Birther Attorney and Not a Constitutional Expert Succumbs to COVID-19

We learned a few days ago that Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo had passed over the weekend from complications associated with COVID-19. Apuzzo was 65 years old and had been hospitalized with COVID and pneumonia.

Apuzzo filed one of the early Birther lawsuits against then President Barack Obama on behalf a handful of plaintiffs as Obama was about to be inaugurated as the first black president in 2009. The lawsuit, Kerchner v Obama, was of course dismissed at the district court level and failed on appeal to the 3rd Circuit and in the Supreme Court.

You can read Mario Apuzzo’s obituary here. Apparently he was quite active in his local Italian American community.

Apuzzo was the second or third attorney (Orly Taitz may have been the second but Orly was such a copycat it is difficult to tell) to use what was later described as the “two citizen parent” theory for the definition of the term natural-born citizen as used in article II of the US Constitution. New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio had included this argument in a lawsuit filed in New Jersey about the time of the November 2008 election.

Birther blogs like the Post & Email are praising Apuzzo as an “expert Constitutional attorney”. Let’s get that straight. Apuzzo was no expert on the Constitution. He tried to argue on his blog, in comment streams, and in actual cases his theory that to be eligible to be president one had to have two US citizen parents. He lost every case in which in tried to make this argument.

Apuzzo never wrote or published a single article in a reputable, vetted, law journal. The overwhelming majority of real constitutional experts disagreed with him. In short, he pushed a crackpot theory not accepted by real experts. His appeal in the dismissed Kerchner v Obama case in the Third Circuit was ruled to be frivolous. It was only after Apuzzo groveled before the court in a response to the OSC that monetary sanctions were waived. The ruling that the appeal was frivolous stood.

This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Barack Obama, Birthers, Mario Apuzzo and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Birther Attorney and Not a Constitutional Expert Succumbs to COVID-19

  1. COMALite J says:

    His whole argument basically boiled down to him not understanding plurals work. In English and in the French that de Vattel wrote (which was faultily translated into English after the Framers wrote the Constitution — the only English translations they could’ve had access to did not use, let alone define, the term “natural born citizen”). Even taking the faulty English translation of Vattel, he only wrote that “natives or indigenes” (later mistranslated as “natives, or natural born citizens,” are those born of parents who are citizens.

    At first that does seem like plural parents, right? But the “natural born citizens” is also plural, so even if only one parent of each were a citizen, that’d still be plural parents, like if someone said “drivers are wasting fuel in their cars through inefficient driving,” that doesn’t necessarily mean that each and every driver must have more than one car.

    But even not taking that into account, singular vs. plural isn’t as simple as whether you’re talking about one or more than one of something. There’s also indeterminate quantity plurals. If you don’t know how many there is of something ,and it could be one or it could be more than one, the plural is the correct form to use [you could also go the wordy “parent(s) who is/are citizen(s)” but that is not necessary].

    Example: imagine a public assembly such as a county hall meeting where the public attends and county officials address the public on a variety of subjects. They get to the part about the county school system, and one of them says, “If you have children in our county public schools, please raise your hand.” Even if you only have one child in one of the schools, you should still raise your hand.

    Let’s say that this assembly is held at the county courthouse. At the front entrance is a walk-through metal detector and a sign: “WEAPONS PROHIBITED PAST THIS POINT.” Try to sneak one gun in past the metal detectors. When they go to arrest you, point out that the sign uses the plural and you only brought one weapon in. See how far that gets you.

    No law or ruling that I know of has ever said that a natural born citizen must have “two parents, both of whom are citizens” or “both parents are citizens” or “father and mother” or “mother and father are citizens” or any other such. Just that a natural born citizen has citizen parents. If the quantity isn’t specified, under the indeterminate quantity plural rule, the plural is acceptable even if the quantity can be one, so long as it can also be more than one.

  2. Ajay says:

    You don’t have to be a Constitutional attorney to know the longtime definition of natural born citizen: born in the country (jus Solis) to two citizen parents (jus sanguines). This derives from natural law and goes back to Ancient Rome. (Vattel didn’t make it up.)

    “No man made law bestows natural born citizenship.” It is the only US citizenship that cannot be taken away, although it can be renounced.

    The first version of Article 2 had only specified “citizen”, but the Framers wanted to ensure more allegiance by any POTUS to the country and changed it to NBC. The first generation or so for POTUS were grandfathered in, if they were alive when the Constitution was written.

    The US Code recognizes three separate types of citizenship: naturalized, native born and natural born. The latter is a subset of native born and is pure citizenship. More than 93% of US citizens are NBC’s. Other countries, such as Egypt, also have the NBC requirement.

    All major SCOTUS decisions on citizenship only recognize this one definition and acknowledge that its meaning has always existed before outside the Constitution. They are not the definers of that law. The clearest case was Minor vs. Happersett in the 1800’s in which Minor argued that, if she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, then she should have the right to vote thru the 15th. However, the court ruled that she was a NBC, having been born in the US to two US citizen parents. NBC’s do NOT get citizenship thru any man-made law— not the 14th, any of the Naturalization Acts, or any act of Congress. The Wong Kim Ark case wasn’t centered around the NBC issue but whether he could have any US citizenship at all with legally domiciled foreign parents. (It was a sham decision by the Gray court.)

    Many attempts have been made to obscure or ignore the NBC requirement over the years. Clinton, Obama, McCaskill, and another passed Sen. Res. 511 in 2008 trying to declare McCain a NBC, citing that he had TWO US citizen parents. However, he was born in Panama outside the Canal Zone, so lacked jus Solis. Obama, of course, lacked jus sanguine, but that was swept under the rug. Thus, 2008 featured two main candidates who were ineligible.

    Since valid birth records for Obama/Soetoro have never been proven, he may not have been born with any US citizenship. If born in a foreign country, his supposed mother was too young to pass US citizenship to him at the time according to the laws then.

    The NBC requirement in Article 2 can be changed by Amendment, but prior attempts have never succeeded. Instead, certain interests have now taken to ignoring it to install whomever they wanted. McCain was never likely to raise the issue re Obama. And because US voters either never took a decent Civics class, and/or certain key info was scrubbed from online sources in 2008, it was easy to hoodwink voters by focusing only on the birth certificate issue and then marginalizing those raising questions as “birthers.” In addition, a sealing of his college registration of possibly being a foreign student. Thus, a psy-op “birther” smear campaign inserted into a massive PR push by those seeking to get Obama in.

    2008 soon paved the way to now having an ineligible VP, Harris, who was born to two foreigners and mostly raised in Canada. There are many others who have tried to run also not eligible. Each Secretary of State is supposed to keep ineligible candidates off the ballots, such as when Eldridge Cleaver was removed because he didn’t meet the Article 2 age requirement. However, all that is no more. In 2008 Roger Calero, not even a US citizen, appeared on ballots.

    • COMALite J says:

      Wow, so much wrong in your Gish Gallop!

      First, I challenge you to show any law in the USA at the federal level, or any court ruling, that distinguishes between “native born” and “natural born.” There are two types of citizenship as shown by the very term “naturalized” to describe those who obtain citizenship other than at birth. When you “–ize” something, you bestow a status like unto that which precedes the suffiix. Notice that nobody claims that there’s such a thing as “nativeized citizen.” (Again, basic English grammar trips you folks up.) If you’re a citizen at birth through natural means, you’re a natural born citizen. Period. There is no such thing as “native born” as distinguished from “natural born.” They’re synonyms!

      Secondly, McCain and Obama were both Natural-Born Citizens. That status in the USA can be obtained through either jus suli or jus sanguinis or both. Either one of those suffices (otherwise our military and ambassadors who give birth overseas would not be able to pass on that status to their offspring, which’d be a lousy thing to do to those who serve our nation that way). This has been further established through law such as the Immigration and Naturalization Acts.

      Thirdly, Obama’s birth certificates have been thoroughly vetted. The only people who disagree are those with a vested interest in believing otherwise and who either don’t understand, or hope their audience doesn’t understand, basics of computer graphics such as how .PDF files get layers when scanned from a paper document in Scan-to-Email mode on a Xerox® WorkCentre™, what MRC and JBIG2 algorithms are and do (if you don’t already know, without looking it up, what those stand for and what they mean, you’re not intellectually quali󟬁ed to debate me on this), etc. You can replicate every “suspicious” artifact in the Obama long form by scanning any known genuine document of your own directly into any relatively recent version of Adobe Acrobat (version 6 or later, including ⁩ , and DC). Ask me if you want step-by-step instructions. All you need is a computer (Windows or MacOS), Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro (not Reader), a scanner, and any document of basically similar nature that you know is genuine (heck, a canceled check will do for this). You must promise to video the results and upload it to YouTube. That’s how sure I am of this.

      Notice that no President, nor candidate for President, had ever been even asked to show a birth certificate to verify their NBC bona-fides prior to 2008. Not George Washington, not George W. Bush, not anyone in-between, not any of their opponents. McCain was the first to be asked (for the reasons you brought up — not that it mattered because he had jus sanguinis), then Obama showed his “short-form” Certification of Live Birth” (because under Hawaii state law, that was all that was available).

      Oh, and Obama’s name was never “Sœtoro.” Only an elementary school record in Indonesia had his student record filed under that, and that only because the law there at the time required students to be listed under the surname of the head of household, even if unrelated to said head of household (Barack was never adopted by Lolo Sœtoro). Also, contrary to popular Birther belief (I know you didn’t say this, but I’m bringing it up because it’s related), Obama never attended a Muslim school there (or anywhere else). He attended a public school, then a Catholic private school named after St. Francis of Assisi. Yes, both were technically “madrassas,” but only because “madrassa” is Arabic for “school” (all schools in Arabic-speaking nations are madrassas).

      Obama’s college records were never sealed. Like anyone else’s, his college transcripts are private info which only those with a legitimate need to know (such as employers) can legally access. “Sealed” is a specific legal term meaning a court order legally blocking from public access information which normally would be public. No such court-ordered (or any other legal) action was ever taken for Obama’s college records.

      (And no, his first Executive Order №13489 had nothing to do with sealing Presidential records — it was the 180° diametric opposite of that, undoing a previous E.O. (#x2166;13233) by GWB that had extended the time of the public not being able to view Presidential records, and rolling it back to what it had been under Reagan, Other than Obama’s name and the date, the wording of Obama’s E.O. №13489 is 100% verbatim identical to Reagan’s E.O. №12667 except for the addition of §6 which reads, and I quote: “Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 [by GWB] of November 1, 2001 is revoked).

      If you’re thinking of the Columbia University “FOREIGN STUDENT” ID card supposedly for Obama shown on the Internet back then, that’s a known Photoshopped fake. It was done by taking the ID of a German student from his own website and modifying it, including changing the text in the ID. When Obama attended, Columbia didn’t even use bar-coded IDs because that technology wasn’t affordable to schools yet. Their requirements once they did start using those mandated a color photo (the German student’s had one). The altered text lined up perfectly with the bounding box of the image but not with the card itself which was rotated about 1° clockwise. This of course is a dead giveaway, meaning the text was typed in Photoshop as a text layer, and the forger didn’t even bother to rotate the layers 1° CW. Oh, and no Columbia IDs have ever said “FOREIGN STUDENT,” even if the student was foreign. The German’s just said “STUDENT.”

      Finally, all of Birtherism has been traced back (by researcher Loren Collins) and shown to’ve been inspired by a comment on a blog post at 2:02 ㏂ on Leap Year Day, 2008, by one “Dave N.” who was trying to be helpful in a discussion on a short article by law professor Eugene Volokh on his eponymous The Volokh Conspiracy blog on the subject of whether McCain qualified as an NBC (he does, and Volokh concluded same). “Dave N” attempted to clarify the situation by using a hypothetical scenario as an analogy “(just for grins and giggles)” asking what would the situation be if it were Obama who’d been born in, say, Kenya, then flown back to the USA and his birth registered there.

      That comment was almost certainly seen by, or shown or described to, a somewhat less well-intentioned elderly (and now deceased as of 2013) Iranian ex-patriot living in California named Ali R. Pahlavan who did multiple blogs under an Anglicized version of his Persian name, “Alan Peters,” and also posted on Free Republic as “FARS” (the main Iranian dialect of the Persian language is Farsi). The very next day after “Dave N.” posted his hypothetical scenario as an analogy “(just for grins and giggles),” “FARS” posted the same basic thing (along with another rumor that was very easily discredited, claiming that Senator Obama had been sworn in on a Qu’ran [that was Congressman Keith Ellison who did that, and whose similarly skin-toned hand had been shown in a photo doing that and spread around the Internet lyingly captioned as Obama’s]), saying, “I was told today that….” It was Comment №391 on Freeper Thread №1978110, “Pin the Middle Name on the Obama” and it’s still there. At first other Freepers called him out for posting such wild unsubstantiated rumors, but others later in the thread expressed interest, so three days later he posted it as a full-fledged accusation on his pseudonymous Alan Peters’ [sic] Ruthless Roundup blog.

      There’s more to how it spread from there, and Mr. Collins thoroughly documented every step. It didn’t fully hit the mainstream until June 9, when the National Review published an op-ed by Jim Geraghty entitled “Obama Could Debunk Some Rumors by Releasing his Birth Certificate.” It was shortly after that that Obama released his “short form.” Neither Hillary nor her campaign nor her supporters had anything to do with starting Birtherism, though some supporters did help spread it later.

      That’s how what you believe got started: from a short comment on a blog that included a hypothetical (word used twice in the comment) scenario posted as an analogy “(just for grins and giggles)” (parenthetical also directly from said comment).

    • You don’t have to be a Constitutional attorney to know the longtime definition of natural born citizen: born in the country (jus Solis) to two citizen parents (jus sanguines). This derives from natural law and goes back to Ancient Rome. (Vattel didn’t make it up.)

      But no real Constitutional attorney agrees with that. Vattel himself said that England used a different system for determining citizenship. That’s why every Birther case based upon your erroneous thinking lost. Vattel was documenting what countries on the European continent followed, not England and not the USA, which did not even exist until several decades after de Vattel wrote his treatises.

      The US Code recognizes three separate types of citizenship: naturalized, native born and natural born. The latter is a subset of native born and is pure citizenship. More than 93% of US citizens are NBC’s. Other countries, such as Egypt, also have the NBC requirement.

      No it does not. The terms native born and natural born are used interchangeably in the laws and court decisions.

      All major SCOTUS decisions on citizenship only recognize this one definition and acknowledge that its meaning has always existed before outside the Constitution. They are not the definers of that law. The clearest case was Minor vs. Happersett in the 1800’s in which Minor argued that, if she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, then she should have the right to vote thru the 15th. However, the court ruled that she was a NBC, having been born in the US to two US citizen parents. NBC’s do NOT get citizenship thru any man-made law— not the 14th, any of the Naturalization Acts, or any act of Congress. The Wong Kim Ark case wasn’t centered around the NBC issue but whether he could have any US citizenship at all with legally domiciled foreign parents. (It was a sham decision by the Gray court.)

      In Minor the court said in plain English that it was not deciding who were natural born citizens and recognized there was still some controversy as to who those were. It was a voting rights case and said the court did not need to decide the question.

      Many attempts have been made to obscure or ignore the NBC requirement over the years. Clinton, Obama, McCaskill, and another passed Sen. Res. 511 in 2008 trying to declare McCain a NBC, citing that he had TWO US citizen parents. However, he was born in Panama outside the Canal Zone, so lacked jus Solis. Obama, of course, lacked jus sanguine, but that was swept under the rug. Thus, 2008 featured two main candidates who were ineligible.

      Well that is your version of what happened but it is fantasy. Regardless, the Senate was just trying to quell a small controversy over the status of one of its own to run and the resolution carried no force of law. It was non-binding.

      Since valid birth records for Obama/Soetoro have never been proven, he may not have been born with any US citizenship. If born in a foreign country, his supposed mother was too young to pass US citizenship to him at the time according to the laws then.

      His name is not Soetoro and your claims on his birth certificate are just plain horseshit.

      The NBC requirement in Article 2 can be changed by Amendment, but prior attempts have never succeeded. Instead, certain interests have now taken to ignoring it to install whomever they wanted. McCain was never likely to raise the issue re Obama. And because US voters either never took a decent Civics class, and/or certain key info was scrubbed from online sources in 2008, it was easy to hoodwink voters by focusing only on the birth certificate issue and then marginalizing those raising questions as “birthers.” In addition, a sealing of his college registration of possibly being a foreign student. Thus, a psy-op “birther” smear campaign inserted into a massive PR push by those seeking to get Obama in.

      Every Civics book ever written says anyone born in the US (and meeting the other requirements is eligible to be president. It is you who never took a Civics class or slept through it if you did.

      2008 soon paved the way to now having an ineligible VP, Harris, who was born to two foreigners and mostly raised in Canada. There are many others who have tried to run also not eligible. Each Secretary of State is supposed to keep ineligible candidates off the ballots, such as when Eldridge Cleaver was removed because he didn’t meet the Article 2 age requirement. However, all that is no more. In 2008 Roger Calero, not even a US citizen, appeared on ballots.

      VP Harris is eligible and lawsuits objecting to her eligibility were all dismissed. The Electoral College decision was affirmed by a joint session of Congress.

  3. To sum up my feelings on Mario: How can he have been an expert Constitutional attorney when he only opined and litigated on a single Constitutional issue and he was wrong about that one? (99% of attorneys disagreed with him. He lost at least a dozen times in court on the same issue. Maybe Art could explain that to us.

    • Northland10 says:

      Don’t hold your breath on that one. Anyway, don’t you realize that the definition of “Constitutional Attorney” is “somebody who says stuff I like”? Actual experience and training are not required.

      • LOL Yes, that sums things up.

        Mario did not like it when I pointed out that in his complaint in Kerchner v Obama he never cited Minor v Happersett even once and the two parent citizen thing only received a passing mention in a footnote. His answer was to claim that attorneys do not cite cases in complaints. Of course his own complaint in Kerchner had something like 20 other cases cited.

        I think John Woodman came to the same conclusion that when you backed Mario into a corner he would lie.

        • Ike says:

          Lying is what everybody seen you Obots do when I took yas on. That is, besides playing the race card – your specialty.

          You, Lupin, Woodman, Vickland and your other fellow-traveling useful idiot Obots didn’t get anything right when I was there. I didn’t realize just how dumb you really are.

          Except for his claim about McCain, Ajay was spot on.

          Here’s something to make your day:

          [Obscenity removed]

          • Ike continues to bring dishonesty and stupidity to an entirely new level.

            As ComaLiteJ carefully explained Ajay was wrong on just about everything as have been you Ike.

            • Ike says:

              What your fellow traveling pinko Obots don’t realize is you blocked of my replies to them & you when I last took yas on. I believe there were 6 you blocked & if you count the duplicates it totals up to atleast 12. Then you also removed a couple that were already posted. In both cases I asked you why you were doing that & to release them. You gaave some lame excuses regarding your email that didn’t make any sense. What does removing what was already posted have to do with your email?

              I have my doubts you will let this through but if you do I’ll add that many of you Obots lied about the issues and other times showed you were brain washed useful idiots of the lying Left’s propaganda mill.

              You showed your complete ignorance on the terms ‘my boy & your boy’ that I explained to you about 5 years ago with examples of blacks in the media using the terms, or were you being a twit an using it to grandstand?

              If you still have them release my replies to Vickland so he’ll understand where he has it wrong.

              • You were given a time out for violating the comment policy. Anything you may have posted when I told you you were suspended are long gone. Why don’t you enlighten us with your wisdom instead of continuing to act like a juvenile? It seems Vicklund destroyed your last arguments. Why are you so obsessed with calling a black man “boy” anyway? I think we can all answer that question.

          • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

            As a reminder, the last time RainbowDike engaged us, he quote-mined an abridged French-English dictionary to claim that “parens” only meant “parents” and never “relatives.” I cited dozens of other dictionaries, from before, during, and after de Vattel’s time and the drafting of the Constitution, showing that “parens” was used to mean relatives (in fact, it started out meaning relatives and only later came to also mean specifically parents). At first he refused to read the sources, then when I quoted them, he denied their validity. Then I started putting the squeeze on. First, I showed that his preferred author defined “parens” as relatives in the unabridged editions. He spluttered something about it being a turn of phrase, not the actual definition. Then the coup de grace: I showed in another part of the abridged version he originally cited that the actual translation of relatives was given as “parens.” The results were rather predictable. Ike threw a fit, deliberately writing a post which he knew would get him banned (because it had gotten him banned in the past and he was warned that doing so again would get him immediately banned again).

            So yeah, Ike is a lying coward. Oh, and to reiterate a point made earlier: section 214 of de Vattel renders any discussion of the meaning of “parens” (or “indegenes”) academic, since it describes the English tradition of natural-born nationality.

            • The weakness of the Birther position has always been glaringly obvious. After all sorts of independent evidence surfaced that the President Elect Obama was indeed born in Hawaii the Birthers had to turn elsewhere to try to make the black guy ineligible. Leo Donofrio found the Minor v Happersett case and misread part of the obiter dicta. This was a moot case concerning women’s suffrage and had nothing to do with who were natural born. The passage in Minor never said what Leo read it to say and Apuzzo who was also an attorney and should have known better lied about it until the day he died.

              Other Birthers Googled and found the writings of an obscure 18th century Swiss philosopher whom no one had ever heard about before. They misread him too and continue to do so.

              It is not remarkable at all that the Birthers amassed such and abysmal record litigating the issue in the courts where it really counts.

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              My memory was a little off: after being so spectacularly proven wrong, Ike ran away for three months, then came back and started in on the 14th Amendment. Shortly after, he flew his anti-vax freak flag, and that is when he full on violated the comment policy. Anyone curious about the first two can find it in the following post (search on my last name to narrow it down): https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/for-the-thousandth-time-anyone-born-on-us-soil-under-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states-is-a-natural-born-citizen-period/

              • I reread some of the comments there. Fine job by you. Ike’s comments seem even sillier in hindsight, especially the one about the “Make the Dem’s cry in 2020” baseball cap. I wish I had one now! It may be a collectors’ item.

              • Northland10 says:

                I am not entirely sure of what Ike actually believes because none of that is important to how he comments. He is going for a reaction and to play word games and nothing more. His posts are not an opinion but an attempt to get a rise out of others. This is also why he had gotten so whiney in the past after getting baned. He is in it for the game and nothing more.

              • Ike is the classic troll. That is why he was banned at Doc’s OCT blog. I suppose I just enjoy seeing the full on Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

            • Ike says:

              Vicklund,

              Quit the lying. I gave 100 years (1719 to 1819) showing how 2 French words were being defined and translated into English. All the dictionaries (Boyer) I checked (about a dozen) had it the same:

              Parent/Parents (Fr)- relation/relations = (El) kin

              Paren/Parens (Fr)- père ou mère/père & mère = (El) father or mother/father & mother (parents)

              I used the Boyer because it was the one being found in the American founders libraries & especially Franklin’s. He was the sage that many of the founders looked to for approval, and especially Jefferson while he was crafting the Declaration.

              What you have are a few that are defined differently. Good job finding them. Remember, I told you there were errors and so did that article you used on the lexicographer.

              RC started with the racist accusations more than once before I ever started mocking him. RC, Northland, and a couple others have been doing it to me for years. I’m white, maybe they’re black, I don’t know, but in every case over the years they’ve started it & expect me to take their sleazy race mongering attacks.

              The truth is, unless you really are stupid, you are a coward for not standing up for the truth when you know RC, Lupin and Woodman have been lying.

              6 1/2 years ago (May 2015) I finally broke through and got Dr Con to correct the misleading claims Lupin made in what he calls “Vattel’s citizenship article” (§ 212. Citizens and natives.) after more than 3 years of putting up with him & his comrades smearing attacks on me.

              (More on this later when I have time)

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                Nice try, Ike, but none of the Boyer dictionaries have “paren” as a word, or “parents” as a French word. They do have “parens” as the translation for “kinred” (of which “kindred” and “kinsfolks” are variants). Also, “Parens” is listed as a sub-category of “PARENT” (notice the capitalization). Scattered throughout the dictionaries there are multiple instances of “parens” used in sentences or phrases, and in almost all cases the English is “relatives” or “kinsmen” or the like. In some Boyer dictionaries, “Parens” has two entries, one for mother and father, and the other for relatives.

                Simply put, “parent” (masculine) or “parente” (feminine) is the singular for relative, and “parens” is the plural, but it can be used to refer specifically to mother and father. “Paren” is not the singular form of the English parent, and “parents” is not the plural form of the French parent.

                But if you think you can prove me wrong, go ahead and cite the Boyer dictionary. I’ll wait.

              • Ike says:

                Vicklund,

                Lets cut to the chase an conclude with the reason Vattel used parens, instead of parents as both Lupin & RC have tried to claim in the article & comment section of “For the thousandth time: Anyone born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen, period.”

                You’re right, parens was specifically used by Vattel to denote père & mère (father & mother). It’s the only term he could use to keep it in context. You’re born to a father & mother, not other relatives including Uncle Pepé & Aunt Fifi.

                Vattel was raised & schooled in Neuchâtel a French speaking district/area of Switzerland. As a writer he understood very well how the French terms/words were to be used.

                The question I asked myself early on when I 1st started reading the ongoing debates regarding what Lupin was calling “Vattel’s citizenship article” (§ 212. Citizens and natives): Why didn’t Vattel use the French terms/words PARENT or Parents if he wanted to include all the relative?

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                First, I note that Ike has conceded that he can’t back up his claimed use of paren and parents as French words in Boyer’s dictionary.

                I had intended to document all the times parens was used in Boyer’s 1955 abridged dictionary, including the translation into English, and show how in modern French, the spelling is now parents, both for mother and father and for relatives. As Lupin explained, parens became parents after de Vattel and Boyer passed. Now I seemed to recall that shortly before 1850, French spelling changed so the plural of words ending in -ent were now spelled -ents rather than -ens. As I was looking for examples of parens in Boyer’s dictionary, I stumbled on a French word I did not know and decided to look it up. The word was enterremens, and when I read the entry on the French version of Wiktionary, I immediately scrapped my original plan. According to Wiktionnaire, enterremens is an archaic form of the plural for enterrement (burial), used prior to 1835. Lo and behold, 1835 was a hyperlink to an annex detailing the French Spelling Reform of 1835, brought about by the publication of the 6th Edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy. The reform of 1835 brought about three major changes:

                switch from -oi- to -ai- where pronunciation had changed
                words ending in -nt changed the plural from -ns to -nts, except where they alreadyended in -nts for the plural
                dropping the use of & and replacing with et in certain situations

                De Vattel used parens because that was the plural of parent (Fr) at the time he wrote his treatise. Boyer used parens multiple times to mean both parents (En) and relatives because that was the plural of parent (Fr) at the time he wrote his dictionary. Lupin used parents because that is now the plural of parent (Fr). In all cases, parent (Fr) means relative, and can mean parent (En). Let’s look at the phrase “nearest kin.” Boyer on several instances translates this as “proches parens.” However, modern French dictionaries translate it as “proches parents.” Now, de Vattel could have used a different phrase if he wanted to be explicit that only birth parents counted, especially if he intended to advance the argument that both parents needed to be citizens. He simply could have used the phrase “le pere et la mere” (adjusted for grammar) in place of “parens.” He doubtless was aware of the custom in France (and otherFrench-speaking countries) of counting children born in the country to foreign parents, but having citizen uncles and grandparents, as naturels (natives). His failure to disambiguate indicates that he did not mean to exclude that practice.

                Here’s the link to Wiktionnaire. Note that you may have to use Google translate.

                https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/enterremens

                Also make sure to look up parens and note that it too had its spelling changed in 1835. Another fun fact: by 1777, the recommended practice was if a word ending in -nt normally pluralized as -ns was linked to another word(s) that retained the t when pluralized, the initial word should retain the t as well. The example given includes parent (Fr). “Des enfants charmants” (charming infants) causes parens to change to parents in the phrase “des enfants charmants des parents” (parents of the charming infants). A final note: in French, -ns, -nts, and -nt are all pronounced the same when at the end of a word. So the presence or absence of the t is purely cosmetic.

              • Excellent research Kevin! Of course Ike will ignore it because it is beyond his ability to do critical thinking. After all he blames the Democratic Party for getting us into a war that saved the free world from totalitarianism. He also thinks the guy who just wrote this was a great president: (:lol: at least we can say that Trump told the truth once even if by accident)

                This means that de Vattel would have considered Barack Obama a natural born citizen of France because he had a citizen mother and citizen relatives on his mothers side.

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                I presume you mean if Obama had been born in France to a French citzen mother and French citizen grandparents (just to make it explicit for the pedants). I personally believe de Vattel would classify Obama as a Kenyan with French citizenship. At this point, I’d like to point out section 122:

                The term, Country, seems to be pretty generally known: but as it is taken in different senses, it may not be unuseful to give it here an exact definition. It commonly signifies the Stale of which one is a member: in this sense we have used it in the preceding sections; and it is to be thus understood in the law of nations.
                In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth. In this sense, it is justly said, that our country cannot be changed, and always remains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth. But as various lawful reasons may oblige him to choose another country,-that is, to become a member of another society; so when we speak in general of the duty to our coun­try, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member; since it is the latter, in preference to every other state, that he is bound to serve with his utmost effort.

                Even de Vattel recognized the power of natural-born citizenship to secure allegiance. This also explains why he takes no issue with the English mode of nationality, as described in section 214. Finally, I would like to observe that de Vattel’s section 212 is very much like the dicta in Minor v. Happersett (sp?), in that it sets out the bare minimum of how nationality is passed on, but doesn’t preclude other means. However, unlike Minor, he does explicitly state that there are other modes, and the tradition of one of the modes he identifies is the tradition the US arose from.

              • As I read section 122 de Vattel might have recognized a French born Obama as a Frenchman with a Kenyan father. I don’t think de Vattel could have imagined the ease with which travel was possible in the mid 20th century when he wrote “In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth. In this sense, it is justly said, that our country cannot be changed, and always remains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove.”

                In obiter dicta in the Minor case the court noted that the exact meaning of natural born citizen and the applicability of the 14th Amendment had yet to be entirely defined. There was no need for that court to address it in the case of Virginia Minor since she was born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Of course in Wong Kim Ark the court did that.

              • Ike says:

                Vicklund,

                Sorry, bud, so close butttt no cigar for you. No blessing from Lupin on this?

                After reading that Hodgepodge I decided I’m nominating you in the 2021 Blogger Awards under the category ‘originality’.

                Your problem is still with the French word ‘parens’.

                The French word Parent and sometimes listed in all caps (PARENT) is defined as (Fr) relation and translated as (En) Kinsman. If (Fr) parens which is set in under (Fr) Parent/PARENT was the plural then it would be defined as (Fr) relations. It’s not. Parens is defined in all the dictionaries I’ve checked (now, about 20) as (Fr) pere & mere (Fr for daddy & mommy) and translated over as (En) father & mother (parents).

                On the vast majority, if not all, the (Fr) parens set in under (Fr) Parent/PARENT has a symbol preceding it that signifies a different intent/meaning. I’ve taken that to mean parens was being used to separate ‘pere & mere as a unit’ from the rest of the relatives.

                Here’s 1 example during Vattel’s lifetime (1728) He would of been 14, still in school, studying when this dictionary came out:

                https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=dul1.ark:/13960/t00013r65&view=1up&seq=337&skin=2021

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                Quit acting like the crapweasel.

                I did not blame your party, the party of secession, slavery, segregation and socialism, for taking America into all 4 major war in the last century. Just doing rough comparison of the American fatalities by party for those 4 wars.

                You’re right about Trump, he got it right on the Election fraud. Its cost Americans a lot since that demented pervert, Ol Creepy, took over in January.

              • Nazi sympathizer Ike wrote:

                You’re right about Trump, he got it right on the Election fraud. Its cost Americans a lot since that demented pervert, Ol Creepy, took over in January.

                I figured you would miss it. Go back and reread what Trump wrote again.

                Let’s see, since Biden took office unemployment is down, the stock market is up, vaccinations are way up, and COVID-19 cases and deaths are down. Also, we have a President who is not an embarrassment all over the world and we are no longer wasting billions of dollars and American lives in fruitless wars. Yeah, we are hurting.

                Edited to add: Earlier this year the CBO projected it would take several years for unemployment to reach prepandemic levels and would run above 6% well into next year. Thanks to the American Recovery Act we are now at 4.2%. The latest poll by independent historians ranked Obama as the 11th greatest president ever. Trump is 41st behind Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover.

                You can come on here and spout all the crap you want to from Gateway Pundit and AR15.com but you are only solidifying your place as an ignoramus. Try posting anything anti-Trump or anti-birther at Sharon Rondeau’s cesspool of a blog and see if it gets through moderation.

          • COMALite J says:

            Hey, Ike! I saw your meme before Reality Check removed it for obscenity. Except for the obscenity, how about you address what it really said?

            To refresh memories, it was a meme photo of Obama with this caption (censored):

            Make No Mistake America
            This worthless son of a {censored} is & will
            forever be recognized as the worst
            president in the history of the
            United States.

            Really? Worse than Andrew Jackson who genocided Native Americans? Worse than Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan who made the Civil War inevitable? Worse than what William Henry Harrison almost certainly would’ve been had he not performed one of the greatest acts of defending this nation from a dire danger that any President ever had, by talking a lot at his inauguration speech in the bitter cold, catching pneumonia, and dying in about a month, nearly all of which was spent on his deathbed, unable to do much real Presidentin’ (he saved the nation from himself!)? Worse than Warren G. Harding who had the most scandal-ridden administration then-to-date, including the infamous Teapot Dome scandal, and who said of himself, “I am not fit for this office and should never have been here” (at least he was more honest than Trump)? Worse than Andrew Johnson who was the first to be impeached (and for good reason)? Worse than Herbert Hoover who exacerbated the Great Depression and horribly mismanaged the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927?

            Worse than Nixon, who committed treason to get elected and in so doing kept the Vietnam War going much longer than it would otherwise have been, costing us at least ½ of our casualties there under his treason (you know the Vietnam War Memorial wall? You know that bend in the middle? Imagine if everything else about it [height, length, font size and spacing of engraved names, etc.] were the same except that it just ended where that bend is — that’s what it’d look like without Nixon’s high treason [called out as such by LBJ on a phone call which is available online as digital audio] — he got off scot-free for this, and Watergate was a middle-school prank in comparison)? Worse than Trump?

            Please, do explain, in as much detail as you’d like, exactly why Obama was worse than any and all of those.

            • Ike says:

              Another Obot crackpot showing he is a history lightweight

              Let’s get it right from the start.

              4 major wars in the last century: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam

              DemoKKKraps took America into all 4 of them. Roughly, going on memory:

              640,000 American soldiers killed (4 wars)

              620,000 of them under DemoKKKrap presidents

              Yes, Really! Obama is the worst of all of them. He was connected his whole life with the communists, commie Bill Ayers & his ilk, brought commies & marxists into government, supported commie revolution in America when he was at Occidental college, attended socialist conferences at Cooper Union in New York (those conferences were billed as tributes to Karl Marx), there was the anti-American Reverand Wright church services he attended for many years, he was involed in a socialist party in Chicago called the New Party, brought Black Lives Matter to the White House an encouraged them – they later destroyed some towns & killed cops & white people.

              And that’s just for starters on that piece of marxist dung. If he had his way there wouldn’t be an America. Oh yeah, Lupin feels the same way about America and you Obots support him too.

              The real difference is you got some of it right. Some were bad and never should of been presidents, some were just incompetent and made grievous mistakes, but I don’t think any were anti-American and wanted to see America destroyed.

              Besides Obama wasn’t a legal president.

              • Ike foolishly said:

                4 major wars in the last century: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam

                DemoKKKraps took America into all 4 of them. Roughly, going on memory:

                Actually President Eisenhower sent the first advisers into South Vietnam and began our presence there. The War would have probably ended earlier if Humphrey had been elected but instead Nixon won and greatly expanded the war after committing treason to get the North Vietnamese to delay peace talks. The worst idiocy of all though is Nazi sympathizer Ike bringing up World War II. Would he have had us sit that one out and let Hitler rule all of Europe and a large part of Asia – and maybe North America? You do now that’s what the Third Reich thing was all about don’t you?

                I have heard this childish “four wars” argument made by right wing fools for 40 years. It completely ignores history.

                Funny but you did not mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that W. Bush got us into and what a losing mess they both turned out to be. Thank goodness President Biden extracted us from that mess.

                We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?

              • Ike says:

                RC,

                America’s initial military involvement in Vietnam:

                July 26, 1950 – United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.

                American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam.

                September 27, 1950 – The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

                American military deaths Vietnam War:

                Under Pres Johnson- 5 yrs – 48,399

                under Prsdnt Nixon- 5 yrs – 21,194

                You’ve swallowed to much false leftist propaganda, and I can only go so far here. Nixon tried to get America an honorable out from the war. In August ’64, the US entered the War on reports of an unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. The reports were lies — and Pres Johnson knew it.

                Hilarious! Calling me a Nazi sympathizer when it was your political party where Hitler & his 3rd Reich were getting many of their ideas. They were infatuated with the policies of racist Dem Pres Wilson, Dem Margaret Sanger, Southern Dems & the KKK. Tell me what the 3rd Reich was all about.

                Were the wars in AFganistan & Iraq in the 20th century?

                Right, Ol Creepy got America out, but what did he leave behind? And the Taliban are murdering people daily.

                I’ve already provided you with historical references for natural born citizen.

              • Nazi sympathizer Ike blubbered:

                I’ve already provided you with historical references for natural born citizen.

                You have not provided anything of the kind. We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?

              • Ike says:

                Correction on US military fatalities during Vietnam War
                should be:

                36,756 – under Johnson
                21,258 – under Nixon

              • We are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Such a simple question Ike. You should be able to provide those references, right?

  4. Ike says:

    November 4, 2019 at 1:36 pm- Ike: It’s readily apparent RC is in over his head claiming citizen & subject are synonymous.

    November 4, 2019 at 5:25 pm- RC: Another red herring by the troll Ike. I did not say citizen and subject were synonymous.

    November 5, 2019 at 3:10 pm- Ike: Paragraph directly above subheading “Resources” in your article. I quote you (RC): “…there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.”

    November 5, 2019 at 4:39 pm- RC: I did not say the terms citizen and subject were the synonyms…

    RC: Birthers have elevated de Vattel to the status of sainthood but the reality is that there is just no evidence that authors of the Constitution used anything other than the English term “natural born subject” as a synonym for “natural born citizen”.

    RC: We don’t need to really(sic) on “Dude” as you call him to understand that “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were the(sic) synonymous…

    • You took my comment out of context Here is my complete comment:

      Another red herring by the troll Ike. I did not say citizen and subject were synonymous. I said that they were often used interchangeably in the early days of the republic. Mr. Hughes provided multiple instances that proved my statement. People obviously knew the difference. However, they had been used to referring to themselves as subjects for the better part of their lives so naturally old habits are hard to break.

      Ike needs to stop wasting everyone’s time and post specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Remember, we already know that the Supreme Court said for that for determining the meaning of terms used in the Constitution not otherwise defined we must resort to English common law. “Natural born” was one of those terms and the founders clearly knew what it meant. If they changed it then Ike should have no problem at all providing proof yet he continues to dodge that fundamental question. Why?

      I never said “citizen” and “subject” were the same thing. What I said is that “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were used as synonyms by the founders before and after the adoption of the Constitution in laws and in citizenship proclamations. This fact is indisputable and well documented by C. J. Hughes in comments here and elsewhere. .

      Since you brought it up though we are still waiting for you to provide specific historical references where at any time between 1776 and 1787 the US changed the common law meaning of natural born. Mario Apuzzo also made such a claim but could never back it up.

      • Something I did not include in my article on the definition of natural born citizen but also supports my case are the “reception statutes” passed by several of the colonies after they declared their independence from Great Britain. A commenter named Joey documented these at Doc C’s blog:
        https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2016/02/the-occasional-open-thread-lame-duck-edition/#comment-372154

        Joey March 2, 2016 at 1:56 pm (Quote) #

        Adrien Nash is obviously unfamiliar with the “reception statutes” that were passed by the former British Colonies as they declared their independence from British rule.

        Open main menu

        A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts pre-independence English common law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedents originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted common law by judicial opinion ( there was only partial reception by Louisiana which also partially adopted the Napoleonic Code and Spanish (Roman ) law)

        Examples From Reception Statutes

        Reception Provision of Massachusetts Constitution, 1780, ch. vi, art. vi.:
        “All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.”

        Reception statute of New York, 1786 (based on provision of NY Constitution, 1777, art. 35):
        “Whereas by the Constitution of this state it is declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the Legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on [19 April 1775] (except such parts thereof as are by the said Constitution abrogated) shall be and continue the law of this state; subject to such alterations and provisions as the Legislature of this state shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. And whereas such of the said statutes as have been generally supposed to extend to the late colony and to this state, are contained in a great number of volumes.” [a commission is established to gather together and put before the legislature the appropriate statutes].

        Reception statute of Virginia, 1776:
        “And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

        Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:
        [[section]]1. “Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.

        [[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”

        Reception Provision of the Delaware Constitution, 1776, art. 25::
        “The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state, shall remain in force unless they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Constitution and the declaration of rights, & agreed by this convention.

        The District of Columbia was not a state. The Constitution gave Congress complete legislative authority in all cases whatsoever, but when Congress provided the law for the District’s courts, it backed away from mandating its own style of reception, showing the degree to which Congress felt that it should rely on the law of the states, the degree to which the federal government was regarded as different in nature from state governments.

        Reception statute for the District of Columbia, 1801

        “. . . the laws of the state of Virginia, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the District of Columbia, which was ceded by the said state to the United States, and by them accepted for the permanent seat of government; and that the laws of the state of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the said district, which was ceded by that state to the United States, and by them accepted as aforesaid.”

        So not only did the early Americans not say they were changing the meaning of natural born they proactively adopted English common law that had been in place and that would have included citizenship rules from the same.

      • COMALite J says:

        Allow me to quote the Word of God the same way Ike and others of his ilk quote you and other “Obots” (only I’ll be a bit more honest than him and at least properly indicate mine omissions with horizontal ellipses [“…”]):

        • Exodus 8:10: “…there is no God….” (CEV & Msg)
        • Exodus 9:14: “…there is no God….” (EtR)
        • Deuteronomy 3:24: “…there is no God….” (EtR, GNT, MB, TB)
        • Deuteronomy 32:39: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, CPDV, CT, D-R, GB99, GNT, Great, JST, JUB, Knox, ISV, LITV, MCB, Msg, NIRV, NJB, NLT, SLT, & WE)
        • Deuteronomy 33:26: “…there is no God….” (CT, GB99, & MCB)
        • Ⅰ Samuel 2:2: “…there is no God….” (Exp, GB87, GB99, & NCV)
        • Ⅱ Samuel 7:22: “…there is no God….” (AmpR, BST, CJB, CPDV, CSB, CT, ERB, ESV³, EtR, Exp, HCSB, ISV, LEB, LITV, LSV, MEV, MCB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV², NLB, NLV, NRSV³, NWT2013, PHBT, RSV³, UBv1.9, Voice, & YLT)
        • Ⅱ Samuel 22:32: “…there is no God….” (EtR, LB, PHBT, & PLT)
        • Ⅰ Kings 8:23: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, CJB, Great, ISV, JST, Knox, LB, LITV, LSV, PHBT, SLT, Voice, & YLT [Msg has this at verse 22])
        • Ⅱ Kings 1:3: “…there is no God….” (ACV, AFV, Amp, ASV, BST, CSB, Exp, ERB, ERV, ESV³, Exp, GB87, GB99, GNT, HCSB, ISV, JPS, JST, LB, LEB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NKJV, NIV², NLV, NRSV³, NWT2013, PLT, RSV³, SLT, & UBv1.9)
        • Ⅱ Kings 1:6: “…there is no God….” (ACV, AFV, AmpR, ASV, BST, CSB, Exp, ERB, ERV, ESV³, Exp, GB87, GB99, GNT, HNV, HCSB, ISV, JPS, JST, LB, LEB, MEV, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NKJV, NIV², NLV, NRSV³, NWT2013, PLT, RSV³, SLT, & UBv1.9)
        • Ⅱ Kings 1:16: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, CJB, CT, EtR, GB87, GB99, GNT, Great, Knox, JUB, LEB, LITV, LSV, MB, MCB, Msg, NJB, NLT, NRSV³, NWT2013, PHBT, Voice, & YLT)
        • Ⅱ Kings 5:15: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, CPDV, D-R, LITV, LSV, HCSB, & YLT)
        • Ⅰ Chronicles 17:20: “…there is no God….” (BST, CJB, CSB, ESV³, Exp, HCSB, LB, LEB, LOT, MEV, NAB, NCV, NET, NIV², NLV, NRS, PHBT, PLT, RSV³, UBv1.9, & YLT)
        • Ⅱ Chronicles 6:14: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except CEV, ISV, JST, LB, LITV, LSV, PHBT, PLT, SLT, & YLT [Msg has this at verse 12])
        • Ⅱ Chronicles 32:15: “…there is no God….” (Thompson)
        • Ezra 9:13: “…there is no God….” (Thompson)
        • Job 12:6: “…there is no God….” (LB, PHBT, PLT)
        • Psalms 10:4: “…there is no God….” (ACV, Amp, ASV, BBE, CJB, CSB*, Darby, ERV, ESV³, Exp, GB87, GB99, GWT, ISV, JPS, LB, LEB, LITV, LOT, LSV, NASB, NJB, NLV, NRS, PHBT, PLT, RSV³, UBv1.9, & Voice)
        • Psalms 14:1: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BBE, HCSB[“God does not exist”], Msg, JPS [present in JPS1917], JST, LITV, SLT[“No God”], & YLT[“God is not”] [Knox has this in 13:1, CSB*])
        • Psalms 18:31: “…there is no God….” (EtR, LB, PHBT, & PLT)
        • Psalms 53:1: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BBE, CJB, HCSB[“God does not exist”], JST, LITV, Msg, & SLT[“No God”] [JPS has this at verse 2, Knox has this in 52:1])
        • Psalms 71:19: “…there is no God….” (EtR)
        • Psalms 86:8: “…there is no God….” (BBE, Exp, GNT, NCV, & Wycliffe)
        • Proverbs 30:1: “…there is no God….” (Msg)
        • Isaiah 44:6: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BB, CEV, EtR, GB87, GB99, GNT, Great, JST, Knox, LITV, MCB, Msg, NKJV, NCV, & SLT[“no God”])
        • Isaiah 44:8: “…there is no God….” (KJ1611, KJ21, KJV¹, JUB, PLT, & TMB)
        • Isaiah 45:5: “…there is no God….” (all listed translations except BST, CEV, CJB, EtR, Exp, GNT, Great, GWT, ISV, JST, Knox, Msg, NASB, NCV, NJB, NLT, SLT[“no God”], & Voice)
        • Isaiah 45:6: “…there is no God….” (AmpC, BBE, BST, GWT, NHEB, NET, & Thompson)
        • Isaiah 45:14: “…there is no God…” (ASV, BST, CPDV, D-R, ERV, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV¹, Knox [Isaias], LEB, & NASB)
        • Isaiah 45:21: “…there is no God….” (AmpC, ASV, D-R, Darby, ERV, JPS, JUB, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV¹, Knox [Isaias], MEV, NET, NHEB, NKJV, NIRV, NIV², & TMB)
        • Isaiah 46:9: “…there is no God….” (D-R & Wycliffe)
        • Daniel 3:29: “…there is no God….” (BB, CT[1535], GB87, GB99, Great, MB, & MCB)
        • Micah 7:18: “…there is no God….” (EtR, Exp, LB, NCV, PHBT, & PLT)
        • Judith 6:2: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
        • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:2: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
        • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:5: “…there is no God….” (D-R, GNT, KJ1611, KJV, & NRSV [NAB has this at verse 4])
        • Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:13: “…there is no God….” (D-R)
        • Ⅱ Esdras 8:58: “…there is no God….” (KJV, NRSV³, & TMB)
        • Mark 12:29 : “…there is no God….” (Knox)
        • Luke 16:21 : “…there is no God….” (JST-LDS)
        • Ⅰ Corinthians 8:4: “…there is no God….” (Amp, ASV, BBE, CSB, DLNT, ERV, ESV³, Godbey N.T., Goodspeed N.T., HCSB, JBP N.T., LEB, MNT, Mounce R-I N.T., Msg, NAB, NET, NHEB, NIV², NJB, NRVS, RNT, RSV³, TCNT, UBv1.9, Voice, WBGNT, Webster, Wesley N.T., Weymouth N.T., Williams N.T, & Wycliffe [for obvious reason, this is the only appearance of that phrase in the DLNT, Godbey, Goodspeed, JBP, MNT, Mounce, RNT, TCNT, WBGNT, Wesley, Williams, Worrell, & Weymouth])

        ¹ The KJV references (other than the two in the Apocrypha) are also found in the AKJV (American King James Version).
        ² The NIV references are also found in its variants including the NIV-UK and TNIV (Today’s NIV).
        ³ The ESV, NRSV³, and RSV references are also found in their variants including Anglicized, Catholic, and Anglicized Catholic versions (NRSV Apocrypha reference [Sirach/Ben Sira 26:5] found only in Anglicized and/or Catholic).
        * Uses “…there’s no God…” (contraction) instead of “…there is no God…”

  5. Northland10 says:

    It is always a sight to see when some American with no legal training knows more about French and French word choices by a Swiss philosopher in the 18th Century than a French attorney who speaks the language daily (both French and legal language).

    I wonder if that American also knows Vattel said that weapons should be restricted and a single sovereign/prince is better than a democracy. If the Law of Nations is our law, well then, I guess the entire book should be, unless the idiot American believes he can pick and choose.

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s