an NBC (something which I think you have thoroughly discredited), and one was purely looking at Vattel for the definition of an NBC, then the fact that Obama’s mother was a US citizen would be enough to qualify him.

    The two parents-citizens rule isn’t in Vattel, and from his own quotes, it isn’t in Dred Scott either. (“a parent who is a citizen” singular)

    In fact Mario has been unable to produce a single credible text that states it. (Whereas I did produce one from the ideological founder of the KKK that stated it.)

    So even if Mario’s twisted interpretation of US law was correct, that still doesn’t disqualify Obama.

  289. avatar
    Lupin February 20, 2010 at 3:49 am #

    “(and it’s not clear that he requires two citizen parents)”

    In the first edition, it is clear that only the father’s citizenship counts; Vattel totally ignores the mother’s.

    The later footnote adding the precision about the children inheriting the mother’s citizenship if the couple is unwed also indicates that the absence of a two-parents rule in the understanding of the original.

    Let’s face it: common sense tells you that if Vattel had meant to write about two parents, he would have used the word “deux” (two) which appears nowhere.

  290. avatar
    BlackLion February 20, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    Really Mario? So what Greg, Ballantine, NBC, and the Doc have said is not correct? Because they pretty much eviserated your argument. Let me recap. According to Smith v. Alabama, English Common Law is what is relied on in the US. In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray stated that English Common law was what the founders used in defining what constitutes a NBC. So to further your argument you attempt to mislead about the ruling in Wong. But we all know different. Real judges know different. So you can continue to believe what you want. But your case lost and will continue to lose. You unfortunately are the pathetic one.

  291. avatar
    nbC February 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Of course our arguments are correct. What Mario is attempting to do now to pretend that none of this ever happened and that we have not addressed his ‘arguments’ and shown them to be without much merit or foundation in legal precedent or historical precedent.
    Worse, we have shown how judicial precedent contradicts most everything Mario is attempting to argue. Many of his flawed assertions were also argued in Wong Kim Ark and carefully rejected by the Court.

  292. avatar
    nbC February 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    But not even that well…