Main Menu

Reply to Mario Apuzzo on immoral birthers

Mario Apuzzo has raised an objection to my recent article titled, “The moral dimension of birtherism,” in which I say that birtherism is immoral. Apuzzo writes:

Dr. Conspiracy must be losing his mind, arguing that we Anti-Obots are immoral for arguing, as the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained in Minor v. Happersett (1875), that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

In my article about the immorality of birthers, I focused on three specific immoral items:

  • Character assassination
  • Rumormongering
  • Fabrication of evil stories

When I wrote my article, those who promote a novel definition of “natural born citizen” were not what I had in mind. Apuzzo is the one who makes the association between my article and his statement about Minor v. Happersett. What Apuzzo doesn’t say, but we all know, is that persons who make that statement about Minor do so for the purpose of promoting a claim that somehow Barack Obama became president while ineligible to serve, yet avoiding the notice of most of the electorate, the Congress, the Chief Justice, and the legal academic community—a very remarkable claim when you think about it. So, yes, we do call those persons “birthers.” Are they immoral? I will address that question in two ways:

First, those who promote the two-citizen parent theory misrepresent the Minor Decision (as does Apuzzo above), using a basic logical fallacy of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, one that any attorney must recognize, therefore making the fallacious argument by Apuzzo intentional. The judge in the Purpura case told Apuzzo that his position had “no legal merit.” To put such a theory forward without at least mentioning that rebuke from a judge (and the repudiation of the theory by 10 other judges in similar cases since 2008) is to misrepresent the view as something other than a fringe view, and someone is hardly “out of their mind” for knowing this. I consider using fallacies to persuade a form of lying, and have considered such things immoral since high school. So yes, I think that those who knowingly misrepresent Minor are acting immorally.

The second problem I have with Mr. Apuzzo’s remark is that I do not know who he is talking about. Who is this person who holds the two-citizen-parent theory but does not spread other evil stories about Barack Obama? We had a brief discussion about this in comments on this blog, and no one was able to name such a person–Mr. Apuzzo himself is not. Reviewing Apuzzo’s brief in Kerchner v. Obama’s second amended complaint, we find that the large majority of its numbered points deal with casting doubt about where Obama was born or his early life. If I had to characterize the Kerchner brief in one word, it would be “innuendo,” but there are a number of outright lies too such as:

…Hawaiian law that existed in 1961 when Obama was born (Chapter 338-178 Hawaiian Statues which applied for all births prior to 1972), which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii, was lax in terms of assuring the integrity of the documents and did not adequately safeguard against fraud in the process.

It also has the fake travel ban to Pakistan story. See my article: “Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY,” for more examples.

So Mr. Apuzzo has a history of character assassination and lying, and like Apuzzo, so do all others who support the two-citizen-parent theory that I know about. Even one who is a victim of clever writers like Apuzzo, have the responsibility of double-checking stories before passing them on and becoming guilty of rumormongering.

Print Friendly

178 Responses to Reply to Mario Apuzzo on immoral birthers

  1. avatar
    Arthur June 2, 2014 at 11:59 pm #

    I suppose this new article will prompt the periphrastic Apuzzo to begin dumping his interminable non-responses. Which reminds me . . Zullo — Apuzzo . . . holy crap, they rhyme! Is Mike Zullo really Mario Apuzzo? I’ve never seen them together . . . hm.

  2. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 3, 2014 at 12:05 am #

    Doc, along with the main three items of birfer immorality, I think you might as well add plain old everyday fabrication, specifically flat out lying as part of it, since most, almost all of what has come out of birferdom is basically lie stacked upon lie stacked upon lie.

    Of course Apuzzo’s contentions about Minor are intentional, as anyone actually reading the case would, and does, know. Apuzzo is counting on people not reading it and taking his opinion from on high as gospel of what the court said, when it is anything but. This is plain patent misrepresentation, lying when it comes right down to it. I agree, there are those who mis-represent or mis-present Minor through pure ignorance, i.e. taking Mario at his word, and then there are those like Mario who do so intentionally and with, or at least should be, full knowledge of not only what that court has said, but all other since. He is lying when he claims otherwise, there is no wiggle room for him there.

    I think in the final analysis it is safest and simplest to say that “Apuzzo has a history lying”, and call a liar a liar and be done with it and him.

  3. avatar
    aarrgghh June 3, 2014 at 12:20 am #

    <mario>
    mario wins again!
    </mario>

  4. avatar
    RanTalbott June 3, 2014 at 12:30 am #

    Even those who is a victim of clever writers like Apuzzo, have the responsibility of double-checking stories before passing them on and becoming guilty of rumormongering.

    While I’ve administered many a verbal thrashing based on this principle, myself, I also sometimes find it appropriate to cut people some slack on highly-technical issues. Just as, for most people, “Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, “any sufficiently-dense legal brief or opinion is indistinguishable from Latin”.

    Even if they double-check, many, perhaps even most people (certainly most birthers) are not equipped to understand why Zullo’s forged PDF “proof” in unadulterated horse manure. Or how the Court in Minor explicitly said is was stating a “sufficient”, but not “necessary”, condition for NBC-hood.

    There’s plenty of clear moral failure out there. But there’s also lots of downright evil exploitation of widespread ignorance, where the majority of the fault lies with the exploiters, not the the exploited. Attempting to show the exploited how it’s being done to them is more likely to be productive that going straight to moral condemnation.

  5. avatar
    gorefan June 3, 2014 at 12:53 am #

    Let’s compare

    “Anti-Obots are immoral for arguing, as the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained in Minor v. Happersett (1875), that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.” Mario Apuzzo Esq.

    versus

    ” I don’t think Minor has direct implications for the original meaning of the eligibility clause (it’s more significant for the Fourteenth Amendment). First, it was decided long after the clause was adopted. Second, it (properly) did not purport to decide the question, and recognized that there were authorities on both sides; it limited itself to the wholly non-controversial proposition that persons born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents were citizens. (Incidentally, the Court’s argument for why this included women is very persuasive and well-argued on historical textualist grounds). Third, it did not point to specific evidence from the founding era in support of either side.” Michael Ramsey, UCSD Professor of Law

    http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2014/05/natural-born-citizens-and-minor-v-happersettmichael-ramsey.html

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 3, 2014 at 12:56 am #

    Notorial Dissent: I think in the final analysis it is safest and simplest to say that “Apuzzo has a history lying”, and call a liar a liar and be done with it and him.

    Amen!

  7. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2014 at 2:04 am #

    Notorial Dissent:

    I think in the final analysis it is safest and simplest to say that “Apuzzo has a history lying”, and call a liar a liar and be done with it and him.

    Apuzzo’s dishonesty is no better exemplified than his continued refusal to admit that there has never been a Pakistan travel ban for U.S. citizens. When confronted with irrefutable evidence that there was no such ban, he continued to insist that there was a de facto ban – never mind the contemporary New York Times travel article about Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981.

  8. avatar
    Lupin June 3, 2014 at 2:35 am #

    Apuzzo’s lying extends to promoting the notion that Vattel required “two citizens parents” to transmit citizenship, when it is obvious that this is a group plural defining a general principle (applicable to all blood relatives), immediately followed by the very specific “citizenship will be transmitted by the father”.

    I never believed this was a genuine error in the first place, but a propaganda-driven, willful lie made to impress gullible and ignorant birthers,

    Apuzzo’s steadfast refusal to either rectify his error or provide a source backing up his statements only adds to his meretriciousness.

    Apuzzo is undoubtedly a liar and a conman and his pursuit of a racist agenda, ie: trying to promote the notion a second class of citizens applicable to so-called “anchor babies” is truly despicable.

  9. avatar
    Bob June 3, 2014 at 7:24 am #

    He’s Nancy Ruth Owens except that his crazy gobbledygook is about history and law.

  10. avatar
    Comrade Fogovich June 3, 2014 at 7:45 am #

    Mario, like so many other birthers, is an evil liar. But he’s been smacked down so many times he rarely emerges from his little hellhole of a blog.

    I’m down with that. :D

  11. avatar
    alg June 3, 2014 at 8:23 am #

    Simply put….Mario Apuzzo is a lying immoral birther. Try as he might to parse the facts differently, he cannot change a simple truth.

  12. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2014 at 8:34 am #

    Comrade Fogovich: But he’s been smacked down so many times he rarely emerges from his little hellhole of a blog.

    I’m down with that.

    I agree. I hope he doesn’t feel compelled to defend himself here. God loves you, Mario–isn’t that enough?

  13. avatar
    Northland10 June 3, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    “Anti-Obots are immoral for arguing, as the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained in Minor v. Happersett (1875), that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.” Mario Apuzzo Esq.

    CJ Waite then goes and administers the oath to a person whose father was not a citizen. I mentioned this to Mario a while back. He spun it around briefly and then started the insults.

  14. avatar
    Reality Check June 3, 2014 at 9:38 am #

    Really? I guess I never knew that but the timing backs sense with Arthur’s inauguration in 1881. I would love to have seen Mario’s explanation of that one.

    Northland10: CJ Waite then goes and administers the oath to a person whose father was not a citizen.

  15. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 3, 2014 at 9:41 am #

    Plus, Apuzzo disregards a basic tenet of the art of supporting one’s argument with lies: DON’T GET CAUGHT. Once you are caught in a lie, a neutral observer becomes suspicious. When one is caught repeatedly lying to support an argument, the entire sane world becomes convinced that your argument must be garbage, even if they know nothing substantive about your point one way or the other.

    Hey Mario: a winning argument need no lies to support it. How come everybody knows that but you?

    So there’s the morality point: Apuzzo is arguably not stupid, and the only other possibility is that he is dishonest.

  16. avatar
    Northland10 June 3, 2014 at 10:28 am #

    Reality Check:
    Really? I guess I never knew that but the timing backs sense with Arthur’s inauguration in 1881. I would love to have seen Mario’s explanation of that one.

    Arthur was initially sworn in by a New York Supreme Court upon the death of Garfield. When he returned to Washington, Waite administered the oath again, to ensure it was administered by a federal, not state, judge.

    Yes, he also took the oath twice for a single term.

  17. avatar
    justlw June 3, 2014 at 10:38 am #

    Northland10: Yes, he also took the oath twice for a single term.

    Wait, didn’t that then make him METAL President Arthur? [cue music]

  18. avatar
    Atticus Finch June 3, 2014 at 10:57 am #

    It was Blackstone’s influence and not Vattel’s influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.

    Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries the following:

    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. (Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

    Blackstone further noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:

    The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. Id.

    As such, Blackstone recognized and affirmed Chief Justice Lord Coke’s opinion in Calvin’s Case in 1608 that children born of aliens within the dominions of England were natural born subjects.

    The natural born citizen language in the Constitution is derived from its English Common Law counterpart natural born subject. This idea is based on courts understanding that the term citizen is analogous with term subject. “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: “A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)

    The court in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) stated in clear and concise language the common law’s influence in the Constitution:
    “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    Vattel’s “Law of Nations” in which Vattel described the Civil Law’s concept of citizenship that only natural born citizens are born to citizens of a country; nevertheless, Vattel himself acknowledged the difference between CIVIL LAW and English COMMON LAW regarding natural born citizenship when he wrote in Law of Nations: “Finally, there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”

    The Constitution does not defined Natural Born Citizen. As such, when language in a statute does not define a common law term, courts are “guided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

    That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects was available to the founding fathers. Justice Stone observed: “It is noteworthy that Blackstone’s Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.” CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943) . Similarly, the court in United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956) noted: “ Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”

    In addition the court in Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957) stated “that two of the greatest English jurists, Lord Chief Justice Hale and Sir William Blackstone—men who exerted considerable influence on the Founders” id at 26.

    Moreover, “As with many other elements of the common law, it was carried into the jurisprudence of this Country through the medium of Blackstone, who codified the doctrine in his Commentaries. Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 795 (1969)

    Finally, the court in Briehl v. Dulles, 248 F.2d 561 (DC Cir. 1957) noted that: “Professor Crosskey refers to the [Blackstone’s] Commentaries as “that great `best-seller’ of the eighteenth century” and points out that some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were on the subscription list of the original American edition in 1772. Politics and the Constitution, Vol. 1, p. 411, and Vol. 2, p. 1326, n. 3 (1953). Id. at fn 88

    As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution to “import” a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries whose books were required readings by lawyers in colonial America

  19. avatar
    Atticus Finch June 3, 2014 at 11:01 am #

    The problem with Vattelians in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law is that their argument demonstrate their ignorance that the Constitution provisions were framed in the language of the English Common Law and their argument ignore the historical development of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is rooted in the English Common Law.

    Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of who most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) (“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.”)

    Likewise, Chief Justice, Holmes in Gompers v. United States, 233 US 604 (1914) noted that courts must considered to common law origin of the provisions of the Constitution when he observed: “[T]the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.” Id at 610

    Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925): “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

    Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning. “A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37, 42 (1979).

    Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning
    then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.” [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911); Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 21 (1999) (It is a well-established rule of construction that “` [w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.’) (internal citations omitted)

    Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. “The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.” Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that “absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction.” Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

    In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

    As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

    The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

  20. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate June 3, 2014 at 11:07 am #

    Northland10: Arthur was initially sworn in by a New York Supreme Court upon the death of Garfield. When he returned to Washington, Waite administered the oath again, to ensure it was administered by a federal, not state, judge.Yes, he also took the oath twice for a single term.

    He also took the oath for Vice President back in March under the terms of Amendment XII, which states in part that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”

  21. avatar
    Yoda June 3, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    It is an unethical act to present a legal theory to a court without acknowledging case law that is contrary to your theory, if it is known. Putzy’s presentation of a universally rejected theory as “the law” would be a basis for a misconduct proceeding if he did it in court without qualifications, and I am sure he has (I have not read all of his work). Immoral? Yes. Incompetent? Yes. A liar? Yes.

  22. avatar
    Thinker June 3, 2014 at 11:18 am #

    This is actually the opposite of what Mario does. He does not count on people believing him and not doing their own research. He argues with people who have researched this issue very thoroughly. And he argues with the well-written rulings of birther cases that destroy his argument. This is what makes his constant claims of victory so baffling. His argument has so obviously been defeated on it merits many times but he continues to claim it has not.

    Notorial Dissent:
    Apuzzo is counting on people not reading [Minor] and taking his opinion from on high as gospel of what the court said, when it is anything but.

  23. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2014 at 12:11 pm #

    Thinker: e does not count on people believing him and not doing their own research. He argues with people who have researched this issue very thoroughly.

    He loves approbation and he loves to argue; when birthers give him praise and Obots give him a hard time, he’s in heaven. I guess it beats defending drunk drivers.

  24. avatar
    Reality Check June 3, 2014 at 12:32 pm #

    Is there any evidence Apuzzo has been involved in a single case other than his loser Birther cases since 2008?

    Arthur: I guess it beats defending drunk drivers.

  25. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 3, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The problem with Vattelians in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law…

    Not to mention that the argument was specifically rejected in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    The decision of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has 6 sections to it.

    Section IV Specifically rejected the notion that our citizenship law came from Roman Law, and not from English Common Law.

  26. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2014 at 1:05 pm #

    Reality Check: Is there any evidence Apuzzo has been involved in a single case other than his loser Birther cases since 2008?

    Are you suggesting that for the past six years Mario has not had gainful employment as a lawyer, but has relied instead on his work as a hand model?

  27. avatar
    brygenon June 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm #

    In the article, Dr. C. writes, “Reviewing Apuzzo’s brief in Kerchner v. Obama’s second amended complaint, we find that the large majority of its numbered points deal with casting doubt about where Obama was born or his early life.”

    And did you notice what’s missing from the Second Amended Complaint in Kerchner v. Obama?

    Esquire Apuzzo had months to work on on that complaint. It’s 84 pages long. He amended it twice, which, as he lacked leave to do so, is once more than allowed by the Federal Rules. Apuzzo calls Kerchner v. Obama his historic case. With all that time, all that space, and all that importance, what stopped Mr. Apuzzo from citing Minor v. Happersett?

    No Minor. No Wong either.

    Apuzzo’s reading of Minor — which we’ve seen is actually a simple logical fallacy — is the centerpiece of his legal theory, yet he did not mention it in his 84-page complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint purely on jurisdictional grounds (or to strike it for being so prolix). In Apuzzo’s response to that motion, where his theory on the meaning of “natural-born citizen” was *not* at issue, he cited Minor v. Happersett.

  28. avatar
    Joey June 3, 2014 at 1:40 pm #

    Every attempt to apply Minor v. Happersett to the eligibility of Barack Obama has failed.
    For example:
    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

  29. avatar
    Joey June 3, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

    And how can we forget:
    Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 3, 2014 at 2:56 pm #

    Another recent comment from Apuzzo said:

    Second, Dr. Conspiracy misrepresents what citizenship Lynch examined. It did not conduct an extensive historical review of national citizenship. Rather, what it did was review the laws of various states which defined state citizenship. It then made a quantum leap of logic and concluded that since that was the state law in those various states, that must have been the national common law.

    Lynch v. Clarke did much more than examine state citizenship. In fact, after the historical survey of state citizenship (and the application of the English common law to it), Vice Chancellor Sandford wrote:

    :3. I will next inquire whether there be any common law of the United States, or whether as a nation, was have to any extent, the principles of the common law in force.: (P, 244).

    Sandford further wrote:

    The Constitution of the United States contains no clause declaring who shall be deemed citizens, nor is there any act of Congress which applies to the case of Julia Lynch. The necessity for a rule or principle applicable to this subject, and coextensive with the nation, has existed over since the adoption of the constitution, and cases to which it is applicable, have been arising since that period. The states parted with their control of the matter to the federal government. Therefore, there must have been a national principle or rule of law, co-eval with the existence of the Union, governing the the subject.

    Concluding:

    Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by law of the United States, every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

    Sandford mentions:

    - The Federalist Papers: concluding that the power to naturalize was exclusively a federal power, else the system instituted by Congress could not be “uniform”
    - Citation that the undefined terms in the Constitution derive from the common law
    - Vattel
    - The laws in Spain
    - The laws in France
    - Other writers on International Law

  31. avatar
    Atticus Finch June 3, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

    The problem I have with the Minor decision is that Justice Waite’s did not elaborate as to what “authorities” he was referring who had doubts about citizenship status of those children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

    What is interesting about Justice Waite’s comment about “natural born citizenship” was that it had absolutely nothing to do with the holding of opinion and in fact he later remarked “[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    Contrast Justice Waite’s vague and meandering statement about natural born citizenship in Minor case with Justice Gray’s articulate and elucidate opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) in which he observed:

    “The Amendment [14th Amendment], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, THAT ISSUE IS A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.” Id. at 693 (emphasis added)

    Although Justice Gray was speaking about citizenship under the 14th Amendment, he restated the English common law rule a child born to aliens within the jurisdiction and protection of the English monarchy was a natural born subject.

    Courts had recognized children born of aliens parents in the United States as being citizens of the United States in the early years of our republic long before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164 (1830) (Story, J., concurring )(” 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.”) (emphasis added)

    As such, comparing Justice Waite’s short shrift treatment of the issue of natural born citizens with vague reference to “authorities” having doubts with Justice Gray’s forceful and elegant restatement of the English common law rule of natural born citizenship, there is no question as how the present day Supreme Court would rule in a case about natural born citizenship requirement in the Constitution.

  32. avatar
    Majority Will June 3, 2014 at 3:27 pm #

    It would be interesting to know what Apuzzo’s law professors at the James E. Beasley School of Law at Temple University had to say about his deliberate distortions and lies.

    Yoda:
    It is an unethical act to present a legal theory to a court without acknowledging case law that is contrary to your theory, if it is known. Putzy’s presentation of a universally rejected theory as “the law” would be a basis for a misconduct proceeding if he did it in court without qualifications, and I am sure he has (I have not read all of his work).Immoral? Yes. Incompetent? Yes. A liar? Yes.

  33. avatar
    The European June 3, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    Thinker:
    This is actually the opposite of what Mario does. He does not count on people believing him and not doing their own research. He argues with people who have researched this issue very thoroughly. And he argues with the well-written rulings of birther cases that destroy his argument. This is what makes his constant claims of victory so baffling. His argument has so obviously been defeated on it merits many times but he continues to claim it has not.

    We all know the Black Knight at the bridge. Mario claims victory with arms and legs cut off. Maybe when he comes to his senses he will call it a draw …..

  34. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    Majority Will: It would be interesting to know what Apuzzo’s law professors at the James E. Beasley School of Law at Temple University had to say about his deliberate distortions and lies.

    Does anyone actually remember Mario attending classes? I certainly don’t.

  35. avatar
    Comrade Fogovich June 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

    I’ll give Mario this much – he doesn’t seem to have the visceral hatred for the president that I see on Birther Report. He wants personal vindication for his crank theory, but he doesn’t call for mass execution of traitors. There are a lot of people on Birther Report who wake up in the morning dreaming of the violent deaths of tens of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans, including the entire federal government, plus me and Doc, of course.

    They go to bed at night vastly disappointed that America still exists. Some, maybe most of them are so delusional that they think a fake cop running a fake investigation is going to make their fantasies come true.

    It really has to suck, being a birther. Night after night, the days end with no bloodbath of American citizens. That’s gotta be frustrating as hell after more than 2,000 days since Obama’s election. :mrgreen:

  36. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm #

    Comrade Fogovich: I’ll give Mario this much – he doesn’t seem to have the visceral hatred for the president that I see on Birther Report. He wants personal vindication for his crank theory, but he doesn’t call for mass execution of traitors.

    You’re quite right. We should always be thankful for small blessings.

  37. avatar
    bob June 3, 2014 at 5:04 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Really? I guess I never knew that but the timing backs sense with Arthur’s inauguration in 1881. I would love to have seen Mario’s explanation of that one.

    For this, Apuzzo engages in another one of his favorite tactics: burden shifting. You have to prove to Apuzzo (to his satisfaction) that Arthur’s contemporaries knew about Arthur’s father’s citizenship. I once pointed out to Apuzzo that Hinman’s book was such proof, and Apuzzo dutifully moved the goalpost and wanted proof that people read and discussed Hinman’s book.

    Reality Check:
    Is there any evidence Apuzzo has been involved in a single case other than his loser Birther cases since 2008?

    The databases have two cases in 2010 in which Apuzzo was counsel of record (appeal from an adverse immigration decision; reconsideration motion involving a special-education plan). Both brief, and both losers. But no other reported cases other than his birther losses.

    I think it would be fair to say that, since 2010, Apuzzo has been retired in all but name.

  38. avatar
    ballantine June 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Lynch v. Clarke did much more than examine state citizenship. In fact, after the historical survey of state citizenship (and the application of the English common law to it), Vice Chancellor Sandford wrote:

    The court cited a multitude of authority talking about national citizenship including Kent, Story, Madison, Tucker, Rawle, Wilson, and Bouvier. The court said national citizenship was not based upon state citizenship but, since the English common law was the rule in all the states, it made sense that such would be adopted as the national rule. Specifically, the court said the Constitution was unintelligible without reference to the common law since it was full of terms that did not exist outside of the common law. Hence, unless there was some other national definition for who was a natural born citizen, which there was not, one must look to the common law.

    Of course, Lynch is, next to Wong Kim Ark, the most cited citizenship case in our history positively cited by everyone from attorney generals to the 14th Amendment Congress to the Supreme Court itself. Mario is cited by a few birthers. End of story.

  39. avatar
    bgansel9 June 3, 2014 at 5:34 pm #

    Yoda: Putzy’s presentation of a universally rejected theory as “the law” would be a basis for a misconduct proceeding if he did it in court without qualifications

    BAM!

  40. avatar
    bgansel9 June 3, 2014 at 5:35 pm #

    bob: The databases have two cases in 2010 in which Apuzzo was counsel of record (appeal from an adverse immigration decision; reconsideration motion involving a special-education plan). Both brief, and both losers. But no other reported cases other than his birther losses.

    Another lawyer who has never won a case? They seem to have an awful lot of that in their ranks.

  41. avatar
    bgansel9 June 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm #

    ballantine: it made sense that such would be adopted as the national rule. Specifically, the court said the Constitution was unintelligible without reference to the common law since it was full of terms that did not exist outside of the common law. Hence, unless there was some other national definition for who was a natural born citizen, which there was not, one must look to the common law.

    And if there is any question one can always look to U.S. Code Title 8, Section 1401 and find the answer. English common law is codified.

  42. avatar
    Reality Check June 3, 2014 at 5:43 pm #

    The Birthers have to ignore the inconvenient truth that no one cared that Arthur’s father was Irish and no one cared that Barack Obama;s father was Kenyan – that is of course until it dawned on Birthers in 2008 that Obama had been elected and he really was born in Hawaii. In desperation Leo the Loser Googled and found Minor v Happersett and the rest is history.

    bob: For this, Apuzzo engages in another one of his favorite tactics: burden shifting. You have to prove to Apuzzo (to his satisfaction) that Arthur’s contemporaries knew about Arthur’s father’s citizenship. I once pointed out to Apuzzo that Hinman’s book was such proof, and Apuzzo dutifully moved the goalpost and wanted proof that people read and discussed Hinman’s book.

  43. avatar
    bob June 3, 2014 at 5:58 pm #

    bgansel9: Another lawyer who has never won a case? They seem to have an awful lot of that in their ranks.

    The databases show some modest victories for Apuzzo — from the 1980s.

    His biggest “win” involved himself. It would appear he was briefly appointed to be a tiny town’s attorney, but had to sue to keep his job due to technical irregularities with his appointment. He won: Monroe Township Council v. Garibaldi, 522 A.2d 1011 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1987).

    And I must correct the record: Apuzzo was counsel of record for three cases in 2010: I did not originally include a probate matter, which he also lost.

  44. avatar
    bgansel9 June 3, 2014 at 6:03 pm #

    bob: The databases show some modest victories for Apuzzo — from the 1980s.

    So, he was his own best client?

  45. avatar
    Reality Check June 3, 2014 at 6:45 pm #

    I asked Apuzzo almost two years ago to cite contemporary law articles or newspaper accounts that said the Minor v Happersett case completely defined the term natural born citizen. I am still waiting for those citations.

  46. avatar
    Reality Check June 3, 2014 at 6:58 pm #

    I also pointed out that Mario failed to even cite Minor in his complaint in Kerhner v Obama. He then told this whopper to try to explain why he didn’t:

    [quote="Mario Apuzzo"](2) You state I never cited Minor v. Happersett in the Kerchner complaint. You really are ignorant about the legal process. A complaint is not the place an attorney cites legal cases. The cases are cited in legal briefs. Check my Kerchner legal briefs and you will see it there.[/quote]

    I then pointed out to him that he had cited 20 other cases in his first amended complaint in Kerchner without mentioning Minor. It seems at least in early 2009 Apuzzo didn’t think Minor was very important to his case about eligibility . He finally cited Minor in one sentence in a response to the government motion to dismiss later in the case.

    The discussion was in the comments to this article:
    http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/#comments

  47. avatar
    Majority Will June 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm #

    Arthur: Does anyone actually remember Mario attending classes? I certainly don’t.

    Good point.

    It’s not surprising when a flaming, self-righteous bigot is such a shameless, indignant liar.

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm #

    In just about any comment of Mario’s you can find examples of cherry picking, begging the question, straw men galore and basic errors of logic (such as confusing a sufficient condition with a definition). Not to mention an enormous amount of obfuscation to try to hide all of the above…

    Thomas Brown:
    Plus, Apuzzo disregards a basic tenet of the art of supporting one’s argument with lies:DON’T GET CAUGHT.Once you are caught in a lie, a neutral observer becomes suspicious.When one is caught repeatedly lying to support an argument, the entire sane world becomes convinced that your argument must be garbage, even if they know nothing substantive about your point one way or the other.

    Hey Mario: a winning argument need no lies to support it.How come everybody knows that but you?

    So there’s the morality point: Apuzzo is arguably not stupid, and the only other possibility is that he is dishonest.

  49. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 3, 2014 at 9:57 pm #

    Lupin: trying to promote the notion a second class of citizens applicable to so-called “anchor babies” is truly despicable.

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Animal Farm, Orwell.

  50. avatar
    Keith June 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm #

    Lupin: Apuzzo is undoubtedly a liar and a conman and his pursuit of a racist agenda, ie: trying to promote the notion a second class of citizens applicable to so-called “anchor babies” is truly despicable.

    Exactly.

    It has been my take on the matter since the very instant that I heard of the 2 parent nonsense. I firmly believe that the motivation behind this BS is the desire to ‘soften up’ the electorate, to place doubt in the public discourse.

    I don’t think anyone, other than the seriously deluded, believe that they were ever going to overthrow the elections. But if they could plant a seed of doubt over 1 citizen parent children, it would be that much easier to wedge the 0 citizen parent, and then it is just a short step to children of undocumented parents cannot be citizens.

    It is obvious (to me) that there is a ‘black-ops’ propaganda war going on here. ‘We’ need to keep trying to shine a light on it.

  51. avatar
    Keith June 3, 2014 at 11:03 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Is there any evidence Apuzzo has been involved in a single case other than his loser Birther cases since 2008?

    Makes you wonder who is paying him, doesn’t it?

  52. avatar
    brygenon June 4, 2014 at 12:08 am #

    Slartibartfast recently asked me about what kinds of comments Apuzzo blocks. Here’s an example of a comment on Apuzzo’s blog that he censured out.
    —–

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “First, there are many misstatements and omissions by Justice Gray in his opinion.”

    Mr. Apuzzo, in case you missed it — and your comments picking on Justice Gray sound as though you did miss it — note the opening sentence: “MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.” It’s not just Justice Gray’s personal view. Whether you or I find fault with a U.S. Supreme Court opinion is of no significance to Obama’s eligibility nor to any other legal issue.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “No. 1: Calvin’s case has been misunderstood since it was published in 1608. Justice Gray and legal scholars look at Calvin’s case as confirming the rule of jus soli. I look at it as a case that in essence arrived at its result through a sort of jus sanguinis.”

    Mr. Obama, we realize that 400 years of legal scholarship and precedent support you, but, motivated by your particular case, we’ve decided it was all wrong.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “No. 2: Gray cites Inglis as though the decision supports him.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court is authoritative in interpreting previous decisions.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “Third, you also say that there is a need to overturn Wong Kim Ark in order to arrive at my definition of a natural born citizen. This is false.”

    Only because you can choose to ignore the parts you don’t like. For example…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “I will admit that I maintain that Justice Gray committed various errors in Wong Kim Ark in how he reached his conclusion that Wong was a ‘citizen of the United States’ from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. But Justice Gray’s errors in Wong Kim Ark only go to how the Fourteenth Amendment and ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ should be interpreted. That is only a question that affects who should be a ‘citizen’ by birth in the United States. It is not a question of who should be a ‘natural born citizen’”

    What about the bit ALJ Masin quoted in his “thorough and thoughtful written opinion” deciding your NJ ballot challenge?

    “‘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.’” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting U.S. v. Rhodes.

  53. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 4, 2014 at 12:18 am #

    Thanks. I guess he found your comment too clear to be able to obfuscate or misrepresent easily.

    brygenon: Slartibartfast recently asked me about what kinds of comments Apuzzo blocks. Here’s an example of a comment on Apuzzo’s blog that he censured out.

  54. avatar
    brygenon June 4, 2014 at 12:25 am #

    While we’re heaping well-derved scorn on Mr. Apuzzo, I’ll point out two articles on his blog that I admire. When the first two verdicts in eligibility litigation went against him, in Kerchner v. Obama, he reported the outcomes in straightforward, factual terms, with no hint of disrespect toward the Courts:

    “Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.” (October 21, 2009)
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/court-dismisses-kerchner.html

    “The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms the Dismissal of the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case for Lack of Standing and Orders Attorney Apuzzo to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Assessed Damages and Costs” (July 4, 2010)
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms.html

    Those were fine articles. Alas, knowing that he is capable of such maturity and professionalism makes his recent comments all the more pathetic.

  55. avatar
    Lupin June 4, 2014 at 4:41 am #

    Atticus Finch: The problem with Vattelians in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law

    The problem with the Vattelians is that they made up the two citizens parents “rule” in the first place.

    Vattel starts with blood relatives, then father, then mother, etc.

    A proper Vattelian would argue that Obama’s could not be a citizen because his dad wasn’t. But of course, that was only true in Vattelists countries in the 18th and 19th century, and was never an obstacle to political ambitions.

  56. avatar
    Lupin June 4, 2014 at 4:45 am #

    Keith: Exactly.

    It has been my take on the matter since the very instant that I heard of the 2 parent nonsense. I firmly believe that the motivation behind this BS is the desire to ‘soften up’ the electorate, to place doubt in the public discourse.

    I don’t think anyone, other than the seriously deluded, believe that they were ever going to overthrow the elections. But if they could plant a seed of doubt over 1 citizen parent children, it would be that much easier to wedge the 0 citizen parent, and then it is just a short step to children of undocumented parents cannot be citizens.

    It is obvious (to me) that there is a ‘black-ops’ propaganda war going on here. ‘We’ need to keep trying to shine a light on it.

    Hear hear! I could not agree more!

    I’ve always found it suspicious that Mario (here) has always steadfastly refused to deny that his “crusade” was in part funded by right-wing extremists.

  57. avatar
    Suranis June 4, 2014 at 5:54 am #

    Coming from a country that removed Jus Soli 10 years ago, and replaced it with a “one parent citizen + born in the country” rule, I have to say that advocating for a change in born citizenship rules is no-where near the same as pretending that the rules were different in the first place.

    One is a valid political argument to have and is not necessarily racist as such. In Ireland everyone born in the country before January 1st 2004 is still regarded as a full Irish citizen, for example. In my view, its just a proper reading of the realities of international travel these days. Plus, to argue that the system is not being abused is hopelessly naive. In Ireland, women were literally getting off the boat ready to give birth and be able to claim residency as the mother of an Irish citizen, to the extent that maternity wards were getting crowded with these women. Plus it encourages the worst forms of criminal human trafficing.

    Citizenship is something valuable and needs to be protected. There’s nothing wrong in making that claim. It’s possible that America needs to have that debate on changing its born citizenship laws, considering the international movement away from Jus Soli. But that is not to say that people who have born citizenship should lose it, and its a whole 9 yards away from birtherism.

  58. avatar
    Whatever4 June 4, 2014 at 6:10 am #

    Keith: Makes you wonder who is paying him, doesn’t it?

    He could be doing non-court law, like wills, real estate, etc. Not all lawyers litigate.

  59. avatar
    Lupin June 4, 2014 at 9:56 am #

    I don’t know why Mario can’t simply come out and say: “I’m doing this pro bono” or “My client Mr Kerchner is paying my fee in this matter” or some combination of both.

    There would be nothing incriminating in making such a public admission — IF it were true.

    Quite the contrary: Mario might look good in the eyes of his followers if he admitted doing all his legal work (mostly) pro bono.

    So why has he steadfastly refused to confirm this? The only answer I can think of is because it is NOT true.

    The question then becomes, who is paying him?

  60. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 4, 2014 at 10:18 am #

    brygenon: Mr. Obama, we realize that 400 years of legal scholarship and precedent support you, but, motivated by your particular case, we’ve decided it was all wrong.

    —-
    Nice comment, showing the essential absurdity of the relief Apuzzo seeks.

  61. avatar
    bob June 4, 2014 at 11:38 am #

    Whatever4: He could be doing non-court law, like wills, real estate, etc. Not all lawyers litigate.

    Not all lawyers do appellate work, either. Online directories indicate Apuzzo does (or did) litigate … DUI cases.

  62. avatar
    Northland10 June 4, 2014 at 9:27 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The problem I have with the Minor decision is that Justice Waite’s did not elaborate as to what “authorities” he was referring who had doubts about citizenship status of those children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

    Justice Waite did not need to expand it since the whole exercise was to illustrate that, no matter how citizenship was derived, it did not guarantee a vote. He never defined citizenship. He only used the statement to explain a voting rights decision.

    Mario will continue to refuse to accept that simple truth.

  63. avatar
    Northland10 June 4, 2014 at 9:38 pm #

    bob: For this, Apuzzo engages in another one of his favorite tactics: burden shifting. You have to prove to Apuzzo (to his satisfaction) that Arthur’s contemporaries knew about Arthur’s father’s citizenship. I once pointed out to Apuzzo that Hinman’s book was such proof, and Apuzzo dutifully moved the goalpost and wanted proof that people read and discussed Hinman’s book.

    When I brought it up over at John Woodman’s blog:

    Northland10 says:
    May 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    Mario,
    Did you just state that the court ruled on WKA to protect their voting block of native born children of aliens? What type of evidence do you have for this interesting method of goal post moving?

    While your at it, maybe you could explain why Justice Waite swore in Chester Arthur who had an alien father.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    May 15, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    Northland10,

    To prove your point you need to tell us what you maintain Justice Waite should have done if he know that Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President. Will you be so kind and share that with us.

    This from somebody who wanted to get the courts to remove the current President.

  64. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 4, 2014 at 11:32 pm #

    brygenon: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    “No. 2: Gray cites Inglis as though the decision supports him.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court is authoritative in interpreting previous decisions.

    Thanks for reminding us about Mario’s censorship’s role in his lying campaign.

    The disregard which Birthers have for the Constitution, is seldom more apparent than in their refusal to respect the judiciary’s role in settling disputes about the meaning of the Constitutional provisions, AND (here’s where Birthers do most of their trampling) the judiciary’s role in INTERPRETING PREVIOUS DECISIONS!

    They EXERCISE their assumed “right” to dismiss the opinions of courts settling Birther cases by expressing their own contrary opinion, and then DECLARING, based on that personal opinion, that the President IS an usurper – not that THEY THINK SO – but that he actually is, and then often proceed to conclude that he now needs to be arrested, thrown out of office, hung, and so forth. They then proceed to opine that anybody or everybody who does not privately or officially come to the same conclusion, contrary to the highest level current judicial consensus, is ALSO a criminal or committing treason!

    I am sickened by the lawyers involved in this activity. Everyone understands the encompassing justice-seeking importance of having a client well-represented. But when that goal gets corrupted by being married to the destructive communication-disintegrating excesses of red-meat politics and wing-nut splinter groups, it is the lawyers who, when the subject turns to Constitutionality, are modeling the most reckless society-destabilizing techniques for gleaning a temporary advantage in the debate about some particular, by just plain old lying, or by turning a good faith effort at dialogue, into gibberish, or a tortuously misdirected verbal food fight. That’s okay in traffic court, but not to steer the course of this nation.

    The reason this bothers me so much, is that, there is a very real sense in which ONGOING honest and sincere attempts to use language to communicate in a mutually understood way transcend all other aspects of government, if not civilization itself. A meaningful constitution cannot be created, ratified, or instituted as government otherwise. And because honest and well-intended people will disagree sometimes about the words used to establish and maintain the agreed upon government, some officials must be designated to settle such disagreements. Without respect for that mechanism, only anarchy will be possible.

    So when Birther lawyers (and their other disfunctionaries) engage in misleading the public about Constitutional issues by lying and employing multiple logical fallacies and attaching unrelated social prejudices, they are comprehensively degrading the most essential basis of our collective social and civil union – meaningful and sincere communication. Their profound disregard for ANY Constitution, and consequently, their fellow citizens, is implicit in that reprehensible conduct, and the more intelligent they are, the more damage they will do to The People and OUR nation in the long run.

  65. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 10, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    One of Mario’s sycophants, ajtelles, posted a response to this blog over at Mario’s place. His comments and Mario’s response below…

    ajtelles: Blogger ajtelles said…
    Are the Obama-birthers “immoral”…

    Mario, the Obama-birthers, led by Dr. Conspiracy, aka Kevin, a true-believer in the one-citizen-parent theory of the Obama birth narrative that ONLY ONE U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be POTUS, when not chasing Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Lt. Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups and others, digress into dissing the 1787 original birthers, the original authors, the original Framers of Article II, by misrepresenting 2014 defenders of the original birthers.

    This is from Dr. Conspircy’s erudite June 2 post -

    >> Reply to Mario Apuzzo on immoral birthers
    >> By Dr. Conspiracy on June 2, 2014 in Mario Apuzzo

    >> Mario Apuzzo has raised an objection to my recent article titled, “The moral dimension of birtherism,” in which I say that birtherism is immoral. Apuzzo writes:

    >> http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/06/reply-to-mario-apuzzo-on-immoral-birthers/

    The Obama-birthers, Kevin and et alii are not persuasive and they are not convincing.

    Dr. Conspiracy concludes with this inanity.

    >> So Mr. Apuzzo has a history of character assassination and lying, and like Apuzzo,
    >> so do all others who support the two-citizen-parent theory that I know about.

    2 citizen parents vs. 1 citizen parent

    Mario, obviously the erudite about everything except original intent Dr. Conspiracy is not aware of John Jay and his original intent and original genesis reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” with the ONLY implicit presupposition of birth ONLY on U.S. soil, NEVER foreign soil, and his concomitant implicit presupposition that birth was to be ONLY to TWO U.S. citizen parents who were married to each other BEFORE their children were born.

    Maybe the erudite Dr. Conspiracy or his erudite denizens lurking here can become informed about Jay’s original intent and original genesis reason. This is something I posted here on June 8, 2014 at 4:20 PM, which includes the draft amendment to clarify Article II as affirming ONLY TWO U.S. citizen parents -

    June 10, 2014 at 9:34 AM

    Blogger ajtelles said…
    Are the Obama-birthers “immoral”…

    2/

    >> 1a-U.S. soil ONLY?
    >> 1b-Foreign soil ALSO?

    >> 2a-Two U.S. citizen parents ONLY?
    >> 2b-One U.S. citizen parent ALSO?
    >> 2c-Zero U.S. citizen parents ALSO?

    >> Which of the soil and birth questions would John Jay have affirmed?

    >> The questions that end with ONLY, or the questions that end with ALSO, or, as some Obama-birthers have opined, all?

    >> What was John Jay implying in 1787 America when,
    >> during the 1700s,
    >> the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife
    >> and the citizenship of BOTH of the parents
    >> determined the citizenship of the child?

    >> Until the Cable Act of 1922, husbands and wives did not have different citizenships.
    >> Husbands and wives were either BOTH U.S. citizens or BOTH aliens,
    >> and the children were what their parents were,
    >> either citizens or aliens.

    >> From the 1700s until the 1900s,
    >> specifically the 1922 Cable Act,
    >> BOTH parents determined the citizenship status of the child.
    >> Both parents, either U.S. citizens OR foreign citizens, aliens..

    >> BOTH parents.

    >> THAT is the 21st century common sense conclusion as to why John Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, and which the Convention delegates accepted, including the “Father of the Constitution” and author of the Bill of Rights, Founder, Framer and Ratifier, James Madison.

    >> BOTH parents.

    >> The U.S. soil was obviously implicit in the word “born” because the birth has to take place on the soil that is already there and recognized as the national soil of the U.S., NOT foreign soil, and BOTH parents would be ONLY U.S. citizens.

    >> BOTH parents.

    >> The entire U.S. Congress can NOT produce a “natural born Citizen” of the nation by positive law naturalization acts.

    >> Only TWO parents can produce a “natural born Citizen” of the nation by natural law, uh, acts of congress.

    >> BOTH parents.

    John Jay’s 1700s original intent and his original genesis meaning is irrefutable.

    Jay had ONLY ONE original intent and ONLY ONE original genesis meaning, NOT two. That is the ONLY conclusion possible when connected with the 1700s understanding that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife and the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child.

    BOTH parents.

    The erudite Dr. Conspiracy NEVER deals with the original intent of the original birthers, the originad Framers, the original authors of “natural born Citizen,” as a defense of his Obama birth narrative “theory” without foundation that ONLY ONE U.S. citizen parent was Jay’s original intent in underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen.”

    John Jay’s 1700s original intent and original genesis meaning is irrefutable.

    BOTH parents were U.S citizens OR foreign citizens, aka aliens, and so was the child.
    ONLY a child born of TWO U.S. citizen parents married to each other is a “natural born Citizen.”

    Mario, it seems that your online tutorials about the original intent of the original Framers of the words “natural born Citizen” are still needed, Kevin/Dr. Conspiracy’s “one-citizen-parent” theory is proof. The “one-citizen-parent” theory is “original intent ” and “original genesis” inane.

    Art
    U.S. Constitution
    The Original “Birther” Document of the “Union”

    June 10, 2014 at 9:34 AM

    Blogger Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…
    Art,

    There is no doubt that Dr. Conspiracy and his cohorts (not to be confused with an ancient Roman military unit) are out of their minds for saying that I am immoral and a liar for arguing, as the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, paraphrasing Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (1758) (1797), clearly and authoritatively confirmed in Minor v. Happersett (1875), that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

    They can delude themselves by thinking that they can change that by arguing about the price of bread on Tuesday, but none of that nonsense can change that reality.

    June 10, 2014 at 11:11 AM

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm #

    Remarkable coincidence that I should be accused of not knowing the John Jay letter because just a few minutes ago I was going over some other comments from my other blog from December of 2008, and there I am discussing it. Indeed, there is a LOT of material on natural born citizenship at Blog or Die–the reason this blog was started.

    He writes:

    Mario, obviously the erudite about everything except original intent Dr. Conspiracy is not aware of John Jay and his original intent and original genesis reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” with the ONLY implicit presupposition of birth ONLY on U.S. soil, NEVER foreign soil, and his concomitant implicit presupposition that birth was to be ONLY to TWO U.S. citizen parents who were married to each other BEFORE their children were born.

    I would think that the reasonable would see the unusual underlining of the word “born” (and not underlining “natural born”) was intended to emphasize the word born, meaning a born a citizen, as opposed to an immigrant or naturalized citizen. ajtelles is putting his own words in Jay’s mouth and making claims that he cannot justify.

    In the text you quoted, I think the word “implicit” means “I made it up.”

    Apuzzo continues his immorality by intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

    Slartibartfast: One of Mario’s sycophants, ajtelles, posted a response to this blog over at Mario’s place. His comments and Mario’s response below…

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm #

    Ajtelles isn’t just putting words into Jay’s mouth, he’s inserting soliloquies. I’m kind of fascinated by his ability to load unwarranted assumptions into his analyses—he takes “begging the question” to a whole new level. I guess we’re just naive when we think that Jay underlined the word “born” simply to emphasize that word…

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would think that the reasonable would see the unusual underlining of the word “born” (and not underlining “natural born”) was intended to emphasize the word born, meaning a born a citizen, as opposed to an immigrant or naturalized citizen. ajtelles is putting his own words in Jay’s mouth and making claims that he cannot justify.

  68. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm #

    Mario’s chief weapon is misrepresenting his opponents. That and cherry picking… His two chief weapons are straw men and cherry picking. And the obfuscation of his own positions. His three chief weapons are straw men, cherry picking, obfuscation of his own positions, and begging the question… Among his weapons are straw men, cherry picking, obfuscation of his own positions, begging the question and a fanatical devotion to the Pope…

    Let me start over…

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apuzzo continues his immorality by intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

  69. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Mario’s chief weapon is misrepresenting his opponents.

    I thought his chief weapon was looking like an extra from a made-for-television mob movie.

  70. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Mario’s chief weapon is misrepresenting his opponents.That and cherry picking…His two chief weapons are straw men and cherry picking.And the obfuscation of his own positions.His three chief weapons are straw men, cherry picking, obfuscation of his own positions, and begging the question…Among his weapons are straw men, cherry picking, obfuscation of his own positions, begging the question and a fanatical devotion to the Pope…

    Let me start over…

    How about this…..it’s very clear and much shorter: He’s a liar.

  71. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    That’s just a happy coincidence…

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I thought his chief weapon was looking like an extra from a made-for-television mob movie.

  72. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm #

    What kind of “Monty Obot” are you? :-P

    CarlOrcas: How about this…..it’s very clear and much shorter: He’s a liar.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm #

    These days, material is in short supply, so Apuzzo gets a shout out.

    Frankly, I’m more interested in what Rambo Ike has to say at Birther Report than what Apuzzo says on his blog.

    At least Rambo Ike will dispute me on a forum where he doesn’t control the moderation.

  74. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 5:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy said: “I would think that the reasonable would see the unusual underlining of the word “born” (and not underlining “natural born”) was intended to emphasize the word born… ”

    And Atticus said: “Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of who most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English.”

    I agree with both statements.

    A previous draft by Hamilton had the president required to be “born a citizen”. That was changed to “natural born Citizen” because of Jay’s letter, which emphasized “born” by underlining it. My theory is that Jay’s underlining had a specific meaning, and that the adding of “natural” wasn’t superfluous.

    When Jay was just starting out on his law career, he was bequeathed some law books. It was a small bequest, but it included the complete set of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke. No doubt he became very familiar with their contents over the years.

    Here is why I think Jay underlined “born”.

    From Coke’s report on Calvin’s case:
    “Every Man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a Subject born.”

    One curious thing about English “subjecthood” is that when someone was naturalized to be an English subject, it was considered to be effective from birth. Therefore, every subject of the King was a “subject born” whether they actually were subjects at birth or not.

    Coke continues:
    “Every subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made …”
    I think the previous sentence is why Jay underlined “born”. He was differentiating between those who were born subjects and those who were made subjects.

    Coke continues to define these born subjects …
    “There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King’s dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other.”

    This defintion is confirmed by A New Abridgement of the Law – Joseph Sayer, Owen Ruffhead (1736)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=hho2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA77&dq=aliens+common+law+statute+natural+born+subject&hl=en&sa=X&ei=agRfU87FDM-xyAT0vIDoBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=aliens%20common%20law%20statute%20natural%20born%20subject&f=false
    “All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time their Birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.”
    And also specifies that:
    “If one of the King’s Ambassadors in a foreign Country, hath issue there by his Wife, being an English Woman, by the Common Law they are natural born Subjects.”
    These are specified in the book as Common Law “Natural born Subjects”. All other subjects are statutory or assumed subjects if they do not meet these conditions.

    The phrase “be under the “actual” obedience of the King.” can be explained thusly:
    Coke continues later:
    “2. There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances;
    the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, and is called alta (deep, profound, actual) ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus (subject born).
    The second is called ligeantia acquisita, not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus (subject made).
    The third is, ligeantia localis, wrought by the law; and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.
    The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the torn of the leet.”

    The first is actual ligeance/obedience, due by nature and birth-right.
    The second is acquired ligeance/obedience. Aliens made denizens and aliens who were naturalized fall under this one. (There could be an argument that aliens who were naturalized would fall under ligeantia naturalis since naturalization was considered effective from birth.)
    The third is local ligeance/obedience. This is the ligeance owed when an alien lived in the realm.
    The fourth is ligeance/obedience by oath.

    Therefore, a Common Law “natural born subject” had to have subject parents (ligeantia naturalis), and be born in the King’s dominions. (Or be an ambassador’s child with an English mother.)

    So, I think that the meaning of Jay’s natural *born* citizen, and the understood meaning of it, was that the person was to have had citizen parents, been born in the country, and at the time of his birth the place he was born had to actually be a part of the United States, and not just a part of it later.

  75. avatar
    roxy7655 June 10, 2014 at 5:12 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Mario’s chief weapon is misrepresenting his opponents.That and cherry picking…His two chief weapons are straw men and cherry picking.And the obfuscation of his own positions.His three chief weapons are straw men, cherry picking, obfuscation of his own positions, and begging the question…Among his weapons are straw men, cherry picking, obfuscation of his own positions, begging the question and a fanatical devotion to the Pope…

    Let me start over…

    Nobody expects the Forensic Inquisition!

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2014 at 5:18 pm #

    There are number of issues I would raise with your comment (only briefly excerpted below):

    First, according to Max Ferrand.Hamilton’s draft was not circulated, so one cannot say that the Jay letter influenced a change from that draft.

    The second is the rather amazing (and I went back to read it again to be sure you said it) claim that a natural born subject in England had to have subject citizen parents. That’s patently against every commentator on English law I know of, contrary to the US Supreme Court understanding of the Common Law and at odds with Lord Coke in Calvin’s case. That’s simply not true and never has been true.

    I think your basic problem is that you are trying to look at old texts and draw conclusions from them, when you don’t have the background or qualifications to do so. No fewer than 11 judges since 2008 have ruled against such ideas, and it is rather silly for someone who is not a legal scholar to assert another opinion and expect someone to take them seriously.

    And let me add that Jay himself had children born overseas.

    Wilted Rose: Dr. Conspiracy said: “I would think that the reasonable would see the unusual underlining of the word “born” (and not underlining “natural born”) was intended to emphasize the word born… ”

  77. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm #

    Wilted Rose: So, I think that the meaning of Jay’s natural *born* citizen, and the understood meaning of it, was that the person was to have had citizen parents, been born in the country, and at the time of his birth the place he was born had to actually be a part of the United States, and not just a part of it later.

    That’s a well-reasoned argument, to a completely wrong conclusion.

    It matters not what English common law used to be, or how terms of art were said by someone to have been defined way back then… only what our Founders intended. There are copious examples of them unambiguously stating that place of birth made a NBC. And you don’t need a big ol’ pulpy wandering argument to see it.

    All Court decisions at all levels since Wong Kim Ark have decided that if you are a Citizen the very instant you are born, you’re a NBC. If you were born a citizen of some other Nation, or none, and some subsequent Act is required to make you a citizen,you’re not. You’re Naturalized and cannot be da Prexy.

    That’s the way it works now, and that’s the way it will work forever barring some positive Act or Amendment changing it. That’s why you will see Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz on the stage at the next Republican Convention. None of them meet your “requirement” to serve. So I guess if one of them is elected (G-d forbid), according to you he will be a Usurper, and there won’t be a real President.

    As seemingly reasonable and dispassionate as you try to be in laboring to heave your reasoning up onto a conclusion like yours, nobody’s going to buy it. No one smart anyway, and that includes smart Conservatives.

    Even I can see that, and I’m just a hack; Doc is one of the really informed folks on this stuff.

  78. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 6:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There are number of issues I would raise with your comment (only briefly excerpted below):

    First, according to Max Ferrand.Hamilton’s draft was not circulated, so one cannot say that the Jay letter influenced a change from that draft.

    Even if Hamilton’s draft was not circulated, Jay’s letter did influence the use of “natural born Citizen”.

    The second is the rather amazing (and I went back to read it again to be sure you said it) claim that a natural born subject in England had to have subject citizen parents. That’s patently against every commentator on English law I know of, contrary to the US Supreme Court understanding of the Common Law and at odds with Lord Coke in Calvin’s case. That’s simply not true and never has been true.

    I said that a “Common Law” natural born subject had to have subject parents and be born in the realm. There is a difference between a Common Law natural born subject and a statutory natural born subject. Statutory natural born subjects could be naturalized persons, and that description was sometimes used for those who were denizens.

    The quotes above were from Lord Coke on Calvin’s case, except for the one linked to the 1736 book of English Law.

    I think your basic problem is that you are trying to look at old texts and draw conclusions from them, when you don’t have the background or qualifications to do so. No fewer than 11 judges since 2008 have ruled against such ideas, and it is rather silly for someone who is not a legal scholar to assert another opinion and expect someone to take them seriously.

    Do you have the background or qualifications to know the difference between a Common Law natural born subject and a Statutory natural born subject?

    And let me add that Jay himself had children born overseas.

    Jay’s children born overseas were born when he was acting as ambassador or minister to those countries. By the Common Law, his children were natural born.

  79. avatar
    Reality Check June 10, 2014 at 6:58 pm #

    I noticed you conveniently ignored the part about what 11 judges have ruled. You know, “judges“, the people who judge the law?

    Wilted Rose: Do you have the background or qualifications to know the difference between a Common Law natural born subject and a Statutory natural born subject?

  80. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm #

    St. George Tucker was a hero of the revolutionary war and one of the founders. He was apointed as a federal judge by no less than the guy you are a fan of, John Jay. In In 1803 he wrote, in the founders constitution

    That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s18.html

    A NATIVE born citizen is the safequard against foreign influence.

    John Jay would have had ample opportunity to write against this arpeggios misconstruing of the words of his letter but the man he appointed, considering Jay died in 1829. And indeed he wrote this in opposition to Tucker;

    ” ”

    I guess that meant he didn’t disagree with it at all. Oops.

  81. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 7:43 pm #

    “but” should be “by” above.

    And I have a very long list of court cases and statements stating the native born argument from the revolutionary period. Its nice to go back to the old days of Birtherism for a bit where they were arguing grass grass was really blue, despite Jerome Corsi not even mentioning any “2 citizen parent” reason for Obama not being president in his book “the Obama nation”, published May 2008. That’s because the Birthers didn’t make up the 2 citizen requirement till June 2008

    Not to mention that Barack Obama had no problems selling his book that stated flat out that his Father was Kenyan. Oddly, no birther has ever EVER been able to even mention that fact, let alone explain it, if “everyone” knew that you needed 2 citizen parents to be eligible.

    Ahh, nostalgia.

  82. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 7:55 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Coke continues to define these born subjects …
    “There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King.

    It would appear that you are conflating subjects and obedience. Even your explanation of obedience included:

    The third is, ligeantia localis, wrought by the law; and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance,

    Therefore, aliens who come into the land are under the obedience of the sovereign (in the United States, we have substituted that with “subject to jurisdiction.”). To be natural born did not require parents who were subjects, only those that were in obedience.

    As for your claim on Hamilton and Jay, the lack of any evidence supporting this assumption makes your theory extremely dubious.

  83. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 8:01 pm #

    Suranis,

    Since the Constitution says “natural born citizen”, and St. George Tucker said “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen “, then the two phrases must have had the same definition.

    NATlVE (adj. from the Lat. nativus) Natural, produced by nature, relating to birth, conferred by birth.

    NATURAL (adj. from nature) Produced or effected by nature, bestowed by nature, consonant to nature, tender, affectionate in temper; unaffected, easy; illegitimate, base born.

    The New And Complete Dictionary Of The English Language (1775)

    Looks like it.

  84. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 8:04 pm #

    Ahh Calvin’s Case;

    http://www.constitution.org/coke/Calvins_Case-7_Coke_Report_1a_77_ER_377.html

    3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject,blockquote

  85. avatar
    Reality Check June 10, 2014 at 8:06 pm #

    There are so few Google hits for “statutory natural born subject” that I think I figured out who Wilted Rose is by his use of that phrase. I will not say more.

  86. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 8:10 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I noticed you conveniently ignored the part about what 11 judges have ruled. You know, “judges“, the people who judge the law?

    I am looking for the original meaning of “natural born citizen”.

  87. avatar
    Arthur June 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm #

    Reality Check: There are so few Google hits for “statutory natural born subject” that I think I figured out who Wilted Rose is by his use of that phrase. I will not say more.

    Wilted Rose is just a second-hand bloom whose aroma bears the stench of familiarity.

  88. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 8:15 pm #

    Reality Check:
    There are so few Google hits for “statutory natural born subject” that I think I figured out who Wilted Rose is by his use of that phrase. I will not say more.

    Oh, I remember that discussion. Somebody has yet to learn.

  89. avatar
    Sef June 10, 2014 at 8:22 pm #

    Arthur: Wilted Rose is just a second-hand bloom whose aroma bears the stench of familiarity.

    Probably trying to emulate Morticia Addams who grew roses only for their thorns.

  90. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 8:31 pm #

    Reality Check: “statutory natural born subject”

    I had to google “statutory natural born subject” to see what you were talking about. So now I’m a man?
    Am I Russian or something else?
    This is hilarious.
    Thanks for pointing me to that Russian’s paper. It may be interesting.

  91. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

    Wilted Rose: I had to google “statutory natural born subject” to see what you were talking about. So now I’m a man?
    Am I Russian or something else?
    This is hilarious.
    Thanks for pointing me to that Russian’s paper. It may be interesting.

    Any response regarding “obedience?”

  92. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 8:35 pm #

    Well, these days you birthers quote Pravda and “Russia Today” with approval.

    Wilted Rose: Thanks for pointing me to that Russian’s paper. It may be interesting.

  93. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 8:49 pm #

    Northland10: It would appear that you are conflating subjects and obedience. Even your explanation of obedience included:

    Therefore, aliens who come into the land are under the obedience of the sovereign (in the United States, we have substituted that with “subject to jurisdiction.”).To be natural born did not require parents who were subjects, only those that were in obedience.

    Actual obedience, not local obedience for a common law natural born subject. See the Coke quote above.
    Even aliens were called Subjects when they were living there.
    ” An Alien is a Subject that is born out of the Ligeance of the King, and under the Ligeance of another …” (Coke again)
    Crazy stuff, huh?

    As for your claim on Hamilton and Jay, the lack of any evidence supporting this assumption makes your theory extremely dubious.

    Evidence as to what? The law books he owned? The knowledge he had? The knowledge the other lawyers there had?

  94. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 8:58 pm #

    And Lord Coke said flatly that the issue (or child) of a (for example) frenchman would be a Natural Born Subject if born in England.

    That’s why he ruled that Calvin could inherit land DESPITE NOT HAVING 2 ENGLISH PARENTS. Inheriting land was a right that only natural born subjects had.

    Seriously, you are arguing the opposite of what Coke ruled.

  95. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 9:04 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Actual obedience, not local obedience for a common law natural born subject. See the Coke quote above.
    Even aliens were called Subjects when they were living there.
    ” An Alien is a Subject that is born out of the Ligeance of the King, and under the Ligeance of another …” (Coke again)
    Crazy stuff, huh?

    Where do his types say “actual” in referring to obedience? You quoted:

    “2. There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances;
    the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, and is called alta (deep, profound, actual) ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus (subject born).
    The second is called ligeantia acquisita, not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus (subject made).
    The third is, ligeantia localis, wrought by the law; and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.
    The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the torn of the leet.”

    Nothing in any of the four kinds of ligeances state anything about actual obedience.

    Wilted Rose: Evidence as to what? The law books he owned? The knowledge he had? The knowledge the other lawyers there had?

    Where in the debates is Jay’s letter mentioned? Where does any of those in attendance state that they changed to requiring 2 parents because of Jay’s letter (which does not mention 2 parents)? You are assuming, with no proof, what Jay meant or how others took it. Where did they discuss it? How do you know?

  96. avatar
    Rickey June 10, 2014 at 9:05 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    Since the Constitution says “natural born citizen”, and St. George Tucker said “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen “, then the two phrases must have had the same definition.

    NATlVE (adj. from the Lat. nativus) Natural, produced by nature, relating to birth, conferred by birth.

    NATURAL (adj. from nature) Produced or effected by nature, bestowed by nature, consonant to nature, tender, affectionate in temper; unaffected, easy; illegitimate, base born.

    The New And Complete Dictionary Of The English Language (1775)

    Looks like it.

    If you want to bring up definitions, let’s look at Black’s Law Dictionary:

    A natural-born subject or citizen ; a denizen by birth ; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. See U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 101) U. S. 049, 18 Sup. Ct 450, 42 L. Ed. 890; New llartlord v. Canaan, 54 Conn. 39, 5 Atl. 300.

    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark the government conceded that if Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a U.S. citizen, it meant that he was eligible to be President.

    Your “two-citizen parent requirement” has been raised numerous times and in every case has been rejected by the courts.

  97. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 9:10 pm #

    It certainly shows that a federal judge, appointed by your hero John Jay, and writing less than a quarter of a century after the writing of the constitution, considered the phrase “native born citizen” and “Natural Born citizen” to mean the same thing.

    And received absolutely no objection from anyone else for doing so.

    Wilted Rose:
    Suranis,

    Since the Constitution says “natural born citizen”, and St. George Tucker said “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen “, then the two phrases must have had the same definition.

    NATlVE (adj. from the Lat. nativus) Natural, produced by nature, relating to birth, conferred by birth.

    NATURAL (adj. from nature) Produced or effected by nature, bestowed by nature, consonant to nature, tender, affectionate in temper; unaffected, easy; illegitimate, base born.

    The New And Complete Dictionary Of The English Language (1775)

    Looks like it.

  98. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 9:12 pm #

    And its notable that he did NOT say “born of 2 citizens” either. But then NOBODY did prior to June 2008.

    (I cant edit my posts for some reason)

    [I can. Doc.]

  99. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

    Suranis:
    And Lord Coke said flatly that the issue (or child) of a (for example) frenchman would be a Natural Born Subject if born in England.

    That’s why he ruled that Calvin could inherit land DESPITE NOT HAVING 2 ENGLISH PARENTS. Inheriting land was a right that only natural born subjects had.

    Seriously, you are arguing the opposite of what Coke ruled.

    Naturalized natural born subjects also could inherit land and be inherited from.

    (Substitute “English national” for “natural born subject” in your head.)
    Calvin could inherit land because he was born in the King’s (new) dominions, so he was an English national and could inherit.
    He wasn’t a Common Law “Natural born subject” because his parents weren’t under the “actual” obedience of the King. His parents had acquired ligeance.

    Aliens and denizens could not inherit. If a person was not an alien or a denizen they were called a “natural born subject”, basically an English national. That’s all it means.

  100. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 9:17 pm #

    Suranis:
    It certainly shows that a federal judge, appointed by your hero John Jay, and writing less than a quarter of a century after the writing of the constitution, considered the phrase “native born citizen” and “Natural Born citizen” to mean the same thing.

    And received absolutely no objection from anyone else for doing so.

    That was my point.
    They meant the same thing.

  101. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 9:18 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Naturalized natural born subjects

    Huh?

  102. avatar
    Sef June 10, 2014 at 9:21 pm #

    Rickey: The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts.

    This sounds like a death knell for Ted Cruz’ candidacy.

  103. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2014 at 9:34 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    Suranis,

    Since the Constitution says “natural born citizen”, and St. George Tucker said “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen “, then the two phrases must have had the same definition.

    NATlVE (adj. from the Lat. nativus) Natural, produced by nature, relating to birth, conferred by birth.

    NATURAL (adj. from nature) Produced or effected by nature, bestowed by nature, consonant to nature, tender, affectionate in temper; unaffected, easy; illegitimate, base born.

    The New And Complete Dictionary Of The English Language (1775)

    Looks like it.

    And, of course, none of your definitions contradict the English common law. Tucker’s Blackstone was an edition of Blackstone that used the terms “native” and “aliens” in accordance with English law. No one in England or the United States in such period said natural law was anything other than jus soli. In addition, try:

    “A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    Gee, what does that mean?

  104. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 9:36 pm #

    Wilted Rose: (Substitute “English national” for “natural born subject” in your head.)

    You have some sort of citation for that?

    The good news is, you caused Ballantine to comment. Yeah!!!

  105. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2014 at 9:36 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Naturalized natural born subjects also could inherit land and be inherited from.

    (Substitute “English national” for “natural born subject” in your head.)
    Calvin could inherit land because he was born in the King’s (new) dominions, so he was an English national and could inherit.
    He wasn’t a Common Law “Natural born subject” because his parents weren’t under the “actual” obedience of the King. His parents had acquired ligeance.

    Aliens and denizens could not inherit. If a person was not an alien or a denizen they were called a “natural born subject”, basically an English national. That’s all it means.

    Any child of alien born within the dominions of the crown was a natural born subject. Calvins’s parents were under the actual obedience of the crown though such obedience was temporary, it was sufficient to make their issue a natural born subject. You are either an idiot or a liar. Cite one English authority that says otherwise.

  106. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 9:41 pm #

    So everyone was really meaning the supersekrit meaning of 2 citizen parents without ever writing it down, huh?

    William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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.

    Gosh

    And lets go even further back, to Blackstones Commentaries onthe laws of England 1765

    The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

    I’m sure that bieng told you are full of bull in plane language from works from before and after the drafting of the US constitution wont deter you, but it must be humbling

    Wilted Rose: That was my point.
    They meant the same thing.

    BWAHAHAHAAAA

    Wilted Rose: Naturalized natural born subjects

  107. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2014 at 9:42 pm #

    Northland10: You have some sort of citation for that?

    The good news is, you caused Ballantine to comment.Yeah!!!

    In addition, in England in 1787, natural born subjects born within the dominions of the crown and all natural born subjects given such natural born status by Parliament if born out of the dominions were both eligible to sit in Parliament and hold other offices in England. Naturalized subjects who were naturalized after birth were not eligible to hold any signifcant office. Gee, I can’t understand why almost all modern legal authorities look to whether someone was a citizen or subject at birth which was the law of England at the time.

  108. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 9:44 pm #

    Yeah yeah I know plain vs plane. Damn spellchecker.

  109. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 9:55 pm #

    OK, I screwed up.

    Actual obedience looks like it means born someplace that the king is in actual possession of; and then 2. said the person had to be born in the kings dominions.
    That seems redundant, but that looks like the way it is.

    I now have no clue what a natural born citizen is, except that it isn’t synonymous with natural born subject, because natural born subject included naturalized adults,

    Believe it or not, thank you. I’m trying to get this stuff straight.

  110. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 9:59 pm #

    “My theory is that Jay’s underlining had a specific meaning..”

    I did say it was a theory, not a fact.

    He did underline it for a reason, I just don’t know what that reason was.

  111. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 10, 2014 at 10:04 pm #

    Wilted Rose: I am looking for the original meaning of “natural born citizen”.

    The original meaning outside of American history is irrelevant. And time after time, learned Judges and Justices, who I guarantee you were aware of this issue and every source you have cited, have concluded that NBC is what I and everybody here has said.

    And that doesn’t matter. We don’t need to convince you; the real world spins without us. And every challenge, suit, controversy, proceeding and opinion in America will always conclude that NBC means born a citizen, full stop.

    They know there are only two types of citizen in America. We know it. Ted Cruz knows it. Marco Rubio knows it. Heck, even Justice Scalia knows it. As ideas go, yours is toast. Nonsense. A dead issue going nowhere.

    Sound and fury signifying squat.

  112. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2014 at 10:06 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    OK, I screwed up.

    Actual obedience looks like it means born someplace that the king is in actual possession of; and then 2. said the person had to be born in the kings dominions.
    That seems redundant, but that looks like the way it is.

    I now have no clue what a natural born citizen is, except that it isn’t synonymous with natural born subject, because natural born subject included naturalized adults,

    Believe it or not, thank you. I’m trying to get this stuff straight.

    Well that settles it. Your opinion trumps the founders, the Supreme Court, all modern courts and every mainstream legal authority for the past 200 years. You don’t understand English law and you don’t understand American law so why are you commenting? How many authorities would you like us to cite tyhat you are wrong? Try this from our Supreme Court:

    “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.” US v. Wong Kim Ark
    (1898)

    You see, the Supreme Court says “natural born subject” means the same thing as “natural born citizen.” Pretty much every modern court and mainstream scholar has cited this passage. Are you too stupid to read English or just another birther denying reality?

  113. avatar
    gorefan June 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    I now have no clue what a natural born citizen is, except that it isn’t synonymous with natural born subject, because natural born subject included naturalized adults,

    This site might interest you.

    http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2014/06/reader-contributions-on-natural-born-citizens-part-1-citizens-and-subjectsmichael-ramsey.html

  114. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2014 at 10:11 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    “My theory is that Jay’s underlining had a specific meaning..”

    I did say it was a theory, not a fact.

    He did underline it for a reason, I just don’t know what that reason was.

    Why is the underlining of “born” mean anything other than the English common law definition. Seriously, such is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Jay did not define who was a natural born citizen and did not say what a “strong check” would be. Saying underlying one word supports any particular defintion is just really, really stupid. Seriously stupid. And you do realize that Jay was not at the Convention. Seriously, this stuff would be (and has been) laughed out of court.

  115. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 10:22 pm #

    Yes, naturalized natural born subjects.

    You guys need to know this stuff.

    When England naturalized foreign protestants in the American Colonies, or foreign seamen serving on British vessels, they said that these foreigners:
    “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be his Majesty’s natural born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes as if they and every of them had been, or were born within this kingdom ”
    This was standard verbiage in British naturalization statutes. When they naturalized someone, they were called “natural born subjects”.
    The Statutes at Large from the Magna Charta [to the End of the Eleventh Parliament of Great Britain, (1765)</a>

    William Blackstone, Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
    "WHEN I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. ****The common law indeed stood absolutely so; **** with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. "

    The reason they called them "natural born subjects" is because they considered naturalization to be from birth.
    "Naturalization is an adoption of one to be intitled by birth to what an Englishman may claim; and where naturalization is, it takes effect from the birth of the party, but denization takes effect from the date of the patent." <
    A New and Complete Law-dictionary: Or, General Abridgment of the Law – Timothy Cunningham (1764) (at the bottom right of the page)

  116. avatar
    Northland10 June 10, 2014 at 10:23 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    “My theory is that Jay’s underlining had a specific meaning..”

    I did say it was a theory, not a fact.

    He did underline it for a reason, I just don’t know what that reason was.

    Too often here, people present your theory as absolute fact and yet provide nothing else. Unfortunately, we will likely never know what Jay would have meant by underlining a word. For all we know, George Washington had no idea either, but since there is no mention, anything we would do would be a guess.

    Nobody here would likely dispute that part of Jay’s intent was to to avoid foreign influence and did not want “foreigners” or even naturalized citizens in the office of Commander and Chief. What we disagree with is the assumption that he meant born here with two citizen parents.

  117. avatar
    Arthur June 10, 2014 at 10:24 pm #

    ballantine: Why is the underlining of “born” mean anything other than the English common law definition. Seriously, such is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

    We can perhaps thank Dan Brown and his “Da Vinci Code” books for inspiring people to think they, and they alone, have found arcane meanings and cryptic connections in the ordinary.

  118. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 10:28 pm #

    Thank you, Gorefan.

  119. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 10:29 pm #

    Well, some kudos for admitting that, at least. It takes a lot of willpower to admit one has been mistaken about something

    Wilted Rose: OK, I screwed up.

  120. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 10:31 pm #

    Arthur: We can perhaps thank Dan Brown and his “Da Vinci Code” books for inspiring people to think they, and they alone, have found arcane meanings and cryptic connections in the ordinary.

    It was just a freaking theory for goodness sake.

    Do you always belittle people who are trying to learn something?

    If you always make fun of people instead of debate them and show them where they might be wrong, what’s the point?

  121. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 10:35 pm #

    some further reading

    United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    “The Act of Congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are their rights? The Constitution uses the words “citizen” and ‘”natural-born citizens;” but neither that instrument nor any Act of Congress has attempted to deûne their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. . . .

    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. 2 Kent Com. 1 ; Calven’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 4 Black. Com. 366 ; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 139.

    In case you are wondering where I am getting these, I’m getting them from http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html which has a huge amount of the writings on this subject in American law. But I know what to look for because these questions have come up before.

    Anyway goodnight.

  122. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2014 at 10:36 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    Yes, naturalized natural born subjects.

    You guys need to know this stuff.

    When England naturalized foreign protestants in the American Colonies, or foreign seamen serving on British vessels, they said that these foreigners:
    “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be his Majesty’s natural born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes as if they and every of them had been, or were born within this kingdom ”
    This was standard verbiage in British naturalization statutes. When they naturalized someone, they were called “natural born subjects”.
    The Statutes at Large from the Magna Charta [to the End of the Eleventh Parliament of Great Britain, (1765)</a>


    William Blackstone, Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
    “WHEN I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. ****The common law indeed stood absolutely so; **** with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. ”

    The reason they called them “natural born subjects” is because they considered naturalization to be from birth.
    “Naturalization is an adoption of one to be intitled by birth to what an Englishman may claim; and where naturalization is, it takes effect from the birth of the party, but denization takes effect from the date of the patent.” <a href=”

    A’ rel=”nofollow”>http://books.google.com/books?id=Y580AQAAMAAJ&pg=PT100&lpg=PT100&dq=Naturalizatian+is+an+adoption+of+one+to+be+intitled&source=bl&ots=ibREj11QAI&sig=H0Sez2kO8pwgWc-qa4w2EXD3qvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cqVhU5bSD4KbyAT3rYKoBQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Naturalizatian%20is%20an%20adoption%20of%20one%20to%20be%20intitled&f=false“>A New and Complete Law-dictionary: Or, General Abridgment of the Law – Timothy Cunningham (1764)</a> (at the bottom right of the page)

    They are talking about persons who were not natural born subjects by birth under common law. England had numerous statutes bestowing natural born status on persons who were not born within the dominions of the crown though it was never clear that they were really natural born subjects for all intents and purposes. They were, however, eligible to hold office in England. Coke talked of naturalizing persons by birthright and making them natural born subjects. Naturalization later came to be know as applying only to acts of Parliament making aliens subjects. If you think that children of aliens were not natural born subjects, you are simply an idiot as there is no English authority in 300 years that has ever said otherwise. Our Supreme court:

    “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.”

    You see, the opinion of the Supreme Court counts. The opinion of amateurs on the internet who know nothing about law, not so much. You can stomp your feet all you want but you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

  123. avatar
    Suranis June 10, 2014 at 10:39 pm #

    Becasue we have a long history of fending off birther trolls who always come here with their “I’m only asking questions” act, and always turn out to be just about mocking everyone, editing the text so that it says the opposite of that it means in context, and deliberately misreading the plain meaning of the law becasue Obama can;t be eligible.

    After 6 years of this you tend to have your claws out in reflex. If that’s not you then apologies

    Wilted Rose: If you always make fun of people instead of debate them and show them where they might be wrong, what’s the point?

  124. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 10, 2014 at 10:46 pm #

    Suranis, thank you .

    Ballantine, your charm entrances me.

    Good night.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 10, 2014 at 11:02 pm #

    This wilted rose theory is just as dumb as padawan paulies sacred sperm theory

  126. avatar
    Arthur June 10, 2014 at 11:02 pm #

    Wilted Rose: It was just a freaking theory for goodness sake.

    Do you always belittle people who are trying to learn something?

    If you always make fun of people instead of debate them and show them where they might be wrong, what’s the point?

    First, what you described isn’t a theory. It was, at best, a hypothesis. You say you’re interested in the meaning of words? Try using them precisely.

    Second, you began posting not with the intention of trying to learn something, but with the intention of smugly telling people what you thought was right. The fact is, however, you were wrong. Wrong in a way that birthers have been wrong for over five years. You’re not a victim of belittlement . . . you’re just wrong.

    Third, I never responded to you directly and I wasn’t debating you. I was just making fun of you. That’s the point.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2014 at 11:05 pm #

    That’s hardly an honest statement. You got quite a bit of debate and you were shown exactly where you were wrong. The question is whether you paid attention and learned something from the load of material presented to you, or will just go on to other forums and dump the same nonsense again.

    Wilted Rose: If you always make fun of people instead of debate them and show them where they might be wrong, what’s the point?

  128. avatar
    Ballantine June 10, 2014 at 11:09 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    Suranis, thank you .

    Ballantine, your charm entrances me.

    Good night.

    Well, since you can’t back up anything you say, such snide remarks are all you have. We get one person after another coming here claiming our Supreme Court and all other courts in history are wrong because a birther says so. We are tired of such ignorant claims based upon no evidence at all. I have to say that any claim thAt the English did not follow jus soli really takes the idiot prize.

  129. avatar
    Rickey June 10, 2014 at 11:30 pm #

    Wilted Rose:

    Do you always belittle people who are trying to learn something?

    If you always make fun of people instead of debate them and show them where they might be wrong, what’s the point?

    If you really want to learn something, read the Wong Kim Ark decision and read the government’s briefs in the case.

    The Court of Appeals ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, notwithstanding the fact that neither of his parents was a U.S. citizen.

    Since 1898 it has been settled law that, with a few exceptions, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen.

    Your “two-citizen parent requirement” cannot be found in a single legal text, or a single history text, or a single civics text. It is not taught anywhere because it does not exist and never has existed.

    That being the case, there is nothing to debate.

  130. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 11, 2014 at 12:54 am #

    Wow, we haven’t had a good, old-fashioned birther bashing around here in ages. I’m with Northland10—you know it’s serious when Ballantine shows up! That was really entertaining. Not to mention the fact that I was too lazy to address Wilted Rose and his “naturalized natural born subject” stuff over at Mario’s—and now I don’t have to! Good to see that none of your have lost your edge.

    Seriously, you guys rock!

    Wilted Rose,

    Even though you got your hindquarters handed to you, you’ve still handled yourself better than 95% of the birthers who come through here, so kudos for you as well. I would also mention to everyone else that Wilted Rose clearly and unequivocally said he believed that President Obama was born in Hawai’i over at Mario’s blog. Glad you found people willing to explain to you what was wrong with your theories. Hopefully you’ll come to realize that whatever else you might think about President Obama, he’s eligible to be POTUS.

  131. avatar
    The European June 11, 2014 at 4:07 am #

    The friggin “original intent” theorie makes a lot of people go Dan Brown.

  132. avatar
    Lupin June 11, 2014 at 5:22 am #

    I am grateful to Wilted Rose for not having dragged Vattel into his weird theories. How refreshing!

  133. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 11, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    Lupin:
    I am grateful to Wilted Rose for not having dragged Vattel into his weird theories. How refreshing!

    Good Morning!

    I never understood why Vattel would even be mentioned. I think he is irrelevant to the definition of “natural born citizen”.

    Anyhow, I have more reading to do.
    Bye.

  134. avatar
    Lupin June 11, 2014 at 11:51 am #

    Wilted Rose: I never understood why Vattel would even be mentioned. I think he is irrelevant to the definition of “natural born citizen”.

    My feelings exactly, shared by all on this site.

    And even is he were (which he isn’t) he never made up the “two parents citizens” falsely attributed to him.

    These truths however are very unpopular on birthers sites.

  135. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm #

    Wilted Rose: I never understood why Vattel would even be mentioned. I think he is irrelevant to the definition of “natural born citizen”.

    The only reason is because a translation into English said the words “Natural Born Citizen” and superficially supported their weird theory. Of course, to get it to support their theory, they have to ignore the fact that it was written in French, and doesn’t have the actual words “Natural Born CItizen” in there, and they have to pervert the English (and French) languages in order to do that.

    You’ve got to understand something about Birthers. They start from the Conclusion, and then look for evidence that supports that conclusion. The only reason that Vattel is mentioned is because it seems to support their conclusion. If Obama was born on a Friday, they’d be looking for “authorities” that support the conclusion that Obama is ineligible because you can’t actually be a Natural Born Citizen because Natural Born Citizens aren’t born on Fridays.

  136. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Believe it or not, thank you. I’m trying to get this stuff straight.

    —-
    Although there are many cases and authoritative writings on the subject, the source that is my personal favorite is the book, “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States: for the use of schools”, by Arthur J. Stansbury, published in Boston in 1828. https://archive.org/stream/elementarycatech00stanrich#page/n3/mode/2up

    It’s an interesting Q & A on each of the elements of the Constitution. Eligibility for President is addressed on pages 48-49:

    “Q. May any person be chosen President of the United States?

    A. Not every person; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for fourteen years.”

  137. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 11, 2014 at 3:17 pm #

    Wilted Rose: I never understood why Vattel would even be mentioned. I think he is irrelevant to the definition of “natural born citizen”.

    Well, now that you’ve asserted that you really are open to learning stuff… add to what dunstvangeet said that for instance when Birthers use the Minor v Happersett decision to claim BHO is ineligible, they pick the one and only sentence that supports the two-citizen-parent myth, and ignore the rest of the decision (in fact, the rest of the paragraph) that refutes it.

    You don’t need to be an Obama fan to realize the entire Birther mythos is bunkum.

  138. avatar
    Suranis June 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm #

    The Minor decision spent a lot of time making very sure the reader understood that women really were citizens, and then said that since voting was not an automatic rite of citizenship, then they could not overturn the law. It was up to congress to pass a law enabling it. *parcel passed, gavel clack”

    In the discussion on womens citizenship there are the words

    Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

    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 [n6] 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,” [n7] 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.

    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 [p168] 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    Guess which part the birthers stop at?

  139. avatar
    Paper June 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm #

    I can’t help repeating that President Obama actually *was* born on a Friday. Therefore, obviously, your other suppositions must be correct as well, n’cest pas? It must, after all, be true that you cannot be a natural born citizen when you are born on a Friday.

    dunstvangeet: If Obama was born on a Friday, they’d be looking for “authorities” that support the conclusion that Obama is ineligible because you can’t actually be a Natural Born Citizen because Natural Born Citizens aren’t born on Fridays.

  140. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 11, 2014 at 5:11 pm #

    Lets remove the sentence that says “These were the natives, or natural born citizens. etc.”

    “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. ”

    OK, they said that children of citizens, born in the country are citizens.
    That appears straightforward.

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.”

    And here they say that some authorities include children born in the country irregardless of parentage as citizens.

    “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ”

    Then they say that there are doubts if those children are citizens, but there is no doubt the children of citizen parents are citizens (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.”

    I take it that Minor was born in the country of citizen parents?
    That seems to be the conclusion since they didn’t need to solve the doubts about the citizenship of “children born in the country irregardless of parentage”.

    In the beginning of the opinion in Minor it says she is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, but doesn’t say anything more about it.

  141. avatar
    Jim June 11, 2014 at 5:39 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    Lets remove the sentence that says “These were the natives, or natural born citizens. etc.”

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!! So now you’re off changing SCOTUS opinions because they prove you wrong? What about this part of the Minor opinion?

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    There you go, in plain English. According to the Minor Court, there are only 2 types of citizens, born or naturalized. If you’re born a citizen, you’re eligible…if you’re a naturalized citizen, you aren’t. Easy-peasy and straight forward and directly from the Minor opinion and no editing required. You’re welcome Rose.

  142. avatar
    Suranis June 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm #

    Yes. Since Minor, the plaintiff, was born in the country to citizen parents they only had to deal with that to deal with this case. They left the wider question to some other case. The case came along a few years later and was called Wong Kim Ark. I believe some of the judges in Minor were part of the Majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark.

    So, by the cases own words, the case specifically did not deal with citizenship law in the way that birthers try and claim it does.

    Wilted Rose: I take it that Minor was born in the country of citizen parents?
    That seems to be the conclusion since they didn’t need to solve the doubts about the citizenship of “children born in the country irregardless of parentage”

  143. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 11, 2014 at 6:31 pm #

    Thanks, Suranis.

    They definitely chose not to deal with the question about whether or not children born in the country without regard to the citizenship of their parents were citizens or not. They didn’t need to.

    Wasn’t there another case before Wong Kim Ark that came to essentially the same conclusion? I think it was another of Chinese heritage, but I don’t remember.

  144. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 11, 2014 at 11:12 pm #

    The WKA decision was perhaps the one most germaine to BHO’s eligibility. He had zero citizen parents but was born on US soil; in the dissenting opinions one plainly irritated Justice lamented that as the ruling declared that WKA was born a citizen, that meant he could in theory run for President. Zut alors! Quelle horreur!

  145. avatar
    gorefan June 11, 2014 at 11:12 pm #

    Wilted Rose:
    Lets remove the sentence that says “These were the natives, or natural born citizens. etc.”

    You just proved the sentence is dicta and not a precedent for other courts.

    “So instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion. There are many. One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case and therefore perhaps not as fully considered as it would have been if it were essential to the outcome. A closely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion–it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion, and so it was a redundant part of that opinion and, again, may not have been fully considered. Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case and the judges may therefore have lacked an adequate experiential basis for it; another, that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue, hence was not refined by the fires of adversary presentation. All these are reasons for thinking that a particular passage was not a fully measured judicial pronouncement, that it was not likely to be relied on by readers, and indeed that it may not have been part of the decision that resolved the case or controversy on which the court’s jurisdiction depended (if a federal court).” United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit in United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291

    This may interest you,

    ” I don’t think Minor has direct implications for the original meaning of the eligibility clause (it’s more significant for the Fourteenth Amendment). First, it was decided long after the clause was adopted. Second, it (properly) did not purport to decide the question, and recognized that there were authorities on both sides; it limited itself to the wholly non-controversial proposition that persons born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents were citizens. (Incidentally, the Court’s argument for why this included women is very persuasive and well-argued on historical textualist grounds). Third, it did not point to specific evidence from the founding era in support of either side.” Professor Michael Ramsey

    http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2014/05/natural-born-citizens-and-minor-v-happersettmichael-ramsey.html

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 11, 2014 at 11:14 pm #

    In re: Look Tin Sing is the case. I wrote about it in 2009:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/in-re-look-tin-sing/

    and

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/another-look/

    Wilted Rose: Wasn’t there another case before Wong Kim Ark that came to essentially the same conclusion? I think it was another of Chinese heritage, but I don’t remember.

  147. avatar
    Keith June 12, 2014 at 2:24 am #

    Wilted Rose: And here they say that some authorities include children born in the country irregardless of parentage as citizens.

    “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ”

    Then they say that there are doubts if those children are citizens, but there is no doubt the children of citizen parents are citizens (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.”

    The point of contention in Minor was that Miss Minor claimed she was being denied her Constitutional right to vote by the law that did not allow women to vote.

    She asserted the following syllogism:

    All citizens have the Constitutional right to vote.
    Miss Minor is a citizen.
    Therefore Miss Minor has the Constitution right to vote.

    Notice that there is no reference to Natural Born Citizen, just citizen. The case was not about whether Minor was a natural born citizen, the case was about whether or not she had a Constitutional right to vote.

    In order to for the conclusion of the syllogism to be true, both premises must be true. So the decision of the court examined both premises.

    The court examined whether or not Miss Minor was indeed a citizen. Not because that was the point of the case, but because it was a premise in her argument. The premise could be false if women in general are not citizens, or some circumstance finds that Miss Minor in particular was not a citizen.

    The court found that women are indeed citizens. It also found that there are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Miss Minor was not naturalized, so if she was found to be a citizen it must be because she was born a citizen.

    It turns out that she was born in the US and both her parents were US citizens, so she was a natural born citizen, so there was no controversy about it at all. The premise “Miss Minor is a citizen” was proved true.

    As an aside, the Court went out of its way to remind everyone that the status of the parents may be irrelevant, but there is no doubt that Miss Minor’s birth circumstances made her a citizen, and the Court did not need to look any further into that question; that Minor was a citizen was not in doubt.

    So the court had to then discuss the other premise, does the Constitution give the right to vote to every citizen? It found in the negative – it did not – there was no Constitutional right to vote until the 19th Amendment was passed.

    The Minor case decided one thing that is relevant to the natural born citizen discussion, and one thing only: there are two kinds of citizens, not three and not four; Natural-born and Natural-made (naturalized).

  148. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 12, 2014 at 5:37 am #

    dunstvangeet: Of course, to get it to support their theory, they have to ignore the fact that it was written in French, and doesn’t have the actual words “Natural Born CItizen” in there, and they have to pervert the English (and French) languages in order to do that.

    And they had to elevate Vattel’s importance way beyond its actual extent (up to claiming when the Constitution says “Law of Nations”, it talks of Vattel’s book “The Law of Nations”).

    There’s always been that Dan Brownish* desire among conspiracy believers to uncover some magical hidden truth that would, in Zullo’s immortal words, “shatter the universe”, but applying that idea to the simple desired outcome of “the black guy’s ineligible” is a world first.

    _______
    * Birtherism has all the ingredients – going back to the Founders’ days in history, invalidating another US President (Arthur) on the way and tying the whole thing to the Illuminati/NWO/lizard people and the quest for the secret that will allow anyone to rule the world..

  149. avatar
    ballantine June 12, 2014 at 10:20 am #

    Keith: The point of contention in Minor was that Miss Minor claimed she was being denied her Constitutional right to vote by the law that did not allow women to vote.

    More particular, her primary claim was that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and hence had the right to vote under the Amendment privileges and immunities clause.

    Waite’s answer was:

    (1) Women have always been citizens

    (2) Voting has never been a privilege of citizenship

    (3) the 14th Amendment didn’t grant any new privileges to citizenship

    therefor

    (4) citizenship under the 14th Amendment does not grant the right to vote

    The dicussion of citizenship was not about Virginia Minor. Her citizenship was a stupulated fact concedied in the first filings of the case. The citizenship discussion was in support of the first point above, that women were always citizens. He first said they were in the class of persons there was no doubt were natural born citizens. He then pointed out they were always naturalized citizens, citizens for jurisdictional purposes, for laws of descent and for homestead act purposes.

    Thus, of course, it is dicta, as the discussion of natural born is merely one example of a larger point that women were always citizens. But the larger point is that Waite specifically declined to address the status of children of aliens as such was not necessary for the case. He said there were doubts but failed to address them. He did not say the doubts were about some form of citizenship other than natural born. Thus, no court or scholar is ever going to cite Minor on the status of children of aliens since the court said it would not address such issue. Saying otherwise would get you an F on a law exam and could get one sanctioned in court. The birthers are lucky that their filings are so amateurish and full of gibberish that they are dismissed out of hand and often probably don’t get past the clerks.

  150. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 12, 2014 at 11:17 am #

    ballantine:

    Saying otherwise would get you an F on a law exam and could get one sanctioned in court.The birthers are lucky that their filings are so amateurish and full of gibberish that they are dismissed out of hand and often probably don’t get past the clerks.

    Quite true, which goes a long way toward explaining why Birfers expend so much energy trying their “case” in the court of public opinion, rather than courts of law.

    At this late date, knowing they cannot achieve any of their previous goals, Birfers are trying only to de-legitimize the President, and/or to incite violence against him. Neither goal is honorable; to be a Birfer is, by definition, to be an amoral, reprehensible person.

  151. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm #

    gorefan: You just proved the sentence is dicta and not a precedent for other courts.

    That is why I did it.
    The question wasn’t natural born citizenship, it was just a question of whether Minor was a citizen or not.

    I used to wonder if the fact that she was born before the passage of the amendment mattered, but I don’t think so. She was a citizen, and the 14th applied no matter when she was born.

  152. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 12, 2014 at 1:21 pm #

    Keith:

    So the court had to then discuss the other premise, does the Constitution give the right to vote to every citizen? It found in the negative – it did not – there was no Constitutional right to vote until the 19th Amendment was passed.

    Did the 19th amendment give the constitutional right to vote?

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

    It only said that voting rights could not be denied because of someone’s sex.

    It appears to me that there is no constitutional right to vote created here. This did not stop the states from putting other conditions on voting, as far as I know.

  153. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 12, 2014 at 2:06 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Did the 19th amendment give the constitutional right to vote?

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

    It only said that voting rights could not be denied because of someone’s sex.

    It appears to me that there is no constitutional right to vote created here. This did not stop the states from putting other conditions on voting, as far as I know.

    There is still no Constitutional Right to Vote, and the court has used Minor in those decisions. There are just exclusions on denying the right to vote on the basis of race and gender. If there was a Constitutional Right to Vote, then what the States do in restricting felons who are no longer on patrol from ever voting again would be unconstitutional (just as they cannot restrict their freedom of speech once they are outside of the Justice System).

  154. avatar
    Suranis June 12, 2014 at 7:17 pm #

    Yeah, the Minor courts’ findings that women have always been citizens of the US, and that there was no constitutional right to vote, have been of great importance in the development of American law. Its the basis of denying Felons the right to Vote, for example.

  155. avatar
    Keith June 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm #

    Wilted Rose: The question wasn’t natural born citizenship, it was just a question of whether Minor was a citizen or not.

    No. You have still missed the point. It was not a question of citizenship of any kind. It was a question of voting rights. Virginia Minor held all the qualifications to vote except one: she was not a male. The discussion of citizenship was only to demonstrate that she did indeed possess all the other qualifications and therefore to define clearly the point of contention: did the Constitution permit the States to discriminate against Women by denying them the vote.

    Wilted Rose: Did the 19th amendment give the constitutional right to vote?

    No. I overstated the result, as you point out. The 19th only said that gender was not a criteria that could be used to deny the vote. The finding of the Minor case was that there was no Constitutional right to vote, therefore the States could discriminate against women (or anyone else for that matter) if they so chose. The 19th overturned that holding as it related to gender.

  156. avatar
    JPotter June 12, 2014 at 10:50 pm #

    Wilted Rose: Wasn’t there another case before Wong Kim Ark that came to essentially the same conclusion?

    Yes, Look Tin Sing, but it was not appealed by the State of California to SCOTUS … powers-that-be in CA at the time did not want to risk establishing that children of foreigners were NBCs per the Constitution. Thus the question was not definitively settled …. until State of CA lost again in WKA, and decided to go for all the marbles.

    And lost.

    And justice was done!

  157. avatar
    The Magic M June 13, 2014 at 6:25 am #

    dunstvangeet: There is still no Constitutional Right to Vote

    And right-wingers wonder why your own Supreme Court judges say your Constitution isn’t a good role-model for a country wishing to adopt one…

    (The German Constitution codifies the right to vote in Article 38.)

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2014 at 7:49 am #

    Except for those under 18.

    The Magic M: (The German Constitution codifies the right to vote in Article 38.)

  159. avatar
    Wilted Rose June 13, 2014 at 8:34 am #

    Keith: No. You have still missed the point. It was not a question of citizenship of any kind. It was a question of voting rights. Virginia Minor held all the qualifications to vote except one: she was not a male. The discussion of citizenship was only to demonstrate that she did indeed possess all the other qualifications and therefore to define clearly the point of contention: did the Constitution permit the States to discriminate against Women by denying them the vote.

    I didn’t make myself clear.

    In the small section I was discussing, the issue was citizenship, not natural born citizenship. It was a small but essential part of the overall question of voting rights.

  160. avatar
    ballantine June 13, 2014 at 10:33 am #

    Wilted Rose:

    In the small section I was discussing, the issue was citizenship, not natural born citizenship. It was a small but essential part of the overall question of voting rights.

    I don’t think it was essential. Waite’s point was that suffrage was never a privilege of citizenship. He made this point by spending several pages showing women have always been citizens and had obviously never had the right to vote. He could have made the same point by showing lots of citizens, male and female, had been denied the right to vote in early state suffrage statutes. However, the fact that citizenship never granted one the right to vote doesn’t mean the 14th Amendment didn’t change that which was the claim Minor was arguing. Thus, the crux of the case is Waite’s claim that the 14th amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. This is a highly questionable claim that Waite simply asserts citing no legislative history or other authority which is why some scholars have been critical of the case over the years. The more conventional approach most Justices would have taken is simply citing the legislative history of the 14th and 15th Amendment which clearly show that there was no intention to grant the right to vote under the 14th Amendment which is why there had to be a 15th Amendment.

  161. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 11:31 am #

    There is no explicit text in the original Constitution declaring a right to vote, but the Amendments effectively secure a right to vote.

    To be clear, as ballantine notes, the 14th amendment did not settle things, and thus a 15th amendment was needed. But we actually did get a 15th, and then a 19th, then a 26th. (Also, a 24th.)

    In terms of the Amendments, then, first and foremost see Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, while applying to its terms the subsequent 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments. So that that section of the 14th amendment is now to be read as applying to males and females of any race who are eighteen or older.

    Section 2 (not section 1) then affirms a general right to vote, particularly in conjunction with Warren Court case law.

    Section 2: “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

    In these regards, see Akhil Amar’s review of the right to vote (particularly in his book, America’s Unwritten Constitution). Amar notes that short of Congress imposing the constitutionally prescribed penalty, the Courts have the authority to set aside any disenfranchisement. If no remedy is imposed, the underlying practice can be stopped.

    We also can read (argues Amar) the repeated use of the phrase “right to vote” across generations of amendments as a connected series that adds up to an affirmative reading of an underlying principle, and not just as individual, isolated negative limitations.

    He also argues that we should factor in the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution, guaranteeing a republican form of government to every state. The Warren Court used equal-protection as a basis in its cases, but just as there is a fair debate about that basis as applied to voting, we instead could fairly apply the Guaranty Clause.

    In short, the cornerstone of Section 2 secures, connects the dots and provides the focus for the broader reading of a general right to vote as a principle implicit in other aspects of the Constitution.

    dunstvangeet: There is still no Constitutional Right to Vote, and the court has used Minor in those decisions.There are just exclusions on denying the right to vote on the basis of race and gender.If there was a Constitutional Right to Vote, then what the States do in restricting felons who are no longer on patrol from ever voting again would be unconstitutional (just as they cannot restrict their freedom of speech once they are outside of the Justice System).

    The Magic M: And right-wingers wonder why your own Supreme Court judges say your Constitution isn’t a good role-model for a country wishing to adopt one…

    (The German Constitution codifies the right to vote in Article 38.)

  162. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 11:31 am #

    With regards to felons, I myself would agree that once they have done their time, they should be allowed to vote. Arguably, the practice of states disenfranchising ex-felons *is* unconstitutional, and is a practice waiting its final cut-off as such.

    As I recall, there has been some shift in this practice with ex-felons in recent years in some states. I suppose an argument could be made that restriction of voting rights could be considered a penalty in itself, but I think such an argument would collapse ultimately in the face of the progressive nature of our electoral history, not to mention perhaps the 8th Amendment.

  163. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 13, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    Paper:

    I think such an argument would collapse ultimately in the face of the progressive nature of our electoral history, not to mention perhaps the 8th Amendment.

    Except that, since minorities are disproportionately convicted, and therefore lose the franchise…

    That’s a feature, not a bug, and TPTB like it just the way it is.

  164. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 12:19 pm #

    That’s a “feature,” yes, for those who desire and benefit from such disenfranchisement, and such individuals like things just as they are, but that “feature” is not widespread through the states.

    Here is a chart state by state:

    http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

    The strictest terms only exist in 11 states, and two states even allow voting by absentee ballot from prison.

  165. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 13, 2014 at 12:25 pm #

    My point exactly; note how close the correlation between states that have passed discriminatory “voter ID” laws and those that disenfranchise felons. It’s not a coincidence.

  166. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm #

    Doc,

    Mario asked you an inane question on his blog…

    Mario:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I am directing this comment to you because I know that you are a mathematician and you have supporters who are also in that field. I asked Slartibartfast on this thread:

    Let us assume that you are a math student going for your Ph.D. in Mathematics at Obama World Institute of Mathematics. You are taking a multiple choice exam on set theory. You are instructed that for each question you are to provide only one answer which must be the best answer of the choices provided. Here is one of the questions of the exam:

    -1. Natural born citizens is:

    -a. A subset of citizens.
    -b. A proper subset of citizens.
    -c. A superset of citizens.
    -d. None of the above.

    Please provide your answer.
    =====

    Here is his answer:

    And finally, your math question: If multiple answers are allowed (i.e. the rules are “choose all correct answers), this is a perfectly fine question (and something I would expect in an undergraduate set theory course) and the only correct answer is both “a” and “b”. If not, I would go to the professor and explain that both “a” and “b” were correct. If the professor did not immediately recognize that I was correct (and could prove it), then I would go to the Director of Graduate Studies or the Department Chair to make sure that they understood that the guy (or gal) they had teaching set theory was going senile. Seriously, there has never been a graduate student in mathematics, nor will there be, that doesn’t understand this perfectly. What you are suggesting is like an English literature professor not knowing their ABCs.

    I know that you just assume that everything I say is wrong, but you are making yourself look like a complete fool here. Once again, I can prove that you are demonstrably wrong and everything I’ve said is correct. I strongly suggest you quit talking about subjects where objective truths can be established—your dishonesty sticks out like a sore thumb.

    =====

    Like I said, I know that you are a mathematician. I also know that you have taken many multiple choice exams in your life and that during those exams, you followed the reasonable instructions that were given to you in answering the questions rather than argue with the instructor about them. I am also sure that you experienced many exams in which you were instructed to provide the one (1) “best” answer to the question from the choices provided. So, I will ask you the same question that I asked Slartibartfast (stated above). Please provide your one (1) “best” answer to the question from the four possibilities provided.

  167. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 13, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: since minorities are disproportionately convicted, and therefore lose the franchise…

    That’s a feature, not a bug, and TPTB like it just the way it is.

    —-
    Makes me think about the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude–except as punishment for a crime…

  168. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo, not being a mathematician, doesn’t realize that on math tests, you aren’t asked to provide the “best” answer. Math isn’t about value judgments.

    Since Apuzzo doesn’t define “best,” the respondent has to guess the definition, which just leads to confusion and disputes.

    What I find interesting is that I think that even in this formally straightforward question, Apuzzo is trying to surreptitiously wave around his straw man named “Obots think all citizens are natural born citizens.”

    The way I reason the problem, I will answer:

    -b. A proper subset of citizens.

    I call this answer “best” because the other true statement (-a. A subset of citizens.) can be derived from answer “b,” making it the more useful response.

    Slartibartfast: Mario asked you an inane question on his blog…

  169. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    I agree. I myself might even favor what Vermont and Maine allow, which is voting from prison.

    In terms of the constitutional discussion, however, I might think it is important on a human, political level for even (most) imprisoned felons to be able to vote, but just in terms of the Constitution as it stands currently, I think there is an argument that the strictest deprivations are unconstitutional. We are probably in the middle of that conversation, with the outcome to be determined.

    We might argue that parole or probation are part of the term of imprisonment, and that those circumstances fit within the constitutional framework. We could argue that the predominant practices by most states should bear serious weight in terms of what a republican form of government should provide. But there clearly should be a final point in which dues are paid and when the franchise must be given back to ex-prisoners.

    I have no argument with regards to which states are the most discriminatory, but I am perhaps more hopeful than you about the ultimate resolution of this matter?

    Bonsall Obot:
    My point exactly; note how close the correlation between states that have passed discriminatory “voter ID” laws and those that disenfranchise felons. It’s not a coincidence.

  170. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    Most everyone is more hopeful than me on most matters these days, but I concede that that says more about me than it does about most everyone.

    However, with the Roberts Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and striking down affirmative action guarantees right and left, on top of all the other depredations, I am NOT sanguine.

  171. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 12:59 pm #

    What is meant by “proper”? At first glance, I find that as vague as “best.” Thus, I would stick with option (a), reasoning that “proper” is extraneous. But, I could be “re-educated” on this point.

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    The way I reason the problem, I will answer:

    -b. A proper subset of citizens.

    I call this answer “best” because the other true statement (-a. A subset of citizens.) can be derived from answer “b,” making it the more useful response.

  172. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm #

    Like you, I am not hopeful about the *Roberts* court, true enough. On that, I can only agree. I am hopeful, however, that the retrograde inclinations of the Roberts court will be overcome as we go forward.

    Bonsall Obot:
    Most everyone is more hopeful than me on most matters these days, but I concede that that says more about me than it does about most everyone.

    However, with the Roberts Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and striking down affirmative action guarantees right and left, on top of all the other depredations, I am NOT sanguine.

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2014 at 1:05 pm #

    It’s a technical term in set theory: A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set.

    So for example. Orly Taitz is a citizen who is not a natural born citizen. She is in the set (citizens) but not the subset (natural born citizens).

    Put another way, “A is a proper subset of B” means:

    1) All the elements of A are in B
    2) At least one element of B is not in A.

    Every set is trivially a subset of itself, but not necessarily a proper subset.

    Paper: What is meant by “proper”?

  174. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 13, 2014 at 1:07 pm #

    A proper subset (a mathematical “term of art”, so to speak) is a subset (another “term of art”) which does not include the entire set. In math, all of the words mean something specific and unique. Doc’s response is that of a mathematician replying thoroughly and thoughtfully to an extremely inane question.

    Paper:
    What is meant by “proper”? At first glance, I find that as vague as “best.” Thus, I would stick with option (a), reasoning that “proper” is extraneous.But, I could be “re-educated” on this point.

  175. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 1:11 pm #

    Got it. Right. Thanks.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s a technical term in set theory: A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set.

  176. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    Right. I hadn’t read the word “proper” as a mathematical term. See how easy Obot re-education is? No camps necessary, just simple reminders.

    Slartibartfast:
    A proper subset (a mathematical “term of art”, so to speak)

  177. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm #

    It’s certainly a nice change from Mario’s perfidy…

    FYI—when you’re reading in “math”, every word is important and conveys a unique meaning. There are no extraneous or ambiguous terms (or you are making the equivalent of a grammatical error).

    Paper:
    Right.I hadn’t read the word “proper” as a mathematical term.See how easy Obot re-education is?No camps necessary, just simple reminders.

  178. avatar
    Paper June 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm #

    I understand. Not a mathematician, but I used to be good at it. Also, I have a diverse career, including programming, in which of course every *character* is important. I just hadn’t quite gotten my mind around the (inane, as you call it) point of the question. I should have realized it was an attempt to manipulate a fine *mathematical* distinction. I got stuck on the notion of “proper” as legitimate, correct, right and good (the typical birther connotation).

    Slartibartfast:

    FYI—when you’re reading in “math”, every word is important and conveys a unique meaning.There are no extraneous or ambiguous terms (or you are making the equivalent of a grammatical error).

333333 44444
5555555
6666666