Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RR Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” Natural Born Citizen

Expand Messages
  • Rich Martin
    Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, natural born Citizen
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Natural Born Citizen -
      A Place to Ask Questions
      and Get the Right Answers

      A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1,
      "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause.
      To read this in your viewer, goto
      http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html




      Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen”
      and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President



      Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen”
      and Therefore Not Eligible to Be
      President

      By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.       March 25, 2013

      It is pretty amazing to see to what lengths some will go to convince us
      that their favorite political candidate is eligible to be President.
      Greg Conterio has written an article in which he concludes that Senator
      Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S.
      citizen father, is eligible to be President. The article can be read at http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/03/23/birtherism-and-the-tyranny-of-ignorance/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=65580535 .

      I do not object to Mr. Conterio having a view that is different from
      mine on the definition of a "natural born Citizen." What is most
      objectionable is how he goes about attempting to prove that he is
      correct and others are wrong. In referring to those who do not agree
      with him, Mr. Conterio uses language such as “ ‘Birtherism’ and the
      Tyranny of Ignorance,” (the title of his article), “resurgence of the
      ‘Birther’ phenomenon,” “depth of ignorance,” “false assertions,” “sort
      of thing,” “completely wrong,” “nonsense,” and “twist themselves into
      knots.” What is really amazing is that he also tells us that it only
      took him “a few minutes to do a quick internet search” to come up with
      the correct answer on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and how
      Ted Cruz meets that definition. And how could I not mention that he
      tells us that “[s]ome guy with a blog, or some attorney with some
      bizarre sounding legal theory are NOT authoritative sources.” I wonder
      what attorney Mr. Conterio has in mind.

      Mr. Conterio’s sole source for his definition of a “natural born
      Citizen” is Congressional statutes (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq.). He
      cites and quotes those statutes and while conceding that they at most
      only declare persons to be “citizens of the United States” at birth, he
      says that Congress’s expression has the equivalent constitutional
      meaning as a “natural born Citizen.” There are several problems with Mr.
      Conterio’s argument.

      First, given that the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born
      Citizen” clause into the Constitution and they must have had a purpose
      for doing so, the clause had to have a specific meaning. As we shall see
      below, that meaning was a child born in a country to parents who were
      its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. The fact that there was
      in the Constitutional Convention no debate on the meaning of the clause
      gives us more evidence that the clause must have had a settled meaning.
      We also know that the Founders and Framers relied upon the clause to
      keep foreign influence and royalty out of the office of President and
      Commander in Chief. The historical record shows that the Founders and
      Framers were most concerned about foreign influence invading the
      administration of our new government. So, while they did have a concern
      with royalty occupying the office of President, the purpose for using
      the “natural born Citizen” clause was broader. As John Jay stated in his
      famous July 25, 1787 letter to then-General George Washington, he
      proposed that the Commander in Chief of the Military be a “natural born
      Citizen” so as to provide a “strong check to the admission of Foreigners
      into the administration of our national Government.” The historical
      record contains statements from other Founders, Framers, and
      commentators as to the need to keep foreign influence out of the Office
      of President and Commander in Chief. Moreover, even assuming that the
      purpose was only to keep royalty out of the White House, the Founders
      and Framers would have required that a child be born to parents who were
      U.S. citizens to make sure that their child at the moment of birth did
      not inherit from either one of his parents titles of royalty or
      nobility.

      So, we can see that the “natural born Citizen” clause, by requiring
      birth in the country to citizen parents, served a great purpose for the
      Founders and Framers. It not only was designed to keep foreign influence
      out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. But it was also
      designed to make sure that those high and powerful civil and military
      offices would never end up in the hands of royalty or nobility. In
      short, the Founders and Framers through the clause sought to preserve
      the new constitutional republic not only for the present, but also for
      Posterity.

      The historical record also shows that at first, the Framers were going
      to allow Congress to appoint the President. But they decided against
      that idea because they feared the foreign influence running rampant in
      Congress would spill over onto the office of President and Commander in
      Chief. So they decided on the Electoral College, a group of electors who
      would come together only once every four years to elect the President
      and then disband. The process was explained by Hamilton in Federalist
      No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President (Hamilton). In referring to
      the President, Alexander Hamilton described him as the “person to whom
      so important a trust was to be confided. . . .” He described the Office
      of President as “so important an agency in the administration of the
      government . . .” “Nothing was more to be desired than that every
      practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and
      corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might
      naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than
      one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an
      improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this,
      than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the
      Union?” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 68, 457-61 (12 Mar. 1788).
      So we can see why the Framers took it out of the hands of Congress to
      elect the President and why they gave that task to the Electoral
      College.

      Yet, Mr. Conterio wants to give Congress the power, not to confirm what
      that settled meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was, but to actually
      change it as it wishes and when it wishes. On the contrary, Congress
      through Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 only has the power to make
      uniform the laws of naturalization. It would not only be contradictory
      to give Congress the power to change the meaning of “natural born
      Citizen” through its naturalization powers, but would also fly in the
      face of the Framers having taken away from Congress the power to elect
      the President and the reason for doing so.

      Second, Mr. Conterio does not realize that by giving Congress the power
      to define a “natural born Citizen” as it wishes and when it wishes he is
      giving Congress the power to amend the Constitution without
      constitutional amendment. I wonder what Mr. Conterio would say if he
      knew that from 1802 to 1855, any child born out of the United States,
      even to citizen parents, was considered by Congress to be an alien. What
      does that do to Mr. Conterio’s thesis of Congress deciding by statute
      who is a “natural born Citizen?” What did Congress’s 1802 statute do to
      Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be President? We know that the citizens made
      the Constitution and not vice versa. But yet, Mr. Conterio would have
      Congress decide who is a “natural born Citizen,” even giving to it the
      power to deny that status to a child who inherits by nature from his or
      her parents the right to be born in a free and independent republican
      America.

      Third, Mr. Conterio assumes without proving that a “citizen at birth” or
      “citizen from birth” is the constitutional equivalent to an Article II
      “natural born Citizen.” I have argued at length that the clause is
      “natural born Citizen” and not any other variation. I have also argued
      at length and historical sources, Acts of Congress, and U.S. Supreme
      Court precedent support me, that the phrases do not have the same
      constitutional meaning. Being a “citizen at birth” or “citizen from
      birth” is only one of the necessary conditions of being a “natural born
      Citizen.” The other two necessary conditions are birth place and birth
      parents. All three of these conditions, birth time, birth place, and
      birth parents are necessary and sufficient conditions to be a “natural
      born Citizen.” See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212
      (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (explained that the “natives, or
      natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are
      citizens.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm .; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“At common-law,
      with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
      familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of
      parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth,
      citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as
      distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
      U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (same). Contra Ankeny v. Daniels; Tisdale v.
      Obama; Fair v. Obama (appeal pending); Farrar v. Obama; Galasso v.
      Obama; Jackson v. Obama; Paige v. Obama (appeal pending) (all found that mere birth in the United States is generally sufficient to make one a
      “natural born Citizen;” none of these Obama cases are decisions of our
      U.S. Supreme Court).

      Fourth, Mr. Conterio totally discounts the source to which the Founders
      and Framers would have looked for their definition of a “natural born
      Citizen.” When the Framers adopted the Constitution in 1787, there were
      no acts of Congress in place. Hence, the Framers could not have possibly
      looked to Congressional Acts which came later in time for the meaning
      of the clause. They had to have looked somewhere else for their meaning.
      Minor told us what that source was. It said it was the common law. And
      under the definition that Minor gave us of a “natural-born citizen,” a
      concept that belonged to the nation to define and not to any one
      individual state, we know that that common law was not the English
      common law, which had application only in the states and which the U.S.
      Supreme Court many times when interpreting terms in the Constitution
      consulted on matters that affected state local issues, but rather
      American national common law which had its source in the law of nations
      as found in Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations.

      Fifth, Mr. Conterio does not realize that all expressions of U.S.
      citizenship found in the positive laws such as the Fourteenth Amendment,
      Acts of Congress, and treaties are nothing but exceptions to the
      American national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” It
      is telling that none of these laws include within their text the words
      “natural born Citizen.” Rather, they all use “citizen of the United
      States.” As Minor also explained, at common law, anyone who did not meet
      the definition of a “natural-born citizen” was an “alien or foreigner.”
      Hence, citizens made through these other positive laws are not “natural
      born Citizens,” but rather “citizens of the United States,” either at
      birth or after birth. They are given that status by positive law
      creating exceptions to the American national common law rule. Those
      exceptions do not drive or become the definition of a “natural born
      Citizen.” Rather, they only allow the making of more “citizens of the
      United States" and in the end prove through the exceptions themselves
      what the correct definition actually is. See Wong Kim Ark (which created
      another exception under the Fourteenth Amendment to the general
      national common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” by
      distinguishing a child born in the country to alien parents from a
      “natural born” child born in the country to “citizen” parents and
      finding that the former, because of being born in the country was as
      much a “citizen” as the latter, found Wong, who was born in the United
      States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were “subject to the
      jurisdiction” of the United States, to be a “citizen of the United
      States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be
      conflated and confounded with a “natural-born citizen”)).

      So, now we have Mr. Conterio trying to convince us that any argument on
      the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” that does not fit well with him
      can only come from someone or something that is not only not an
      “authoritative source,” but also a “tyranny of ignorance.” On the other
      hand, he tells us that he is an “authoritative source” and well-informed
      on the “natural born Citizen” clause. Readers can decide for themselves
      what are the authoritative sources, what is logical and based on
      reason, and from all that what is the correct meaning of an Article II
      “natural born Citizen.” A thoughtful and thorough analysis of all the
      historical and legal sources should lead the critical thinker to the
      unshakable conclusion that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a
      child born in a country to parents who were it “citizens” at the time of
      the child’s birth.

      Since Ted Cruz was not born in the country (he was born in Canada) and
      he was not born to “citizen” parents (his father was not a U.S. citizen
      at the time of his son's birth), he is not and cannot be a “natural born
      Citizen.” Under an Act of Congress (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g)), he is a
      "citizen of the United States" at birth. This means for him that he is
      eligible to be a Senator, who at a minimum only has to be a “citizen of
      the United States” for nine years, but not eligible to be President, who
      must be a “natural born Citizen.”

      Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
      March 25, 2013
      http://puzo1.blogspot.com
      ####





      Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at 8:07 PM
      Labels: Greg Conterio, Mario Apuzzo, Minor v. Happersett, natural born citizen, presidential eligibility, Ted Cruz, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

      210
      comments:     1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
      Robert said...
      It is very difficult to imagine the level of ignorance or insanity by which so many eagerly disregard this one section of our Constitution as if they are completely unaware that doing so allows for the similar
      treatment of all others.

      Why do we even have any citizenship, age
      or residency requirement? Why bother with an electoral college? Why
      bother with a confirmation before the House or Senate? Why even bother
      with a vote?

      Taking this argument all the way to every other
      paragraph of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is not any
      stretch at all. In fact, it seems to be the clear intent of the Obama
      seditionists as they actively pursue open revolution against the people
      and our Constitution. Just like their mentor Joseph Stalin predicted,
      they are seeking our complete destruction and doing so without ever
      having to fire even a single shot.
      March 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM
      jayjay said...
      It is beyond any clear reason why so many ill-informed (AKA
      IGNORANT)in the US population cannot do anything but play "follow the
      leader" with so many in the media - both liberal and conservative - and
      parrot the name of the non-Democrat candidate de joure such as Cruz in
      this instance.

      Equally as unqualified would be such as Rubio,
      Jindal, Santorum, and many others (insert your own favored unqualified
      candidate here also). It seems it will never cease. Have all Americans
      and others voting illegally been overcome with mass stupidity???

      Many times ignorance can be corrected through education ... but
      stupid is forever.

      The
      Obama precedent is no real precedent but merely a case of gross
      lawbreaking which may eventually bounce back to bite the man and his ilk
      in the ass. Let's hope!

      Excellent essay, Mario!!
      March 25, 2013 at 11:40 PM
      Stan said...
      One of the main pro-Obama posters argues that the term only meant to
      the Framers that the candidate could not be a NATURALIZED citizen; and
      that otherwise, jus sanguinis did not apply. What proof is there in the record that the Framers were going by American common law/Vattel's
      definition, and not English common law, as was very common at the time
      (I am led to understand)??

      P.S. I appreciate all your good work
      in this regard, Mr. Apuzzo. But this question, of which 'common law'
      was being applied in and to the matter, is a troubling one.
      March 26, 2013 at 12:38 AM
      dick head said...
      from what I have seen you do not have to be a citizen anymore to be
      prez. Obama has shown no evidence he is a citizen...just a big charade
      March 26, 2013 at 2:05 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      Stan,

      The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett explained:

      “At
      common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
      Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born
      in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon
      their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born
      citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities
      go further and include as citizens children born within the
      jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As
      to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the
      purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is
      sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children,
      born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves
      citizens.”

      This is not the English common law, for under that
      law, in the case of friendly aliens who were not diplomats, there was no
      reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents and there was never
      any doubt that a child born in the King’s dominion and under his
      allegiance and obedience to friendly alien parents was a “natural born
      subject. Rather, Minor expressed American national common law emanating
      from the law of nations. See Vattel Section 212 in The Law of Nations
      where the same definition of a “natural-born citizen” will be found.

      There
      is not one U.S. Supreme Court case that has ever defined an Article II
      “natural born Citizen” (not to be confounded with a “citizen of the
      United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment) under the English common
      law. If I am wrong, please provide the one case and explain how that
      case defines a “natural born Citizen” under the English common law.



      March 26, 2013 at 2:24 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      Stan,

      Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says a “natural born
      Citizen” is eligible to be President. It does not say a “citizen” who
      is not a “naturalized citizen” is eligible. In other words, one has to
      meet the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” You do not get there
      by simply showing that one is a “citizen” which status was not acquired
      by naturalization after birth, for that is not the definition of the
      clause. Again, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child
      born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the
      child’s birth. The is the only definition of the clause and it is that
      definition which must be satisfied, not some other definition under the
      Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act used to acquire the status of a
      “citizen of the United States” at birth (what you call a
      non-naturalized citizen).

      March 26, 2013 at 2:37 AM
      MichaelN said...
      The 14th Amendment made it clear what constituted a born US citizen,
      this was bearing in mind, on the part of the amendment framers, the
      original US Constitution with it's "natural born Citizen" requirement
      for POTUS eligibility.

      The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with
      POTUS eligibility; it merely confirmed the two means to ordinary US
      citizenship, on of which is by birth in the country, i.e. native-birth.

      Article
      II "natural born Citizen" was specifically for eligibility for POTUS,
      it was NOT eligibility criteria for US citizenship; it was eligibility
      for a person who must ALREADY be a born US citizen.

      Article II "natural born Citizen" must therefore mean to descibe a born US citizen with an additional quality.

      Given
      the imperative to require a person with the highest possible allegiance
      and the least possible foreign ties, to be eligible for the office of
      POTUS, then it can only be that the additional quality was for the
      native-born "citizen of the United States" to be born to US citizen
      parents i.e. a "natural born Citizen".
      March 26, 2013 at 3:25 AM
      Fogbow Foggy said...
      Jeez, Mario, give it a rest.

      Why in the world would you think
      that when he said "some attorney with some bizarre sounding legal
      theory" that he was talking about you, hmm?

      When the Minor court
      said "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
      doubts," that means THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON THAT ISSUE. Wong Kim Ark
      ruled on that issue and resolved those doubts: If you're born in the
      U.S., you're a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of
      your parents. Yes, that includes anchor babies and President Obama.

      Flail and fail, Mario. Flail and fail.
      March 26, 2013 at 8:43 AM
      Doublee said...
      Canada is one of two major countries that grant birthright
      citizenship. The other is the United States. This site also has
      discussion of the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the
      14th amendment.

      http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

      This would make Senator Cruz a dual citizen at birth just like Obama. Obama lost his British/Kenyan citizenship at age 23.

      It
      would be interesting to know if Senator Cruz is still a Canadian
      citizen and if he is aware of his Canadian citizenship status. Has he
      taken steps to renounce his Canadian citizenship?
      March 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      Fogbow Foggy,

      I of II

      You said: “Jeez, Mario, give
      it a rest.” Is that supposed to mean that you think you won this
      debate? I hope not because I have not yet seen any historical and legal
      evidence that convincingly supports your position. Since you have
      commented here, you are welcome to present it so that it may be examined
      for validity and soundness.

      You said: “When the Minor court
      said ‘For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
      doubts,’ that means THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON THAT ISSUE. Wong Kim Ark
      ruled on that issue and resolved those doubts: If you're born in the
      U.S., you're a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of
      your parents. Yes, that includes anchor babies and President Obama.”

      This
      is a misunderstanding of what Minor said. Minor’s doubts were about
      whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a
      “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
      The doubts were not about whether that child could be a “natural born
      Citizen,” for he could not given that the Court clearly told us in the
      same paragraph that such a child at common law with which the Framers
      were familiar was a child born in a country to parents who were its
      “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Those doubts had been
      confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873 in The Slaughterhouse Cases,
      83 U.S. 36, 73(1873) which said in dicta when interpreting the
      Fourteenth Amendment: “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was
      intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls,
      and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United
      States." Minor in 1875 did not have to address and resolve these doubts
      because Virginia Minor was born in the country to “citizen” parents
      which made her a “natural born Citizen” and therefore not in need of the
      Fourteenth Amendment.

      Examining whether Virginia Minor was a
      “citizen” so that it could then decide whether she was entitled under
      Article IV as a “citizen” to privileges and immunities that included the
      right to vote which no state could abridge because of the Fourteenth
      Amendment, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in
      1875 searched for the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” It said
      that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen.”
      It also said that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment
      to show that she was a “citizen.” Relying upon what it said was the
      common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” with which the Framers
      were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, Minor said that any
      child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time
      of the child’s birth was not only a “citizen” like his or her parents,
      but also a “natural-born citizen.” This was the same definition of a
      “natural-born citizen” put forth by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of
      Nations (1758).

      Continued . . .


      March 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      II of II

      So Minor showed how it did not need the Fourteenth
      Amendment to demonstrate that a person could not only be a “citizen,”
      but also be a “natural-born citizen.” Virtually the same judges that
      made up the Minor Court had earlier stated in dicta in The
      Slaughterhouse Cases: “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was
      intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls,
      and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United
      States." Id. at 73. If the Court did not consider children born in the
      United States to alien parents to be not even “citizens,” which was
      consistent with Congress’s naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and
      1855, they surely could not be “natural born Citizens.” Hence, again
      referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor also said that “there have
      been doubts” whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents
      was even a “citizen.” Since Virginia Minor was born in the United
      States to “citizen” parents which birth circumstances made her a
      “natural-born citizen,” and because she therefore did not need the aid
      of the Fourteenth Amendment to establish her birthright citizenship,
      Minor ruled that it was not necessary for it to resolve these doubts.

      Addressing
      the question raised and doubts created by The Slaughterhouse Cases and
      left open by Minor, Wong Kim Ark, through the aid of the colonial
      English common law and its doctrine of broad allegiance, repudiated The
      Slaughterhouse Cases Fourteenth Amendment dicta and said “[t]hat neither
      Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the
      decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be
      committed to the view that all children born in the United States of
      citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation
      of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." Wong Kim Ark, 169
      U.S. at 679. Wong Kim Ark then ruled that a child "‘if born in the
      country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen,
      and by operation of the same principle’" (citing and quoting Horace
      Binney). Id. at 693. The “same principle” referred to “birth in the
      country.” Indeed, according to the Court, a child born in the country
      to alien parents was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child of
      citizen parents, but only that “natural born” child born in the country
      to “citizen” parents could be a “natural-born citizen.” It therefore
      held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United
      States to domiciled and resident alien parents was born “subject to the
      jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore “becomes at the time of
      his birth a citizen of the United States.” But Wong Kim Ark itself
      cautioned that a child born out of the United States to “citizen”
      parents, who “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United
      States,” was still a naturalized “citizen” so made by Congress through
      its naturalization powers. It follows from what the Court said that
      this child, even though he “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen
      of the United States,” was not a “natural-born citizen.” So, Wong Kim
      Ark specifically told us that anyone needing the Fourteenth Amendment
      for birthright citizenship status, can be “at the time of his birth a
      citizen of the United States,” but cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”

      So,
      Foggy, do not just tell us you won, show us by what reason and analysis
      you did. Since you will not be able to present that reason and
      analysis (by the way, your little snark does not adequately substitute
      for them), it is evident that you and your foggy buddies are the ones
      who have failed and continue to fail in this debate.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:37 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      Doublee,

      Because of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from
      birth parents) and jus soli (citizenship acquired from birth place),
      Ted Cruz was born with three allegiances and citizenships, something
      that the Founders and Framers would never have allowed for future
      Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military. Under our
      Constitution, the President is not only the chief executive of the civil
      government, which alone carries with it broad powers over foreign
      affairs and treaties, but he is also the Commander in Chief of the
      Military. John Jay was quite concerned that the Commander in Chief of
      the Military be a “natural born Citizen.” George Washington agreed.
      Clearly, they expected future Commanders of the Military to have full
      and complete political, military, and legal allegiance to the United
      States from the moment of birth. Just imagine the Founders and Framers
      allowing a person who was born a British subject to be a future
      President and Commander in Chief of the Military. I say “future” because
      the Founders and Framers, themselves born British subjects who through
      the Declaration of Independence and adherence to the American Revolution
      became “Citizens of the United States,” had to grandfather themselves
      to be eligible to be President. But they commanded that those born after
      the adoption of the Constitution had to be “natural born Citizen” in
      order to be eligible to be President. Hence, no longer was a “Citizen
      of the United States” eligible to be President if born after the
      adoption of the Constitution.

      Here is how Ted Cruz acquires conflicting allegiances and citizenships from the moment of birth:

      Jus sanguinis: he was born to a Cuban father. He was therefore born a citizen of and in allegiance to Cuba.

      Jus
      sanguinis: he was born to a U.S. citizen mother. He was therefore
      born a “citizen of the United States” at birth and in allegiance to our
      nation. Remember that the Constitution requires that future Presidents
      be “natural born Citizens,” not just “citizens of the United States.”

      Jus soli: he was born in Canada. He was therefore born a citizen of and in allegiance to Canada.

      So,
      three different nations (The United States, Canada, and Cuba) can lay
      claim to Ted Cruz’s citizenship and allegiance. This means that he was
      not born within the full and complete political, military, and legal
      allegiance to the United States. With such birth circumstances, he is a
      “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he
      is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Since Ted Cruz was born
      after the adoption of the Constitution and he is not a “natural born
      Citizen,” he is not eligible to be President.


      March 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM
      Teo Bear said...
      Ted Cruz is a great Senator and if I lived in Texas he would get my vote, but he is not a natural born citizen.

      If
      Cruz gets the republican nomination no one can challenge him because of
      the Obama Precedent. Republicans would gleefully point to Obama, while
      Democrats will need to keep quite for fear that a legal challenge to
      Cruz could include a definition that would legally make Obama a usurper
      and thus undo all that Obama did. This is why Foggy is on the bandwagon,
      imagine a challenge to Cruz that results in a SCOTUS definition that
      upholds Minor, while Obama is still in office. To quote Oliver Hardy,
      "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!"

      Doubletree
      says "Obama lost his British/Kenyan citizenship at age 23." But what
      proof does he offer? All Obama would have needed to do to keep his
      Kenyan citizenship was sear allegiance to Kenya and state why he could
      not return to Kenya at the time (Like getting an education.) Evidence
      shows that Obama was in Kenya when he was 22, and the person who could
      have accepted Obama Jr.'s oath and paperwork was at the time the Vice
      President of Kenya and he was a poll-bearer at Obama's fathers funeral.

      We
      have to keep up the fight because what they are trying to do is steal
      the most basic right of Americans and give it to a corrupt congress to
      dole out as a "benefit" to anyone and everyone they want.
      March 26, 2013 at 12:35 PM
      Carlyle said...
      Thank you very much for addressing this issue. I really like both
      Rubio and Cruz and truly WISH they were eligible, but that does not make them so.

      I have said before many times that our credibility
      hangs on whether we are willing to apply the rules, even against our
      better wishes. Otherwise we only stand to be accused of bias,
      selectivity, racism, or worse.

      I also believe our best chance of
      outing Obama is to out one of our own and prove our sincerity. Further
      it would set a cultural and legal precedent that might open up some of
      the closed Obama floodgates.

      Carry on! God speed!

      March 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM
      Carlyle said...
      Teo Bear:

      Obama may have indeed lost his Kenyan/British
      citizenship along the way. He appears to have obtained Indonesian
      citizenship. What is critical are the following two items:

      1. He appears to have never lost his Indonesian citizenship.

      2.
      There is no evidence that he has ever had an American citizenship.
      And if you argue that he had one via underage mother, at a time when
      paternal citizenship was prime, he certainly lost it at an early age -
      between 2 and 6.

      He could (re)become a US citizen via the
      naturalization process, but there are no records of that. Would
      adoption by Native Americans provide the missing citizenship?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM
      Fogbow Foggy said...
      Mario, I won because the birthers have lost more than 200 lawsuits. I won because at least five courts now have ruled that Wong Kim Ark
      controls, and means that if you're born in the U.S., you're a natural
      born citizen regardless of the citizenship of your parents. I won
      because you've lost every case you ever brought regarding this issue. I
      won because President Obama was re-elected and re-inaugurated and is
      comfortably serving his second term. I won because there isn't one
      member of Congress or one high-ranking member of the military or one
      judge anywhere in America who's a birther. I won because Scalia said the rule is jus soli and Ginsburg said her grandson born in Paris is a natural born citizen and Kennedy and Breyer said all you have to do
      is be born here. That's four votes, not counting Sotomayor and Kagan. I
      won because the birther movement is OVER, pal, whether you know it or
      not. At Fogbow, we're already transitioning over to whackjob Sovereign
      Citizens, because the whackjob birthers have lost their relevance.

      I
      won because there is ZERO chance of President Obama ever being ruled
      ineligible, and in fact everyone's laughing at the birthers for saying
      that Cruz, Jindal and Rubio are ineligible.

      So you just keep on
      fantasizing and insisting that you won instead, Mario. You go right
      ahead and tell me you won, and see where it gets you.
      March 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      Foggy,

      I asked that you not just tell us you won, but rater
      show us by what reason and analysis you did. I said that since you will
      not be able to present that reason and analysis (by the way, your
      little snark does not adequately substitute for them), it is evident
      that you and your foggy buddies are the ones who have failed and
      continue to fail in this debate.

      Given your response (giving us a list of sponsors rather than reason and analysis) to what I said, it is clear that you lost.

      March 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM
      Fogbow Foggy said...
      OK, Mario, I lost and you won. Congratulations. Here's a suggestion: Hold a celebration.

      I'm
      holding a gathering of people from Fogbow on Saturday in our nation's
      capital. Not to celebrate - we still think we won long ago - but only
      because we like each other. We're friends. There are going to be
      17 or 18 of us, having a nice lunch and an afternoon of conversation and friendship. We've had meetups in Phoenix and D.C. in 2010, Malibu in
      2011, and New Orleans and Myrtle Beach last year. I've been to the ones
      in Phoenix, D.C. and Myrtle Beach, and had a great time at all three.

      You
      should do something like that with all the friends you've made over the
      years since President Obama was elected. I'm sure Robert and jayjay and
      Stan and Doublee and ... well, not MichaelN, he lives in Australia ...
      but the others would probably really enjoy meeting you and celebrating
      your victory over us Obots.

      Heck, if you did some planning, you
      could be the first person to gather more than 50 birthers together at
      once. Then maybe you could find a plaintiff to represent in another
      eligibility challenge, and maybe this time your victory will carry the
      day.

      But that's just a suggestion. I'm not going to argue law
      with you, Mario. Too many lawyers have already argued with you, and
      you've declared victory over all of them. It looks to us like you think
      quantity of verbiage triumphs over quality of legal argument, because
      you write those long screeds saying the same thing over and over. But
      you're right, I'm not going to offer you a lot of legal reasoning as to
      why we won in the end. It's futile, if you know what I mean.
      March 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      I of IV

      Jack Maskell stated in his Congressional Research Memo of November 14, 2011 the following conclusion:

      “The
      weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term
      ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S.
      citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the
      United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien
      parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born
      in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at
      birth.’ Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a
      U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an ‘alien’
      required to go through the legal process of ‘naturalization’ to become a
      U.S. citizen.”
      Jack Maskell, Qualifications for President and the
      “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Congressional
      Research Service, November 14, 2011.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf .

      Eligibility
      supporters for Obama, Rubio, Haley, and Cruz use this Memo and this
      statement as the “Bible” on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”
      But, apart from all the other evidence that I have provided on the
      definition of a “natural born Citizen,” basic logic and the historical
      record as confirmed by the James Madison Administration show that they
      and Mr. Maskell are mistaken.

      What is wrong with Maskell’s statement?

      (1)
      It equates a “citizen by birth” and a “citizen at birth” with a
      “natural born Citizen.” The problem with that is that a “natural born
      Citizen” has only one specific constitutional definition which is a
      child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time
      of the child’s birth. But a “citizen by birth” and a “citizen at birth”
      have definitions which can come and go with time and are provided by
      the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress. Both the amendment and
      Acts of Congress do not define a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, they
      only define a “citizen of the United States” which Article II, Section
      1, Clause 5 tells us is no longer eligible to be President if born after
      the adoption of the Constitution.

      (2) It is also wrong to
      attempt to arrive at the definition of a “natural born Citizen” by
      saying that it is any “citizen” who is not naturalized. And here is the
      proof. First, we virtually all agree that a person who is naturalized
      after his or her birth as a “citizen of the United States” is not
      eligible to be President. The reason for that rule is that such person
      is born under the allegiance and citizenship of a foreign power. But we
      can take a “citizen by birth” and a “citizen at birth” under the
      Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress and, if not born in the country
      to “citizen” parents, that person will also be born under the allegiance
      and citizenship of a foreign power, just like the person who becomes a
      “citizen of the United States” by naturalization after birth. And what
      is worse, the former does not take an oath swearing off that foreign
      allegiance and citizenship, but the latter does. Yet, we are to accept
      the former as eligible to be President, but the latter as not eligible.
      Second, a person who is born out of the United States to one or two
      U.S. “citizen” parents who is made a “citizen of the United States” at
      birth by Congressional statute is considered as naturalized at birth.
      So that person, being naturalized, should not be eligible. But yet, the
      argument is that since the person was born a “citizen,” the person is a
      “natural born Citizen.” So now, it does not matter anymore whether one
      was naturalized. We can see the contradiction here.

      Continued . . .
      March 26, 2013 at 5:17 PM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      II of IV

      Third, we do not normally consider a person born in
      the United States to one or two alien parents who the Fourteenth
      Amendment declares to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth to be
      naturalized, because that person is automatically made a “citizen” at
      birth by the Constitution. But there is no denying that such a person
      is born with alienage inherited through one or two alien parents.
      Hence, that person is in reality also naturalized at birth, not by
      statute, but by the Fourteenth Amendment. These examples reveal the
      absurdity of the position that any “citizen” who is not “naturalized” is
      a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, common sense and logic tell us that
      the argument is wrong.

      (3) Lastly, there is also historical
      proof from the James Madison Administration which demonstrates that Jack
      Maskell, in this statement, provides the death knell to his own
      argument and conclusion that a child born in the United States to alien
      parents is included as a “natural born Citizen.” What destroys
      Maskell’s argument is the contradiction that is contained in his
      argument. The contradiction exists between the statement,

      “the
      term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S.
      citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the
      United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien
      parents”

      and the statement,

      “[s]uch term, however, would
      not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth,
      and who was thus born an ‘alien’ required to go through the legal
      process of ‘naturalization’ to become a U.S. citizen.”

      The
      contradiction is that Maskell presents these statements as being both
      true. The problem with Maskell’s position is that the truth of his
      second statement destroys the truth of his first statement. The
      historical evidence shows that the Founders and Framers treated a child
      born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and requiring
      the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.” Hence,
      by Maskell’s second statement, such a child could not be a “natural
      born Citizen,” which contradicts his first statement that such a child
      could be a “natural born Citizen.” Here is the evidence of Maskell’s
      contradiction.

      The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and
      1855 provide that evidence that the truth of Maskell’s second statement
      destroys the truth of his first statement. These acts show that a
      child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and
      required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a
      U.S. citizen.” Hence, since such a child was alien born and needed to
      go through naturalization after birth to become a U.S. citizen,
      Maskell’s first statement cannot be true. Early Congress treated a
      child born in the United States to alien parents as alien born.
      Congress provided in those acts that that child could naturalize and
      become a "citizen of the United States" after birth upon the
      naturalization of the child's parents if done during the child's
      minority and if dwelling in the United States or upon the child's own
      naturalization petition when becoming an adult.

      Continued . . .

      March 26, 2013 at 5:18 PM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      III of IV

      The James McClure 1811 citizenship case, upon
      which
      I have written extensively at this blog, is critically important. In
      that case, the James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, even
      though born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, was alien born and in
      need of naturalization in order to become a “citizen of the United
      States.” That Administration ruled that McClure become under the
      Naturalization Act of 1802 (which contained the same operative language
      as those of 1790 and 1795) a “Citizen of the United States” only because
      his British “natural born subject” father naturalized on February 20,
      1786 when his son was still a minor and dwelling in the United States.
      The 1811 newspaper articles on the McClure case that were printed in the
      Alexandria Herald and Richmond Enquirer may be found at:
      http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf


      and
      http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/oct-1-1811.pdf .
      Source:
      http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/

      In the Alexandria Herald article, Publius wrote:

      “Mr.
      Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to
      have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the
      United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792,
      does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this
      commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him
      as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a
      citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be
      naturalized to make his children such.”

      Publius, in 1811, living
      when the acts were passed by Congress, would know what Congress
      intended when it passed the naturalization acts. In that connection,
      Publius tells us that it did not matter where a child was born. Even if
      that child was born in the United States, if his parents were aliens,
      he or she was alien born. Regardless of where the child was born, the
      child’s parents had to naturalize in order to make their children
      citizens. The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James
      Monroe, who was serving the James Madison Administration, eventually
      declared McClure alien born, but a “Citizen of the United States,” not
      because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a
      few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a
      “citizen of the United States.”

      The James Madison
      Administration resolved the James McClure citizenship case by
      interpreting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 to James
      McClure who was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 and whose
      British father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina on February
      20, 1786. The James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, even
      though born in the United States in 1785, was a “Citizen of the United
      States” through naturalization after birth under the Naturalization Act
      of 1802, only because his British father had naturalized after his son’s
      birth and when his son was dwelling in the United States. This clearly
      shows that the United States did not adopt any jus soli principle of
      citizenship, but rather adopted jus sanguinis citizenship or that which
      provided that children followed the citizenship of their parents. I will
      take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on
      Madison’s view of birthright citizenship rather than Jack Maskell’s
      personal opinion in 2011.

      Continued . . .

      March 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      IV of IV

      These early naturalization acts are conclusive
      evidence on resolving the question of what is a "natural born Citizen."
      These early naturalization acts, which were passed by early Congress
      whose many members were Founders and Framers, are dispositive in
      demonstrating that the Founders and Framers considered only a child born
      in the United States to parents who were its citizens to be a "natural
      born Citizen." One can arrive at this conclusion by a process of
      elimination. All other children, whether born in the United States or
      out of the United States, were or could be subject to Congress's
      naturalization powers and could become a "citizen of the United States"
      either at birth or after birth. But the only child that was not so
      subject to Congress's naturalization power was a child born in the
      United States to citizen parents. Such child needed no such positive
      law for his or her "natural born Citizen" status. And it is that child
      who is a “natural born Citizen.”

      So, Jack Maskell himself
      provides the proof that he errs in concluding that any child born in the
      United States who is born a citizen, even one born to alien parents, is
      a “natural born Citizen.” In his second statement he concedes that a
      “natural born Citizen” “would not include a person who was not a U.S.
      citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an ‘alien’ required
      to go through the legal process of ‘naturalization’ to become a U.S.
      citizen.” Hence, since under the early naturalization acts any child
      born in the United States to alien parents was “born an alien” and
      needed to be naturalized, as Maskell concedes, the Founders and Framers
      would not have considered such a child a “natural born Citizen.” Given
      his second statement, Maskell admits that a child born in the United
      States to alien parents is not a “natural born Citizen.” But then such
      concession and admission demonstrates that he errs in his first
      statement in which he concludes that such a child is a “natural born
      Citizen.”

      Maskell’s own words prove that he errs in concluding
      that a child born in the United States to alien parents is included as a
      “natural born Citizen.”

      So, the next time someone cites and
      quotes the Jack Maskell memo as the last word on what is a “natural born
      Citizen,” tell him or her that Jack Maskell is wrong and give them the
      reasons why he is wrong.


      March 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM
      Chris Strunk said...
      AMERICAN versus BRITISH feudalism Common Law

      The "FREEPERS"
      led by Mark Levin Esq. are way out on a limb in regards to the Feudal
      Doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance British Monarchy / European Common Law)
      that WE eliminated here in the New York Republic on April 20, 1777 and
      that WE reemphasized again on July 26, 1788 with the New York
      Ratification of the present US Constitution.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/Appellant-s-BRIEF-and-APPENDIX-NYS-Appellate-Division-2nd-Dept-Appeal-2012-05515

      THANKS MARIO!!

      Crack
      the FREEPERS and we break the DEM/REP Stranglehold that is being
      retooled to become "PROGRESSIVE" versus "CONSERVATIVE" instead.

      Best regards,

      Chris Strunk
      March 26, 2013 at 6:46 PM
      Chris Strunk said...
      AMERICAN Common Law versus BRITISH feudalism Common Law

      The
      "FREEPERS" also push Rubio too led by Mark Levin Esq. are way out on a
      limb in regards to the Feudal Doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance British
      Monarchy / European Common Law) that WE eliminated here in the New York
      Republic on April 20, 1777 and that WE reemphasized again on July 26,
      1788 with the New York Ratification of the present US Constitution.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/Appellant-s-BRIEF-and-APPENDIX-NYS-Appellate-Division-2nd-Dept-Appeal-2012-05515

      THANKS MARIO!!

      Crack
      the FREEPERS and we break the DEM/REP Stranglehold that is being
      retooled to become "PROGRESSIVE" versus "CONSERVATIVE" instead.

      Best regards,

      Chris Strunk
      March 26, 2013 at 6:47 PM
      Fogbow Foggy said...
      Wow, you won against Maskell, too. That's a great victory, because
      Maskell's work as part of the CRS is checked and approved by his
      superiors, too. So you won against the whole Congressional Research
      Service, if anybody only knew.

      See, all this time I thought a
      birther victory would look something like President Obama actually being
      removed from office, maybe even jailed. Some birthers hope he'll be
      executed, too. But that's what I get for focusing on actual results.

      It
      turns out, you've won a victory if you think your arguments are
      stronger than the other guy's arguments, even if no judge agrees and it
      doesn't lead to any positive results for you. That's sort of like Linda
      Jordan's victory last week. Her sanctions were reduced from $13,000 to
      $3,500 in a settlement. She still lost in the trial court. She still
      lost in the Washington Supreme Court. The ruling that her case was
      frivolous still stands, and President Obama is still occupying the Oval
      Office. But she won a great birther victory, because her sanctions were
      reduced to something she could afford.

      Birther victories like
      that, I have no problem with. I told you to go right ahead and claim
      victory, and see where it gets you; you did exactly that, and you're
      satisfied that you won the argument. I would have thought that was weak
      soup, if I was a birther. I would have thought you'd actually have to
      have won a court ruling, or gotten Congress to act or something, so that
      the allegedly ineligible President was actually removed from office.

      I
      wouldn't even have thought I'd won an argument against Jack Maskell,
      unless he agreed I'd won and issued a revised opinion as to President
      Obama's eligibility. If the Congressional Research Service suddenly came
      around and agreed with you, then Congress would surely not be so
      intransigent about its refusal to investigate. But you won against the
      CRS without them changing a thing. That kind of thing can't be very
      easy.

      You have educated me to a whole new idea about what a
      birther victory looks like, and I like it. I hope you have many more
      such victories into the future.
      March 26, 2013 at 7:00 PM
      jayjay said...
      Sir Frogbrow (or whatever the correct appellation might be):

      You
      are once again mistaken just as you are with your grossly misbegotten
      belief as to what a "natural born citizen" might be ... but since birds
      of a feather flock together it goes without saying that you and your
      "friends" deserve each other's camaradiere while flitting about the
      country - no doubt burbling about how our putative President is for some
      reason, quite murky, deserving of the power of life and death over all
      of us (including youse guys).

      I needn't actually meet Mario since
      in a manner of speaking I "meet" him in his well-honed and legally
      persuasive essays to so many of the stupid class (if the shoe fits ...)
      in hopes they will somehow become more informed. It is clear that he is
      correct, well grounded in the law and that you and buds are merely
      spouting political folderol - and poorly done at that. Any "meeting" of
      you and you gaggle of monkeys has not persuaded many at all except your
      own cohort of myrmidons.

      Mario is correct - you are not!! And your continuous passing gas in a windstorm accomplishes nothing.
      March 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM
      dick head said...
      fogbow, wka was ruled a citizen of the united states, not a natural
      born citizen, by SC in 1890s so how can you and these shady courts say
      he is a natural born citizen when the SC did not rule him as such and
      being the son of a foreign father he was not even a citizen at time of
      his birth? Do you know a citizen of the united states is not eligible
      now in article 2? The politicians run this country and these judges just do what they are told. I never heard of a soviet judge ruling against
      comrade stalin. Show us where the supreme court ruled a child of a
      foreigner was a natural born citizen. Maybe you can fudge the decision
      like obama did his bc and draft card. You and rest of your leftist,
      america hating buddys should just be happy a lying, illegal fraud/forger is in white house.
      March 27, 2013 at 1:18 AM
      dick head said...
      Maskell also lied when writing about a case in 1850s. He conveniently forgot to mention that the european parents had naturalized a year
      before their child was born
      March 27, 2013 at 1:25 AM
      MichaelN said...
      There is certainly a need to send, to all the members of the US Congress and Senate, a memo exposing the Maskell LIE.

      Whilst
      the Congress and the Senate have Maskell's memo to rely on, they will
      continue to support and perpetutate the false definition of natural born
      citizen.

      Mario, please prepare a "memo", have it endorsed by
      prominent legal minds and maybe also by members of the public, state
      legislators, etc say in the form of a petition and have it delivered to
      each and every member of the Congress and Senate, as well as have the
      alternative media publicize the memo and the event of presentation to
      the members of the US legislature.

      You have all that you need now, with all the research and logical reasoning done.

      Time is of the essence.
      March 27, 2013 at 3:34 AM
      Fogbow Foggy said...
      Wow, jayjay, you seem to have a real talent for name-calling. But
      here's where I disagree with you: To me, Mario's arguments are not
      "legally persuasive". To me, the real measure of a legally persuasive
      argument is, it actually persuades a judge or a panel of judges to
      agree. That's the whole point of writing legally persuasive material: to persuade judges to make legal rulings in your favor.

      But Mario, in all his birther lawsuits, hasn't legally persuaded even one judge to agree with him. As we now know, the fake imaginary "two
      citizen parents" rule is not mentioned in any law school or civics
      textbook on the Constitution. Nobody mentioned it during the entire
      campaign before the 2008 election. Mario and about 5 or 6 other lawyers
      believe it, but there are 1.2 million lawyers in America. I have way
      more lawyers on Fogbow than all the birther lawyers put together. They
      write some legally persuasive stuff, too: Three of them have legally
      persuaded judges to rule in their favor in actual birther cases.

      It's
      not a secret that President Obama's father was not an American citizen.
      That was always part of his story: His father was just visiting America
      to get a better education than he could get in Kenya. Everybody knows
      he was never a U.S. citizen.

      So if Mario's arguments are correct
      and the legal community knew it, then Hillary was "in on it": She's a
      lawyer. It means that Bush's attorney general Michael Mukasey was in on
      it, and all the justices of the Supreme Court, and the entire Justice
      Department, even when Bush was in office. Nobody could claim that the
      Attorney General lacked standing; he is the nation's chief law
      enforcement officer, after all. There was plenty of time back in 2008
      for some Republican lawyers to raise that argument BEFORE the election
      and the inauguration. Even Mario never made the "two citizen parents"
      argument at any time before the 2008 election.

      Ted Cruz, who's the subject of this blog post, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, just like President Obama. Romney graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School. But neither of them finds Mario's arguments to be "legally persuasive". They've never even suggested that President
      Obama is ineligible.

      The only people who think Mario's arguments
      are "legally persuasive" are birthers. A tiny few birthers are lawyers.
      But the truth is that there are so few birther lawyers and so few
      birthers that in three separate national elections since President
      Obama took office, the birthers haven't managed to elect even one
      birther member of Congress.

      Mario thinks he's legally
      persuasive. You and a tiny few birthers think he's legally persuasive.
      But the rest of the world thinks he's full of crap. There's a REASON why
      the birthers have lost more than 200 lawsuits since 2008.

      To
      me, the situation is analogous to a sports team losing 200 games in a
      row. The coach keeps insisting that his coaching is better than the
      other team's coaching, and he claims that the refs are all biased
      against him, and so he insists that he won all those games anyway, in
      his own mind. But do you know what happens to a real sports team that
      loses 200 games in a row? They're put out of their misery; the team gets
      disbanded.

      When I was a boy, if you fell behind in ping-pong 0
      to 7, we said you were "skunked" and the game was over. You didn't get
      to play to 21, if you fell that far behind. The birthers have now been
      skunked thirty times over. Mario has legally persuaded nobody who counts. So there's really no rational measure by which you can
      legitimately say that his screeds are "legally persuasive". Perhaps
      you'd better just stick to name-calling instead; a man should do what he does best.
      March 27, 2013 at 6:02 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      Foggy,

      I of II

      You complain about Jayjay’s name
      calling. The Obots and their lap dogs are the ones who invented it.
      They have attempted to win the Obama eligibility issue by appeal to
      race, ridicule, ad hominem attacks, pity, self-interest, fear, force,
      red herrings, appeal to what is perceived to be popular, false
      precedent, false authorities, false tradition, false statistics, false
      analogies, misquotes, false definitions (the list is not exhaustive).
      So, please do not come here and school us on the proper etiquette of
      debate.

      Yours is all repetitive Obot propaganda tripe. You do
      not have to tell us about how some lower courts have ruled on the
      question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” Rather than make and
      address substantive legal arguments on the question of what is an
      Article II “natural born Citizen,” you just keep going back to lower
      court rulings in your vain attempt to close down legitimate discussion
      in the debate. We already know what the hurried result of these cases
      was. I have already stated that I respectfully disagree with those
      decisions. The question is whether their decisions are correct. Your
      simply repeating what that result is without actually demonstrating
      through thorough and well-reasoned legal analysis that the result is
      correct adds absolutely nothing here or elsewhere.

      Yes, it is
      not a secret that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was
      born. And that is why Obama cannot be a “natural born Citizen” as the
      Founders and Framers defined one. Now, if you want to change the
      definition without any constitutional amendment because it suits your
      political agenda, that is a different story.

      The U.S. Supreme
      Court Heller decision informs us on how we are to interpret the
      Constitution. There is nothing in the decision which says that we are
      to look to the personal opinions of current establishment politicians
      for help or that it matters more that those politicians went to some
      special school and or even what their grades were.

      You
      state that “[t]he only people who think Mario’s arguments are ‘legally
      persuasive’ are birthers.” You add that “the rest of the world thinks
      he’s [Mario’s] full of crap.” What a presumptuous statement. Can you
      tell us how you came to such a conclusion? By what powers and technique
      were you able to question all people in America and the rest of the
      world so that you can come to such an absurd conclusion? And you also
      tell us that there is not “even one members of Congress” who is a
      birther. Are you telling us that there is not one member of Congress
      who under Article VI took an “Oath or Affirmation, to support this
      Constitution?” After all, is that not what a birther is, someone who
      wants the Constitution, the rule of law, and the integrity of our
      elections respected, regardless of any one candidate’s irrelevant unique
      personal circumstances.

      Continued . . .

      March 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM
      Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
      II of II

      Your sport analogy is a poor one. Depending on what
      sport is involved, winners and losers of athletic events are easily
      selected (e.g., spring runners (objective) versus figure skaters
      (subjective)). Let us use your ping-pong (table tennis) sport since it
      is virtually objective. It becomes quite evident, even to a child, who
      is the winner and loser if <br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.