Mario: Time to Putz up or shut up

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Failed Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo has a blog with the amusing name Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers. Apuzzo began his blog back in December 2008 just prior to the time the time he filed a lawsuit on behalf of another Birther Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs against then President Elect Obama, Congress, Vice President Cheney and others. I recently posted what I thought to be great advice for Mr. Apuzzo who is apparently considered by Birthers to be one of the two or three best researchers in the movement. I suggested in a comment to  his long scathing post against the decision by Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi that Apuzzo should contact Charles Tisdale in Virginia and offer to represent him on an appeal for Tisdale v Obama. et. al.  to the 4th Circuit. This case was filed in US District Court in Richmond, VA last month. Judge Gibney dismissed the case quickly for failure to sate a claim but he also took time to say that the premise of the case was silly and that by Wong Kim Ark and other cases president Obama was a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of his father. So here is the perfect case for Apuzzo to leave his fortified shelter of the blogosphere and give the 4th Circuit the “right answers”.  Apuzzo had apparently never heard of the Tisdale v Obama case. I had to give him the link (twice). He has read Judge Gibney’s decision and of course he disagrees with it.

It has been interesting to watch the evolution of Mario’s reliance on his incorrect interpretation of Minor v Happersett, which he now touts as the defining case for the definition of a natural born citizen. You would think this important case would have been referenced in his one and only eligibility case. However I checked the Original Complaint in Kerchner v Obama filed on Inauguration Day in 2009, the Amended Complaint, filed on the following day, and the Second Amended Complaint, filed on February 20,2009. The Minor case is never cited nor even mentioned in any of the complaints. Even on his blog he only mentions Minor v Happersett in passing an an article on January 8, 2009 and then not again until June 2009. My theory is that like all the other Birther attorneys the “Two Citizen Parent” de Vattel nonsense was invented out of thin air in late 2008 (primarily by Leo Donofrio) when it was becoming more apparent every day that then candidate Obama was born in Hawaii and every piece of evidence supported that conclusion. The Birthers had to have a fall back position and a little Google work gave it to them. After the release of the LFBC the attachment to the nonsense theory became necessary and they began openly lying about Minor v Happersett out of complete desperation.

Apuzzo’s lack of understanding of the important cases on citizenship is nowhere better illustrated than during this appearance on Momma E’s Radio Rebels program on BlogTalk Radio in early 2009:

https://sites.google.com/site/landoftheobots/files/MommaE_Apuzzo_Wong_Kim_Ark.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

Momma E had a better understanding of Wong Kim Ark than either Apuzzo or Kerchner!

I could write a long rebuttal of Mr. Apuzzo’s flawed reasoning on what the Minor v Happersett and the Wong Kim Ark cases have to say about the meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in Article II of the Constitution and elsewhere but why do that when John Woodman has already done that in a very well written article on his blog titled Why the Birthers Lost. (See the comments for the good stuff.)

I don’t think Mario will take my advice on the Tisdale case. First it would be money out of his pocket or out of his benefactor Charlie Kerchner’s pocket. Kerchner would rather spend his money on full page ads in the Moonie Times with silly Venn Diagrams. Second, I don’t think Mario is up to enduring another humiliating loss in the courts. He barely escaped sanctions in the 3rd Circuit when he appealed the lower court dismissal of Kerchner v Obama and the court was not amused when he failed to cite another case that was directly on point, Berg v Obama that had been before the same court just a few months before. Some of Mario’s best legal work was his groveling before the 3rd circuit in his reply to the Order to Show Cause (OSC) in that case.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Birther Cases, Birther Radio, Birthers, Mario Apuzzo, Natural Born Citizenship. Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to Mario: Time to Putz up or shut up

  1. Reality Check,

    [RC: I am going to reply inline for clarity and convenience]
    I see that you have run away from my blog and retreated here to write an article about me. You have not won one argument in my latest thread on Judge Malihi’s decision, being shot down with every one of your comments, so you figure you better come here and reinvent history and spread lies about my legal work. What a coward!
    [RC: I did not say I would no longer comment at your blog. I linked to your blog post in the first paragraph here. I knew you would see the link back to this article and I am sure that is how you found it. I thought the Tisdale case was newsworthy and deserved a post on my blog. You are still ignoring my question as to whether you will offer to handle the appeal. I do not concede that you have “shot down” anything on your blog. Since I made the comments we can add Secretary of State Brian Kemp to the list of people in authority that agree with Judge Malihi and not you.]

    In this sophomoric article, 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. For your information, I first wrote on Minor v. Happersett on January 2, 2009, arguing that Obama was not a “natural born Citizen” and therefore ineligible for President because of how Minor defined a “natural-born citizen.” Robert Stevens posted my article at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. I also have discussed the Minor case in great length all over my blog.
    [RC: In other words my assertions were correct. You never cited Minor v Happersett in your 87 page complaint and you never mentioned it in any blog post before January 2009. This was a petition for emergency relief. Any case you planned to make should have been in the complaint. You said that ” A complaint is not the place an attorney cites legal cases.” Really? I looked at your second amended complaint and stopped counting at 17 separate case citations. Minor v Happersett was not among them.]

    Also, for you information the “natural born citizen” argument was first cited and discussed in recent times by P.A. Madison, before anyone else. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/ On November 8, 2008, he wrote an article in which he argued that under natural law and the law of nations, which the Founders and Framers embraced, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born to a citizen father anywhere in the world.
    [RC: I said the theory appeared in late 2008. Where are the pre 2008 Supreme Court cases, law articles, or court cases that support the theory that Minor v Happersett defined natural born citizen and that two citizen parents are required? Ballantine collected literally hundreds of references to the fact that native born citizens have always been considered to be eligible to run for president. http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html ]

    My position differs in that I maintain that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” I first wrote on December 20, 2008: “I maintain that as it applies to being President and Commander in Chief of the United States, “natural born Citizen” means that you have to be born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who are both U.S. citizens when you are born. If one of the child’s parents is not a U.S. citizen when he or she is born, that child is not a ‘natural born Citizen.’” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html.

    You write about the 4th Circuit Tisdale case and how you confronted me with it. But you dishonestly fail to post my response to you provided on this thread which shows why I disagree with the court’s conclusions.
    [RC: I linked back to your blog. Anyone is capable of following it back there. I am posting this response and will not moderate future comments that you make here. You moderate every comment at your blog and it sometimes takes up to a day for my comments appear. That makes real discussion difficult or impossible. I notice that you left up a comment by Charles Kerchner where he thinks he has “outed” me and personally attacks me. He links to the Tracy Fair video that attacks several members of the Fogbow by revealing personal information and places of employment. Very classy.]

    You say that MommaE had a better understanding of Wong Kim Ark than I did as early as 2009. I discussed the Wong Kim Ark case in my December 20, 2008 article cited above. I said, among other things: “But this holding, which only tells us what a “Citizen” is, has nothing to do with what a “natural born Citizen” is as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution.” I think that says it all.
    [RC: Listen to the audio. You seemed to have barely even heard of the case.]
    You keep mentioning about how the 3rd Circuit wanted to make me pay for damages allegedly suffered by Obama in having to defend himself. First, the Court quickly retreated from its position when I argued that I had a right to discover whether Obama had a long-form birth certificate which he could have simply shown the public from day one and thereby avoided having to spend millions defending himself. Second, millions of Americans support my arguments concerning Obama. I do not think they agree with you about me having to pay for Obama’s defense.
    [RC: Anyone may read the OSC and judge for themselves what the court said. You were chastised for not citing a case that was directly on point. You repeated the “Obama has spent millions defending himself” lie again. You know that is a lie and you cannot back it up. All you know is what the total was for legal expenses for the Obama 2008 campaign from FEC filings. There is no breakdown to show this went towards “Birther cases”. If you follow the “Birther Scorecard” link here you will see how few cases where Obama had to put on any defense at all. Even in those cases some pro bono work was done. The fact that Birthers keep repeating this debunked lie is indicative of their lack of factual information.]

    You praise John Woodman. But I showed here in this thread how his arguments are flawed.
    [RC: No you did not.]

    Why do you not come back to my blog and post some more of your arrogant nonsense and see how far you get.
    [RC: I might but why should I? Until a single jurist rules that your argument has merit I do not see there is anything to debate. The existing body of law and at least three recent ruling in three separate jurisdictions have found no merit in your theory. I have pointed you to a case that may provide the opportunity for your theory to be heard yet again. Let’s see if you are up to the challenge.]

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  2. js03 says:

    you should check out leo donofrios slice and dice of WKA…

    makes you consider how far back the corruption of our laws go

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    • I would love to see Leo try to argue that point in a real case. “Your honors, you should ignore US v Wong Kim Ark because the Chief Justice was in cahoots with Chester Arthur.” They would probably ask him how Arthur who had died 12 years earlier pulled that off and who got to the other 5 justices who sided with the majority. Yep, I would love to see Leo argue that. Maybe Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo can team up on Tisdale v Obama?

  3. Trevor says:

    Mario, Mario, Mario

    Still didn’t learn from the lessons you had your nose rubbed in during the Lakin courtmartial over at CAAFLOG I see.

    I seem to remember a singular and rather pathetic failure on your part to answer a simple question…in case you have forgotten

    Mario,

    Could you name any justice in the last 100 years OR an Constitutional scholar of same who agrees with your firm belief in Vattel and his 2 citizen parents rule and of his core role in defining the Constitution?

    Oh and whilst we are at it, care to show us ANY contemporary cites, opinions, decisions, blog posts etc that mention this in relation to the President from prior to Leo making up the whole nonsense from whole cloth over at Free Republic in November of 2008

    • It’s not like he didn’t have the opportunity to answer, Trevor. That was the thread that had 3000+ comments and I counted over 1300 were by Mario.

    • MichaelN says:

      There’s no need to “name any justice in the last 100 years blah blah bla”, the meaning of “natural born Citizen in the context of the USC Article II is right there before your eyes.

      I will help you see, since you have political bias blocking your view.

      “Natural born citizen” was used in the First Naturalization Act of 1790, very shortly after the US Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789.

      In the act of 1790, “natural born” was the term used to describe a child born OUT of the limits of the US, to US citizen parents.

      Said child was NOT native born.

      “Natural born” was therefore used to describe natural descent and had NOTHING to do with native birth.

      Some of the sitting members of the US Congress and US Senate who drafted and enacted the first naturalization Act of 1790 were the very same people who took part in the establishment of the US Constitution, where in Article II the term “natural born Citizen” was used as a term to describe the required qualities of a citizen, for such a citizen to be eligible for the highest executive office of the unprecedented new found constitutional republic.

      In the period surrounding the framing of the US Constitution, and particularly ensuring protection and security for the executives in the new government, there was an imperative, an obligation and a duty to ensure that foreign influence, loyalty, allegiance and claim would not effect the representatives in the new government of the US.

      In meeting with this imperative, the framers of the US Constitution naturally sought to ensure that only those citizens of the highest possible and most absolute loyalty, allegiance, dedication and connect to the new republic of the US were to be eligible for the office of POTUS and commander in chief of the armed forces.

      It is naturally obvious that both parental connect, combined with native connect to the nation would be the most preferred qualities for one to have the best potential to guard from any foreign influence, loyalty, allegiance and claim.

      There is no reasonable doubt that the term “natural born Citizen” adopted by the framers in Article II of the US Constitution meant by natural descent AND by native birth.

      In light of the term “natural born citizen” in the first naturalization Act of 1790, being used to describe one born NON-NATIVE and solely referring to DESCENT, it is therefore impossible for the term to mean or refer to native solely with the exclusion of descent from parents.

      The exclusion of the wording “natural born” in the superseding Naturalization Act of 1795, left the child born off-shore to US citizen parents described as a “citizen”, but the principle of DESCENT was maintained.

      Why would the US Congress and the Senate, (made up of some members who were involved with the establishment of the US Constitution) make such a change between the two acts in terminology, but not in principle?

      The only possible explanation can be is that the US Congress and the US Senate realized that “natural born” being by descent, was one’s state of being and a “natural born” could not be made by any statute. Also, the use of the term lowered the high standard already set in the Article II eligibility criteria for POTUS because it excluded native birth.

      So rightly, “natural born” was dropped from the naturalization acts, to reserve it’s meaning to be all inclusive of BOTH natural descent AND native birth.

      It is IMPOSSIBLE for “natural born”, in the context of Article II of the US Constitution, to mean solely native born without regard to natural descent.

      • MichaelN says:

        And THAT is why your ENTIRE argument that native birth is all that is required to achieve Article II “natural born” status is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

        Kachang!……………………. have you woken-up now!

      • MichaelN says:

        And THAT is also why your messiah FAILS to front-up and face the music of the challenges to his eligibility on the merits.
        He knows he is not eligible and would lose in court.
        He is riding on the backs of the useful idiots, such as you people here………….. you’ve been owned by a fraud.

      • John Woodman says:

        There’s no need to “name any justice in the last 100 years blah blah bla”, the meaning of “natural born Citizen in the context of the USC Article II is right there before your eyes.

        If it were so obvious, and so true, you might expect that some court, somewhere, would rule in favor of your “definition.” You might expect that some respected Constitutional scholar would list two citizen parents plus birth on US soil as the definition of “natural born citizen.” And yet, while there was definitely some debate and difference of opinion prior to Wong Kim Ark, the question seems to have been settled by that case.

        If there were “no reasonable doubt” that your definition were correct, then there would be no reasonable people, and no distinguished scholars, expressing any doubt. And we CERTAINLY would be extremely unlikely to have the situation we have now, which is that virtually nobody who even claims to be knowledgable about the issue supports your claim.

        Your “logic” is that since the first Congress specified that children born overseas of US citizens were to be considered as “natural born citizens,” it is therefore “impossible” for the term to mean that children born on US soil of resident alien parents are also natural born citizens. The claim is false. In the same way that it is possible for an entering college student to be automatically admitted to university on the basis of either a qualifying test score or a qualifying grade point average, it is logically quite possible for a person to be a natural born citizen either on the basis of jus soli or jus sanguinis.

        • MichaelN says:

          MichaelN said…..
          “There’s no need to “name any justice in the last 100 years blah blah blah”, the meaning of “natural born Citizen in the context of the USC Article II is right there before your eyes.”

          John Woodman replied on
          February 11, 2012 at 10:14 pm
          “If it were so obvious, and so true, you might expect that some court, somewhere, would rule in favor of your “definition.”
          ——————————————————————
          Response:
          No court has had this matter before them and weighed-in on the merits to make any ruling, and also your messiah is too afraid to go there.

          I have already proven that to the Framers, the Congress and the Senate of the day (around the framing period approx. 1785 – 1790), the term “natural born citizen” meant by natural descent without any reference to native birth.

          So your whole argument, besides being absurd, is just plain WRONG!

          In light of the definition of “natural born citizen” provided by the Congress and the Senate in the 1790 act, some of the members of which were also participant’s in the construction of the USC, and only three years after the USC, it is impossible for “natural born” to mean native born without any regard to the status of the parents.

          This is not dishonest, not a lie, not foolish, not a misinterpretation………… it is clear and simple FACT.

          YOU have a problem accepting the truth………….. YOU are in denial.

        • John Woodman says:

          I have already proven that to the Framers, the Congress and the Senate of the day (around the framing period approx. 1785 – 1790), the term “natural born citizen” meant by natural descent without any reference to native birth.

          I don’t see that you’ve come even remotely close to “proving” any such thing. What is your argument supposed to be? That they passed a law that the children born overseas to American parents were to be considered as natural born citizens? Such a law says absolutely nothing about those born in America.

        • John Woodman said:

          I don’t see that you’ve come even remotely close to “proving” any such thing. What is your argument supposed to be? That they passed a law that the children born overseas to American parents were to be considered as natural born citizens? Such a law says absolutely nothing about those born in America.

          John, this is another example of Birther “logic”. If they can find a place where Congress or a court ruled that IF both your parents are citizens you are a natural born citizen then that translates to IF AND ONLY IF … They have used the same bit of flawed logic on the Senate resolution re John McCain for two years. This reasoning is so stupid and it has been debunked so many times that after a while you just have to say they are being dishonest rather than confused.

        • MichaelN says:

          MichaelN said…..
          ” I have already proven that to the Framers, the Congress and the Senate of the day (around the framing period approx. 1785 – 1790), the term “natural born citizen” meant by natural descent without any reference to native birth.”

          John Woodman replied ………….
          “I don’t see that you’ve come even remotely close to “proving” any such thing. What is your argument supposed to be? That they passed a law that the children born overseas to American parents were to be considered as natural born citizens?

          Reply:
          You don’t want to see.
          It has been proven that in 1790 the US Congress and the US Senate, in which some members were a party to the construction and adoption of the US Constitution only three years prior, stated that “natural born” was by descent.
          They did not say that the child born off shore to US citizen parents were considered as native born.
          Ergo: “natural born” means by natural descent.

          John Woodman
          “Such a law says absolutely nothing about those born in America.”

          Reply:
          I know………………………………………………..So what?

          The SCOTUS took care of that in Minor v Happersett.

          Even the US Government’s US Citizenship and Immigration Service recognize the truth whilst you still desperately squirm in denial.

          “The words ‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922’, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN or NATURAL-BORN(WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

          http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html

          It’s all about DESCENT Johnny, snap out of it, give up the denial that consumes you…………… the truth will set you free.

        • John Woodman says:

          It has been proven that in 1790 the US Congress and the US Senate, in which some members were a party to the construction and adoption of the US Constitution only three years prior, stated that “natural born” was by descent.

          They made no such statement.

          You have stated that in 1790 the “US Congress and the US Senate” [sic] stated that “‘natural born’ was by descent.”

          If they made any such official statement, produce the quote that confirms it. You can’t, because no such statement was ever made.

          They did not say that the child born off shore to US citizen parents were considered as native born. Ergo: “natural born” means by natural descent.

          I see that you have a problem with basic logic.

          They did not state that the child born off shore to US citizen parents was “native born” because “native born” necessarily implies birth in a particular location — within the territory of the United States.

          An ACCURATE understanding of their passing that act would be: “By descent is A WAY in which one qualifies for ‘natural born citizen’ status.”

          There was NO statement WHATSOEVER that descent was THE ONLY WAY in which one might qualify for “natural born citizen” status.

          As I stated earlier:

          The claim is false. In the same way that it is possible for an entering college student to be automatically admitted to university on the basis of either a qualifying test score or a qualifying grade point average, it is logically quite possible for a person to be a natural born citizen either on the basis of jus soli or jus sanguinis.

          You also said, in response to my note that the 1790 law said absolutely nothing about those born in America:

          The SCOTUS took care of that in Minor v Happersett.

          I’ve already demonstrated (more than once) that Minor v. Happersett ALSO said nothing about the child born on US soil of non-citizen parents. I and others have also demonstrated that even if they had, such a statement would have been DICTA, since it clearly was not required to reach a conclusion in the case. As dicta, it is certainly — with as far as I see, absolute, 100% certainty — NOT the “binding precedent” that Donofrio claims.

          But here: Try the test that I suggested to Mario Apuzzo.

          Take the passage in Minor which Donofrio and Apuzzo claims establishes a precedent or a “definition.” Put it on a separate piece of paper. Go to the most prestigious local university you can find, and find 50 random students from among their honors English classes. Make sure they are all politically disinterested, have no particular political agenda, and have not been indoctrinated in the issue one way or another. Have all 50 read the passage and write an essay on what it says.

          You will not find ONE student out of the 50 who says that the purpose of this passage was to establish as fact and precedent that the child born of non-citizen parents on US soil is NOT a natural-born citizen. Not one.

          And why? For a very simple reason. Because that’s not what it says. And that FACT is obvious to anybody who reads the plain English without an agenda to try and force it to say what it does not say.

          Even the US Government’s US Citizenship and Immigration Service recognize the truth whilst you still desperately squirm in denial.

          As already noted: The passage you provided shows only that SOME distinction exists between “native born” and “natural born.” Per US case law (including Wong Kim Ark), “native born” can NOT mean something LESS than “natural born,” ONLY something MORE. That something more is that the native-born person is born on US soil. The natural born person may OR MAY NOT be.

          And of course, you, Apuzzo and Donofrio have no answer whatsoever for the fact that the Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark found the allegiance of Wong Kim Ark’s parents TO THE UNITED STATES “strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject.” In so writing, they found as an “IRRESISTIBLE” “CONCLUSION” that Wong Kim Ark was “NATURAL BORN.”

          And THAT is NOT dicta. THAT is RATIO DECIDENDI. And as ratio decidendi, THAT serves as a BINDING PRECEDENT: The child born on US soil, of non-citizen parents, is NATURAL BORN, is a CITIZEN, and is therefore a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

          Game over. Thank you for playing, sir.

      • MichaelN says:

        John Woodman said ……
        “Your “logic” is that since the first Congress specified that children born overseas of US citizens were to be considered as “natural born citizens,” it is therefore “impossible” for the term to mean that children born on US soil of resident alien parents are also natural born citizens. The claim is false.”

        Response:

        You wish it was false, you are deep in denial.

        The fact remains that the term “natural born” as used in Article II did not and does not mean or relate solely to native birth.

        According to the founding fathers, the framers, the US Congress and the US Senate in the framing period and surrounding times, the term “natural born” was primarily related to natural descent, with native birth picking up the slack to complete the allegiance and loyalty package.

        The “logic” would lead you to realize that without citizen parents, one cannot be “natural born”.

        It was the same in 17th century English common law, when Lord Coke stated that a child born in England could not be a subject if his father was not a subject.

        It’s all there for you in black and white, you need to put aside your political bias and see the truth staring you in the face.

        The framers were not so stupid or slack to lower the high standard required for the office of POTUS………… that’s why your entire politically biased argument is absurd and is an epic failure.

        • Atticus Finch says:

          In England at the time of Calvin’s Case (1608) a “subject” of the king included aliens or as Justice Coke observed “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.”

          Justice Coke cited a previous case in which an Frenchman, an alien,
          being amity with the English King was indicted for treason along with the
          English subjects because he owed the English King local obedience and was within the Engish King’s protection and that this local obedience
          was “strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject”

          In other words, an alien in England who is in amity with the King and under his protection is considered a subject of the king and his children born in England would be considered natural born subjects.

          .

        • MichaelN says:

          Yes that is correct Atticus.
          To apply that common law principle to the US republic, it would require an alien visiting US in amity to first become a citizen, for his child if born in US, to be a ‘natural born Citizen’, other wise if the parent father

        • MichaelN says:

          Ooops . continuing ……….
          fails to become a citizen of US, then his child can not be a citizen at all.

        • John Woodman says:

          To apply that common law principle to the US republic, it would require an alien visiting US in amity to first become a citizen, for his child if born in US, to be a ‘natural born Citizen’, other wise if the parent father fails to become a citizen of US, then his child can not be a citizen at all.

          Sorry, Michael, but even granting that an alien in amity was (in a limited context, such as whether or not he could be charged with treason) described as a “subject” (noun), the argument you present still fails.

          First of all, it is clear that such temporary “subjects” had none of the characteristics or rights of either natural born or naturalized subjects. Heck, they didn’t even have the rights of denizens. You see, if they had possessed the rights and status of denizens, there would have been no need for the entire categorization of such persons as denizens. And there would have been no need for the charters that granted the rights of denizens.

          It is therefore clear that when they are referred to as “subjects,” it means nothing in terms of their legal rights and privileges. It means nothing in terms of their membership in the nation. Once they set foot off of English soil, their status was precisely that of any other foreigner who had never set foot on English soil in the first place.

          So obviously, the description of such people as “subjects” means little more than that they were temporarily “subject” to the King during the time of their stay.

          That being the case, the equivalent of such a person today is manifestly NOT a citizen. A citizen is a permanent member of a society. Such a person today doesn’t necessarily even amount to being a resident alien with a green card.

          So the argument fails — completely.

          There’s a second reason why your argument fails.

          To apply that common law principle to the US republic, it would require an alien visiting US in amity to first become a citizen, for his child if born in US, to be a ‘natural born Citizen’, other wise if the parent father fails to become a citizen of US, then his child can not be a citizen at all.

          No court has ever held that an alien must first become a citizen for his US born child to become a natural born citizen. Courts have held that the children of aliens, born on US soil, are natural born citizens. This includes most notably the Court in Wong Kim Ark, which first found that Wong Kim Ark was “natural born,” and then found that he was a citizen.

          The verdict is in: Fail.

  4. Trevor says:

    Welllll, I was trying not to directly call him a pathetic, pandering, intellectually vapid LSOS, but hey, Mario, if the douche cap fits….. 😎

    He had a distinct madz over my little skit of “Mario meets the Supremes” at CAAFLOG……

  5. mimi says:

    Putz up, or shut up, Mario!

    My comments never made light of day at the Putz’s blog. And Charlie Kerchner is the only person I have ever seen who disabled comments on his scribd account. Scribd!

    What a couple of cowards they are.

  6. MichaelN says:

    They are not cowards, this is proven by Kershner & Apuzzo taking the lying usurper to the SCOTUS, it was your messiah who is the coward, evidenced by his fearing to let the case run on it’s merits and again in his no show in GA.

    Why would Mario allow you and your ilk to run riot over his blog?

    It would be like turning a bunch of monkeys on crack loose in a jewellery display

    • Fred Muggs says:

      Mario was “this” close to monetary sanctions from the 3rd Circuit for his stupid Kerchner case . The frivolous label on his case stands. Mario is too much of a chicken to go through that ridicule again. He will remain firmly entrenched behind the cocoon of his heavily moderated blog where morons like Mick can kiss his ass.

      • MichaelN says:

        Ok let’s play your silly nasty little-minded game.

        Obama was “this” close to being publicly exposed for the fraud that he is in the ballot challenge in GA. The cowardly and devious tactics on the part of “Mr Transparency” stand as a testimony of his true nature as a criminal and traitor to the US. Obama is too much of a chicken and so guilty of fraud to go through a court hearing. He will remain firmly entrenched behind the cocoon of his heavily propaganderized and fake persona where morons like Fred Muggs can continue to kiss and lick his ass.

        Now we have got past that little ritual………… what have you to say about the FACT that Article II “natural born” in NO WAY means solely by native birth?
        Or are you so lost in your delusional world, that all you can muster is an attack of anything that threatens to burst your fantasy-land bubble?

      • Michael, you poor deluded soul. The President was never going to be off the primary ballot in Georgia. The best and brightest of the Birthers put on their show against an empty table in Georgia and were defeated. Had Judge Malihi recommended removal it would have been reversed in the courts because the two citizen parent theory is complete nonsense and anyone in the US with a legal IQ above 3 knows it. Judge Malihi never offered a “default judgment” by the way. He offered a “default order” and they are not the same. Malihi in the end knew the applicable cases, the facts, and the law and ruled accordingly.

        So Michael, since Mario is too chicken to take up another case why don’t you pay your way from down under and take up the Tisdale appeal? I am sure the judges will be dazzled by your knowledge of Lord Calvin’s case.

  7. MichaelN is begging to be banned but I think I will let his ignorance shine in all its glory. Speaking of getting spanked like a monkey Mick, have you checked out how John Woodman embarrassed you Mick?

  8. MichaelN says:

    There is no need to read the ramblings of the hopey-changy weavers of fantasy.
    Your entire absurd natural = native argument dissolves with a study of the happenings with the first and second naturalization acts of 1790 and 1795.
    Poof! …………… you lose!

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Oh, poor pitiful Michael. You want so much to be right… Seething with so much racist bile and impotent rage that you cannot grasp reality… But you are, provably, indisputably WRONG. It’s as simple as that. You think by crowing “you lose!” that means you’ve won, like a four-year-old thinking that because you close your eyes that means we can’t see you.

      Anyone at any Consulate can tell you there are only two types of American citizens: natural-born and naturalized.  Say you need to prove you are a citizen while abroad.  You will be asked for birth certificate OR naturalization papers.  Two kinds of citizen.  In addition, this information will be found on your passport. 

      Try as you might to argue that there are more than two types of citizen, nobody in an official capacity will have any idea what you’re talking about. They will ask “were you born a citizen, or were you naturalized? 

      The judges who declared President Barack Obama to be 100% eligible and explicily a Natural Born Citizen ruled by the legal standards used by everybody but a handfull of racist lugnuts who will believe any shred of bogosity that might get the scary black man out of “their” White House.

      I offer you the chance to win the argument: find and cite here ANY explicit reference that says NBC requires two citizen parents, in the Constitution or any other legal decision or law book. Now, extrapolations from the documents to what you claim they implied don’t count. You have to find spelled out, specifically, your deranged two-citizen-parent requirement for eligibility.

      Are you aware of the Designated Survivor tradition? This is a person eligible to become President who stays away from events where most of the government will be in one place, just in case they are all killed by a nuke or bio-weapon. The Republican Party designated Norm Mineta as Bush’s DS in 2003. Neither of Mineta’s parents were US citizens. Are you really such an egomanic AND a dimwit that you think you know better than the entire Bush administration?

      Other Designated Survivors: Tom Vilsack, who was abandoned at birth in Pennsylvania. It would be impossible to ascertain his parentage, so his NBC status can only be based on his place of birth; Donna Shalala, daughter of Lebanese immigrants; Leon Panetta, son of Italian immigrants; and Bill Richardson, whose mother was a Mexican citizen. Among others.

      The fact is, the idea that NBC required two citizen parents really only dates to the election of the current President. So your haughty, insulting diatribes claiming that YOUR definition is “obviously” correct, chiding those of us who rightly state that no such requirement has been the rule or is current law, can only be infantile petulance or racist animus. It is patently indefensible, and you should be ashamed of yourself were you not the toxic narcissist you plainly are.

  9. Fred Muggs says:

    Mick

    Have you read Black’s Law Dictionary?

    NATIVE

    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.

    Read more: Legal Definitions | Letter N from Black’s Law Dictionary – Part 3

    Tee Hee Hee

    • MichaelN says:

      “native” and “natural-born” are nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.
      Black’s Law Dictionary was not published until 1891, some four years after drafting of the USC, it wasn’t around in the framing period and furthermore the term “natural born Citizen” was without any legal precedent and was unique to the US Constitution.

      • The folks who wrote Blacks were attorneys familiar with the Constitution and the law. They also define “citizen” and “natural born citizen”:

        From the Ninth Edition:

        citizen, n. (14c) 1. A person who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections; a member of the civil state, entitled to all its privileges. Cf. RESIDENT; DOMICILIARY. [Cases: Aliens, Immigration, and Citizenship 652.]

        Notice only two kinds of citizens are recognized, born and naturalized.

        natural-born citizen. A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.

        Sounds like the 14th amendment definition to me. MichaelN, when you can convince the Blacks Law folks to revise their definitions then I might actually take you seriously.

      • Now that is the funniest thing you have ever written MichaelN. You trying to tell us that the folks who wrote the Constitution came up with a brand spanking new definition for “natural born” instead of the one they were all familiar with from the dictionaries, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and English common law yet they decided to keep it secret so that it would be discovered in 2008 AD by a poker playing, drug using attorney who had never filed a single case before. Have you been watching “National Treasure” too many times? Do you think Nicolas Cage will sign up to play Leo in your fiction?

      • MichaelN says:

        What is it about the fact that the framers of the USC didn’t use Black’s Law Dictionary that you don’t get?

        What is it about the fact that the term “natural born Citizen” was a unique construct of the framers without ANY precedent, that you don’t get?

        What is it about the fact that in and around the framing period, as far as the framers, the US Congress & Senate were concerned, the term “natural born” primarily meant by natural decent and by looking into the first two naturalization acts in proves that “natural born” could not have possible have meant solely native to the exclusion of natural descent, that you don’t get?

        What is it about the fact that the framers, who had a extremely high level of education, chose to use the term “natural born” rather than “native born” in the Article POTUS eligibility clause of the USC, that you don’t get?

        What is it about the fact that Vattel was very popular and a huge influence on the framers in and about the framing period, that you don’t get?

        What is it about the fact that the framers had an imperative to ensure only those with the least or no foreign allegiance, loyalty and claim should be eligible for the office of POTUS, that you don’t get?

        What is it about the fact that the SCOTUS didn’t rule WKA to be a “natural born Citizen”, that you don’t get?

        What is it about the 14th Amendment not stating that all native born children were “natural born Citizens”, that you don’t get?

        On second thought, don’t bother answering, you do get it, your are just too deep into your commitment to political bias, too deep in denial and too damn dishonest to admit to the truth.

        But you have to live with that.

        • What is it about the fact that Vattel was very popular and a huge influence on the framers in and about the framing period, that you don’t get?

          What is it about the fact that Blackstone was the third most quoted authority by the framers and Vattel was 29th that you don’t get MichaelN?

          Come back when you get a judge to agree. Come back when you can find a whole group of constitutional scholars to agree. Come back when you can cite a credible source that says there are more than two classes of citizens (Birthers post 2008 are not credible sources). I am living very well with the fact that Barack Obama is the legitimate 44th President and is looking more like a two term President every day.

      • MichaelN says:

        Who said the framers had to choose from the books and commentators to suit your your liking?

        I have already PROVEN that the term “natural born”, according to the framers, the Congress and the Senate, in and around the framing period, meant primarily by natural descent of the parent father and could not possible have mean solely by native birth.

        It’s all there in black and white; I didn’t make it up.

        Eligibility for POTUS had no precedent, the framers had a blank slate and seriously needed as an imperative to ensure the highest possible allegiance and loyalty were the qualities necessary for the highest office to protect the office of POTUS and the new republic from any foreign influence divided loyalty and/or claim.

        This is what any educated, reasonable person would do, simple common-sense stuff.

        As you can see, even the dictionary tells you [ 2 (a), (b) – 3 (a) (1) & (2) ]

        Definition of NATURAL (the top three from Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
        1
        : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
        2
        a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
        b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
        3
        a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate
        (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption

      • Thomas Brown says:

        Apparently MN is such a moral coward and a mental weakling that he can’t answer any challenges here. He never responded to the fact that other Presidents, and a pile of other individuals put in line of Succession to the Presidency, for decades and by both parties, have had either one or two non-citizen parents (or in the case of Vilsack, parents of unknown status). His argument is in the same class as Bigfoot and the Chupacabra: show us some damn solid evidence, or STFU.

        Until you show that your interpretation is shared by anyone of any authority, why should anyone extend you any notice, much less tolerate your insults?

        Besides, your comments are full of lies. WKA was in fact called a NBC by the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the text of the Dissent even mentions Presidential eligibility.

        Show evidence and precedent and you get respect. Spout lies, ludicrous interpretations, unfounded extrapolations, and you’re rightly taken as a whack job.

        What is it about that you don’t get?

      • MichaelN says:

        Thomas Brown bleated …………………

        “Apparently MN is such a moral coward and a mental weakling that he can’t answer any challenges here. He never responded to the fact that other Presidents, and a pile of other individuals put in line of Succession to the Presidency, for decades and by both parties, have had either one or two non-citizen parents…..”

        Thomas, I think you are telling fibs.

        There was only one other fraud president besides Obama.

        “The United States has had 44 presidents (including Barack Obama). Of these 44 presidents, 34 were born after 1787 (the year the Constitution was adopted) and were therefore subject to the “natural born citizen” requirement. With only two exceptions, every one of these 34 presidents was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens (Natural Born Presidency). The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. While running for office in 1880, Chester Arthur lied to newspaper reporters about his family history (and later burned most of his family records), thereby concealing the fact that, when he was born, his father (William Arthur) was British subject, not a U.S. citizen (Historical Breakthrough – Chester Arthur).

        President Obama’s “fight the smears” website, his published long-form birth certificate, and his autobiography identify his father as Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan native who never became a U.S. citizen. When President Obama was born, he acquired British citizenship by descent from his father (FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?). ”

        http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

        • Thomas Brown says:

          Except, oh, I dunno, the FOUNDER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ABE LINCOLN. At his birth, neither parent was a citizen of the USA. They were citizens of non-state territories.

        • Thomas Brown says:

          And, of course, as one might expect, you TOTALLY IGNORED THE POINT ABOUT DESIGNATED SURVIVORS AND SUCCESSORS. Jeez, you just skip anything you have no answer for? Really?

          Man, up. Address that issue. Were they all “frauds” too?

  10. John Woodman says:

    The best and brightest of the Birthers put on their show against an empty table in Georgia and were defeated.

    As I noted on my own blog, it just doesn’t get much worse than that.

  11. John Woodman says:

    [John Woodman’s] “logic” would lead you to realize that without citizen parents, one cannot be “natural born”. It was the same in 17th century English common law, when Lord Coke stated that a child born in England could not be a subject if his father was not a subject… that’s why your entire politically biased argument is absurd and is an epic failure.

    I love the birther technique of making absurd, politically biased arguments that are epic failures… and then proclaiming the opposite to be absurd, politically biased arguments that are epic failures. It’s kind of cute, really.

    The “logic” would lead you to realize that without citizen parents, one cannot be “natural born”. It was the same in 17th century English common law…

    Which is precisely why English common law proclaimed that even the children of non-citizen resident aliens were “natural born.” Right?

    What is it about the fact that the term “natural born Citizen” was a unique construct of the framers without ANY precedent, that you don’t get?

    If “natural born citizen” had been a “unique construct of the framers without ANY precedent,” don’t you think they would have given us a definition for it? The fact that they gave no definition is a sure sign that a definition, or at least a precedent for its meaning, already existed. And it wasn’t the birther Vattel definition, as no such term existed from Vattel at the time. The term LATER referred to in Vattel as “natural born citizens” at the time read indigenes — the indigenous.

    But there WAS exactly such a term — “natural born” that had existed and been used in legal circles for CENTURIES. It came from… huh… English common law!

    What is it about the fact that Vattel was very popular and a huge influence on the framers in and about the framing period, that you don’t get?

    What is it about the fact that Blackstone — the writer on English common law — was quoted nearly 18 times more often than Vattel that YOU don’t get?

    Since it is apparently difficult for you to understand this point, let me spell it out for you: For EVERY instance in which Vattel was quoted by the Founding Fathers, there are 17 to 18 instances in which Blackstone and English common law were quoted.

    What is it about the fact that the framers had an imperative to ensure only those with the least or no foreign allegiance, loyalty and claim should be eligible for the office of POTUS, that you don’t get?

    What is it about the fact that they only required FOURTEEN years, out of a lifetime, of United States residency in order to qualify for President, that YOU don’t get? Clearly their desire to limit “foreign influence” was NOT absolute.

    What is it about the fact that the SCOTUS didn’t rule WKA to be a “natural born Citizen”, that you don’t get?

    What is it about the fact that they were led “irresistibly” to the “CONCLUSION” that Wong Kim Ark was “NATURAL BORN,” and that they also found him to be a CITIZEN, that YOU don’t get?

    If he was both NATURAL BORN, AND a CITIZEN, then he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. You might think about that for a bit.

    Fail, fail, fail, fail, fail.

    I’d say that meets my standards for “epic failure.”

    • MichaelN says:

      Michael N said ……. “The “logic” would lead you to realize that without citizen parents, one cannot be “natural born”.

      It was the same in 17th century English common law, when Lord Coke stated that a child born in England could not be a subject if his father was not a subject.”

      Woodman, denier of truth said ……….
      “Which is precisely why English common law proclaimed that even the children of non-citizen resident aliens were “natural born.” Right?”

      WRONG!

      A “citizen” in 17th century England had NOTHING to do with the determining who or who was not a “subject”, a “citizen” was a member of a town, village etc, i.e. it was not related to nationality or subject-hood.

      Lord Coke in his report of Calvin’s case, stated that if a child was born in England to a parent father who was not a subject, then the child cannot be a subject even though the child was born in the land.

      “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT …..”

      It make no difference as to why or how the parent father was not a subject.

      Here’s what Lord Coke stated, when he pointed out and held that there were TWO ESSENTIAL qualities REQUIRED to make a “natural born subject”.

      “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright……”

      But YOU and your ilk, in your delusional state, would say that Coke was really saying …

      “by native birth and native birth” ………… your entire argument is ABSURD!

      Then Coke goes further to affirm the FACT that NATURAL DESCENT is THE PRIMARY quality in recognizing a “natural born subject”

      “There be regulary (unlesse 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;

      Then Coke again affirms the TWO qualities REQUIRED in determining “natural born subject” status…..

      “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right ….”

      In WKA, alien parent + child born in England = natural born subject was cherry-picked and only a half of the truth.

      The WKA court omitted and failed to observe that in 17th century English common law, the so called “alien parent” was in FACT a “subject” and if he was not a “subject”, then his child, even if born in the realm, can not be a “subject”.

      So to apply all this English common law baloney to US eligibility, which by the way, has NO PRECEDENT in English common law anyway, then the father would need to be first a US “citizen” for his child, if born in the US, to be a “natural born Citizen”.

      I have already proven that the founding fathers, framers of the USC, the US Congress and the US Senate in and around the framing period, meant “natural born” to mean PRIMARILY by natural DESCENT and also that with a study of the first and second naturalization acts of 1790 & 1795, it is impossible for the founding fathers, etc, to intend “natural born” to mean exclusively native born.

      I know you really don’t like being shown the truth, when all along you have been believing a compilation of lies based on absurdity, developed over many years, but you really need to learn to live with it.

      You also need to take a serious look at and do some corrective work on your reliance on fallacy.

      Here’s something that may help you………

      “Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

      Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
      Therefore X is true.

      This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true. ”

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

      • Northland10 says:

        Lord Coke in his report of Calvin’s case, stated that if a child was born in England to a parent father who was not a subject, then the child cannot be a subject even though the child was born in the land.

        “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT …..”

        Only when… “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there…”

        You quoted the whole thing this time but still ignore what it says. The ‘issue’ is not born under the ligeance of the King because the issue was born under the ligeance and obedientia of the invading army. Those not in an invading army or children of diplomats working on behalf of the foreign government (i.e. ligeance) would not be NBS or NBC. Everyone else, is born under the ligeance and jurisdiction of the King (or country).

        You don’t like it, but there is the truth.

        • I just noticed that too. I guess MichaelN has been caught deceptively truncating that paragraph too many times and his new tactic is to quote the complete paragraph but just lie and ignore the part about the enemies coming into the realm.

          Here is the complete paragraph in question:

          3. Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.53 And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King. And concerning this local obedience, a president was cited in Hill. 36. Eliz. when Stephano Ferrara de Gama, and Emanuel Lewes Tinoco, two Portugals born, coming into England under Queen Elizabeth’s safe-conduct, and living here under her protection, joyned with Doctor Lopez in treason within |[6 b] this Realm against her Majesty: and in this case two points were resolved by the Judges. First, that their indictment ought to begin, that they intended treason contra dominam Reginam, &c.55 omitting these words (naturalem domin’ suam)56 and ought to conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum. But if an alien enemy come to invade this realm, and be taken in warr, he cannot be indicted of treason: for the indictment cannot conclude contra ligeant’ suae debitum, for he never was in the protection of the King, nor ever owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity, and therefore he shall be put to death by martial law. And so it was in anno 15 Hen. 7. in Perkin Warbeck’s case, who being analienborn in Flanders, feigned himself to be one of the sons of Edward the fourth, and invaded this realm with great power, with an intent to take upon him the dignity royall: but being taken in the warr, it was resolved by the Justices, that he could not be punished by the Common law, but before the Constable and Marshal (who had special commission under the great Seal, to hear and determine the same according to martial law) he had sentence to be drawn, hanged, and quartered, which was executed accordingly. And this appeareth in the book of Griffeth Attorney general, by an extract out of the book of Hobart, Attorney general to King Hen. 7.

          Sounds a whole lot like “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to me.

        • MichaelN says:

          The point IS, that if the alien father was not a subject, then the child, even if born in England can not be a subject at all.

          Why should it matter how or why the father is not a subject?

          It’s really simple…..

          father a subject + child born in England = child a natural born subject

          father NOT a subject + child born in England = child NOT a subject at all.

          If you apply this common law principle to US, then an alien male, visiting US in amity would need to first become a US citizen for his child if born in US, to be a “natural born Citizen” of the US.

          Not only is your entire argument an epic failure with your resort to English common law back-firing on you both barrels, but your ridiculous argument it is based also on the absolute absurdity that the framers of the US Constitution were derelict in their duty and imperative, and so stupid as to risk the national security of the US by allowing the office of POTUS to be subject to foreign influence, foreign loyalty and foreign claim.
          The framers meaning of “natural born Citizen” has been proven to mean primarily by DESCENT and it is also proven that “natural born” in the context of USC Article II, can not possibly mean native born.

        • John Woodman says:

          Michael, your argument is bogus; and you yourself have highlighted ONE of the (multiple) reasons WHY it is bogus.

          father NOT a subject + child born in England = child NOT a subject at all.

          If you apply this common law principle to US, then an alien male, visiting US in amity would need to first become a US citizen for his child if born in US, to be a “natural born Citizen” of the US.

          If you “apply this common law principle” — in the way that you seem to be attempting to apply it — then the US-born child of aliens living in the United States would not be a citizen at all.

          This is contrary to the practice of English common law. It’s contrary to the practice that has always held in the United States. And it’s completely contrary to the ruling in Wong Kim Ark.

          Given a choice of who to believe — you or the US Supreme Court — I’ll take the latter, thank you very much.

          …epic failure… back-firing… both barrels… ridiculous… absolute absurdity… derelict in their duty… so stupid… risk the national security of the US… proven… can not possibly mean… blah blah blah.”

          Putting a bunch of hyperbole words into an invalid argument doesn’t make it anything except an invalid argument.

          It doesn’t matter how much lipstick you put on the pig. It’s still a pig.

    • MichaelN says:

      John Woodman, denier of truth said …………….
      “What is it about the fact that Blackstone — the writer on English common law — was quoted nearly 18 times more often than Vattel that YOU don’t get?”

      Reply:
      What is it about the fact that Blackstone’s commentaries had no relevance to eligibility for the office of president of a republic and nor did English common law, that you don’t get?

      You really should get into the stuff that influenced the framers PROFOUNDLY on a VERY IMPORTANT topic to them, that was not just run-of-the-mill, how do we have our court procedures.

      The framers didn’t need anything other than wording that described what they wanted, and it sure was NOT “native” only, otherwise thewy would have simply said so, besides it’s absurd to suggest they would be so slack to allow foreign influence, loyalty and claim to affect or taint the highest office.

      Guided by the principles of one of their FAVORITE and MOST STUDIED writers on the topic of nation building and relevant principles, i.e. Vattel, the framers DELIBERATELY CHOSE “natural born” rather than “native born”.

      Here’s an article that might be helpful to you………..

      “Vattel was aware of what was happening in America before his death. At least in terms of the settling of America.

      At the end of Chapter XVIII, Occupation of a Territory by a Nation, he says “However we can’t help but admire the moderation of the English Puritans who were the first to settle New England. A;though they bore with them a charter from their sovereign, they bought from the savages the lands they wished to occupy. Their praiseworthy example was followed by William Penn and the colony of Quakers that he conducted into Pennsylvania”

      Vattels work was known in Europe and to the founders that had traveled there. There are a number of historical references that prove that which the reader can find on his own.

      In 1775, eight years after his passing, Charles Dumas, a Swiss living in Holland, brought out a new edition and sent 3 copies to Benjamin Franklin. Franklin wrote “It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations”. This was in December, 1775.

      The founding fathers were aware of and impressed by Vattels mentions of New England and Pennsylvania, and took it to heart. The work became an almost instant classic in pre-revolutionary Ameria.

      By 1780 his work was considered a classic and was a textbook at the best universities.

      So did the founders really know of the work?

      They knew of it enough so that it is quoted in Supreme Court decisions even before the Constitution was written or ratified. In Miller v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolutions, the court said “Vattel, a celebrated writer on the laws of nations, says, ‘when two nations make war a common cause, they act as one body, and the war is called a society of war; they are so clearly and intimately connected, that the Jus Postliminii takes place among them, as among fellow subjects.'” This decision was by the Federal Court of Appeals, Aug, 1781. Cited as 2 US 1 or 2 Dall 1

      We see that not only was it known to the founders, it was already being used in the universities and quoted as operative law in the fledgling courts of the United States justice system.

      So. What exactly did he say?

      First, anyone who reads the item whether translated or in the original French has to admit he never used the exact phrase “natural born citizen”.

      But!!! On reading what he said, the wording and the context, there can be no doubt at all of EXACTLY what he meant.

      I shall here cite the section in English and in the original Francais.

      The section is from Chapter XIX, entitled “One’s Country and various matters relating to it”. Sec. 212, Citizens and Natives. It is on pps.

      87 of the english translation.

      “The members of a civil society are it’s citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to it’s authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who were born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of it’s citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latters rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by merely tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I REPEAT THAT IN ORDER TO BELONG TO A COUNTRY ONE MUST BE BORN THERE OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one’s birth, and not one’s country.”

      (the above is from: Les droit des gens, Translation of the 1758 edition, Charles G. Fenwick, published Carnegie Institute of Washington,

      Washington, 1916.

      En Francais.

      Les citoyens sont les membres de la Societe Civile; Lies a cette Societe pars certains devoirs, & formie a son Autotiteil particiant avec egalite a les avantages. Les NATURELS, ou INDIGENES, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens. La Societe ne pouvant se soutenir & se perpetuer que par les enfans des Citoyens; ces enfans y suivent naturellement la conditionn de leurs Peres, & entrent dans tous leurs droits. La Societe est cenflee le vouloir ainfi; par une suite de ce qu’elle doit a la propre confervation; & l’on presume de droit que chacque Citoyen, en entrent dans la Societe; reserve a les enfans le droit d’en etre membres. La Patrie des Peres est dons celles des enfans & ceux-ci deviennent de veritables Citoyens, par leur simple consentement tacite. nous verrons bien-tot; si parvenus a l’age de raison, ils peuvent renoncer a leur droit, & ce-qu’ils doivent a la Societe dans laquelle ils sont nes. Je dis que pour etre d’un pays, IL FAUT ETRE ne D’UN PERE CITOYEN; car si vous y etes ne d’un Etranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans etre votre Patrie”

      Note: The above is from the 1758 edition. As with early American English, it was common to write an “S” as an “f”. I have tried with my limited knowledge of French to make the corrections, and think this is pretty darn close to the original.

      Another note: Vattel uses the phrase “Les Naturelles ou Indigenes” which pretty much translates to “The naturals or natives”

      Now I doubt anyone can read the above and not know EXACTLY what the founders meant by “natural born citizen”. They wanted someone who, in Vattels words, “Belong(ed) to the Country, which means a person born on the soil of parents who were citizens, at the very least born on the soil OF A FATHER who IS A CITIZEN!

      If Obama was born in Hawaii, were both his parents Citizens? No. Was Obamas FATHER a citizen? No.

      Does Obama “Belong to the Country?”

      Vattel, and the founders of our great Republic, would have to say no.”

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2712725/posts

  12. In case you folks do not know MicahelN he has admitted he is not from from the US. He has pushed his version of the Calvin case all over the net and not a single scholar agrees with his interpretation of the case. In the very paragraph he cites:

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT …..

    It is the very same exception to jus soli that was included for invading armies in US law. MichaelN used to chop off the first part of the paragraph and only quote the second part. He has been caught on that dishonest trick so many times now that he has gone to just flat out lying about what the complete paragraph says. Obama’s father was not an invading soldier you see.

    Michael cannot find a single scholar in English history who agrees with him – not Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey and every subsequent court and legal authority in English history. According to MichaelN they all got it wrong. Makes you think doesn’t it?

    For a good discussion on Calvin’s case you should read this article by Polly Price: NATURAL LAW AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN CALVIN’S CASE (1608)

    MicahelN has had his butt kicked all over the internet on this dishonest reading of Lord Calvin’s property case. I will post links as I find them. Birthers like MichaelN are great wasters of time. They get completely destroyed when their arguments are analyzed. They wait a few months then pedal the same discredited arguments again on another forum.

    Here is a good discussion of Lord Calvin’s case at Obama Conspiracy Theories: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/calvins-case/

  13. John Woodman says:

    Here’s where Michael, on that particular point, with what is obviously COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE DISHONESTY, turns to complete and absolute BS.

    …for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject…

    He completely DROPS OFF THE “OR” CLAUSE THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS. Huh. I wonder why?

    …nor under the protection of the King.

    It is obvious that the alien in friendship is not a subject — but being in friendship, he is under the protection of the king.

    So Michael’s point is simply a lie. The fact that he dropped off the second part of the clause makes that obvious.

    • MichaelN says:

      Here you go ………… you are paranoid.

      So the child, born in England, was NOT a “subject”, not only because his daddy was not a “subject” but ALSO because he was not born under the protection of the King.

      Wow! ……… that means MichaelN is “dishonest” and it says something other than what it says …………………..ROTFLMFAO

      The IMPORTANT FACT is that daddio must be a “subject” for kiddo the be a “subject”

      Quoting Lord Coke from his report of Calvin’s case, when Coke pointed out that that if an alien-born father is not a “subject”, then his child can ot be a “subject” even when born in England.

      “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King.”

      What do you suppose Coke meant by these TWO qualities????

      “nature and birth right”

      “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right”

      Johnny, you really do need to do something about your paranoia and pathetic reliance on fallacy.

      Here, this might help you………

      “Description of Ad Hominem

      Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

      An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

      Person A makes claim X.
      Person B makes an attack on person A.
      Therefore A’s claim is false.

      The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). ”

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    • MichaelN says:

      Oh, I see…………….. “nor” = “or” ROTFLMFAO

      Johnny, you are so funny.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        You misunderstand ad Hominem arguments. They have no contrapositive value, i.e. it is possible that you are a chucklehead AND ALSO wrong, although the statement “you are a chucklehead and therefore wrong” is a fallacy.

        When people call you a pea-brained racist piece of garbage and say you are wrong, they could simply be making two separate accurate observations.

      • I am still waiting for MichaelN to cite one scholarly interpretation of Lord Calvin’s case that draws the same conclusion as his. I think I will stick with Dr. Polly Price and all the others for 400 years.

        If the parents had to be subjects then why did the decision talk about enemies within the realm? Why bother since they were just other aliens? Unless of course Michael is wrong. 😉

        • MichaelN says:

          Did you notice how Polly in her “scholarly” and “un-biased” paper breezed over the part about the “under the ligeance of a subject” part, cherry-picking and harping on the DISHONEST half-truth tactic i.e. alien parent + child born in the land =NBS?

          I questioned Polly on this, and she went all quiet, removing my question from her web-page ……………….afraid to go there Polly? LoL

          • Someone actually dared delete a comment by MichaelN? Imagine that! Now Michael is deluding himself that he can bring down the Untied States government from his basement in Australia. For all of you masochists out there MichaelN made the same flawed arguments about Calvin’s case at the Fogbow. I am still waiting for Michael to convince one non-brither he is correct about his interpretation of the case.

  14. Nice catch John. This is a brand new MichaelN lying tactic. His old trick was to to chop off for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, MicahelN thinks he is clever but he isn’t.

  15. Thomas Brown says:

    Hey! I found the smoking gun!

    In my history library, I ran across a rare copy of Samuel Chase’s diary, in which he records a conversation between himself, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington, who were discussing the qualifications for President. They unanimously agreed that he must be a Natural Born Citizen, EXCEPT if his name was Barack H. Obama.

  16. Only 8 days remaining to file an appeal in Tisdale v Obama. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  17. Atticus Finch says:

    The drafters of the Constitution were learned men who understood the necessity of writing in clear and concise language. “Our Government is founded upon a written Constitution. The draftsmen expressed themselves in careful and measured terms corresponding with the immense importance of the powers delegated to them. The Framers of the Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have used words in their natural meaning, and to have intended what they said.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 500(1971)(Black, J concurring and dissenting)

    If the lawyer drafters of the Constitution wanted to incorporate into the Constitution Vattel’s version of “natural born citizen” they would have made their intent clear and specific.

    At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, these lawyer drafters were familiar with Blackstone’s Commentaries and Vattel’s Law of Nations. Through their reading of these treatises they would have found that there were two rules of citizenship, one that was the common law rule as enunciated by Blackstone and the other rule was the Roman or Civil law as enunciated by Vattel.

    We are informed that the Constitution was framed in the English common law language (Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888)) and that the lawyer drafters were familiar with common-law concepts (In Re Gannon, 27 F.2d 362, 363 (ED Pa 1928).

    As such, these lawyer drafters would be familiar with statutory construction maxims that included the maxim that a statutory term is generally presumed to have its common-law meaning (Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 592 (1990) UNLESS there is legislative intent to change the common law meaning by specific intent (Midlantic National Bank. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (474 U.S. 494 (1986).

    It is presumed that the lawyer drafters had knowledge of the existing common law rule of natural born citizen and that ABSENT a clear manifestation of contrary intent, then that the Natural Born Citizen language in the Constitution is presumed to be harmonious with the existing common law rule (Estate of Wood v. CIR 909 F.2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

    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.

  18. Atticus Finch says:

    The drafters of the Constitution did not write the Constitution in a vacuum but were cognizant of English common law. “The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers.” In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

    Moreover, ““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)

    In fact even Justice Thomas acknowledged the influence of common law in the Constitution. “[I]s true that we frequently consult English history and common law in attempting to determine the content of constitutional provisions.” Loving v. United States, 517 US 748, 779 (1996)(Thomas, J., dissenting)

    Similarly the Supreme Court in Moore v. United States 91 U.S. 270(1875) noted:“That is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.” Id at 274

    Chief Justice Marshall noted the influence of English common law on our laws when he wrote “whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws.” U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

    As such, the Constitution itself must be read in light of our English common law heritage. “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).

  19. Atticus Finch says:

    A child born in the United States to alien parent or alien parents has dual citizenship: United States citizenship based on being born in the United States and citizenship based on the alien parents’ citizenship of their country. However, the child at birth does not acquire the allegiance of his alien parents. In other words, a child born in the United States is not bound by the allegiance of his alien parents.

    At birth, a child acquires only one allegiance that is the allegiance of his place of birth. William Blackstone wrote: “Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.” Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book One chapter 10 (1765).

    James Madison observed ““It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

    Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn’t inherit a parent’s allegiance at birth.“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)

    “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.” United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 28, 40 (Cir. Ct. 7th Cir. D. Kentucky 1866)

    “A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1.” In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

    As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States.“ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)(internal citation omitted)

    • MichaelN says:

      Atticus said …………

      “At birth, a child acquires only one allegiance that is the allegiance of his place of birth. William Blackstone wrote: “Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.” Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book One chapter 10 (1765).”

      This is in contradiction with how the founding fathers, framers, Congress and the Senate saw allegiance in and around the framing period of the US Constitution.

      Therefore the notion that the framers relied on Blackstone with regard to allegiance at birth, can be completely dispelled.

      I have already proven that the term “natural born citizen” was used by the US Congress and US Senate to mean primarily by descent, in the enacting of the first Naturalization Act of 1790 , many of these legislators were also participants in the construction and adoption of the US Constitution only about three years prior in 1787.

      The point is proven that Blackstone’s notion of “natural allegiance” is completely at odds with the framers notion of “natural allegiance”

      Your argument fails.

  20. Atticus Finch says:

    The problem with Vattelites 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 whom 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.

  21. Great comments Atticus. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

  22. John Woodman says:

    In spite of my respect for Atticus — who has produced a very authoritative evaluation of the Founders’ intent that I believe is well-researched and dead-on accurate, I must — unless he or anyone else can produce good evidence — take exception with one point that he has made.

    In my reading on the common law and Calvin’s Case so far, I have uncovered no evidence at all that aliens were EVER referred to as being “subjects.” Although they were in some sense “subject” (adjective) to the King by their presence in friendship in his kingdom, I have seen no instance in which an alien or denizen was EVER referred to as a “subject” (noun).

    There were three categories of people. There were aliens, born outside of the kingdom. There were also denizens — aliens who had received approval to participate in the society on the same level as subjects. Our equivalent term would be “resident aliens.” And there were subjects, who were fully members of the society. Subjects were either natural-born, or naturalized.

    As to Michael’s reply of my calling him out for his dishonest nonsense, it is simply more dishonest nonsense. Let’s look at the passage he quoted — leaving off, with obvious dishonesty, the final phrase.

    “[I]f enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King.”

    Clearly, there are two possible conditions that WOULD have made “THAT ISSUE” — the child born of the occupying enemy — a subject.

    He WOULD have been a subject, if he had been the child of a subject. An occupying enemy is obviously not a subject. Therefore, the child fails the first test.

    Alternately, he WOULD have been a subject, if he had been born of someone who was not a subject, but who was under the protection of the king.

    This fact obviously confirms that there were people who were NOT subjects — aliens and denizens — who were nonetheless under the protection of the king. In fact, any alien or denizen who was in the kingdom in amity was under such protection. An occupying enemy, however, was not. Therefore, a child born to an occupying enemy would not himself be a subject at birth.

    Note again the rule: A child born in the kingdom didn’t have to be born to a subject in order to be a natural born subject. He only had to be born under the protection of the king.

    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” (Justice Story, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830))

    Michael also misinterprets any statement that I might have made as to the effect that he is a chucklehead. In fact, I don’t believe I made quite such a statement — only that I found his argument dishonest — but let’s suppose now that I did.

    The logic would not be “because Michael is a chucklehead, his claims are wrong.” That would be (as he notes) an ad-hominem attack.

    The logic would be “because Michael’s claims are such unspeakably obvious rubbish, and because of the fact that he drops off any completely relevant portions of a quote that he doesn’t like, and cherry-picks just a portion of a sentence to justify a point that the sentence itself quite obviously does not make, and because he continues to defend his lie even after it has been exposed as if it were in fact the truth, and because he behaves with breathtaking arrogance in doing so… therefore, Michael is a chucklehead.”

  23. John Woodman says:

    Actually, I should note one other point here. The suggestion that Michael might possibly be a chucklehead came from Thomas, and not from Michael. Nonetheless, Michael himself essentially accused me of having made an ad hominem attack. The statements above illustrate that my observation that Michael appears to be dishonest were based on his argument. I was not making an ad-hominem argument to the effect of, “because Michael is dishonest, his argument is therefore logically invalid.”

    It is however worth noting that once a person has been identified, on really good evidence, to be dishonest, from that point on, a healthy suspicion of any claims he might make in the future is then warranted by knowledge of his track record.

    • People such as MichaelN and Mario Apuzzo can be great time wasters for someone who wants to be objective. We should remember that the Birthers are the ones making the extraordinary claims whether it is about a faked birth certificate from Hawaii or what the Calvin case or Wong Kim Ark says. The likelihood they are wrong is very, very close to 100%.

      It is that way with most unusual claims like cold fusion. I recently ran across a claim that an Italian inventor named Andrea Rossi had developed and demonstrated something called E-Cat that was a Low Energy Nuclear Device. Supposedly NASA Langley had even tested it and said it worked. (LENR is the latest buzz word for Cold Fusion). It sounded really exciting but I told the person who sent it to me that I was 99% sure the story was not accurate. Sure enough I was right. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-nothing-useful/

    • Thomas Brown says:

      That was exactly the point I was making to Michael: remarking on someone’s stupidity for making a foolish claim is not the same as saying his claim is foolish BECAUSE he is a stupid person, an ad hominem fallacy.

      I would assert that if Michael doesn’t like insults to his intelligence and character, it might be a good plan to avoid saying foolish, incorrect things and being intentionally deceptive.

      • MichaelN says:

        Thomas, how about YOU explain how the US Congress and US Senate (many of whom were also participants in construction and adoption of the USC) meant by “natural born citizen” when they used it in the First Naturalization Act of 1790, and that it meant native born?

        Bearing mind that this took place only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution and at a time when Vattel’s work was highly revered and studied as a guide and source to build laws and principles into establishing a new republic.

        Let’s see you avoid making foolish, stupid claims, saying foolish, incorrect things and being intentionally deceptive.

        • John Woodman says:

          Thomas, how about YOU explain how the US Congress and US Senate (many of whom were also participants in construction and adoption of the USC) meant by “natural born citizen” when they used it in the First Naturalization Act of 1790, and that it meant native born?

          They obviously didn’t mean “native born,” since “native born” means born in the USA. They meant natural born

          I take this as a declarative clarification of what they understood the phrase “natural born” to mean. It was clear that in English common law, even the children of aliens in amity, born on the soil, were natural born. It was not quite as clear regarding the children of Americans born overseas. I therefore consider that the Act of 1790 was declarative of the understanding that these children were also “natural born.”

          Bearing mind that this took place only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution and at a time when Vattel’s work was highly revered and studied as a guide and source to build laws and principles into establishing a new republic.

          Already dealt with. Vattel certainly was respected, to a certain degree, but he was one writer among many, and nowhere near the most influential.

          Out of 200 quotes in literature written by the Founding Fathers, ONE of them would have come from Vattel. JUST ONE. Eighteen would have come from St. Paul. Seventeen would have come from Montesquieu, whose great idea was separation of powers. And sixteen would have come from Blackstone, the writer on English common law.

          Vattel was THIRTIETH in the list of people quoted by the Founding Fathers.

          Nor is it even possible that they were quoting Vattel when they wrote the phrase “natural born citizen.” No translation of Vattel even used that phrase until 10 years after the writing of the eligibility clause.

          So I think we’re back to Thomas’ original statement:

          I would assert that if Michael doesn’t like insults to his intelligence and character, it might be a good plan to avoid saying foolish, incorrect things and being intentionally deceptive.

        • Northland10 says:

          Let’s see you avoid making foolish, stupid claims, saying foolish, incorrect things and being intentionally deceptive.

          An Irony Meter is a terrible thing to waste.

  24. For those of you who have not seen how Mario Apuzzo does outside of his cocoon of his blog I recommend that you read this long thread at CAAFLOG where he posts hundreds of comments before giving up a defeated man.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    This is he infamous thread where Mario told Frank Arduini that he knew Frank Arduini and he was not Frank Arduini.

    • John Woodman says:

      This is he infamous thread where Mario told Frank Arduini that he knew Frank Arduini and he was not Frank Arduini.

      “I served with Frank Arduini, I knew Frank Arduini, Frank Arduini was a friend of mine. Sir, you’re no Frank Arduini!” 😉

  25. Atticus Finch says:

    John Woodman:
    Re; Alien being a subject to the King

    “An alien-born, however, coming into Great Britain
    thereby becomes a British subject and owes as such local
    allegiance.” Thomas Alfred Walker, The Science of International Law, page 207 (1893) citing Sherley’s case (1555) 2 Dyer 144a

    • The complete book is available on Google Books. This was from page 205:

      “In the year 1664 several Quakers being brought up at the Old Bailey under the Conventicle Act. 1 one of them pleaded that he as an alien born in France was no subject and so not within the terms of the statute the operation of which was confined to ‘every person above the age of 16 years being a subject of this realm’. But the Court unanimously overruled the plea holding that any alien coming within the kingdom and living under the King’s protection was during his stay a subject of the realm and punishable for transgressing its laws. Had the application of the Statute been limited to natural born subjects the plea would have availed but otherwise where the obligation was upon subjects in general. The prisoner was accordingly transported”

      [Emphasis added]

  26. John Woodman says:

    Interesting. Hmm. Do you have other sources for explanation of this statement?

  27. MichaelN says:

    @ John Woodman, who said ………..

    “In my reading on the common law and Calvin’s Case so far, I have uncovered no evidence at all that aliens were EVER referred to as being “subjects.” Although they were in some sense “subject” (adjective) to the King by their presence in friendship in his kingdom, I have seen no instance in which an alien or denizen was EVER referred to as a “subject” (noun).”

    John, time to accept another truth.

    The alien-born visitors in amity were “subjects” – NOUN

    Here we have NOUNS………… Lord Coke – Calvin’s case:

    Coke:
    “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of THE SUBJECT due to his Sovereign……”

    Coke:
    “The third is ligeantia localis46 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 there, he oweth unto the King a local OBEDIENCE OR LIGEANCE, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.”

    The Frenchman was a “natural subject”.

    Coke:
    “Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and THE INDICTMENT CONCLUDED CONTRA LIGEANT SUAE DEBITUM;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a NATURAL SUBJECT;”

    Here following, we have a person with local ligeance, referred to by Coke as a “subject”

    Coke:
    “whereas if natural LIGEANCE of THE SUBJECTS of England should be LOCAL,”

    It appears that local ligeance can only be attributed to an alien-born visitor in amity;

    i.e. a term that cannot be attributed to a “natural born subject”, because the “natural born subject” is one with a different type of ligeance which is absolute and pure and (correct me if I am mistaken) cannot be limited to local.

    Coke:
    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, , and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43”

    Coke:
    “That the LIGEANCE of a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT was NOT LOCAL, and confined only to England”

    Coke:
    “Now seeing power and protection draweth ligeance, it followeth, that seeing the King’s power, command and protection, extendeth out of England, that ligeance cannot be local, or confined within the bounds thereof.”

  28. MichaelN says:

    (Re-posted, seems to be a problem with the blog.)

    You people really need a reality-check.

    You entire argument is based on absurdity and fantasy.

    You have a serious denial problem and as a group verging on a serious cult problem.

    Even the official US Citizenship and Immigration Services recognize the DIFFERENCE between a native born and a natural born.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html?commentPage=2

    “This is even better because it EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGES TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP (“whichever”) for persons born in the United States rather than two labels which could mean one type of citizenship:

    “The words ‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922’, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN or NATURAL-BORN(WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html.
    ———————————————–

    But fear not, help is available ……….

    “What is self-DDD?

    When we deceive, delude or deny to our self, we mislead our self, we misrepresent or disown what we know to be true, we lie to our self, we refuse to acknowledge that which we know. In Vital Lies, Simple Truths, Daniel Goleman notes that we do not see what it is that we do not see, because:

    The mind can protect itself against anxiety by diminishing awareness. This mechanism produces a blind spot: a zone of blocked attention and self-deception. Such blind spots occur at each major level of behaviour from the psychological to the social. (p. 22)

    Psychological blind spots create a not-knowing about something. However, in order for a system to recognise what to avoid, deny or mislead, it has to maintain knowledge of what to avoid — what it knows to be true. In other words, deceiving our self requires that we both know and not-know something. This apparent paradox is one of the keys to understanding how self-DDD operates.

    The delightfully ambiguous title of Stanley Cohen’s book highlights that States of Denial are equally as evident with nations as with individuals:

    People, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications — cognitive, emotional or moral — are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away. (p. 1)”

    Read more here …….. and good luck you poor souls.

    http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/27/1/Self-Deception-Delusion-and-Denial/Page1.html

    Here’s more information and another link that might be helpful.

    “Why provide information about cults?

    A goldfish living in a bowl that is painted black on the outside will never know it lives in a bowl unless someone takes it out and shows it the rest of the world. Mindsets can be like that — locked into a `thinking box’, unable to see outside because the web of beliefs is so all-encompassing”

    http://www.caic.org.au/

  29. MichaelN says:

    Part 1 of 2

    You people really need a reality-check.

    You entire argument is based on absurdity and fantasy.

    You have a serious denial problem and as a group verging on a serious cult problem.

    Even the official US Citizenship and Immigration Services recognize the DIFFERENCE between a native born and a natural born.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html?commentPage=2

    “This is even better because it EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGES TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP (“whichever”) for persons born in the United States rather than two labels which could mean one type of citizenship:

    “The words ‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922’, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN or NATURAL-BORN(WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html.
    ———————————————–

  30. MichaelN says:

    Part 2 of 2
    But fear not, help is available ……….

    “What is self-DDD?

    When we deceive, delude or deny to our self, we mislead our self, we misrepresent or disown what we know to be true, we lie to our self, we refuse to acknowledge that which we know. In Vital Lies, Simple Truths, Daniel Goleman notes that we do not see what it is that we do not see, because:

    The mind can protect itself against anxiety by diminishing awareness. This mechanism produces a blind spot: a zone of blocked attention and self-deception. Such blind spots occur at each major level of behaviour from the psychological to the social. (p. 22)

    Psychological blind spots create a not-knowing about something. However, in order for a system to recognise what to avoid, deny or mislead, it has to maintain knowledge of what to avoid — what it knows to be true. In other words, deceiving our self requires that we both know and not-know something. This apparent paradox is one of the keys to understanding how self-DDD operates.

    The delightfully ambiguous title of Stanley Cohen’s book highlights that States of Denial are equally as evident with nations as with individuals:

    People, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications — cognitive, emotional or moral — are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away. (p. 1)”

    Read more here …….. and good luck you poor souls.

    http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/27/1/Self-Deception-Delusion-and-Denial/Page1.html

    Here’s more information and another link that might be helpful.

    “Why provide information about cults?

    A goldfish living in a bowl that is painted black on the outside will never know it lives in a bowl unless someone takes it out and shows it the rest of the world. Mindsets can be like that — locked into a `thinking box’, unable to see outside because the web of beliefs is so all-encompassing”

    http://www.caic.org.au/

    • MichaelN, you should try reading and understanding the link you posted in light of your own situation.

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Well, Mike, it looks like you have your self-diagnosis well in hand.

      Perhaps you will be well enough to leave the Birther Memorial Mental Institution for the Pathologically Confused soon, now that you have recognized that you have deceived yourself into beliefs not shared by the sane, adult world. Which, fortunately, includes Judges.

  31. MichaelN says:

    You people really need a reality-check.

    You entire argument is based on absurdity and fantasy.

    You have a serious denial problem and as a group verging on a serious cult problem.

    Even the official US Citizenship and Immigration Services recognize the DIFFERENCE between a native born and a natural born.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html?commentPage=2

    “This is even better because it EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGES TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP (“whichever”) for persons born in the United States rather than two labels which could mean one type of citizenship:

    “The words ‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922’, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN or NATURAL-BORN(WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

    • John Woodman says:

      I had already noticed the page to which you refer, Michael.

      First, let me deal with the following claim:

      You people really need a reality-check.

      You entire argument is based on absurdity and fantasy.

      You have a serious denial problem and as a group verging on a serious cult problem.

      You made a bunch of points. I analyzed them and reached a rational conclusion on several of you claims right in a row: fail, fail, fail, fail, fail. And I gave very specific and factual reasons for why the claims don’t hold up.

      Although you’ve attempted to make response to at least some of the things I posted, you have failed to refute any of the points I raised. These points showed that not just one, but apparently all of your arguments are untrue, in the light of facts and reality.

      This is how it is with your entire “movement.” Dozens of “birther” claims have been disproven again and again and again and again and again. And yet you tell those who have disproven them that THEY “have a serious denial problem” ???!

      Having noted that, let’s point out the fallacy in your (and Mario’s) latest claim.

      You produce a government document that acknowledges a distinction between native-born and natural-born citizens.

      Having done so, you claim that hey, you’re correct after all: “native-born” must be something less than “natural-born,” as you have maintained. Yea! Victory!

      However… the first problem we run into is that no court has ever issued a ruling that affirms your claim.

      In fact, a number of courts (we’ve named them already) have issued rulings affirming that a native-born citizen IS ALSO a natural born citizen. They have done so by stating that birth on the soil of the US confers natural born citizen status.

      That being the case, if there IS a difference (and I’ll grant that there is), then according to the courts, it can only logically be that a native-born citizen is something more than a natural-born one — not (as you claim) something less.

      You also noted earlier that the first Congress provided that the children of US citizens overseas were to be considered as “natural born citizens.” The rule has continually been ever since, as far as I am aware, that such children are US citizens at birth.

      No court has ever found any distinction whatsoever between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen by birth.” That is the general understanding of the courts, the public, legal scholars, and the entire legal profession. This is also consistent with the findings of the courts, mentioned above. It is also consistent with the research of the Congressional Research Service.

      So your point fails. Yes, there is some distinction between a natural born citizen and a native-born one. A natural born citizen is not necessarily also native-born. The children born overseas of US citizen parents are natural born citizens, but they are not native-born citizens. Native-born citizens are both native-born and natural-born, having sufficient natural allegiance from the moment of their birth to make them so.

      I myself have children who are native-born, and children who are merely natural-born. ALL of them have been citizens from the moment of their birth. ALL of them have sufficient natural allegiance to make them natural born.

      In their case (not that any court has ever found that it matters), none hold, nor have ever held, citizenship of any other country. The solely natural-born ones, to my understanding, have a right, if they should someday wish, to take up British citizenship. But they so far do not hold, and have never held, the passport of any country other than the United States.

      My native-born children are also natural born citizens. The ones who are merely natural born citizens are not native-born citizens, as they were not born on US soil.

      Any one of them will be eligible, upon reaching the age of 35 years and having lived in the US for fourteen years, to run for and be elected to, the office of President, should they and the voters so desire.

  32. Only 7 days remaining to file an appeal in Tisdale v Obama. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  33. John Woodman says:

    I’ll sort through some of this later. There appears to be some conflicting information. And it seems clear that aliens were still aliens. For example:

    “Recall that, in Sherley’s Case, French-born Sherley was charged with treason. The Court denied him trial per medietatem linguae, because of the nature of the crime with which he was charged. The Court also noted that although Sherley was not a subject of the realm, the indictment against him was “against [contrary to] the duty of his allegiance,” for in time of peace, levying war with English rebels was sufficient treason. The jury found Sherley guilty of treason, but he was reprieved and afterwards pardoned.”

    “Mortimer Levine speculates that the first ground for the holding in W.D.’s (rape) Case — that a Scot was not an alien, but a subject — was politically motivated. He writes: The only possible basis for maintaining that a Scot was a subject was the old English claim of suzerainty over Scotland.”

    “…the claim that a Scot was never accounted an alien in England is more than doubtful.”

    “Sherley’s case suggests additional grounds — or at least precedent — for an English claim to try Mary, based not on the doubtful non-alienage of Scots but on the indictability of aliens in England for treason.”

    (The Law of the Other: The Mixed Jury and Changing Conceptions of Citizenship, Law and Knowledge, Mary Ann Constable, 1994)

  34. John Woodman says:

    But the Court unanimously overruled the plea holding that any alien coming within the kingdom and living under the King’s protection was during his stay a subject of the realm and punishable for transgressing its laws. Had the application of the Statute been limited to natural born subjects the plea would have availed but otherwise where the obligation was upon subjects in general. The prisoner was accordingly transported”

    I would be interested in finding out what the status of such aliens was in regard to other things. What constituted “living under the King’s protection?” Was it a matter of buying a house or property, or a matter of staying at the inn? Could aliens purchase property? Could a resident alien inherit property from someone else?

    Would the fact that Robert Colville was supposed to be an alien — and his two estates in England were withheld from him on the grounds that an alien could not inherit property in England — have been circumvented if he had simply been physically visiting England? It certainly doesn’t appear so, either from Polly Price’s writing, or from the quote that Sherley was not a subject. And from elsewhere on the web (not quite a year ago at Dr. Conspiracy’s site):

    Oh gee, Mikey has shown up here. Now he will repost the same post 100 times claiming that he alone understands the true meaning of Calvin’s Case and that Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey and every subsequent court and legal authority in English history got it wrong. Mikey thinks because Coke called alien friends “subjects,” it somehow means they were naturalized merely by entering England. In the world of reality, “aliens friends” were sometimes called “subjects” because they temporarily had subjugated themselves to the crown by placing themselves under its temporary protection. Such was the case in both England and America. It certainly didn’t mean they had any rights of natural born or naturalized subjects, for as a matter of historical fact, they didn’t. It didn’t mean they changed nationality, for as a matter of historical fact, they didn’t. Framer James Wilson spoke to this making clear that an alien/temporary subject had non of the rights of natural born or naturalized subjects. In fact, the term “naturalization” meant removing the disabilities of alienage, so, an “alien,” by definition cannot be naturalized.

    To eliminate a bit of possible confusion: By that last phrase, ballantine obviously meant “an ‘alien,’ by definition, cannot be someone who has already been naturalized.” Because if the person had already been naturalized, he would no longer be an alien.

    So it seems to come back to rather a matter of semantics: When aliens were called “subjects,” what that really pretty much meant seems to have only been that they were subject, to the king and to the laws of England during any temporary stay. It apparently does not mean that they had any of the status or rights of either naturalized subjects, or natural born subjects. Nor did they have the status or rights of denizens, for what then would be the point of having denizens in the first place? Obviously aliens who had not been granted the permission of denizens, and who had not been naturalized, still had the status of aliens.

    • John Woodman says:

      I’ve gone back and reread a lot of the previous conversation, equipped with the information above. While it helps me make some better sense of some of Michael’s arguments, I still don’t see at this time that it helps him in any really significant way.

      For example, what I previously characterized as “fail, fail, fail, fail, fail,” even with a couple of minor adjustments, still comes up, as far as I can see, “fail, fail, fail, fail, fail.”

  35. John Woodman says:

    I hadn’t actually followed the previous legal battle, so I hadn’t seen Mario’s 95-page respectful request that the Court not impose damages and costs against him for filing a frivolous appeal in the case of Kerchner v. Obama. Interesting, though.

    I didn’t really get interested in any of these issues until around the time Obama released his long form birth certificate last year.

  36. Only 6 days remaining to file an appeal in Tisdale v Obama. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  37. Mario Apuzzo finally got around to addressing the Tisdale v Obama decision with a long post on his poorly named blog today. As a matter of fact he wrote over 9000 words to attack Judge Gibney’s decision. However, in those 9000 words you will not find the words “and I will take up this appeal”. No Mario just spends page after page of mind numbing bloviating about how Judge Gibney was wrong. I will not engage in a point by point refutation of his waste of bandwidth and storage space but a few things stood out for me. Mario indicated that on January 24, 2012 (the next day after the dismissal), plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the case is currently pending. I have seen no confirmation of this. One may hope that Apuzzo is in contact with Mr. Tisdale and may yet take up the case.

    Mario makes the following admission towards the end of his diatribe:

    “In the meantime, Obama is building his string citation (a statement containing numerous cases by name and brief description which supports one’s legal position) of court wins. But as the old saying goes, it is not the quantity, but the quality that counts. Regardless of the number of cases that Obama can put into his sting citation, they are all based on an erroneous understanding of Wong Kim Ark.”

    At least Mario is almost accepting of reality here. Yes, the courts are starting to look at the nonsense that is the two parent citizen theory and they are rejecting it in case after case. But he is wrong, in the courts, quantity does count for something. When multiple jurists come to the same conclusion that is very significant. That is opposed to the Birther parade of unqualified experts in computer graphics and the law who claim the Obama OFBC is a forgery or Wong Kim Ark is not the definitive case on natural born citizenship status. In one case the people who are charged with deciding what the law says are in unanimous agreement. In the other case it is a bunch of Obama haters engaging in a Birther circle jerk.

    Mario backs off reality and retreats back into his world of absurdity when he says

    “So, assuming that Obama was born in the United States and that at the moment of his birth his father was an alien and his mother was a U.S. citizen, Obama is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the rule of decision of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which is a positive law, but not by virtue of the rule of decision of natural law and the law of nations which is what defines an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and which rule Minor v. Happersett in 1875 confirmed was adopted as American “common-law.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution and early decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court, including Minor, and lower courts show that this “common-law” became part of Article III “Laws of the United States.” This is the legally-recognized consensus definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This definition is the status quo. If Obama does not like this status quo, let him take his battle to court to see if ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will agree or disagree with him.”

    Pardon me? What battle does Obama need to take to the Supreme Court? Last time I checked he was the President of the United States of America and not the “putative” President as you childishly refer to him. It is up to you and the Birthers to convince someone who really counts that you have a clue about the law, Mario. It appears that you are content to hide behind your joke of a blog and pretend to be an expert on something about which you have not a clue.

    • John Woodman says:

      Obama is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the rule of decision of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which is a positive law, but not by virtue of the rule of decision of natural law and the law of nations which is what defines an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and which rule Minor v. Happersett in 1875 confirmed was adopted as American “common-law.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution and early decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court, including Minor, and lower courts show that this “common-law” became part of Article III “Laws of the United States.”

      I’d love to see Mario make his argument before the United States Supreme Court — that the Founders, immediately after independence from Great Britain, and when founding the United States of America as a separate country, relied upon an alleged “American common law,” which supposedly stated that Vattel’s “law of nations… is what defines an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.'”

      That has got to be the stupidest legal argument I have ever heard in years, and maybe in my entire life. It is painful to contemplate that there are actually people out there that will consider that not only a valid argument, but as words of wisdom from a “Constitutional scholar.”

      • MichaelN says:

        “James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751– June 28, 1836) our fourth President and the man called the Father of our Constitution wrote to George Washington concerning the progress of the convention.”

        Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787
        “What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.

        What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
        ————————————

        “John McLean (March 11, 1785 – April 4, 1861) American jurist ……….

        “It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption. WHEATON V. PETERS, 33 U. S. 591 (1834)

        Another founding father, George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, who is called the “Father of the Bill of Right,” had said during the debate on ratification in Virginia that Constitution was not founded on English common law through a single example on treaties, bluntly stated that English common law was not the common law of the United States.

        Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS NOT THE COMMON LAW OF THESE STATES. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788”

        http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-constitution-english-common-law-or-the-law-of-nations/

        • MichaelN says:

          “Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

          “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

          James Wilson (1742 – 1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence. Wilson was a major force in drafting the United States Constitution. He was one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States.

          “When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” Justice James Wilson Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796)”

          “Alexander Hamilton (1757 – 1804 ) American revolutionary war hero, lawyer and founding father.

          Multiple citations of Vattel and the Law of Nations are attributed to him.

          Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that the legislature was the supreme law-giving authority of the state, and was subject to no control except that of the people. However, the New York State Constitution had adopted the common law of England, as part of the Constitution of New York. This British feature, of making past precedents part of the Constitution, Hamilton turned on its head, by arguing that, since the law of nations was part of the common law, the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations, in order to have validity. And Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations.”

          http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-constitution-english-common-law-or-the-law-of-nations/

        • MichaelN says:

          “George Washington (1732 – 1799) American revolutionary leader and hero, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, first President of the United States.

          Besides borrowing Vattel’s Law of Nations from the New York City library for over two hundred years, Washington relied heavily on Vattel’s work to the point that he was accused by Citizen Genet, the Ambassador from the French Republic of supporting Vattel’s Law of Nations over France’s quarrel with England, by writing, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.” “

        • MichaelN says:

          Important to note that the “children of persons duly naturalized”, who were under twenty-one years of age, also became US “citizens” by natural DESCENT at the time of their alien parent’s naturalization.

          Per the 1790 Nat. Act, the alien parent had to reside in the US for at least two years to qualify for naturalization.

          Consider, that under the 1790 act, if an alien arrived in the US, his wife then had a child in US, prior to two years elapsing, the child even though born in the US, is NOT a US citizen, until the two years has elapsed and the parents get naturalized, then the child is naturalized as a US citizen by DESCENT.

          The subsequent act of 1795 provides for a notice period for the parent intention to naturalize and an even longer period of residency in US to qualify for naturalization, whilst all the time any children born in US to the alien are NOT even US citizens, until the alien parents naturalizes and then they become citizens BECAUSE of the status of their PARENT.

          So there goes your ABSURD theory that children born in US to alien parents are “natural born citizens”

        • John Woodman says:

          Ah, good! Michael has finally come up with some NEW nonsense to refute. It was getting a bit tiresome refuting the same old garbage that has been shot down multiple times already.

          Important to note that the “children of persons duly naturalized”, who were under twenty-one years of age, also became US “citizens” by natural DESCENT at the time of their alien parent’s naturalization.

          Correct! Descent (jus sanguinis) is one route to citizenship. Birth on the soil (jus soli) is another.

          James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” had this to say in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789 — two short years after the “natural born citizen” clause was written.

          “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

          So while parentage (or descent) applied to a certain degree in the early United States, the NUMBER ONE criterion for allegiance — and hence for citizenship — was WHERE A PERSON WAS BORN. And we have that on good authority — from the mouth of the “Father of the Constitution.”

          if an alien arrived in the US, his wife then had a child in US, prior to two years elapsing, the child even though born in the US, is NOT a US citizen… The subsequent act of 1795 provides for a notice period for the parent intention to naturalize and an even longer period of residency in US to qualify for naturalization, whilst all the time any children born in US to the alien are NOT even US citizens, until the alien parents naturalizes and then they become citizens BECAUSE of the status of their PARENT.

          Sorry, but no. Once again you make a claim with no “proof” whatsoever except your wish that it were true. The Acts you mention contain absolutely no provision whatsoever for denying citizenship to a child born to a resident alien on US soil during the time he resides in the US prior to being naturalized. They merely state that when his is naturalized, all his children will be citizens as well. This obviously applies only to children who are not already citizens.

          Where is the passage in these acts denying natural born citizenship to his children born here? You can’t produce it, because it doesn’t exist.

          And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

          And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

          So there goes your ABSURD theory that children born in US to alien parents are “natural born citizens”

          Once again, claiming that something is “absurd,” in the lack of evidence that it actually is, does not make it so. If you want to state that pigs are the most beautiful winged creatures that fly overhead, you may certainly do so — but your stating a thing does not make it so.

          Congratulations, sir, on discovering a new argument to fail at.

  38. John Woodman says:

    I’ve answered Michael’s latest claim.

    Anybody ever play that Whack-A-Mole game?

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Answering their claims as if they were made in good faith is suffering fools gladly (the birthers that post here, at least.)

      They have an answer or everything: you’re an idiot, I’m an Obot, Malihi’s a Muslim, Kemp’s corrupt, Hawai’i is complicit in the cover-up, WKA said nothing about NBC but MvH did, the Law of Nations means Vattel’s book because it was capitalized, the Court will do nothing about the Usurper just to avoid a race war, we’ll all be sorry, the “truth” will come out and the President will be dragged out in chains, the “silent majority” will rise up and “take their country back,” if the ballot box does’t get him out, the bullet box will…

      Constitutional issues raised in good faith would take the form of a Categorical Imperative. They would say the NBC definition has been applied too loosely, and should be made more restrictive by Congress but then applied equally to all future candidates.

      But by far the majority of Birthers are just making any argument no matter how loopy if it stands a chance of getting the darkie out of office, and have no honorable interest in the issue applied beyond President Obama.

      They’re not moles, John, they’re zombies. They can’t be reasoned with, they can’t be stopped, and they want to eat our brains.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        That was supposed to be “answer for everything,” not “or.” I’m posting from my phone mostly and my eyes are getting old.

        • John Woodman says:

          It would be interesting for someone to compile a list of the minimum things you have to believe in order to believe the birther position.

          Either from the “Obama was born outside of the US” or from the “natural born citizen” point of view.

      • John Woodman says:

        I actually have likened some of these people to zombies on at least one prior occasion. A careful, thorough analysis that ought to lay a particular matter to rest avails nothing. And it doesn’t seem to matter how many invalid and even stupid arguments are disproven. They can always seem to come up with a new one, or to recycle old ones that have already been disproven many times.

    • Northland10 says:

      Apt analogy for any attempt at discussing with some birthers. However, answering Michael lacks the enjoyable whacking part of Whack-A-Mole.

  39. MichaellN’s last few posts ended up in my spam queue for some reason. I am moderating MichaelN’s posts because he has made so many unfounded attacks on the President and some of the commenters here. I have not deleted anything other than a duplicate that was in the spam queue. If there is a delay in his comments appearing it is because I have more important things to do.

  40. Only 4 days left for Mario Apuzzo to file an appeal in Tisdale v Obama. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  41. John Woodman says:

    To highlight the absurdity of Michael’s “logic:”

    The following two constructions are logically the same:

    Congress said that children born to US parents overseas are natural born. They did not state that native-born children are also natural-born. Therefore, native-born children are NOT natural-born.

    Farmer Brown told me that cows are farm animals. He did not state that pigs are farm animals. Therefore, pigs are NOT farm animals.

    The wrongness and stupidity of this logic ought to be obvious even to a 5th-grader. Yet this, apparently, is the basis for Michael’s claim that he has “proven” that natural born citizenship is “by descent.”

    And then he tells others that THEY are the ones “in denial.”

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Mikey uses the same “logic” when he claims that the WKA decision never called him a “natural born citizen,” although it deemed him “natural born” and “a citizen.”

      Yeesh.

      • John Woodman says:

        I was thinking about this some more. Perhaps this would be even more detailed and accurate a description and analogy as to his logic.

        The following two constructions are logically the same:

        1. Congress said that children born to US parents overseas are natural born. The reason they said this is that such children are descended from US citizens. But Congress did not state that native-born children are also natural-born.

        Therefore, ONLY children descended from US citizens are natural born. And native-born children are NOT natural-born — unless they are children of citizens.

        2. Farmer Brown told me that cows are farm animals. The reason he said this is because they give milk. But Farmer Brown did not state that pigs are also farm animals.

        Therefore, ONLY animals that give milk are farm animals. And pigs are NOT farm animals — unless they provide milk.

        The basic fallacy in both cases is that determining that A is a “C” does NOT necessarily mean that B is not also a “C.”

        And again, we know from Wong Kim Ark that B is, in fact, a “C.”

  42. In the interest of fair play I decided to give Mr. Apuzzo some good advice. I attempted to post this comment on his blog earlier today. He still has it in moderation:

    Mr. Apuzzo

    I trust that you have made the wise choice and have decided not to offer to take up the appeal for Mr. Tisdale. It would be a losing proposition for you. Judge Gibney made it very clear in his decision that the courts will have nothing to do with your “two parent citizen” nonsense and that Wong Kim Ark and not Minor v Happersett is the defining case for determining who is a natural born citizen. By taking up the appeal you would expose yourself to ridicule when the appeal fails and to having another “frivolous appeal” added to your record. Even worse, there is the real possibility that the 4th Circuit might decide the 3rd Circuit erred in not imposing monetary sanctions against you the in the Kerchner appeal. They might decide more severe action is warranted when they see your name on another ridiculous case that would be a waste of time for the already overloaded courts.

    I think confining your legal nonsense to your blog is exactly the right choice.

  43. Here is a question for Mario and MichaelN:

    If the authors of the Constitution were so damn paranoid about lineage and allegiance why would they allow someone who was naturalized literally the same day the Constitution was adopted to become president of the United States? They could have easily limited it to a natural born citizen of one of the states or even to a citizen of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Nope, they opened it up to every single citizen by any means until September 1789 when the Constitution was adopted. Can you please reconcile this apparent oversight when compared with your two parent citizen nonsense?

    Come on MichaelN…

  44. MichaelN says:

    Reality Check said…………

    “Here is a question for Mario and MichaelN:

    If the authors of the Constitution were so damn paranoid about lineage and allegiance why would they allow someone who was naturalized literally the same day the Constitution was adopted to become president of the United States?”

    Reply:
    The authors had no right to “allow” anything of the sort.

    The USC provided that a US “citizen” at the time of the adoption was eligible for the office of POTUS, provided that US “citizen” was 35 years old and passed the 14 years residency requirement.

    The it was up to the voting process from thereon.

    What are you trying to say? …………

    • An alien, a French trapper or a Hessian soldier for example, could have met the age and residency requirement by residing in one or more of the states before adoption of the Constitution. If he naturalized at any point before the adoption then he would meet the grandfather clause. Even if this alien did not meet the age or residency requirement on day one he could eventually run for president when he met those.

      My point is that the authors of the Constitution were not so concerned about allegiance as you suggest. They provided a mechanism whereby someone with only a minimum time of citizenship and 14 years of residency could run for the office. After that generation all passed on the requirement of lifelong citizenship became the determining factor by default. The age and residency requirement were always the same. However, it is odd to think about the residency requirement and how it applied in 1789 since the USA had not been a country for 14 years.

    • John Woodman says:

      Any alien — French, English, Russian, whoever — who had established sufficient residency could have become naturalized one day before the adoption of the Constitution.

      Just fourteen years later (which is about the minimum amount of time it would take to build sufficient political base anyway), that same alien — who had been indisputably an alien two days before the Constitution was adopted — could have quite legally been elected President of the United States.

      Not only that, the provisions of the Constitution are equally clear that a person can be born a natural born citizen, live MOST of his life overseas, return to the United States, live here for 14 years, and be elected President.

      The youngest possible age to be elected President is 35. This means that in order for a person to even APPROACH the 14-year residency requirement, he would have to live at least TWENTY years outside of the United States.

      FOR THIS REASON, your claim that the Founding Fathers intended to eliminate ANY possibility of foreign influence is absolute nonsense.

      If they would have been “derelict in their duty” to allow for the possibility that someone who was NATIVE BORN, whose parents were not citizens at the time of his or her BIRTH, to THIRTY-FIVE OR FIFTY YEARS LATER become President of the United States, then please explain this:

      How were they NOT “derelict” in their duty writing the provisions that they wrote — seeing that those provisions quite explicitly allow people to this day to live most of their lives overseas and still be elected President, and seeing how those provisions would have allowed a foreigner who became a citizen the day before the Constitution was adopted, to become President as well?

      Can you explain that? You can’t, because it shows what complete nonsense your point was.

      • MichaelN says:

        Short answer.

        Besides being eligible for the office of POTUS, one must campaign, be exposed to public scrutiny, become vere so popular and preferred over others who DID spend most of their lives in US and then get get elected.

        You can wriggle and squirm all you like Johnny-boy, but you know as well as I, that the framers were VERY CONCERNED about foreign influence in the executive of the new republic and that “natural” meant PRIMARILY by descent, with native as an added surity, in the imperative to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, allegiance, leaning or foreign claim.

        Your ENTIRE argument is, at it’s very core, based on ABSURDITY.

        You are seriously in denial.

        As you have been shown, the First naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates that “natural born” meant by natural descent, the framers studied, revered and were strongly influenced by Vattel, where NATURAL DESCENT was of paramount importance in establishing citizenship, the SCOTUS in WKA held that natural descent was THE PARAMOUNT element in recognizing a “natural born citizen”, where they made the CLEAR DISTINCTION, by observing the doubts as to whether a native born child to alien parents was even a citizen AT ALL!

        Then we have the USCIS making the clear distinction between native born and natural born.

        Then we have “George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, who is called the “Father of the Bill of Right,” had said during the debate on ratification in Virginia that Constitution was not founded on English common law through a single example on treaties, bluntly stated that English common law was not the common law of the United States.”

        Quote:
        “Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country. Where did their constitution originate? It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable. Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution? In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country. The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS NOT THE COMMON LAW OF THESE STATES. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. George Mason, June 19, 1788”

        You need to be honest John, then the truth will set you free from your burden of promoting lies and deceit, desperate to supress the truth from being spread to the population at large.

        Why is it that you don’t actively push for Mr. Transparency-Obama to “prove” his “natural born’ status in the court?

        Grow some courage, face the truth.

        • John Woodman says:

          Hey! Mikey’s back! Hey Mikey!

          Let’s see if you addressed my points, which were:

          1. An alien who was naturalized one day before the Constitution was adopted could have become President 14 years later.

          2. In order for a person to even APPROACH the residency requirement, he would have to live at LEAST 20 years outside of the United States.

          3. If you claim the Founders would’ve been “derelict in their duty” for allowing someone born in the US of non-citizen parents to become President (also having had to live at least 14 years in the United States), then how could they NOT have been “derelict in their duty” to allow the two situations above?

          Besides being eligible for the office of POTUS, one must campaign, be exposed to public scrutiny, become vere so popular and preferred over others who DID spend most of their lives in US and then get get elected.

          Right. All of which weakens your argument.

          You can wriggle and squirm all you like Johnny-boy, but you know as well as I, that the framers were VERY CONCERNED about foreign influence in the executive of the new republic…

          Let’s be a bit more specific. From John Jay’s letter, they wanted to provide “a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government.” Quite specifically, it seems that they didn’t want A FOREIGNER to be Commander-in-Chief of our ARMY. For this reason, Jay suggested only a “natural BORN citizen.”
          Note that he emphasized the word “BORN” by underlining it — NOT the word “natural.” All very suggestive of the current understanding of “natural born citizen” as someone who is a citizen at or by birth.

          and that “natural” meant PRIMARILY by descent

          So you keep asserting. All without any convincing evidence WHATSOEVER.

          …with native as an added surity, in the imperative to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, allegiance, leaning or foreign claim.

          Sorry, but the entire history of the term “natural born [subject/citizen]” says that the children of aliens domiciled in country — going back for centuries — was a “natural born subject/citizen.”

          Your ENTIRE argument is, at it’s very core, based on ABSURDITY. You are seriously in denial.

          Maybe that’s why every single one of your points has been factually shot down.

          As you have been shown, the First naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrates that “natural born” meant by natural descent

          As you’ve been shown, it demonstrates no such thing.

          …the framers studied, revered and were strongly influenced by Vattel, where NATURAL DESCENT was of paramount importance in establishing citizenship…

          …Which is why they quoted Blackstone (English common law) SIXTEEN TIMES more frequently than they quoted Vattel. As shown by Lutz. Right?

          …the SCOTUS in WKA held that natural descent was THE PARAMOUNT element in recognizing a “natural born citizen”…

          They did no such thing. You can’t produce the proving quote, because it doesn’t exist.

          …where they made the CLEAR DISTINCTION, by observing the doubts as to whether a native born child to alien parents was even a citizen AT ALL!

          Mikey, I think you have finally gone around the bend. The court in Wong Kim Ark found WKA to be both “natural born” and a “citizen.” They ALSO explicitly affirmed that the rule ALWAYS was that the child, even of aliens, born on the soil, was a natural born subject — and they explicitly stated that the same rule applied in the United States both before and after the adoption of the Constitution.

          So they not only said Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen — they said it TWICE!

          Then we have the USCIS making the clear distinction between native born and natural born.

          Which again we’ve dealt with already.

          Then we have… English common law was not the common law of the United States.

          Which was acknowledged by the Court, which ALSO stated that even so, the Constitution STILL had to be interpreted in the light of the common law, because that was the context and nomenclature it was written in.

          By the way, I don’t think you’ve dealt with the fact that the PHRASE “natural born citizen” could NOT POSSIBLY have come from Vattel, since not only did he use the word “INDIGENES” in the passage birthers like to quote — it was never translated as “natural born citizen” until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written!

          Okay, now that we’ve completely shot down your latest round of nonsense (which is mostly just more of the same recycled claims), back to the original question.

          Did you address any of my three points?

          No, you did not.

          So for the current run, that would appear to make it, by my count, “Fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail.”

          Are you trying for the record?

  45. Mr. Tisdale filed a notice of appeal with the 4th Circuit on January 24th. Here is a link to the document:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011412/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-4-NOTICE-of-Appeal-24-Jan-2012

    Thanks to nolu chan for posting the document on SCRIBD. I am not sure if this document is all Mr. Tisdale plans to file or not. It fails to address the main reason the district court dismissed his case. I may write more on this later.

  46. MichaelN says:

    Johnny in denial said ………..
    “By the way, I don’t think you’ve dealt with the fact that the PHRASE “natural born citizen” could NOT POSSIBLY have come from Vattel, since not only did he use the word “INDIGENES” in the passage birthers like to quote — it was never translated as “natural born citizen” until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written!”

    Response:
    The framers were conversant in French.
    Vattel was VERY popular and a STRONG INFLUENCE on the framers.

    What is important in what Vattel wrote was not so much the term “natural born citizen”, but what Vattel said that made a natural citizen.

    Quote:
    “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than BY THE CHILDREN OF THE CITIZENS, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITION OF THEIR FATHERS, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; AND THOSE BECOME THE TRUE CITIZENS merely by their tacit consent.

    We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, IN ORDER TO BE OF A COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    Johnny-boy, YOU KNOW the framers read and studied this, and were VERY STRONGLY influenced by this.

    You really need to do something about your denial problem.

    http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    • MichaelN says:

      “Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

      As can be seen Jefferson is EQUATING CITIZENSHIP OF THE CHILD TO THAT OF THE PARENTS, and not the land. “

      • Ballantine addressed the Virgina citizenship argument two years ago in his critique of Kerchner v Obama at the Fogbow:

        Let’s look at Mario’s misstatements of law in his brief, things that courts and state bar associations love.

        Mario states that Jefferson’s 1779 and 1783 naturalization law required native born children of aliens to be naturalized. The 1783 statute reads:

        “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act entitled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children whosesoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned;…. ” LAWS OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 1783, Henings Statutes at Large, pg. 323

        This thus appears to be an untrue statement as it clearly states all free persons born within the commonwealth were citizens. The better reading of the 1779 statute doesn’t require naturalization either, but it is ambiguous. Mario goes on to claim that early US naturalization law required native born children of aliens to be naturalized. This is wrong as a matter of history and he can cite no authority to support it. The early naturalization statutes said nothing about the native born. Rather, he is trying to read it into the derivative citizen provisions which were clearly meant for the foreign born. I can cite authority after authority stating the naturalization, by definition, can only apply to the foreign born and never the native born. For example:

        “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dared Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. at 417

        Mario can obviously find no early authority saying natvie children of aliens needed to be naturalized as there is none. On the contrary, all early scholars (see, e.g., Kent, Story, Rowel) and case law tell us the English common law rule applied in America and there is a multitude as cases on the right of native born citizens to inherit from their alien parents. See, e.g., Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179 (1806), Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824), Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 (1832).

      • John Woodman says:

        You can’t be serious.

        I am now pretty well convinced that you just like arguing, and that maybe you like taking the losing position and just seeing how far you can get on bluster and persistence.

        Let’s put some paragraphs into this law:

        Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

        that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth

        AND all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,

        AND all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;

        AND all infants WHERESOEVER BORN, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,

        shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,

        until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:

        And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

        Jefferson and the State of Virginia name 4 different categories of persons who shall be citizens of the Commonwealth.

        The very first is ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH. This is completely without regard as to whether their parents are citizens or aliens.

        The law you have produced thus confirms the ancient rule of common law, and is strong evidence against your position.

        Colossal, mega-mongo FAIL.

        In fact, anyone who would argue against your position ought to THANK you for producing evidence against it.

        • MichaelN says:

          The infants citizenship was based on the status of the parents.

          Not only that, but “ALL OTHERS” who are not citizens of ANY of the United States, “SHALL BE deemed ALIENS”

          “and all infants wheresoever born, whose FATHER, if living, or otherwise, whose MOTHER was, A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens”

          Johnny-boy, your denial problem needs to be kept in check.

          It’s all about NATURAL DESCENT.

        • John Woodman says:

          Michael,

          What part of:

          Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

          THAT ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THIS COMMONWEALTH… SHALL BE DEEMED CITIZENS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH

          do you not understand?

          Are you a genuine idiot, or simply a troll?

        • John Woodman says:

          Mikey,

          I am at this point convinced you are simply a troll whose sole goal in life is to waste other people’s time with your inane claims and arguments.

        • MichaelN says:

          [RC: Personal attack deleted. Further such attacks will result in a permanent ban.]
          “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth ……………. and all infants wheresoever born, whose FATHER, if living, or otherwise, whose MOTHER was, A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH, or who migrate hither, their FATHER, if living, or otherwise their MOTHER becoming A CITIZEN, or who migrate hither without FATHER or MOTHER, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth”

          [RC: Personal attack deleted]
          , it’s all about NATURAL DESCENT ……………. always was………… same as in English common law …………..

          i.e. if daddio ain’t a subject, then kiddo ain’t a subject, even if kiddo is born in England.

          It’s all really simple, there’s nothing complicated about it.

          [RC: Personal attack deleted. Any more breaches of civility will result in a permanent ban. This is your final warning, MichaelN.]

    • Northland10 says:

      The framers were conversant in French.
      Vattel was VERY popular and a STRONG INFLUENCE on the framers.

      Vattel was not a strong an influence as others:

      Baron de Montesquieu
      William Blackstone (and his chapter… Of Offenses against the Laws of Nations)
      John Locke
      Sir Edward Coke (interpreted correctly)
      Jean Louis DeLolme
      James Harrington
      Thomas Hobbes
      David Hume
      Richard Price
      Algernon Sidney
      Hugo Grotius
      Samuel von Pufendorf

      Vattel was one of many, and not even the primary one.

      • MichaelN says:

        Yes, the framers sought information from, and were influenced by, a wide range of people as well as Vattel.

        That’s another reason why it is absurd i.e. the notion that English common law was the sole source for the UNPRECEDENTED term “natural born Citizen” and it’s UNPRECEDENTED application as an eligibility criteria for a president of a republic, besides the other absurdity, i.e. the imperative on the part of the framers, for security and protection from foreign influence, allegiance, divided loyalty, etc was so lax.

        “Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.”

        In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.

        In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and “his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}” James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.}

        Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and “Vattel’s {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.”

        Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.

        Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions.

        One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia.

        The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.

        Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.

        In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift.

        Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.
        It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
        Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting “

        • Northland10 says:

          Not one of your unsourced citations mentions they used one small paragraph from a much larger book to determine citizenship and disregard the writings of Blackstone (whom they mention far more then Vattel). In fact, many of your citations are in reference to international relations, treaties and such. Not one mention municipal law.

          Reading a book and commenting that you liked it does not mean they used it to create the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. I should mention, the list I pulled above was actually a listing pulled together by Constitutional scholars who spent their life studying this (The Oxford Companion to United States History). Apparently, you know better?

          In the US, it is not about decent. Who your daddy was does not matter. This is part of what we call liberty (and, btw, comes from the founders understanding of Natural Law).

        • John Woodman says:

          Northland,

          Your points are outstanding and dead-on accurate.

          The average copy of Vattel’s Law of Nations seems to run around 500 pages. Some run as much as 900 pages, depending on spacing, font size, etc.

          Michael claims — on the basis of no actual evidence whatsoever — that the Founding Fathers, whose entire legal and culture heritage came from England, pulled a sentence or two out of a 500-page book written in French by a relatively obscure Swiss guy — whom they actually cited one SIXTEENTH the number of times they cited Blackstone, the writer on the English common law. They supposedly adopted the Swiss guy’s foreign concept of citizenship, and then supposedly used the long-standing ENGLISH term “natural born citizen” (when the Swiss guy himself said “indigenes”) to mean the Swiss guy’s concept of citizenship, when the term “natural born subject/citizen” had ALWAYS, for centuries, had a very specific meaning meaning that was clearly QUITE DIFFERENT from the Swiss guy’s concept of citizenship.

          It’s like claiming that the McDonald’s coupon that says you’ve won a “free small Coke” actually, really, TRULY means that you’ve won a “Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese.” Never mind that “small Coke” has an established meaning that DOES NOT and NEVER HAS meant “Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese.” Because Michael doesn’t want a small Coke. Michael wants a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese — dammit!

          The claim is simply absolute, USDA-approved bull guano. There’s no term more polite that can be possibly used to accurately describe it.

    • John Woodman says:

      Michael, I’ve read Vattel, both in English and in the original French.

      Tu vois, mon petit, j’ai étudié le français à l’université, et j’ai habité moi-même dans un pays francophone, et je le comprends très bien. C’est une deuxième langue pour moi.

      If the Framers of the Constitution had been referring to de Vattel’s idea of citizenship, then surely they would have used his terminology. They didn’t. Instead, they used the used the phrase “natural born citizen,” which was clearly analogous, if not virtually synonymous, to “natural born subject,” which had its own meaning that it had held for centuries.

      There are three things that might indicate they were referring to Vattel’s concept.

      1) If we had had Swiss heritage, not English, then we might have inherited the Swiss philosophy. But no. All thirteen States had been part of England and achieved independence from that country. Not one had Swiss or French heritage.

      Emphatic fail.

      2) If the Framers had used Vattel’s terminology, that would be an indication that they were probably referring to his concept of citizenship. But no. They specifically avoided Vattel’s terminology and specifically used the long-standing terminology from English common law.Therefore, they were obviously referring to the English understanding of natural law.

      Emphatic fail.

      3) If evidence indicated that the Framers gave preference to Vattel over English common law, then they might have been referring to his concept of citizenship.

      But no. We know that the Founding Fathers, in their writings, referred to Blackstone, the authority on English common law, not once or twice as often, but roughly SIXTEEN TIMES as often as they referred to Vattel.

      You really need to do something about your denial problem.

      “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      • John Woodman says:

        Apologies to all, as I inadvertently omitted my third:

        Emphatic fail.

      • John Woodman says:

        And I misspelled “analogous.”

        I’m off my game today.

        [RC: I corrected it for you.]

      • MichaelN says:

        John Woodman said…….
        “If the Framers of the Constitution had been referring to de Vattel’s idea of citizenship, then surely they would have used his terminology. They didn’t. Instead, they used the used the phrase “natural born citizen,” which was clearly analagous, if not virtually synonymous, to “natural born subject,” which had its own meaning that it had held for centuries.”

        The WKA court ran with the notion that “subject” and “citizen” were analogous.

        This means that because in English common law, a child who is born to a non “subject” {Noun} even though born in England, can no be a “subject”, then, a child born to a non US “citizen” , even though born in the US, can not be a “citizen”.

        So much for your analogous claim………….. back-fire, both barrels.

        As for your absurd “virtually synonymous” theory, recognition of a “natural born subject” of England was simply recognition of a “subject” who had certain rights of land and property inheritance, etc, it was nothing to do with eligibility for high office nor national security.

        Whereas “natural born Citizen” was a term to describe one’s eligibility criteria for highest office, commander in chief, national security, without ANY REGARD for land or property inheritance rights.

        So much for your absurd “virtually synonymous” theory.

        Keep squirming desperately in your denial Johnny-boy.

  47. John Woodman says:

    The recent turn of this discussion brings to mind the brutal violence done to US v. Wong Kim Ark back in December by birther lawyer and “legal expert” Leo Donofrio:

    That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

    “In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

    ‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

    19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

    At first glance, Gray’s reliance upon the dissent’s passage in the Dred Scott case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it doesn’t. It actually confirms my analysis.

    Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them carefully. Note where Gray says, “And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Well, if we are talking only about “citizenship”, then – to this extent – Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a “natural-born citizen”, then Gray is grossly mistaken.

    Donofrio claimed that when Justice Gray said, “to this extent,” he meant, “to the extent of citizenship only, and not to the extent of natural born citizenship.”

    Such a reading is ridiculous on its face, because Justice Curtis never had any reference whatsoever to natural born citizenship for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.

    When Justice Gray said, “to this extent,” he clearly meant, to the extent of the people to whom the law was held to apply.

    White people.

    As Jefferson’s law in Virginia also stated:

    …all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth… shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.

    People of any other race — African or Asian — need not apply.

    I have already gone into a bit of detail at my blog about why Donofrio’s and Apuzzo’s claim that US v Wong Kim Ark said nothing regarding natural born citizenship is an absolute, 100%, bald-faced lie. I will probably be writing more, though, and pulling the threads all together.

    • John Woodman says:

      By the way, it goes without saying that Justice Gray’s statement did indeed contradict everything that Donofrio had written above.

      Donofrio is the only person I know who has honestly described his own law career as “failed,” who admits that the first lawsuit he ever filed was his [failed] lawsuit claiming birtherism, and yet who still seems to think he’s smarter in legal matters than the entire United States Supreme Court.

  48. John Woodman says:

    Having thought about it, I would like to apologize to Michael for the condescending tone I adopted when I addressed him, in French, as “mon petit” — “my little one” or “my child.”

    It is not my purpose to be condescending to others, even when (as in this case) their actions might indicate that they deserve it.

    What I probably should have said — and in English — is simply that I studied French at university, and have both lived and traveled in French-speaking countries, and I therefore have read and understand Vattel’s work in its original language very well.

    • MichaelN says:

      So all your self aggrandizing is supposed to change the meaning of Vattel’s principle for citizenship, i.e. to follow that of the father?

      Boy, you do have a serious problem.

      The framers read Vattel, studied Vattel, discussed Vattel, his book was one of the most popular items of literature of the day, i.e. the framers were STRONGLY INFLUENCED by Vattel.

      By the way my grand-father and mother are French and I also studied French for four years, I lived with French speaking people, does that make what I say more true? ……… lol…………[RC: Personal attack deleted]

  49. Thomas Brown says:

    Oh, Micky…. this is so simple even you should understand it: you have no evidence whatsoever that the framers, even if they were familiar w/ Vattel, translated “indigenes” as “natural born citizens.” Well, do ya, punk? Of course not. There is not a single sentence in a single historical document linking the two. And as for the fact that a later translator did, you can make a plausible case for the translator getting NBC from the Constitution and gratuitously inserting it into Vattel.

    There is just as much reason to translate it as “the indigenous (people),” meaning “anyone born in our territory.” The only rationale you have for insisting that it take the former definition is so you can cling to the idiotic, wrong-headed, delusional, arrogant, mis-guided, mis-informed, seditious, repugnant, baseless, preposterous, non-existent Two-Citizen-Parents-Required-For-NBCship Theory, just as a cockroach would cling to a turd as it swirls down the drain.

    And I would be as gentlemanly as Mr. Woodman and eschew such condescension were it not for your haughty and insulting attitude toward him and the rest of us. But you have diligently bought your scorn, IMHO.

    • MichaelN says:

      [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

      • John Woodman says:

        Michael,

        Thanks for sharing that long quote from Vattel’s book.

        It doesn’t matter what de Vattel wrote or what his concept of citizenship was if there’s no evidence that the Founding Fathers used it.

        There might well have been a philosopher in China in 1653 named Won Fat Joe, who wrote in his book on “The Customs and Manners of Nations” that in order to be a “true indigenous citizen” of a country, one had to be homosexual and eat crickets daily for seven years. And some of the Founding Fathers might well have read Won Fat Joe’s book on the subject and remarked that it was a great read.

        But unless there’s some evidence, somewhere, that they actually meant Won Fat Joe’s idea of a citizen when they wrote the Constitution, it’s all completely irrelevant.

        There is no more evidence that the Founding Fathers were referring to Vattel’s definition of citizenship than they were to Won Fat Joe’s — and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

        • MichaelN says:

          But it DID matter what Vattel wrote and what his concepts were.

          It’s just that you are in denial.

          “Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions.

          One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia.

          THE LIBRARIAN REPORTED THAT VATTEL WAS ONE OF THE MAIN SOURCES CONSULTED BY THE DELEGATES DURING THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.

          Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.

          In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy.

          He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library.

          Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift.

          Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A RISING STATE MAKE IT NECESSARY FREQUENTLY TO CONSULT THE LAW OF NATIONS.

          Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been CONTINUALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE CONGRESS, NOW SITTING ”

        • John Woodman says:

          But it DID matter what Vattel wrote and what his concepts were.

          Unless there’s some evidence that the Founding Fathers were truly referring to Vattel’s writing and his concepts of citizenship — and the entire weight of the evidence, as far as I’ve seen, CLEARLY indicates otherwise — then Vattel’s concepts of citizenship, in terms of a proper understanding of the term “natural born citizen,” are no more relevant than the citizenship concepts of Won Fat Joe.

      • MichaelN says:

        It seems even the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett understood Lord Coke’s take on what it takes to make a “natural born”, the same as I have pointed out.

        i.e. that Coke held that to be a “natural born subject” one had to be born both in the land and to a “subject”, because if the father was not a “subject” then his child can not be a subject even if the child is born in England.

        Here’s what the Minor court said ……

        “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

        AT COMMON LAW, WITH THE NOMENCLATURE OF WHICH THE FRAMERS 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.”

        What “common law” was the Minor court referring to, with definitions that the framers were familiar with?

        Let’s for the moment, say it was the English common law.

        Then how did the framers and the Minor court get from English common law that it was through both PARENTS subject/citizen status AND born in the land, that a “natural born” was recognized?

        Why did the Minor court hold that there were DOUBTS about the rights to being a citizen for those born in the land to alien non-citizen parents?

        Answer: Because they read Lord Coke in Calvin’s case the same as I do.

        i.e. if dad’s not a subject/citizen, then his child can not be a natural born subject/citizen, even when the child is born in the land.

        • John Woodman says:

          That’s good, Mikey. Keep saying it.

          Because every time you say a thing, it comes a little bit more true.

        • MichaelN says:

          @ Johnny

          What “common law” was the Minor court referring to, with definitions that the framers were familiar with?

        • John Woodman says:

          Obviously it was the English common law, Michael.

          It obviously wasn’t some “American common law” (as Apuzzo claims).

          This is confirmed by the known fact that the Founding Fathers cited Blackstone roughly 16 times as often as they cited the Swiss guy Vattel.

          And we know that at English common law, the children born on the soil even of aliens in friendship were natural born subjects.

          Every point you bring up again confirms how wrong your claim is.

        • MichaelN says:

          John Woodman said …………….
          “Obviously it was the English common law, Michael.

          It obviously wasn’t some “American common law” (as Apuzzo claims).

          This is confirmed by the known fact that the Founding Fathers cited Blackstone roughly 16 times as often as they cited the Swiss guy Vattel.

          And we know that at English common law, the children born on the soil even of aliens in friendship were natural born subjects.

          Every point you bring up again confirms how wrong your claim is.”

          Reply:
          Ok then, if it was English common law, then how did the Minor court come to the conclusion that a child born in the US, to citizen parents, was undoubtedly a “natural born citizen”, but it was doubtful that a child born in the US, to alien parents was even a citizen, let alone a NBC?

        • Northland10 says:

          MichaelN: Ok then, if it was English common law, then how did the Minor court come to the conclusion that a child born in the US, to citizen parents, was undoubtedly a “natural born citizen”, but it was doubtful that a child born in the US, to alien parents was even a citizen, let alone a NBC?

          You are either completely unable to comprehend English, did not read the actual case or are lying.

          The court never said it was doubtful that a child born in the US to alien parents is a citizen. They only said that there had been doubts but, for citizens like Virginia Minor, there were no doubts. Since the case was about Minor’s right to vote, the court did not explain further on the “doubts” since it had no bearing on the case. They stated this clearly and you ignored it.

          Of course some (but not all or even a majority) doubted a citizen born of aliens would be a citizen and eventually, the court would rule on the issue (WKA). However, for the Minor case, the only thing necessary was the show there was no doubt from anybody that she was a citizen.

        • John Woodman says:

          Ok then, if it was English common law, then how did the Minor court come to the conclusion that a child born in the US, to citizen parents, was undoubtedly a “natural born citizen”, but it was doubtful that a child born in the US, to alien parents was even a citizen, let alone a NBC?

          Obviously, there are two different concepts of citizenship.

          The Founders were well-versed in the English common law.

          If they had meant Vattel’s concept, then they would have used Vattel’s WORD — “indigene.” Or, a very close equivalent, such as “indigenous citizen.”

          The fact that they used the English common law term — with no other explanation or qualification — means that they meant the English common law meaning. It’s as simple as that.

          That doesn’t mean that there weren’t SOME in our society who held ideas similar to Vattel’s. These appear to have particularly taken greater hold after the US Civil War, 80 years AFTER the Constitution was written — just as there are SOME today who claim — on the basis of no good evidence at all that I have seen — that “natural born citizen” supposedly means Vattel’s idea. The fact that there WAS some doubt is why the Court in Minor stated that there was some doubt.

          But: The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, after doing an IMPRESSIVELY long and thorough review of case law and history, concluded:

          It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

          III. 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…

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

          The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.

          That conclusion was in a 6 to 2 ruling. In other words, 75% of the Supreme Court Justices found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen — and by implication, eligible to run for President.

          25% of the Supreme Court Justices disagreed and held, basically, to Vattel’s idea.

          So it wasn’t a unanimous decision. Most Supreme Court decisions aren’t. But it WAS a clear, OVERWHELMING decision.

          For every ONE Justice who believed that Vattel’s idea ought to reign in our country, THREE Justices said — “No. Look. The term ‘natural born subject/citizen already HAD a very specific meaning. And it was, in fact, a meaning that derived from NATURAL LAW. But it WASN’T the Swiss guy’s idea of ‘natural law’ — it was the concept of natural law that had been handed down to us through our OWN heritage, our OWN history, and our OWN legal tradition.”

          And it doesn’t really matter whether you or I or anyone else agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision — their decision in the matter is the Law.

          It is gratifying, however, that your own research confirms that Thomas Jefferson — the author of our Declaration of Independence — was clearly in agreement himself. We know this because he authored the 1779 citizenship law for the Commonwealth of Virginia that clearly provided “that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth… shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.

          So that’s it. That’s why Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama, and Bobby Jindal are ALL natural born citizens.

        • MichaelN says:

          MichaelN said …………….

          [RC: This one had some actual argument but there were so many embedded personal attacks it was easier to just delete it all. :)]

        • MichaelN says:

          [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

        • Northland10 says:

          Your entire argument has absurdity at it’s very core and is tainted with political bias, to the point that you have commited so deeply, you are at the point of no return …………. all you have left is your deep denial, desperately grasping at straws.

          Hmm… since my absurd argument is the same one being accepted by courts, Secretaries of State and election commissions, by lawyers of both parties, my “denial” is in rather good company.

          So, Michael, if a few people have doubts about something, does that make it law for everybody? That would be, as you call it absurd.

          BTW, you owe me a new irony meter.

        • MichaelN says:

          [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

        • MichaelN says:

          [RC: Spam and personal attacks deleted.]

        • MichaelN says:

          Northland10 said …………..
          “Hmm… since my absurd argument is the same one being accepted by courts, Secretaries of State and election commissions, by lawyers of both parties, my “denial” is in rather good company.

          So, Michael, if a few people have doubts about something, does that make it law for everybody? That would be, as you call it absurd.”

          Reply:
          [RC: Spam and personal attacks by MichaelN deleted]

      • Northland10 says:

        It your sorry lot who are AFRAID to have the law put to the test.

        Ankeny v Daniels
        Farrar v Obama
        Swenson v Obama
        Welden v Obama
        Tisdale v. Obama

        My, we have so much to be afraid of.

  50. Pingback: Unveiled for the First Time: The Birther Dictionary! [1] | Investigating the Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

  51. Pingback: Unveiled for the First Time: The Birther-English Dictionary! [1] | Investigating the Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

  52. Thomas Brown says:

    “Most people thought the earth was flat, but they were wrong.”

    Only people as ignorant as you, Mikey. The Chinese, ancient Greeks, Mayans, Vikings, Persians, east Indians, and Egyptians all knew the earth was round. That’s why we call drooling lugnuts who hold preposterously simple-minded opinions, like Birfers, “flat-earthers” today.

    Man, are we ever going to have fun rolling around laughing at you when every Court finds Obama eligible, whether or not he is actually re-elected.

    But pray continue with this nonsense. It makes Democrats look smarter and smarter, and Obama’s re-election more probable, with each rapidly-passing day.

    • MichaelN says:

      [RC: Personal attacks deleted]
      [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

      • Thomas Brown says:

        You may have taken “ignorant” wrong. I can see how, since you refuse to understand words the way they are generally used. It is not (necessarily) an insult to intelligence. It means one who COULD understand something, but has decided to IGNORE it.

        Kind of like what you do all the time.

        The Minor court DID NOT SAY it doubted that children of aliens were citizens. It said there have been doubts expressed by others, but WE (the Minor court) need not address that issue, as it is not material to the case at hand.

        You ignorers of reality twist that into them stating that THEY had doubts about such native-born folks. The decision DOES NOT SAY THAT. Jeez, it’s a wonder you don’t get run over because you couldn’t understand the “No Crossing” sign. You’d dart out thinking “Heck, I’m not even a Catholic!”

        The point is, every important Court decision, every group of candidates nominated for office by both Parties, the fact that numerous others have held the Office without having had two citizen parents at birth… all these facts (you remember facts, no?) and more indicate that the notion that Two Citizen Parents is now, or ever was, the requirement for Presidential NBC status, is WRONG. As in, WRONG. NOT CORRECT. MISTAKEN. NOT A FACT. A LIE. AN ERROR. A FANTASY. A VAIN BELIEF. A MISPRISION. AT VARIANCE WITH REALITY. BOGUS.

        For probably the tenth time, you are welcome to think that’s the way it SHOULD be. But it’s NOT. You disagree with all Legal Scholars and the Courts and the Nominating Committees of both Parties for the last 120 years. Fine. Know what that means? NOTHING. Even if you were appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court, you would still be overruled on the question 8-1.

        Got it?

        Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

        • MichaelN says:

          [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  53. John Woodman says:

    This thread has led to a revolutionary breakthrough in understanding “birthers,” and in birther-normal person dialogue.

    That breakthrough is the realization that birthers and normal people apparently speak different dialects; that birther sentences that confusingly appear to be flat-out false are actually true with a proper understanding of the terms used; and the publication today of the first-ever Birther-English Dictionary (1st Ed.)

  54. MichaelN says:

    [RC: Spam and personal attacks deleted]

    [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  55. Pingback: No Pro Hac Vice for You Mario | RC Radio Blog

  56. John Woodman says:

    Michael,

    In every exchange we’ve had, I’ve demonstrated your fallacies again and again and again.

    In just ONE particular exchange, I counted FOURTEEN points on which I had factually demonstrated your claims to be absolute nonsense.

    In no instance, in the entire long history of this thread, have you ever admitted any proven fact that goes against your fantasy-based opinion. Instead, you have doubled down and accused others of the delusion and obsession with which you are obviously possessed.

    It is clear to any rational person who reads this thread that your points are invalid; that you lost the argument a few dozen posts ago; and that anyone who would continue spending significant amounts of time in any attempt to “dialogue” with you would be a fool for allowing you to waste their time in such a manner.

    Mario Apuzzo has recently produced a 199-page “brief” in the case of Kerchner v. Obama in the state of Pennsylvania. Ignoring for the moment the lack of professonalism inherent in filing a 199-page “brief,” I yesterday, having read much of that “brief,” described it (quite accurately) as a “fallacy-founded, history-hatcheting, bloviating travesty of feigned legal and historical exposition.”

    The owner of the blog on which I posted that has given her own description of Mr. Apuzzo’s brief, which is more colorful but probably just as accurate.

    Having said that, Mr. Apuzzo’s ramblings (and to anyone who actually attempts to read his brief, the use of the word “ramblings” is not merely a slam, but an accurate and factual description, as they tend in many points to repeat things already said) might actually merit further response.

    Yours, in my opinion, do not.

    • MichaelN says:

      [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  57. MichaelN says:

    Johnny’s done a runner.
    [RC: John already said he was done wasting time with you. Your points have all been debunked many times and you have nothing new.]

    [RC: Personal attack deleted.]

    [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  58. MichaelN says:

    [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  59. MichaelN says:

    [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  60. MichaelN says:

    [RC: Content removed. As I said previously, until you can find another SCOTUS ruling where they made a definitive and important ruling by merely “expressing doubts” I will not approve any further comments by you.]

  61. obsolete says:

    Hey, MichaelN,
    You might need this:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,…”

    (I know you lost your copy of those words a long time ago…)

  62. MichaelN says:

    [RC: Content removed. How is the research coming MichaelN? Remember the rules. The SCOTUS majority opinion must use the words to the effect of “we have doubts” without further clarifying what they meant in a well recognized and significant ruling. Quote mining is not going to cut it this time Michael.]

  63. MichaelN says:

    [RC: Content removed]

  64. Thomas Brown says:

    I see you’ve finally lost your ability to tolerate MN’s garbage.

    You lasted a lot longer than I did.

  65. I actually do not like removing posts. However, MichaelN is not here for discussion. It is not like his points are new. He is recycling the same things he wrote for page after page on PJ/TFB over a year ago. He misreads the Calvin case. He misreads Minor v Happersett. He misreads WKA. He misreads history.

    He has been told that 10’s of times on multiple blogs and forums. If he wants to start his own blog more power to him. He can also go post at Apuzzo’s blog. It is badly in need of some new content. Unfortunately, MichaelN is not the person to provide new content.

    I probably should have left his last insult in the post. He is comparing me to Hitler now – Godwin’s law affirmed in all its glory.

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Is it because you are both vegetarians? Or maybe the little black mustache? Must be something like that.

      Nice show last night. I almost called, but you had a lot of fun guests who brought up pretty much everything I would’ve said anyway.

    • MichaelN wants me to post over at Apuzzo’s blog. I will answer here:

      You aren’t even trying now MichaelN. You know the challenge. You failed to meet it. You can post it at there. Just find another case where the court used the phrase “there are doubts” alone in a definitive and widely recognized ruling. I will even give you an easier way to meet the challenge. If you can convince Jonathan Turley that the Birther interpretation of Minor v Happersett is correct that court didn’t rule WKA was a natural born citizen then I will let you post here again. You can even get Mario to help.

      I know Mr. Kerchner likes flyers so here is a good one:

      http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the-common-sense-american.pdf

      Mr. Apuzzo, if your arguments are so impressive why did the PA judge deny you admission? The definition of NBC issue has been decided now in Indiana (twice), Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virgina, Illinois, and Arizona. So keep writing those essays Mario and I will work to get a fine man reelected.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s