“Sailors Snug Harbor dancing sailors-1-” by Halfcentury – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-.jpg#/media/File:Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-.jpg
The following article was written by guest author Frank Arduini, aka “Historian Dude”. Frank has been engaging in a month long comment battle with Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo at the Western Free Press on an article about the eligibility of Ted Cruz. As one might have expected when Mario Apuzzo gets involved the discussion became all about the eligibility of Barack Obama instead of the subject of the original article. Of course Apuzzo thinks neither of them is a natural born citizen despite the fact that every Birther challenge against Barack Obama on eligibility including the ones Mr. Apuzzo has litigated have failed.
The number of comments there is approaching 3500! For your reading enjoyment:
Mario Apuzzo Esq.: Virtual Reality Litigator by Frank Arduini
Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo was, at one time, among the more active litigators of the birther movement. But after an unbroken string of failures at every level from administrative law courts to SCOTUS, Apuzzo “retired” in 2012 to the safety of the Internet where he is protected from genuine legal review or potential judicial sanction. In the subsequent two years he has committed hundreds of thousands of words online trying to argue and reargue the cases that he previously lost in court. And on the Internet (and especially on his own blog where he is a ruthless moderator and the sole judge) he always “wins.”
At the beginning of March 2015, Apuzzo was called out by name on the conservative blog The Western Free Press by author Greg Conterio challenging Apuzzo’s assertions that Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz was ineligible for the Presidency. The comments section quickly exploded in a generalized festival of birther/obot argument that as of this writing has lasted more than a month and garnered well over 3,000 posts. A significant part of the “discussion” has been an ongoing contest between Apuzzo and this author (posting under the UserID “HistorianDude”) focused on the central foundation of Apuzzo’s entire argument: that Article II of the Constitution defined “natural born citizen” not according to English common law, but according to an as yet undemonstrated “American common law” that had emerged between the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution. As part of this argument, Apuzzo has conceded that, under English common law the children of aliens born on national soil became natural born subjects. He has also conceded that the definition of NBC found in Article II of the Constitution is derived from “the common law.” But, he baldly asserts that the “common law” in question had magically (and anachronistically) been redefined to conform with a treatise on international law by the 18th century legal theorist Emer de Vattel.
Of course, any competent lawyer knows that this is not how common law is created. A nation may certainly incorporate other sources of law into their own via statute. But common law derives from case law, the judgments of previous courts that create legal precedent binding on those courts that follow. For the English common law definition of natural born citizen to have been altered or replaced by a new “American common law” definition, there must have been case law created during the eleven years between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that generated that change. And of course, this would have been a particularly neat trick since, under the Articles of Confederation there was no national judicial system at all wherein such case law might have been created.
For more than a month this author has repeatedly challenged Apuzzo to demonstrate the case law from between 1776 and 1787 that must exist for his alleged “American common law” to be more than fiction. Failing that, Apuzzo was challenged to identify a single English language document or source that agreed with his favored definition of natural born citizen. He has failed to meet either challenge.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor: An Inglis Lesson for Apuzzo
To fill the gap Apuzzo’s favored method of argument is to cite much later cases, often badly misrepresenting them, and insist that they somehow reflect a different common law than English common law. That “different common law” is then retroactively ascribed without evidence to Article II of the Constitution. It is a complete non-sequitur, on occasion demanding the violation of basic laws of physics. This essay is inspired by one such attempt.
After a month of frustration, and seeking desperately to shift the unmet challenge from his own back to that of his tormenter, Apuzzo brought up an 1830 inheritance case called Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor. He wrote:
“Since it is common law that you have requested of me, I have the following question. In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830), the U.S. Supreme Court gave the scenario wherein the child was born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and when it was American territory, hence, before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, to a British father and mother. In that scenario, did the majority of the Court rule that he was an American citizen or an alien? Please explain what source the Court relied upon to come to its conclusion.”
Certainly Mario’s intention here was to use Inglis to assert that a different common law was in operation in the time period considered by the case. The standard birther misrepresentation of the case asserts that “the majority ruled that, even if the plaintiff had been born in U.S.-controlled territory, he was a British subject by birth and not an American citizen, due to the fact that his parents were British subjects, not U.S. citizens.” If that were true it would certainly support a claim that the common law had changed by the time the Inglis decision was made; i.e. by 1830. Since that hardly helps Apuzzo meet his challenge, missing the necessary time frame by some 43 years, I could be justified in making that observation alone and ending the discussion. But in actuality, exploring the birther misrepresentation reveals the case to be further evidence of the persistence of English common law through the Revolutionary period long after the Declaration of Independence, further narrowing the window within which Apuzzo’s unidentified case law would necessarily have to occur.
Let me begin the actual analysis of Inglis by taking Apuzzo’s counter challenge head on. I will directly answer his questions, and only then engage in the more comprehensive discussion that justifies the answers. Mario’s first question was phrased as a classic conservative dichotomy, an either/or question with two and only two options:
Q1: Did the majority of the Court rule that he was an American citizen or an alien?
Of course, in the real world things are rarely as simple as either/or. The answer to that question requires more subtlety than the question possessed when it was asked:
A1: The majority ruled that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast.” They offered no ruling at all regarding his status at birth.
What does that mean? “At the time of descent cast”?
Inglis was an inheritance case in which a man named John Inglis was claiming a large inheritance from an American relative that might otherwise have been donated to a charity for aging sailors. One of the factors that would have derailed his claim was that under prevailing law, only US citizens could inherit land. So the citizenship status of Inglis was important to the case, but only his citizenship at the moment of actual inheritance; i.e. “at the time of descent cast.” It did not matter what his citizenship might have been one week prior or one week later. So since the direct issue before the court was whether or not he was a citizen at the moment of inheritance, which is the ruling the court made. The majority found that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast” and therefore unable to inherit.
But we will see as this essay progresses that the court actually made no ruling at all regarding John Inglis’ citizenship at birth. The determination of his national character would, in the court’s opinion, be independent of the common or statutory law normally determinative of status at birth. This is because something special was happening at the time, the American Revolution.
Apuzzo’s second question was this:
Q2: What source did the Court rely upon to come to its conclusion?
Apuzzo’s intent here is twofold. First, he is fully aware (and I fully agree) that the source cannot have been the English common law. Secondly, he believes he has an ace up his sleeve in that one of the sources cited is, you guessed it, Emer de Vattel. It does not appear to occur to Apuzzo that the citation is to a section of Vattel’s book, which has nothing whatsoever to with the “definition” that he wishes to anachronistically graft onto the common law. Nor does he consider that Vattel is cited not as an application of common law, but as an application of international law. So again, recognizing the actual subtlety of the court decision, the direct answer (which will be explained in detail in a moment) is:
A2: As to existence of a general right for people to voluntary choose their allegiances during or immediately after a revolution their source was international law. As to Inglis’s subsequent nationality “at the time of descent cast,” their conclusion was based on the specific details of his actions subsequent to achieving majority as an adult, many years afterwards.
Apuzzo prefaced his questions with a reference to common law in the effort to position himself against the challenge to his imaginary “American common law.” Unfortunately, any genuinely careful review of the Inglis decision (or at least in the part of the decision relating to John Inglis’s nationality) quickly reveals that it had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the common law.
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor is one of a handful of early SCOTUS cases that dealt with unique circumstances of the Revolutionary period, a time in which the new United States and Great Britain were engaged in the bloody business of dividing into two separate and sovereign nations; a period of Anglo-American history sometimes called “The Great Divorce.” The circumstance of citizenship during a revolutionary transition was and remains completely unconsidered by the common law. There existed no body of case law with which to guide the Justices that pertained to a situation in which a single nation was splitting into two, and where the common law criteria of allegiance / citizenship / subjecthood were suddenly rendered ambiguous and arbitrary. As Justice Story pointed out in his worthy dissent, “The case of the separation of the United States from Great Britain… has been treated on many occasions, both at the bar and on the bench, as a case sui generis.”
The decision regarding John Inglis’ nationality did not rest on any application of the common law, nor did it create common law. Nor did it rest upon any existing statute. Instead it was built on the recognition that the unique circumstances of revolution necessarily but only temporarily suspended the common law and gave to each adult (well, each adult male at least) the temporary power of voluntary election for themselves and their minor dependents as to which of the two subsequent nations they would adhere.
The rationale for the suspension of the common law is found, to no one’s surprise, in treatises of international law such as Vattel’s Law of Nations. Justice Thompson specifically cites to Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 33 where we read that those unaccepting of a new revolutionary government
“are under no obligation at all to submit to the new government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form: they have a right to retire elsewhere, to sell their lands, and take with them all their effects.”
To modern sensibilities that sounds very much like any ordinary right to expatriate. In the 18th century however, it was a radical idea, and allowed only as the consequence of profound political upheaval.
Justice Thompson, writing for the majority, was explicit that prior to the Declaration of Independence the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America.
“It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”
Thompson was equally explicit that the end of the suspension was demarcated by a reassertion of the English common law. He was also quite clear that the window for election was a narrow one. And once the window was closed, the rules of English common law as to citizenship by birth returned to force.
To make this point, Thompson cited in detail the case of McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 4 Cranch 211, wherein a Mr. Coxe had missed the window of opportunity to elect British subjecthood once the State of New Jersey asserted its obligation to provide “protection” via the Act of 4 October, 1776. Hence the window of opportunity for voluntary election remained open in New Jersey for a mere 3 months, at which point
“the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.”
These are of course the ancient rules of the English common law. The last sentence in particular is a touchstone proving a direct correlation to the formulation that William Blackstone reflected in his Commentaries in 1765 using much the same language, though not yet adjusted to reflect a republican government rather than a monarchy:
“Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”
Thompson was equally clear that they were the post-fenestral rules not just in New Jersey, but elsewhere on US soil in those territories which were under the jurisdiction and the protection of the newly independent States.
In the case of New York, the specific “window of opportunity” was almost shockingly short. For the portion of the state not under British occupation, the window closed a mere 12 days after independence with the resolutions of the convention of New York of 16 July, 1776, declaring “that all persons abiding within the State of New York, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of the state.” But during that window (in the opinion of the court) John Inglis’ father Charles had made his election for both himself and his son. He elected that they would adhere to Great Britain.
For John Inglis himself, as a very young child, it was not a case of his state automatically following that of his father via jus sanguinis. His father deliberately made a provisional election for him as was his father’s prerogative as parent of a minor child.
This point cannot be stressed too firmly and it was made explicitly by the court; the election that Charles Inglis made for his son John was not permanent but provisional. The decision in Inglis did not declare that John Inglis was an alien at birth. It did not declare that his status “at the time of descent cast” was imposed through any automatic operation of common or statutory law. The court was instead clear that even for a minor child citizenship or alienage post revolution was ultimately dependent on a conscious election by the child himself, upon reaching his own majority, to either ratify or reject the provisional election made by his father. The fact that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast” was not a result of the election made for him by his father in 1776. He could just as easily have ended up a citizen of the United States in spite of that election.
Inglis (the court opined) was British because Inglis chose to be British, not his father. The court concluded that Inglis had (by his actions if not his words) made the election to confirm a British character and reject an American one. By the time of this legal action, it had long been too late to change his mind.
The case certainly created no new common law, as it is clear that the window of election was a parentheses, on either side of which English common law operated in full.
Should it be argued that Inglis created new common law simply by virtue of being case law, any alleged common law it created can have had nothing to do with the general rules of birthright citizenship, or the specific definition of natural born citizenship? The case is completely silent on the latter, and English common law regarding the former was reasserted by the time that the revolution was over and the opportunity for voluntary election had ended. While Inglis (a case which was settled a half century after the Treaty of Paris) certainly shows that the rules of that limited window could be considered and applied long afterwards, even that possibility became moot upon the death of the last member of the “divorce generation.” It could conceivably had been useful again had the Civil War ended with a southern victory, but it did not. It could conceivably be useful should some unforeseen future fragmentation of the United States occur, but that is pure speculation. In the circumstances of a stable political regime, such common law would be entirely without application or affect, not to mention redundant.
This is (of course) the reason that the majority decision in Inglis has been largely ignored in subsequent discussions and case decisions on citizenship. It provides little of value that could inform general discussions or case decisions, limited as it is to a unique period of revolution that has never had a subsequent analog. So Chancellor Sandford’s decision in Lynch v. Clark, and Justice Gray’s decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark ignored the majority ruling from Inglis as a stone from which no edifying water could be squeezed, and instead relied on Justice Story’s worthy dissent.
Inglis therefore is useless today as a challenge to the English common law definition of natural born citizen that rules Article II of the Constitution, or for determining birthright citizenship during any era of normal national circumstance. The relevant common law for those purposes, English common law, was left untouched by the events of the Revolution and by the decision in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor.
RC Radio Blog 
Steve Craig stated: The Justice clearly acknowledged that the Lil’ Virginia was born to a father who was a U.S. Citizen when he stated her “parents” were citizens. A person could not be born Citizen otherwise up to the 1922 Cable Act, except when born out of the limits of the U.S. after 1795 and notwithstanding the “collective naturalization at birth policy” emanating form the 14ths policy interpretation.
No they didn’t specifically say both of her parents were citizens. Her mom wasn’t mentioned. Also never did they specifically state she was a natural born citizen. Which is why I laugh when birthers try to make claims about the status considering her citizenship had no relevance on the case since it had no effect. Are you really claiming no one was born a citizen before the Cable Act? That’s stupid even for you
Obama is the legal and lawful President of the United States… Deal with it.
Porky Moron has gone off the deep end and is obviously mind dead…. someone put some coverture on him……..
You have adopted an equally false premise as your previous cases. If you didn’t know the law back then why do you think you know the law now?
I stopped listening to people like you and even those who think they have it figured on on this side of the debate and started thinking for myself RESORTING to the same sources that Justice Waite consulted to determine that the Lil’ Virginia did not need the 14th to be considered a U.S. Citizen under existing U.S. Law.
Try considering and reconciling this simple observation while attempting to force yourself to be intellectually honest and get back to me……
” …. Lil’ Virginia did not need the 14th to be considered a U.S. Citizen under existing U.S. Law …” (not ruled as a “natural born Citizen in the case, just implied)
(implication; persons born to U.S. Citizen parentS are “born U.S. Citizens” under existing U.S. Law at large and all others are naturalized and/or subject to the COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION by the 14th.)
Steve whined: “Your are a detestable individual for continually calling me out as a liar on the Talbot v Janson attribution ….
DO NOT DO IT AGAIN unless you can prove to me that the Chief Justice Rutledge did not have a hand in having those passages included in the record of the case……….
Deal with it …”
You’re a liar. You got caught lying after misattributing the syllabus to Rutledge when you were called on it you turned into a crybaby and ran off in October. You then came back to repeat the same nonsense until you were finally slapped down a final time. You lied, you got caught lying and you continue to lie.
The clerks most likely wrote the syllabus. Do you have any proof that he had a hand in writing it? Even so the syllabus isn’t the ruling and has no legal effect.
Thomas Anderson dismissed your case. Deal with it.
It was not my case, nevertheless the conclusion I cite stands as a HOLDING on the Motion and is cite-able as an emanation from an active case of a Federal Court.
The case was dismissed on unrelated and technical grounds that did not dilute the language of the finding in the Ruling on the Motion.
Aristotle has nothing to do with US Citizenship. It’s not germane to the discussion. Do you always prattle on like a fool?
Another moronic statement………… Aristotle, historically considered the Father of Western Civilization with his body of works including his three (3) volumes titled “Politics” is the very foundation of our Constitution in the temporal world.
The ENTIRE history of writings on politics since Aristotle stands on his shoulders …. and he was every bit as instrumental in the advancements of western civilization as was Gutenberg and his “press” that ushered in the Age of Enlightenment which lead to our own Constitutional Convention.
Unfortunately Aristotle’s works have never been printed in little red books least you might have more respect for him.
This once again speaks to your inability to even read a case. The syllabus often acknowledges the prior arguments. Do you think the prior arguments whether they win or lose are the ruling itself?
You’re the moron you can’t read a case then get mad at us when we have to continually correct your ignorance.
There is no proof that Rutledge had any hand in writing the syllabus. Do you have any proof that he did?
I cannot say with any accuracy that you’re not a child molester. Which is the equivalent of asking people to prove negatives for you.
You don’t have intellectual honesty at all as has been proven repeatedly time and again.
No the pulling of passages out of ones ass is something you do repeatedly.
Screw you and you tag team partner DBut and your dismissals of the record included in the syllabus on the Cornell site ………….
and since it bothers you so much….
from the record of 3 US 133 Talbot v Janson of the Rutledge SCOTUS term decided 1795;
” … When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms.
But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.
Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.
Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.
Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.
Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.
Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.
Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.
Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.
With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate….” (end quote)
“Screw you, etc., etc., etc., etc….”
Well, you ARE capable of expressing some concepts succinctly. But the passage you quote is from the PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS. It’s not a position of the court, and isn’t supported by Rutledge’s very brief opinion. Brevity—- ahhhhh.
OK, you do not like, appreciate of accept the premise of the passage I cited as a “consideration” that informed Justice Rutledge in the case, fine.
It is in the Official Record of the case, ergo was read by Justice Rutledge without apparent comment, fine, I’m commenting now, 220 years later and believe it is relevant to the nature of U.S. Citizenship as to how at least some folks viewed U.S. Citizenship at that time..
… you do deserve a KUDO’s however, and a Thank You for the Google Books find and link ….
“OK, you do not like, appreciate of accept the premise of the passage I cited as a “consideration” that informed Justice Rutledge in the case, fine.
It is in the Official Record of the case, ergo was read by Justice Rutledge without apparent comment…”
He DID comment on it. I quoted it, for crying out loud. I’ll do it again:
“The doctrine of expatriation is certainly of great magnitude, but it is not necessary to give an opinion upon it in the present cause, there being no proof that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic was with a view to relinquish his native country, and a man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.”
He observed that the point, and its supporting argument, weren’t relevant.
It would be somewhat similar to what you’re doing, although by orders of magnitude more transparently fatuous, if someone were to quote from your own arguments as if they were the holdings of the courts that quashed them.
And you’re welcome. But it does only take about half a minute to find that volume of US Reports.
Awww poor poor Steve Craig projecting his own inadequacies off on other people. While you whine incessantly on the internet, President Barack Hussein Obama continues to be the legal and lawful President of the United States. He was born in Hawaii a natural born citizen. Deal with it. No real lawyer worth their weight and no legal authority in this country agrees with your misreading of US Law.
Au Contraire, Mon Frere https://youtu.be/QZx3EuujDR0
Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
Yes you were also “secure” with your previous false premises that were rejected in court too. How did that work out for you?
More rewarding that anything you’ve had to say……………you see, I learn from my mistakes and you wallow in them………..
There is no such thing as a plain citizen who is neither natural born nor naturalized. The two forms of citizenship are Natural Born and Naturalized. There is no in between. There just isn’t any basis for your claims. Deal with it the courts rejected your claims.
That’s what I said, but I think I said it 1st……….doesn’t matter, we finally see an issue eye to eye………….
Now, ‘xplain to me again where your 1st U.S. Citizens come from….???
Dave B just found you the full case. You were wrong time to man up and admit it.
The second of those “positions…taken in favor of the appellant in Talbot v. Janson:
“II. That Samuel Redick and Captain Talbot had expatriated themselves, and become French citizens; so that the former might lawfully own, and the later might lawfully command, a French, privateer, for the purpose, of making prize of ships belong to the enemies of France.”
Your quote is part of the argument made for that position. Here’s what Chief Justice Rutledge said, relevant to that point:
“The doctrine of expatriation is certainly of great magnitude, but it is not necessary to give an opinion upon it in the present cause, there being no proof that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic was with a view to relinquish his native country, and a man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.”
See what happened there?
Yes, I see and have no problem with a person holding dual-citizenship and long as they are aware that the alienation may affect circumstances in the future, such as Talbot’s French Citizenship not being recognized by the Court since it was done without 1st fully, completely relinquishing his U.S. Citizenship under U.S. Law.
So the Court may have CONSIDERED the U.S. Citizenship that Talbot held was a “compact” between he and the U.S. which requires reciprocal affirmations for any substantial changes.
1. There is no “Aristotelian conundrum.” Aristotle is completely irrelevant to US citizenship law.
2. The statement that “there were NO U.S. Citizens under the COTUS until the COTUS existed” is a pure tautology. It also has nothing to do with the objective existence of US Citizens prior to framing of the Constitution.
3. The Reporter of Decisions does their job as they see fit to do it. If the Justices object to what a Reporter includes in a syllabus, I have no doubt they are capable of letting their feelings be known. It is also an objective fact that the earliest syllabi are fare less rigorously constructed than the more recent. Even you admit that “the first several sessions of the SCOTUS were handled in a catch as catch can fashion as the Judicial Branch went about instituting its-self on the budgets the Congress provided.”
None of that gives you any honest basis for misrepresenting the syllabus as something it is not.
4. I know for a fact that Justice Rutledge actually wrote a decision in the case, and it did not include the “considerations” you cherish from the syllabus. They are also not found reflected anywhere in the other Justice’s decisions, and in point of fact are repeatedly contradicted by them. Any attempt to reflect them as belonging to Chief Justice Rutledge is unsupportable fiction. And any attempt to claim that they are actually a part of the decision of the court is objectively a bald faced lie.
5. I have no doubt “Cornell” did not pull the passage from rectal defilade. I am also fairly certain that their website’s failure to include two of the other Justice’s opinions was not deliberate. But more than any of that, I have no doubt that your persistence in assigning a Ritledge attribution months of not years after having been corrected is attributable to one of three things in any possible combination; you are stupid, your are lazy, and/or you are dishonest.
1; from whence ariseth your 1st U.S. Citizens as recognized under the COTUS….???
2; Your comment is ‘fartology’ given that there could be NO “born Citizens” without the parent citizens to make it so, (see # 1)
3,4,5; ” United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court, Volume 3
By United States. Supreme Court . https://books.google.com/books?id=-nI-AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=talbot&f=false …… is it there or not….at pg 140 … lest you are arguing that Justice Rutledge did not CONSIDER the case before Ruling on it……
Steve writes:
“.and yes, there are ONLY two (2) forms of U.S. Citizenship, ‘Citizen’ and ‘’natural born Citizen'”
False.
“Citizen” sans qualifiers is not a “form” or “class” of citizenship.” That would be your second tautology of the morning.
“Citizens” is the general category that contains within it two (and only two) classes; natural born and naturalized. There is no third class.
Hey, that’s interesting that you agree that without a “hyphenation” denoting the source of U.S. Citizenship certain assumptions of facts can not be made.
and again you hit the nail squarely on its head driving it deep into the core from which all U.S. Citizenship springs…..
….. go on, your seem to be approaching the light in spite of yourself……..
Nowhere in your quotation from the Minor decision are the parents of Virginia Minor ever mentioned. So perhaps you need to try again.
Note: Your complete failure to comprehend the argument of Justice Waite in the citizenship discussion remains profound. When he writes that “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens,” he tells you in very next sentence what the issue under consideration is, and it is not the citizenship of Virginia Minor.
It is the citizenship of women.
The very next sentence is, ” The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ AND IF FEMALES ARE INCLUDED IN THE LAST THEY MUST BE IN THE FIRST.” (emphasis added).
Again… nowhere in the entire Minor decision are Virginia Minor’s parents ever mentioned, and their citizenship is never discussed.
Gosh you are dense…………..who would Justice Waite be speaking of when making the observation;
” “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” (emphasis added)..
Was Lil’ Virginia NOT the plaintiff ….???
Show me where, in any civil statute. “Usurpation of the Executive Office of POTUS” is even an offense?
” … No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States…” COTUS A2S1C5
Ooops, I meant to add that other than that there are NONE that affect the Executive Office of the POTUS, ergo there can be NO Statute of Limitations on the civil offense of Usurpation of it.
Show me the expiration date on;
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States…”
Steve wrote: “(I)s cite-able as an emanation from an active case of a Federal Court.”
An “emanation” is it? Will you next be appealing to Ouija Boards?
I believe I used the word in its verb sense of “emanating from” , which holds a slightly different connotation from its Noun sense………..but you guys have tag-teamed since I 1st posted any thoughts and I’ve grown to lazy to scroll back to the specific post of your interest. If I did not use the word “emanating” please correct the record as you guys do for yourselves all the time………….
Steve wrote: “I stopped listening to people like you and even those who think they have it figured on on this side of the debate and started thinking for myself.”
I’m not asking what you “think,” Steve. I’m asking you defend your bald faced lie. If you are having trouble remembering, here is what you wrote: “The Justice clearly acknowledged that the Lil’ Virginia was born to a father who was a U.S. Citizen when he stated her “parents” were citizens.”
But of course, the Justice never even mentioned her parents let alone told us what their citizenship was.
So, it’s very simple… either find for us that passage where Justice Waite “stated her ‘parents’ were citizens,” or admit the lie.
If it is not CLEAR to you then that’s your problem, NOT mine dufas F-OFF……
Aristotle was a smart guy. He also lived millennium ago and believed a lot of stuff that proved to be wrong. As Bertrand Russel noted:
“Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.”
He is completely irrelevant to US citizenship law.
Repeated post;
“If it is not CLEAR to you then that’s your problem, NOT mine dufas F-OFF……”
Oh Steve, you must disabuse yourself of the notion that your repeated displays of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice “bother us.” How can we be bothered by your vigorous cooperation in helping us expose you for a crackpot and a fraud?
A district court rules on a on a motion and that states the eligibility of the President is a federal, not state question is meaningful, how? He is not ruling on any merit of the case but only that that question would fall on the jurisdiction of a federal court. If I sued, in a state court, the Secretary of State on the grounds that my Constitution rights were violated because my passport does not match my eyes, they would likely have it removed to a federal court. If I made a motion to remand it back to the state, the judge would deny it, very possibly with some explanation that the question had a “substantial federal interest”. It does not mean my merits were substantial.
Of course, my case would very soon after be tossed for being frivolous.
Judge Anderson did not say the merits were substantial only that the question would be a federal interest best resolved in a federal court.
Your claimed “cite-able holding” does not actually help you.
What was it you said?
So there, deal with it.
You are entitled to your Opinion as am I, you don’t like what Judge Anderson wrote in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
…………then don’t read it……. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …
and from page 8;
” …. With respect to the substantiality of the federal interest, the Supreme Court has considered four factors: “(1) whether the case includes a federal agency, and particularly, whether that agency’s compliance with the federal statute is in dispute; (2) whether the federal question is important (i.e., not trivial); (3) whether a decision on the federal question will resolve the case (i.e., the federal question is not merely incidental to the outcome); and (4) whether a decision as to the federal question will control numerous other cases (i.e., the issue is not anomalous or isolated).”16
But don’t concern yourself because there is nothing you can do to change the facts of the truth anyway….
Repeated response;
Oh, OK, great, so now you agree that Justice Rutledge did see and read the passages I have posted and apparently found no cause to either contest nor affirm them specifically yet leaving such as they were as part of the record of the Appellants Briefs, lest you are arguing that Justice Rutledge did not CONSIDER the case before Ruling on it……
slcraignbc said “But still the point stands that there were NO U.S. Citizens under the COTUS until the COTUS existed”
How did they elect a Congress which first opened in 1789? The Constitution is quite clear:
“No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States”
I guess that makes your 1790 and 1795 acts null and void since there was not a valid Congress yet.
How about “collective naturalization event with consideration for time served in the service of the nation ” culminating with the Ratification of the COTUS.
Look, I understand I am trying to thread a small needle with a huge rope, but that is part of the challenge of PROVING something 200 plus years after the facts.
The ISSUE is and remains UN-LITIGATED to conclusion, in spite of the hype and bluster of the 0’bot regulars and mind numbed general population lead by political opportunists, each ready to switch party’s with the winds.
You have your conclusions and opinions on U.S. History and the Genesis and Generations of U.S. Citizenship and I have mine, ……….. to each his own …….. mine begins with;
” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…”
Only because the War was won and the Confederation of States sought to make its-self ” a more perfect Union”. ….
Poor Steven still getting his ass kicked hours later it’s adorable how when you can’t propose anything rational you throw a little temper tantrum. Poor child never grew up.
Steve whined: “Show me the laws on the Statute of Limitation for the civil offense of the Usurpation of the Executive Office of POTUS, notwithstanding the probable accompanying criminal charges that may attend with such a determination.”
What relevance do they have since there was no usurpation of the executive office of Potus?
You seem confused when you say: It was not my case, nevertheless the conclusion I cite stands as a HOLDING on the Motion and is cite-able as an emanation from an active case of a Federal Court.
The holding was that the case was dismissed. Anything else has no relevance.
No, no porky-moron,
The HOLDING in the Motion was issued when the case was still active……… it was dismissed on other grounds unrelated to the Holding of the Motion which was filed by the “0”s defense team trying to get out of the Federal Courts because they realized the F’d up getting it moved out of State Court in the 1st instant.
I’ve noticed in the histories of many of the cases the Plaintiff’s, being the “birthers” get a case right up to the edge and then, whosh, it all dissolves…
…Judge Carter in So.Cal with Taitz and, oh I forget, maybe Klayman, whoever before him discussing the proper venue for a Qou Warranto action involving a Federal Office rightfully belonged in the USDC Dist. of Columbia under the specific Quo Warranto Statutes provided for by the Congress and exclusive to THAT Court………… Judge Carter all but asked them if they wanted to ‘transfer” the case to that Court and they each went off on tangents in different directions and I’m saying YES, YES, YES, Transfer the Case to the USDC DC….!!!
…. anyway, it’s a complicated issue with many parts all revolving around the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”(SLC) of A2S1C5; ” … No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States….”
Steve said: “I stopped listening to people like you and even those who think they have it figured on on this side of the debate and started thinking for myself RESORTING to the same sources that Justice Waite consulted to determine that the Lil’ Virginia did not need the 14th to be considered a U.S. Citizen under existing U.S. Law.”
Yes you also stopped listening to the judges that dismissed your cases as well. Just like every other birther you claim to be the sole arbiter of the true intent of citizenship under US law. The problem is you fail time and time again. It didn’t matter if Virginia herself was a citizen under any part of the US Law since her citizenship had no effect on her right to vote.
Steve said: Oh, OK, great, so now you agree that Justice Rutledge did see and read the passages I have posted and apparently found no cause to either contest nor affirm them specifically yet leaving such as they were as part of the record of the Appellants Briefs, lest you are arguing that Justice Rutledge did not CONSIDER the case before Ruling on it……
They weren’t apart of the ruling so they weren’t his personal opinion despite the years of you lying and claiming they were. Do you know what the appellant brief actually is?
Steve said: If it is not CLEAR to you then that’s your problem, NOT mine dufas F-OFF
dufas? You mean doofus. Time and again you prove you’re the only doofus here.
How exactly does what you quoted dispute what Northland said? The judge clearly said it is something that is a federal issue and not a state court issue. He was talking jurisdiction. Time and again you prove you have a reading comprehension problem.
“You are entitled to your Opinion as am I, you don’t like what Judge Anderson wrote in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;”
I’m sorry but your statements are truly idiotic Stating that the issue of Presidential eligibility is of a substantial federal interest only means that the judge feels it is a decision that is best left to the federal courts, not the state courts. He did not say that the case had any substantial merit, only that the general issue was of a federal interest.
I actually agree with the judge’s reasoning but unlike you, I actually know what he said and meant. A substantial federal interest does not mean the complaint has any merit.
Have I once said that the specific case had “merit”….NO, I have ONLY spoke to the CONCLUSIONS that Judge Anderson arrived at and expressed, in his own words;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
Sounds a little like the Motion for a Stipulated Adjudicative Fact I once filed’
” … Currently there is no uniformly acknowledged legal, i.e., enforceable, identification of circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen as found at A2S1C5 of the COTUS …”
If you take out “President Obama’s” name above and insert, “any given persons”, the result is the same because;
” … Currently there is no uniformly acknowledged legal, i.e., enforceable, identification of circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen as found at A2S1C5 of the COTUS …”
Judge Anderson’s opinion only covered the jurisdiction of the federal court. It has nothing to do with the justiciability of the actual issue. That is left for later. He does not help your argument that the courts should rule on your’s or others NBC status.
As for an acknowledge legal enforcement method, James Madison once wrote about the Electoral College being a strong check. Between them and the Congress, our system appears to be working since no ineligible candidate has been elected or taken office (or for that matter, been a candidate of a major party).
Now, you could run for President and if some state leaves you off the ballot for not being eligible, then you can fight it in court. You would have standing and injury.
Well, insofar as that case and its continuation before Judge Anderson we’ll never know what he would have required of the parties ………..
You read it your way and I’ll do the same and I’ll remain on the side of truth and you on the side of blind obfuscation.
“How about “collective naturalization event with consideration for time served in the service of the nation ” culminating with the Ratification of the COTUS.
Look, I understand I am trying to thread a small needle with a huge rope, but that is part of the challenge of PROVING something 200 plus years after the facts.”
Then you need to find them actually stating there was collective naturalization. You cannot assume they did it because it makes sense to you. In absence of any explicit statement from them in opposition, we only have the various colonial statues and the common law to understand their opinion on citizenship status.
Well, Justice Taney made that assumption, along with Justice Waite, both in a similar fashion as David Ramsey did in his “Dissertation” regarding the EFFECT of the publication of the Declaration of Independence which was published before, concurrent or shortly after the Ratification of the COTUS in 1789.
There are SEVERAL more cases that I can cite expressing the same conclusion, albeit in different language, i.e., words, but I’ll keep those to myself for now.
Using Justice Taney as a defense is not a road you want to go down. It will not help your argument.
You’ve got to be kidding………it took a Civil War, an Emancipation Proclamation, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 13th Amendment’s reiteration of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the “collective naturalization declaratory born Citizen provision” of the 14th Amendment to overturn what Justice Taney CONSTRUED from the provisions of the COTUS and you caution ME on relying on HIM……..
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted…”[pg 405] 60 U.S. 393
Scott v. Sandford
I have been browsing through the Journal of the Continental Congress, and they often use the term Citizen of the United States.
“We, the United States in Congress assembled, make known, that Thomas Truxton, captain of the ship called The Canton, is a citizen of the United States of America, and that the ship which he commands belongs to citizens of the said United States,”
They also use, from time to time, citizen of these United States and occasionally, mention somebody was a born a citizen of a state. Though the Continental Congress did not have the authority to naturalize citizens, as that was still left to the states, they did consider citizens of a state to be a citizen of the United States.
“I have been browsing through the Journal of the Continental Congress, and they often use the term Citizen of the United States.”
I’ve asked Steve, a number of times, how he accounts for George Washington satisfying the residence requirement of Article II as of his inauguration on April 30, 1789. One of his, uh, “explanations” included this nugget:
“metaphorically he was born in 1732 in the State of Virginia which became a State of the United States.”
[repost]
Yes, David Ramsey’s Dissertation offers an excellent 1st hand view of the state of affairs of the attitudes on the subject of citizenship post the publication of the Declaration of Independence.
And I have no problem dating U.S. Citizenship to 1776 with a simple caveat, i.e., for the purposes of the COTUS it must be calculated in the retroactive sense.
You see, although the birth of ‘natural born Citizens’ among those parents who were Citizens, whether as State or other authority, that were occurring had no exceptual political significance under the State Constitutions or the Articles of Confederation. Then too, the COTUS provided for “more perfect” rights, privileges and immunity’s for ITS Citizens.
I’ll dispense with the necessary dissertation on ALL the needs and causes that require the COTUS to be considered an new beginning to that which was and consider it sufficient to say that all of those that were State Citizens at the time of the publication of the Declaration of Independence and those “made” Citizens in the various States thereafter were those who declared themselves as being “We the People” and were “grandfathered” as U.S. Citizens upon the Ratification of the Adoption of the COTUS, retaining the years past and “considered as” U.S. Citizens since 1776 or date of State Citizenship under the Articles of Confederation.
Here’s Ramsey’s work.
file:///C:/Users/StevenLee/Downloads/33807636-A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789%20(1).pdf
“I’ll dispense with the necessary dissertation…”
Thank heaven for small favors.
yep….
Yes, David Ramsey’s Dissertation offers an excellent 1st hand view of the state of affairs of the attitudes on the subject of citizenship post the publication of the Declaration of Independence.
And I have no problem dating U.S. Citizenship to 1776 with a simple caveat, i.e., for the purposes of the COTUS it must be calculated in the retroactive sense.
You see, although the birth of ‘natural born Citizens’ among those parents who were Citizens, whether as State or other authority, that were occurring had no exceptual political significance under the State Constitutions or the Articles of Confederation. Then too, the COTUS provided for “more perfect” rights, privileges and immunity’s for ITS Citizens.
I’ll dispense with the necessary dissertation on ALL the needs and causes that require the COTUS to be considered an new beginning to that which was and consider it sufficient to say that all of those that were State Citizens at the time of the publication of the Declaration of Independence and those “made” Citizens in the various States thereafter were those who declared themselves as being “We the People” and were “grandfathered” as U.S. Citizens upon the Ratification of the Adoption of the COTUS, retaining the years past and “considered as” U.S. Citizens since 1776 or date of State Citizenship under the Articles of Confederation.
Here’s Ramsey’s work.
file:///C:/Users/StevenLee/Downloads/33807636-A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789%20(1).pdf
“Judge Carter in So.Cal with Taitz and, oh I forget, maybe Klayman, whoever before him discussing the proper venue for a Qou Warranto action involving a Federal Office rightfully belonged in the USDC Dist. of Columbia under the specific Quo Warranto Statutes provided for by the Congress and exclusive to THAT Court………… Judge Carter all but asked them if they wanted to ‘transfer” the case to that Court and they each went off on tangents in different directions and I’m saying YES, YES, YES, Transfer the Case to the USDC DC….”
Once again, you are misunderstanding a judges statements on venue as an implicit determination of the actual merits. Judge Carter said proper venue for a Quo Warranto action was in DC. He did not say they had a valid or proper action or any merits. Orly found that out when she tried a Quo Warranto in DC.
Judge Hanen in Southern Texas transferred Orly’s FOIA case to Central California. That does not mean he felt there was merit, It only said that his court was not the appropriate court for the action.
You say;
“Judge Hanen in Southern Texas transferred Orly’s FOIA case to Central California. That does not mean he felt there was merit, It only said that his court was not the appropriate court for the action.”
And I agree and told Orly that she was filing the Quo Warranto in the wrong Court. That’s why I’ve come to believe that expressing the truth and obtaining a judgement is not necessarily the primary agenda with many of the various ‘birther’ litigants. Terry Lakin was poorly used and may not even know that the whole episode was a charade perpetrated by 0’bot operatives. HE does however have standing as a “peculiar person” for a Qou Warranto at USDC DC should he ever decide to live the conviction he thought he was expressing in the 1st place. Of course he’d need to have the actual U.S. Laws of the Genesis and Generations of U.S. Citizenship on his side this time.
You accuse me of being arrogant. I am not surprised because birthers do not react well when faced with the totality of their failures. But I would make a simple suggestion. You have a theory which you believe is correct. You believe that because the specifics of the exact pattern has never been presented to the Supreme Court it is a potentially viable theory. I on the other hand, believe that this is settled law because the decision in WKA, the dicta in Minor v. Happersett and a number of other cases have shown that a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, that encompasses the fact pattern you present, even if it has not specifically been tested.
My suggestion is “win” before you state your opinion as legal fact. It is one thing to come here and present your theories and say that you believe that you can win with it. It is quite another to throw them out and state emphatically that they are correct. That is what I call arrogant–stating your unsupported believes as fact despite losing 100% of the cases.
Look, insofar as the Federal Courts are concerned, including the SCOTUS who is “evading the question” it is NOT settled law. Politically and by executive branch policy, the COTUS and its laws made in pursuance thereof no longer matter but who is and who is NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen in conformity with the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of A2S1C4 as construed under the federal law is NOT settled.
A citizen at birth does not exist under U.S. Law unless at least one (1) parent is a U.S. Citizen, otherwise they are made a U.S. Citizen under the collective naturalization provision at part I of 8 USC 1401.
There was NO Law, enacted or by Judicial decree, that ‘made” a person a U.S. Citizen at birth without regard to the parents Citizenship status prior to the WKA flawed Opinion based on the interpretations of interpretations of Lord Cokes and Sir Blackstone’s interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality which were devised to facilitate the colonization of foreign lands, including the American Colonies, especially in regard to matters of Probate and Inheritance.
The purpose of the “declaratory born citizen provision” of the 14th was, and did, cure the STATELESSNESS of the emancipated and manumitted blacks that left them without national or political character being generations removed from their homelands.
The U.S. Code recognizes the “collective naturalization” effect the statutes provide, why don’t you…???
Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)
What, do you have a problem with minority opinions right to exist or what……are you a bigot….
So you reject the WKA decision because it is flawed? Lol.
The statute you cite indicates that the identified classes of people are citizens at birth. And, of course, you are ignoring the 14th Amendment and WKA, but I am used to people with a lack of reading comprehension.
And yes, it is settled law no matter how hard you try to spin it.
Being MADE a Citizen at birth by a statute that does not depend on the parents of the child is a ‘collective naturalization provision” making the child ‘naturalized at birth” as opposed to being born a U.S. Citizen derived directly from the Citizenship of the parents under the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}), naturalization”(SLC), which provides that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”
But what most folks fail to understand is that ALL “Citizens” are “Made” Citizen by a Political Determination, either directly upon them by ‘naturalizing, collective or individually, or by the derivative effect at birth by the political determination made directly on the parents, one (1) or both, normally only two (2)..
I suppose it stems from the failure by most people to appreciate the observation of Aristotle when he said; ” For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.” or the implication made with the Grandfather Clause of A2S1C5; ” … No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ….”
Now, we can quibble as to WHEN the Founding Generation became recognized as U.S. Citizens for the purposes of the COTUS, however it can not be denied that the founding generation did NOT consider themselves as anything other than “citizens”, as if “naturalized” and it was the 1790 Act that established the circumstances by which a U.S. natural born Citizen would be recognized, i,e., born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father anywhere in the world between 1790 and 1795, thereafter only within the limits of the U.S.
“Being MADE a Citizen at birth by a statute that does not depend on the parents of the child is a ‘collective naturalization provision” making the child ‘naturalized at birth” as opposed to being born a U.S. Citizen derived directly from the Citizenship of the parents under the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}), naturalization”(SLC), which provides that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise””
That’s just really dumb, Steve. That’s not what collective naturalization means. That’s not what COLLECTIVE means, for crying out loud. Collective naturalization is making GROUPS of people US citizens, not individuals, and is not at all the same as acquisition of US citizenship at birth.
You say;
“… That’s just really dumb, Steve. That’s not what collective naturalization means. That’s not what COLLECTIVE means, for crying out loud. Collective naturalization is making GROUPS of people US citizens, not individuals, and is not at all the same as acquisition of US citizenship at birth…”
Oh, so the provisions only applies to one(1) person ….? … what’s their name, this one (1) person you’re referring to, ….. or are you saying one (1) person at a time up until they become a group and then it no longer applies…….??? wait, let me see if I can construe what you are attempting to delude yourself with…………………………
………………………………..
………………………………………………………
……………
……………………..
… no, I don’t know how a “generic person” who would benefit from the provision is not a member of a class of persons that would benefit from the provision …………..
………….. I suppose, and its only conjecture, that you think “collective naturalization” means a whole group of people are made “citizens” all at once , whoossshh and then the provision expires …..no, that doesn’t work for you either, does it…
….. the provision, derived from the declaratory born provision of the 14th was intended to cure the STATELESSNESS that the descendants of imported blacks found themselves in under the COTUS post the general emancipation of them. STATELESSNESS, STATELESSNESS,
STATELESSNESS …. who, by the way found themselves wholly within the jurisdiction of the U.S., territorially and POLITICALLY, having no remaining ties to their ancestral homes.
Steve, you don’t HAVE to be an idiot.
“Look, insofar as the Federal Courts are concerned, including the SCOTUS who is “evading the question” it is NOT settled law.”
You’ve been busted on that one before, Steve. Save that one for your birther buddies, who are dumb enough to fall for it.
“The U.S. Code recognizes the “collective naturalization” effect the statutes provide, why don’t you…???
Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)”
The collective naturalization statutes are §§ 1402-1407 as applied retroactive to the dates of their original enactments or to the inhabitants of those territories prior to their acquisition by the United States. For example, § 1405 naturalized certain citizens of the Republic of Hawaii; §1406 naturalized certain former Danish citizens and natives of the US Virgin Islands; § 1403 naturalized certain persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama who hadn’t already acquired US citizenship under Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes.
Oh, wait, then the provision did NOT collectively naturalize all those Stateless blacks post the Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, 1866 Civil Rights Act, 13th Amendments reiteration of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14ths ………????
PART ONE (1)..is inclusive of 1401, lacking any language to the contrary …..right…?
Look, the ONLY persons that 1401 provides the benefit of U.S. Citizenship under its current POLICY application are the children born within the limits of the U.S. to alien foreign national parents, present legally or otherwise, all others derive U.S. Citizenship from one or both parents ANYWHERE in the world, as per the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization.” which provides that, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so to are their children, at birth or otherwise”….
“Oh, wait, etc., etc., etc….”
The 14th Amendment is viewed by some as collective naturalization of those persons of African descent whose citizenship it guaranteed. Congress apparently considered the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment to be merely the overturning of the Supreme Court’s odious and malignant ruling in Scott v. Sandford, because both houses seated members whose citizenship had been denied by Scott v. Sandford in the years immediately following adoption of the 14th Amendment. I’ll refer you to the citizenship qualifications for members of the House and Senate.
“PART ONE (1)..is inclusive of 1401, lacking any language to the contrary …..right…?”
Yes. Is there some point you’d like to attach to that astute observation?
“Look, the ONLY persons that 1401 provides the benefit of U.S. Citizenship under its current POLICY application are the children born within the limits of the U.S. to alien foreign national parents, present legally or otherwise, all others derive U.S. Citizenship from one or both parents ANYWHERE in the world, as per the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization.” which provides that, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so to are their children, at birth or otherwise”….”
According to S.L. Craig, O.L.; and NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD. Do you know what “law” is, in a state governed by the rule of law, Steve?
“anyway, it’s a complicated issue with many parts all revolving around the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”(SLC) of A2S1C5; ”
Actually, it is not all that complicated since President Barack Obama is eligible and is the President according to the Constitution.
The “0” was eligible to be present as a Senator, assuming the asserted birth bio is as reported.
A2S1C5 distinguishes between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” within its statutory construction.
The requisite circumstances for being born as or considered as was ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act, born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father, anywhere in the world until 1795, thereafter ONLY within the limits of the U.S.
I do not know if you hate the COTUS and the Laws made in pursuance thereof or just love your dear leader no matter what, but whatever it is does not change the TRUTH.
Steven said: The HOLDING in the Motion was issued when the case was still active……… it was dismissed on other grounds unrelated to the Holding of the Motion which was filed by the “0”s defense team trying to get out of the Federal Courts because they realized the F’d up getting it moved out of State Court in the 1st instant
And you still misread the intent of the actual motion. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. The only one who keeps fucking up here is you.
YOU remain a moron.
The purpose of the Motion was to get the case back to the State Court because the 0’bot defense team realized they F’d up in having it transferred to the Fed Courts in the 1st place in their attempt to control the process.
Judge Anderson REBUFFED the 0’bots saying the the issue of the circumstances of the “0”‘s in regards to conforming to the needs of A2S1C5 is a substantial Federal issue and that it would answer the question for many more cases should it be litigated and determined and intended to keep the case in his Court.
I don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing but the CONCLUSIONS found in the Motion were correct and stand as Ordered.
“The purpose of the Motion was to get the case back to the State Court because the 0’bot defense team realized they F’d up in having it transferred to the Fed Courts in the 1st place in their attempt to control the process.”
Do you know what a “plaintiff” is, Steve?
OK, I admit I got the sequence of events out of sync in regards to who was doing what in the filings and cross filings ………… I hope I haven’t inconvenience you or caused you any extraordinary expense in proofing my comments on this 0’bot network…….
“Well, Justice Taney made that assumption, along with Justice Waite, both in a similar fashion as David Ramsey did in his “Dissertation” regarding the EFFECT of the publication of the Declaration of Independence which was published before, concurrent or shortly after the Ratification of the COTUS in 1789.”
Whole courses of study could be consumed in examining that sentence.
So much so that I nearly missed the pearl that immediately followed:
“There are SEVERAL more cases that I can cite expressing the same conclusion, albeit in different language, i.e., words, but I’ll keep those to myself for now.”
Promise?
Yep…..
1. The first US citizens were created by their personal election at the moment of the nation’s creation on 4 July, 1776. See Ingliss v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor.
2. Every child born on US soil post independence after the states asserted their obligation of “protection” were natural born citizens. See again, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor.
3. You have still failed to show where Waite ever mentioned Virginia Minor’s parents once, or told us what their citizenship was. You are still defending a bald faced lie.
The Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor case was OBLIGATED to adhere to the ENGLISH LAW given that it was a STATE Case on the State Laws of PROBATE which specifically says in its STATE Constitution that on matters of PROBATE the English Common Laws on the subject would be retained. The Case could have no affect on the Federal Laws of U.S. Citizenship, that POWER was ENUMERATED in the COTUS at A1S8C4……………
…………
Still waiting for you to correct, admit or defend your lie, Steve.
Where in the Minor decision were Virginia Minor’s parents ever mentioned, let alone had their citizenship status identified?
You say;
Still waiting for you to correct, admit or defend your lie, Steve.
Where in the Minor decision were Virginia Minor’s parents ever mentioned, let alone had their citizenship status identified?………………like the asshole you are you are unwilling to THINK for yourself and have to have everything spoon fed………….
” … It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. … ” [pg168]
and for you, spoon full at a time……..” … children born of citizen parents; (swallow), … ” … are themselves citizens …” (swallow) …. ” the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea …”
Full yet …………
“Where in the…” etc., etc., etc…
Oh good grief.
“That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
That “last” is “all persons.” The “all persons” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Duh.
Again Steve you seem confused when you say: The “0” was eligible to be present as a Senator, assuming the asserted birth bio is as reported.
A2S1C5 distinguishes between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” within its statutory construction.
There is no such thing as a plain citizen who is neither natural born nor naturalized. There are only two types of citizens Natural Born and Naturalized. Obama is a natural born citizen based on his birth on US Soil. Deal with it.
The fact that you continue to question what I assert only exposes either your lack of ability to comprehend alternative concepts or your total lack of sincere interest………..which may become my response to you and your fellow travelers form here on …….out…………
Steve said: “file:///C:/Users/StevenLee/Downloads/33807636-A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789%20(1).pdf”
Okay pack up your computer and return it the dealer, you’re too stupid to use the internet. You just linked to your local file storage on your computer and not a link that can be accessed on the internet.
“Okay pack up your computer and return it the dealer, you’re too stupid to use the internet. You just linked to your local file storage on your computer and not a link that can be accessed on the internet.”
The legendary incompetence of the birthers continues its inexorable march towards oblivion!
Again poor steve still can’t read cases when he says: Judge Anderson REBUFFED the 0’bots saying the the issue of the circumstances of the “0”‘s in regards to conforming to the needs of A2S1C5 is a substantial Federal issue and that it would answer the question for many more cases should it be litigated and determined and intended to keep the case in his Court.
All it had to do with was that the jurisdiction was a federal matter and not a state matter. It had nothing to do with any merits which were completely lacking.
Steve said: You read it your way and I’ll do the same and I’ll remain on the side of truth and you on the side of blind obfuscation.
You’ve already admitted in the past that your reading of anything has been wrong. Which is why you concluded your original premise in court was wrong. If you couldn’t get it right the first few times what makes you think you’d do it this time? You have never been on the side of truth which is why you continue trying to rationalize your lie about Rutledge long after you have been caught on it.
Steve said: “OK, I admit I got the sequence of events out of sync in regards to who was doing what in the filings and cross filings ………… I hope I haven’t inconvenience you or caused you any extraordinary expense in proofing my comments on this 0’bot network…….”
It’s not just the sequence of events you got out of sync. You have proven you don’t even know how to read cases, you’ve lied about what cases have said, about who said what in cases and when called you continue trying to rationalize it. You’ve failed in court, you’ve failed here and have failed in life.
You claimed: Being MADE a Citizen at birth by a statute that does not depend on the parents of the child is a ‘collective naturalization provision” making the child ‘naturalized at birth” as opposed to being born a U.S. Citizen derived directly from the Citizenship of the parents under the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}), naturalization”(SLC), which provides that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”
Obama wasn’t made a citizen at birth by statute neither was Wong Kim Ark. So again no relevance.
Slc says:
I don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing but the CONCLUSIONS found in the Motion were correct and stand as Ordered.”
So, you say, he rebuffed the obots by stating the issue was a substantial Federal issue. So, let’s look at the the Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, shall we.
Judge Anderson rebuffed the defense by, what, agreeing with and restating the defense’s argument?
It might help if you understood that the Plaintiff was attempting to argue that they were NOT seeking a determination of Obama’s eligibility. Instead, they were claiming Obama and the Democratic Party were committing fraud by having an ineligible candidate placed on the ballot. They attempted to claim that Obama’s ineligibility was not in question, so there was no Federal question. The defense and the Judge disagreed, stating that the complaint hung on the question of eligibility and that was a substantial federal issue.
Congrats, you got everything wrong on this one. Don’t worry, the plaintiffs got every wrong so badly that they were eventually sanctioned.
Steve thinks if he randomly capitalizes words he’ll sound even less crazy than he already does.
Then there’s the punctuation……………..
………..
…………………
Steve said: Where in the Minor decision were Virginia Minor’s parents ever mentioned, let alone had their citizenship status identified?………………like the asshole you are you are unwilling to THINK for yourself and have to have everything spoon fed………….
Nowhere in your quote are her parents specifically mentioned. What you have is a generalization but no mention of her parents or their status. So again you lied.
Steve said: The fact that you continue to question what I assert only exposes either your lack of ability to comprehend alternative concepts or your total lack of sincere interest………..which may become my response to you and your fellow travelers form here on …….out…………
Do you even listen to how stupid you sound? We question what you assert because you have a history of making false statements that show your lack of comprehension on any issue. You’re an idiot plain and simple
You say I have a history of making false statements while your whole premise is based on FOREIGN LAW interpretations by FOREIGN Jurists litigated in a U.S. Court by a de facto Justice appointed by a British born subject usurper ……………..
……….. I make an occasional fo paw and I am said to be unreliable by you and yours while you ALL obfuscate regarding the ACTUAL Laws of the U.S. on the subject of U.S. Citizenship in general and on a U.S. natural born Citizen specifically……..
…… the history of the Laws of the U.S. do not join in your interpretations ….. there is not a SINGLE case that has been decided on the SPECIFIC QUESTION of the circumstances that produces a U.S. natural born Citizen, made SPECIFIC by the DISTINCTION expressed and made implicit within the words of the provision its-self and kept specific by the separation of powers which require an Amendment to abridge, enlarge or otherwise modify a provision of the Executive by ANY Branch.
So, whenever the laws of the U.S. are put up against the Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality in a court of competent jurisdiction the laws of the U.S. will prevail, unless of course the question is on a matter of PROBATE in a State that still maintains the English Laws on the subject.
MORONS are you all…………….
I seem to remember a debate that was supposed to be scheduled between Frank Arduini and Steven Craig. Last time around Steven threw a big hissy fit and backed out of the debate as all birthers often do. Poor Steven if this was his best stuff he would have been creamed by Frank.
If you are looking for a bunch of yes-men for your “alternative concepts,” you came to the wrong place. You might consider Birther Report. They are no bound by trivial things like facts.
You don’t like the idea that a person can be born of a non-citizen and still be a Natural Born Citizen. We get that. Unfortunately, that is only your opinion, not shared by history, facts or even the majority (or large minority) of Americans. Your only alternative is to get the people to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Craig says: You say I have a history of making false statements while your whole premise is based on FOREIGN LAW interpretations by FOREIGN Jurists litigated in a U.S. Court by a de facto Justice appointed by a British born subject usurper
No it’s based on what the founders knew since they were jurists in the european system. You’re the one claiming foreign law dictates who our citizens are. What? You’re crying about Grey who was lawfully appointed by natural born Citizen Chester A. Arthur who made his decision long after Arthur was already dead?
It’s not just an occasional faux pas by you; it’s actually rather consistent. As you’ve shown with your continued misreading of cases. When you get caught lying you try to continue to rationalize it. You are unreliable. The only thing you can be considered reliable on is your consistency of getting things wrong. The history of US Laws support what we’ve said. US Law supports what we’ve said. The court system supports what we’ve said.
The only moron here remains to be you.
Chet’s daddy had NOT completed his ‘naturalization process” until years AFTER Lil’Chet was born, ergo Chet’s mother being married to a alien foreign national, (as opposed to a ‘stateless’ alien), was herself considered an alien foreign national under the doctrine of coverture in effect at the time, ergo, Lil’ Chet was born as an alien foreign national and did NOT obtain U.S. Citizenship until his daddy completed the naturalization process along with the restoration of his mommy’s citizenship
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
It does not matter if he didn’t naturalize until years after Arthur was born. It was known at the time that his father wasn’t naturalized. Parental citizenship does not matter when it comes to birth. You seem confused Chester A. Arthur was born before the Expatriation act of 1907 thus his mother remained a US Citizen despite being married to William Arthur. Chester Arthur was a US Citizen at birth and natural born citizen.
Are you really quoting Scott V Sanford in regards to Chester A Arthur?
Show me where the children of alien foreign nationals are made U.S. Citizens at birth, let alone a U.S. natural born Citizen …………
I know you’re going to cite 8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Subchapter III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION – Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409) – The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Show me Lil Chets Daddy’s documentation of expatriation of his British subjecthood or a certificate of release of obligations to England or some other proof his apparent or specific “Statelessness” that put him in the full and complete Jurisdiction of the U.S., both territorial and politically.
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
And you seem confused by what 8 US Code Chapter 12 Subchapter III part 1 means.
You just proved it with section a, A person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Chester A Arthur was subject to the jurisdiction act birth. You seem completely confused since parental citizenship is not needed to be born a citizen.
So you agree that at best he was ‘naturalized at birth’ by the collective naturalization provision of 8 USC 1401…
So in you world ‘naturalized at birth’ is the same as ‘natural born’ to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents who possesses the statutory privilege of ‘birthright citizenship’ under the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship [implicit] 0 naturalization…..????
The UNBORN little Chet was under the jurisdiction of his PARENTS, who were BOTH alien foreign nationals under the laws of the U.S. at the time and the WKA decision had NOT yet been entered into the worst SCOTUS Opinions Hall of Fame………so….
…. go get your abacus and count up the errors you made by defending Lil ‘Chet’s Citizenship by a SCOTUS Opinion that was made by a Judge he appointed 68 years after he was born…………???
….
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
Chester Arthur was sworn in by Chief Justice Waite, who made some minor statement about citizenship.
THE FOUNDATION
“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” –Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Where did I ever claimed one could be naturalized at birth? No Chester A Arthur was born a citizen and was a natural born citizen. Where did I ever claim there was a such thing as Naturalization at birth? There is no need to have two citizen parents to be considered a natural born citizen. No the born Chet was under the jurisdiction of the United States at birth. He was always under its jurisdiction. There is no proof to support your claim that his mother was a foreign national alien. The law revoking her citizenship didn’t exist for another 78 years after Chester A. Arthur was born.
What does Scott V Sanford have to do with Arthur?
You ask…??
“Where did I ever claimed one could be naturalized at birth? “…..
Where did I ever say you did…?
You say;
“No Chester A Arthur was born a citizen and was a natural born citizen.”
and again I remind you of the DISTINCTION made in the “exclusionary prerequisite imerative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 of the COTUS;
” … No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; … ”
Also, regarding Chet the A., he was born before the 14th and the WKA flawed Opinion so it is NOT rational for you to attempt to apply laws, or ‘policy”, of U.S. Citizenship laws RETRO-ACTIVE.
Northland10 says:
April 13, 2015 at 1:01 pm
Chester Arthur was sworn in by Chief Justice Waite, who made some minor statement about citizenship……………
….
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
What that means is that the SCOTUS has NO authority to change the laws of the COTUS when the laws have not been AMENDED to cure some perceived need, (re: Scott v) and ESPECIALLY NOT when it would VIOLATE the Separation of Powers Doctrine, (re: the subject at hand and the flawed Opinion and subsequent interpretations of the WKA case.)
You guys really fall apart when forced to respond to FACTS.
Justice Waite didn’t have to swear in Arthur . He could have deferred and let any of the other justices or any judge for that matter do it. the point that you and the other Birthers pushing your nonsense theory miss is that no one questioned Arthur’s parentage. Why? Because it didn’t matter if he were born on US soil.
“So you agree that at best he was ‘naturalized at birth’ by the collective naturalization provision of 8 USC 1401…”
Do yourself a favor and just look up “collective naturalization.” Unless you want to go on being the only dumbass in the world who thinks it means what you think it means. Oh, wait, you already do that with “naturalization.
“Also, regarding Chet the A., he was born before the 14th and the WKA flawed Opinion so it is NOT rational for you to attempt to apply laws, or ‘policy”, of U.S. Citizenship laws RETRO-ACTIVE.”
You know, over at the Western Free Press Frank said– or implied, at least– that Mario’s dumber than you are. I don’t know if he’s got all the latest input on that one, though. The 14th Amendment was meant to guarantee the citizenship and constitutional rights of emancipated slaves and other persons of African descent. EVERY emancipated slave in the United States was born before the 14th Amendment was adopted. There’s no “effective date” for the 14th Amendment.
OMG……………so that’s how you make the Queen Ann Statutes of British Nationality relevant in the WKA, “no expiration date”……………..
……ALL LAWS are RETRO-ACTIVE….?? or just the one’s that work in your favor…………….
OMG, and you guys have the audacity to me, or ANYONE ELSE dumb……….I guess dumb is better than DUMBEST….
Steven said: “Where did I ever say you did…?”
So you’re an amnesiac?
Steven said: “So in you world ‘naturalized at birth’ is the same as ‘natural born’ to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents who possesses the statutory privilege of ‘birthright citizenship’ under the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship [implicit] 0 naturalization…..????”
So you don’t even remember the things you say a few hours back?
You said: “and again I remind you of the DISTINCTION made in the “exclusionary prerequisite imerative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 of the COTUS;”
Yes you remind me of the gibberish nonsense you just made up. Imerative? You’re making up your own words now?
Steven said: “Also, regarding Chet the A., he was born before the 14th and the WKA flawed Opinion so it is NOT rational for you to attempt to apply laws, or ‘policy”, of U.S. Citizenship laws RETRO-ACTIVE.”
I don’t have to apply anything retroactively since he was born on US soil and was born a natural born citizen. His father’s status was well known it just speaks to your 2 citizen parent claim being nonsense. You’re the one trying to apply a 1907 law to Chester A Arthur’s mother.
Steven said: “OMG, and you guys have the audacity to me, or ANYONE ELSE dumb……….I guess dumb is better than DUMBEST….”
There’s nothing audacious about it, you prove it on a daily basis.
Well, I suppose I shouldn’t wonder if you start to use the propositions of laws I assert in your twisted convoluted way in hopes it will plug the holes in the record you’ve offered.
However, Lil’ Chet’s Daddy was not STATELESS and Lil’ Chet was NOT in danger of being born Stateless so the ‘collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision” would not have applied to him.
It is for that very same reason that Lil’ Wong was NOT entitled to the benefit of citizenship under the provision, notwithstanding the fact that he was not eligible to U.S. Ctizenship by the in force Burlingame Treaty when he was born and why his acquisition of U.S. Citizenship was an act of Judicial Kidnapping of a subject of the Emperor of China.
Steve said: “However, Lil’ Chet’s Daddy was not STATELESS and Lil’ Chet was NOT in danger of being born Stateless so the ‘collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision” would not have applied to him.”
Where has anyone claimed he was stateless? He was born a natural born citizen of the united states. He was never in danger of being stateless since he was born a citizen of the US.
Wong Kim Ark could never be naturalized he could only be a natural born citizen of the US. There was no “judicial kidnapping”. Good lord do you ever realize how stupid you sound when you make such claims?
Who said William Arthur was ever stateless? Do you always make such dumb assumptions?
You guys are ALL just dumb as rocks without a bit of common sense between you.
The “collective naturalization born citizen provision” was devised to cure the condition of STATELESSNESS that existed among the emancipated black population.
I did NOT suggest that Lil’ Chet was STATELESS ….YOU DID by implying that the 14ths collective naturalization provision made him a citizen.
A “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are DISTINCT from one another for the purposes of A2S1C5 as expressed in the provision its-self.
The 14th, even as an Amendment, could NOT and did NOT Amend the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen as existed at the time of the Ratification of the COTUS and the passage of the 1790 Act, without words that said so or words that would require it with SPECIFIC language addressing the EXECUTIVE CLAUSE of the COTUS, and none did.
But cling to you flawed WKA and your interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes….you deserve them and what you get ….
Above my reference to him being a natural born citizen was in regards to Chester A. Arthur in case you were too dumb to figure that out.
Chet was born a British subject under his fathers un- naturalized British ass and his mothers acquired British subjecthood by the marriage vows and Doctrine of Coverture that was the practise and LEGAL condition at the time and you CAN NOT suggest that a person can be RETROACTIVELY be MADE a “natural born” anything with a straight face…..without knowingly making a fool of yourself…can you … ??? .. well, sycophants are like that, aren’t they…..!!!…
“OMG……………, etc., etc., etc….”
What the heck are you talking about? I must say, it is amusing to watch you construct both sides of an argument and fail at each one. Should we all just back away and watch you dumbass your own self to destruction?
The shifting applications of the foreign based premise that rely on can not stand against the actual U.S. Laws of U.S. Citizenship, so naturally you guy’s are confused by even your own arguments.
You see you cling to Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretations of various former Court’s interpretations of Lard Coke’s and Sir Blackstone’s interpretations of various prior Court interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British nationality, most of which were on PROBATE questions and blood-lineage rather than acquisition of political character.
You also seem to have trouble with the simplicity of the established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship which is not based on either soil or blood but rather on a compact of Rights, privileges and immunity’s, one of which is the ‘birthright citizenship’ of the progeny of a Citizen, that is, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”
Steve, did you learn rhetoric from a Dr. Bronner’s soap bottle?
Very entertaining ……. and instructive ….http://www.hulu.com/watch/475786…., when one considers the FACT that the British thought of the Son’s of Liberty as ‘madmen” and crazies ……….. just as the Nazi’s and Communist’s call any and all that do not conform to their descriptions of political reality …… come to think of it Islam a bit like that too, and of course there’s you,………….you who will not acknowledge the U.S. Law as it was when it was written and then strtch any and all changes, large or small, and convolute it to mean whatever is expidient for your purposes.
Steve said: “I did NOT suggest that Lil’ Chet was STATELESS ….YOU DID by implying that the 14ths collective naturalization provision made him a citizen.”
Where did any of us suggest Chester A Arthur was stateless? Where did any of us claim the 14th did anything with regards to Chester A Arthur? Both of these were entirely your own suggestions.
Steve said: “A “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are DISTINCT from one another for the purposes of A2S1C5 as expressed in the provision its-self.”
You seem confused. Natural born Citizen and Naturalized citizen is a subset of citizen. Both are types of citizens. Natural born citizen is distinguished from a naturalized citizen. There is no such thing as a “plain citizen” who is neither natural born nor naturalized.
But hey do you think randomly capitalizing words makes you sound more sane or less? As Dave B. stated you seem to be having an argument entirely with yourself.
Look, I can’t respond to you inane constructions of applicable laws on the subject and then explain the implications of your responses in light of the actual U.S. laws.
At the time Lil’ Chet’s daddy had not been naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, so he was STILL a British subject who was married to Lil’ Chet’s daddy, which made Lil’ Chet’s mommy a British subject by marriage under the Doctrine of coverture, ergo Lil’ Chet was born a British subject.
The ONLY way that the “retroactive application of the collective naturalization provision” of the 14th could affect the Lil’ Chet at birth would be if he would have otherwise been born STATELESS.
Lil’ Chet was an Usurper of the Office of the POTUS under the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”(SLC), of Article II Section I Clause V of the COTUS; ” … No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. …”
And please note that ANYONE who requires ANY provision of 8.USC, including those provisions codified from the 14th, are “born naturalized U.S. Citizens” or some other hyphenated characterization that is in the same subsets of U.S. Citizenship as being born a “dual-citizen”, all of which are NOT synonymous with the REQUIRED form of U.S. Citizenship for the Office of the POTUS known as a U.S. natural born Citizen.
Steve said: “Chet was born a British subject under his fathers un- naturalized British ass and his mothers acquired British subjecthood by the marriage vows and Doctrine of Coverture that was the practise and LEGAL condition at the time and you CAN NOT suggest that a person can be RETROACTIVELY be MADE a “natural born” anything with a straight face…..without knowingly making a fool of yourself…can you … ??? .. well, sycophants are like that, aren’t they…..!!!…”
Wtf? Do you even know what argument you’re making anymore? Chester A. Arthur was born subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States from his birth on American soil. He was first and foremost born a citizen of the United States. There is no proof his mother acquired any other citizenship as her and William Arthur lived in the United States when Chester A. Arthur was born. You seem to be trying to retroactively apply the 1907 law to Arthur’s mother long after she had died. He didn’t need to be “retroactively” made a natural born citizen, he was already born one.
You are a MORON, …………..do you read what you write…………. a law that did not exist made Lil’ Chet eligible AFTER the FACT of his being born an English subject in being a son of British subject parents under the laws of the time…………and still you are wrong since ‘naturalized at birth” is not the same as “natural born” since that ONLY OCCURS when being born to two (2) citizen parents even under the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality in it’s un-bastardized state of the hierarchy of subject-hood..
Idiot porky – moron, emblematic of 0’bots everywhere……..
Steve claimed: “The shifting applications of the foreign based premise that rely on can not stand against the actual U.S. Laws of U.S. Citizenship, so naturally you guy’s are confused by even your own arguments.”
Not once have we shifted the applications of law. You’re the one all over the map having an argument with yourself about what you think others positions actually are because you simply don’t understand the law.
We’re not the ones confused. You continue to show it by straight out lying about what we’ve said.
Steve claimed: “You see you cling to Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretations of various former Court’s interpretations of Lard Coke’s and Sir Blackstone’s interpretations of various prior Court interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British nationality, most of which were on PROBATE questions and blood-lineage rather than acquisition of political character.”
Lard coke? What are you 2? Sir William Blackstone is considered in this country to be the father of modern american jurisprudence. He’s studied rather extensively in American law schools. His opinions have been quoted thousands of times over within the court system. You’re so far behind it’s not even funny.
You say;
“Sir William Blackstone is considered in this country to be the father of modern american jurisprudence. He’s studied rather extensively in American law schools. His opinions have been quoted thousands of times over within the court system. You’re so far behind it’s not even funny.”
… and yet I doubt you’ve read a single page of Blackstone’s Commentaries or have any real understanding of how “his” English common law is practised in its various parts, i.e., types of petitions, means of petitions, pleadings, adjudications & precedents, in the general overview.
You are TOTALLY unaware that all those “precedents” you rely on are actually based on the interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British nationality and that the interpretations you rely on are in some cases third, fourth, fifth generation interpretations that are used to fit the desired outcome, whether the original law supports that outcome or not. The Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality were written with the intent to facilitate the COLONIZATION of Foreign Lands by English Subjects while preserving their RIGHTS of Inheritance of properties and estates AS IF still being on the British Isles, ergo the axiom; ” Where there is an Englishman, so too is England”
Blackstone admonishes his students to “learn the laws of your own country first’ in his introduction to the practical uses of the jurisprudence of the common law system in general, and the English system specifically,
You might try and look for the DISTINCTIONS between English Law and U.S. Law …i.e., the Queen Anne Statutes and the Acts made in pursuance of A1S8C4 of the COTUS.
Steve said: “Look, I can’t respond to you inane constructions of applicable laws on the subject and then explain the implications of your responses in light of the actual U.S. laws.”
You can’t respond because you have no idea what you’re even talking about. It’s why I keep catching you lying about things people have said here as well as what the courts have said.
Steve said: “At the time Lil’ Chet’s daddy had not been naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, so he was STILL a British subject who was married to Lil’ Chet’s daddy, which made Lil’ Chet’s mommy a British subject by marriage under the Doctrine of coverture, ergo Lil’ Chet was born a British subject.”
It did not matter that his father didn’t naturalize until much later. It was well known at the time that his father wasn’t naturalized which is why the democrats tried to put his birth in Canada. Since its birth on soil that matters. Parental citizenship doesn’t unless you’re the child of a foreign invading army or foreign diplomat. You’re not making sense. You said lil chet’s daddy was still a british subject who was married to lil chet’s daddy? Are you so confused that you’re now implying William Arthur was gay?
No it didn’t make his mother a british subject by marriage. There was no automatic citizenship through marriage. So again you’re now confused with English laws just as much as you are with American laws.
The 14th amendment had no effect on Chester A Arthur’s status as it was created after he was born. Existing law already allowed him to be a citizen at birth. As you keep showing you seem confused. Repeating that he was a usurper doesn’t make it so.
Arthur was a natural born citizen of the US and was eligible to serve as President.
There’s no such thing as a “born naturalized US Citizen”
Spiro Agnew had dual greek and American citizenship as an adult he served as Nixon’s VP and you can’t be eligible to be VP without being eligible to be President. Just another example that proves your theories wrong.
You say;
“The 14th amendment had no effect on Chester A Arthur’s status as it was created after he was born. Existing law already allowed him to be a citizen at birth. As you keep showing you seem confused. Repeating that he was a usurper doesn’t make it so.”
Show me the U.S. Law that allowed for the U.S. Citizenship of a child born to the wife of an alien foreign national that was still alive when the child was born after filing the intent to naturalize.
There AIN’T one, but go ahead and try and make one (1) up ……. both the child and the wife acquire U.S. Citizenship at the same time as the naturalizing father / husband……..
Poor Steven even more confused that Mario Apuzzo when he claims: “You are a MORON, …………..do you read what you write…………. a law that did not exist made Lil’ Chet eligible AFTER the FACT of his being born an English subject in being a son of British subject parents under the laws of the time…………and still you are wrong since ‘naturalized at birth” is not the same as “natural born” since that ONLY OCCURS when being born to two (2) citizen parents even under the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality in it’s un-bastardized state of the hierarchy of subject-hood..”
Do you read what you write? What you claim continues to sound even more stupid even for you.. Where did I ever claim the 14th amendment ever had an effect on his citizenship? I didn’t, that was entirely you. He wasn’t born an english subject. He was born with the ability to have british citizenship. First and foremost he was born with American citizenship. There is no “naturalized at birth” He was born a citizen, a natural born citizen. There is no proof his mother was naturalized as a british citizen. British citizenship isn’t automatic through marriage just as American citizenship isn’t automatic through marriage.
Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality? Which one? What year was this? You seem to continue to have no idea what you’re talking about.
You say;
“British citizenship isn’t automatic through marriage just as American citizenship isn’t automatic through marriage.”
I say; …………. BULL SHIT.
You must be trying to apply contemporary, post 1922, laws to circumstances of the 19th Century.
MARRIAGE WAS the determining factor of women’s political character up to 1922 under U.S. Law.
The PROOF is the passage of the Cable Act its-self …. !!!!
Lil’ Chet was born a British subject and yes there is a “naturalized at birth”, see 8 USC 1401, and that is NOT synonymous with the term of words used in A2S1C5, (U.S.) natural born Citizen, and could not be as the proposition of “naturalization at birth” by means other than “birthright citizenship” did not exist at the during the lifetime of the Founding Generation.
James Madison of the “Founding Generation” stated “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 he misunderstood the founder’s intention?
Obviously he, Madison, did not speak articulately about what was in the 1790 Act, did he………but I’d have to ask when exactly he said that and look at the laws of his State under the State Constitutions of the Confederation period so where’s the whole speech so I can get a sense of the context of the remarks………because POST the Ratification of the COTUS there was ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS that PLACE ALONE could bestow U.S. Citizenship on ANYONE …..zero, zip, nada ……….
…. a child born to an alien father was born alien and did not acquire U.S. Citizenship until the father naturalized: ” …. 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. …” (1790 Act)………..again, that is ANY child under the age of 21 years old, without distinction of foreign born or native born………..get it…………???
Dave I think the debate is now settled of who is stupider Apuzzo or Craig. Craig is winning that battle hands down.
Well, on behalf of Mario, I think we have to throw in the fact that he’s a supposed professional who chooses to make staggering displays of ignorance, error and unprofessionalism on a public forum. I was rooting for Steve myself, but Mario was making a particular spectacle of himself yesterday. Steve does have his incoherence and general misunderstanding of ANY of the concepts we’re talking about going for him, though. I just couldn’t decide between them.
Well, construing the “concepts” you advance is a very difficult task because they are based on “the ends justifies the means” approach to interpretations whereas I subscribe to the Tanney Rule, i.e.;
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
“Very entertaining ……. and instructive ….,etc., etc., etc…”
Steve, just because some people were called crazy who weren’t doesn’t mean everybody isn’t. You’re crazy as a betsy bug.
So, Steve is subscribing to the “Taney Rule,” namely, “inferior races” cannot be citizens. Good to know.
You sir are a despicable person to distort the nature of the Scott v Sandford Opinion as to being RACIST………
……….are you really so obtuse and not understand that if the SCOTUS had ruled otherwise it would have been the CAUSE of the Civil War the moment a Judgement was published that said Black Slaves were or could be U.S. Citizens in spite of what the COTUS provided for….????
STFU asshole ……….. liberal-progressive-socialist-commie-jihadist-bastard
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
[This comment was marked as spam because of the repetitive nonsense. I just checked the spam queue today. RC]
Well, yes, there is a definable distinction between Mario’s premise and mine and I certainly understand the fear that is instilled in you WKA sycophants given that my premise is based entirely on the U.S. Laws ……….
……….. but it is ironic, and I’m sure that the irony is lost on you guys… but England and the British system, founded of the ‘natural law” precepts, under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, was bound to preserve the “natural laws” as the basis of their Right to Rule. But, like you, began to bastardize many parts of the natural laws for its own purposes of expansion on the one hand and subjugation on the other…………….
………and then there’s the Mario premise that suggests that the natural law narrative of a specific Age of Enlightenment writer is controlling on the subject of U.S. Citizenship of the “natural born”, a proposition that I once found more reasonable than adhering to the Queen Anne Statutes and the interpretations thereof…..
…. and in the inappropriate interpretations of the differing premises the two of you are joined as being obfuscators on the subject of the ACTUAL U.S. Laws made in pursuance of the COTUS.
So, thanks for making the distinction between “those Birther’s” and my position and proposition of Constitutional Law construed directly from the U.S. laws as written and their applied effects.
Steve said: “… and yet I doubt you’ve read a single page of Blackstone’s Commentaries or have any real understanding of how “his” English common law is practised in its various parts, i.e., types of petitions, means of petitions, pleadings, adjudications & precedents, in the general overview.”
Well your doubts as usual are unfounded. Just as I’ve read more Emmerich de Vattel than you I’ve also read more Blackstone as well as other classics. The problem for you continues to be that you have reading comprehension problems and when you don’t understand something you just lie about what people have said.
Steve claimed: “You are TOTALLY unaware that all those “precedents” you rely on are actually based on the interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British nationality and that the interpretations you rely on are in some cases third, fourth, fifth generation interpretations that are used to fit the desired outcome, whether the original law supports that outcome or not. The Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality were written with the intent to facilitate the COLONIZATION of Foreign Lands by English Subjects while preserving their RIGHTS of Inheritance of properties and estates AS IF still being on the British Isles, ergo the axiom; ” Where there is an Englishman, so too is England””
Okay which section of the “Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality”? Chapter and verse. Quote from the statutes since you keep referring to them yet have produced nothing to support your claim. Which year? You do know that the british nationality act was amended multiple times over. I’m not the one relying on things I don’t understand, this is something you do as you’ve proven here repeatedly in this thread. Now you’re just rambling incoherently.
You acknowledge;
“… You do know that the british nationality act was amended multiple times over. ..”
Thanks for making my point ………. so now you show me which iteration of the Queen Anne Statutes was being interpreted and considered by Coke or Blackstone that caught Justice penumbra zone Gray’s eye which he could twist to support the end he sought..
..and I mean that you’ll have to show me because after extensive consideration I still can not reconcile or justify Justice penumbra zone Gray’s interpretation based on any specific English or U.S. Statute or precedent that would allow or require the Judicial Amendment of the A2S1C5 form of U.S. Citizenship nor the Judicial Kidnapping of a subject of the Emperor of China. or the subversion of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, ironically signed by Lil’ Chet the Usurper
You are entirely incorrect. The US doesn’t have automatic citizenship through marriage. It’s almost as if you just make shit up for the hell of it.
You can say bullshit but it’s true. You seem to be confused by a 15 year period where a woman’s citizenship was determined by her husband. This was only that way between 1907 and 1922. So your proof for something is a repeal of something? Wow that’s like claiming that there was always a prohibition based on the repeal of prohibition.
It’s ridiculous. No 8 USC 1401 covers all citizens natural born and naturalized. It’s a codifying of the law. You seem to be confused what the US Code actually is. Where in 8 USC 1401 claim one is naturalized at birth.
Chester A Arthur was a natural born citizen based on his birth on US soil. The 14th merely extended what already was to african americans. You wonder why you lost in court? This is the reason, the law seems to confuse you.
You, the idiot on that end…….says;
“The US doesn’t have automatic citizenship through marriage.”
Idiot…IT DOES NOT NOW…………IT DID PRIOR TO 1922………..learn the laws and acknowledge them ….
…. and Lil’ Chet was born in 1829, how can an Amendment passed 40 years after he was born affect the circumstances of his birth….?? and even if the 14th “made” him a U.S. Citizen after the fact of his birth he would be a naturalized and NOT natural born.
….. I think I’m through with you guys, you intentionally convolute and obfuscate what I say and make inane comments and extrapolations and attribute them to me based on your FEAR to acknowledge what I actually say ……….
And Steven proves he’s lost it by going full godwin by bringing up Nazis and communists. The US Law doesn’t support you. Which is why you kept losing in court. You’ve already agreed your original premise and claims were wrong in court. What makes you think your new ones are any more legit?
The US Law as written doesn’t support your claim that neither Barack Obama nor Chester A Arthur were eligible. Both were eligible to serve as President. Both were natural born citizens. You wonder why you continue to fail.
You say;
” The US Law as written doesn’t support your claim that neither Barack Obama nor Chester A Arthur were eligible, (INELIGIBLE …???) Both were eligible to serve as President. ”
You make a statement of FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE ……
Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
You MUST PROVE that the 14th Amendment and Justice penumbra zone Gray’s Opinion had the authority to abridge, enlarge or otherwise modify a STATUTORY form of U.S. Citizenship particularized in the Executive Articles at A2S1C5………..
…otherwise try to be intellectually honest and accept that there are contestable circumstances that rise to substantial federal interest of Constitutional Law.
Steve you continue to embarrass yourself. The only definable difference between Mario and your premise is that you use different names. Both your premises are equally crazy and have no foundation within US law. You sound just as bad as Tracy Fair who claims all her stuff is based on congressional record and her misreading of applicable caselaw. How did the courts treat her nonsense? Just about with the same indifference.
Oh look another guy claiming natural law without understanding it. Sorry kiddo but citizenship is a manmade concept. So is the idea of land ownership and nations.
*yawn* US law doesn’t support your claims which is why your ass got thrown out of court.