Mario Apuzzo and the Natural Born Citizen Act
Mario Apuzzo ‘argues’:
After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in February 25, 2004, the Natural Born Citizen Act, a bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in Article II of the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128. This bill provided as follows:
“A BILL
To define the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Born Citizen Act’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’’.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress finds and declares that the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 [sic] of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States–
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress . . .”Paragraph (1) repeats the same language that we find in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This attempt at amending the “natural born Citizen” clause shows that there are members of Congress who understand that just being a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Congress also tried such changes with S. 2678 (2008); H. J. RES. 15 (2005); H. J. RES. 104 (2004); H. J. RES. 47 (2001), and approx. 25 other times since the 1870s.
If a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen” was the same as an Article II “natural born citizen,” why would members of Congress see a need for this bill?
The reason is simple
Several federal judicial decisions recognize Congress’ plenary powers regarding issues pertaining to citizenship that do not specifically fit under the Fourteenth Amendment. Notably Rogers v. Bellei (401 US 815) and US v. Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649) say that Congress has the power to regulate matters pertaining to citizenship not specifically defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.
and
This bill clarifies that the term “natural born Citizen” includes children born outside the United States to citizen parents. This provision provides comfort and certainty to members of the American military and foreign services, as well as expatriate families, that their children, too, are eligible to run for president. These children are no less qualified than children born on American soil, and they should not be treated differently.
Hence, it can be seen that just being born in the United States and being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
This appears to be a misreading of the NBC Act
From my search
[1] H.R. 1503 (ih) To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the [Introduced in House] Size: 3234 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[2] S.Res. 511 (rs) Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. [Reported in Senate] Size: 3038 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[3] H.J.Res. 2 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. [Introduced in House] Size: 1536 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[4] S. 2128 (is) To define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. [Introduced in Senate] Size: 2191 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[5] H.J.Res. 47 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years. [Introduced in House] Size: 1748 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[6] H.Con.Res. 11 (ih) Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the expression of self- determination by the people of Puerto Rico. [Introduced in House] Size: 2425 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[7] H.Con.Res. 94 (ih) Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the expression of self- determination by the people of Puerto Rico. [Introduced in House] Size: 2231 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[8] H.J.Res. 42 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President. [Introduced in House] Size: 1855 , Score: 953 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[9] H.J.Res. 15 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years. [Introduced in House] Size: 1893 , Score: 944 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[10] S. 2678 (is) To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President. [Introduced in Senate] Size: 1634 , Score: 513 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[11] H.J.Res. 67 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President. [Introduced in House] Size: 1714 , Score: 505 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[12] H.J.Res. 104 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years. [Introduced in House] Size: 1895 , Score: 499 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[13]H.J.Res. 59 (ih) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President. [Introduced in House] Size: 1902 , Score: 494 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
[14]S. 1639 (pcs) To provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. [Placed on Calendar Senate] Size: 1029246 , Score: 47 , TEXT , SUMMARY , PDF
I’m glad you pit “argues” in quotation marks. As far as I can tell Mario only got into this because when gas prices spiked last summer, traffic was down and there were fewer accidents on the NJ Turnpike. He thought becoming a birther would give him some cheap publicity and generate some business.
His arguments are truly laughable and wouldn’t fly on Judge Judy, let alone any real court.
While I agree to a certain extent, I have found Mario’s arguments to be among the better argued positions. Needless to say that they are still full of holes as they rely on a pretty selective interpretation of history, legal precedent etc.
Being the best of the birther lawyer is like being the best actor in a porn flick. Not a fast league.
On Dr C’s site, Mario has claimed that Americans were forbidden to travel to pakistan in 1981. When called out on his lie, he then said there was a facto ban. I know someone personally who visited Pakistan more than once in the 1980s on a US passport.
Well, Mario is pretty tenacious about this ban, calling it a de facto ban even though the fact that there was no official ban undermines his argument that Obama must have traveled on an Indonesian passport.
“Tenacious”? Are you saying persisting in error, when you have been shown to be wrong is admirable? There was a travel advisory for Pakistan, never a ban, de facto or otherwise. There are many reasons countries can have an advisory, like civil conflict, crime, natural diasters, epidemics. These are merely warnings and people can and do ignore them all the time.
Here’s the current list from the State Dept
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
Among the countries listed are :
Saudi Arabia-thousands of American live there
Nepal-Thousands of hikers and climbers visit
Israel-plenty of Americans there
Haiti-Same
As I said, I know Americans who visited Pakistan around the time Obama did, with US passports.
You guys can pat yourselves on the back all you want. You have not made one convincing argument yet. Yours is a loosing proposition, and you are defending a putative sitting President. Can you image if you had to defend a real case.
You are nothing but “tools and dupes” who would “usurp the applause and confidence of the people.”
A “loosing proposition”? If you mean LOSING, then you ought to know since your LOSING record is 100%.
As for the President he is sitting in the White House and will be there until at least Jan 20, 2013. By that point, you will be doing real estate closings if you’re lucky.
The real argument is simple:
Natural Born Citizen: Any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents. This position is well established in Common Law practices, legal rulings, legal jurisprudence, history and legislative history.
Congress has many times attempted to expand the group of Natural Born Citizens or clarify that children born to US citizens (one or more per Vattel usage of the term) while abroad are natural born citizens. The latter has also focused on US military abroad. Congress argues that they have the power to expand the definition of citizenship, including who is natural born.
There has never been any real doubt that children born on US soil are not natural born.
As being a loosing (sic) proposition, the score appears to be 0-56. Quite a losing (or is that loosing) streak would you not agree Mario?
We are just defending the Constitution Mario, it’s that simple.
Tata…
Scientist,
Why do you not attempt something real rather than just stealing candy from a baby. You are a real hero. Just think in your old age you will be able to tell your grandchildren about the great war you helped win. You were on the front lines with enemy fire all over. You deserve a medal of honor for such valor not to talk about how smart you had to be to do it all.
Well, a Presidential Citizens Medal would be sufficient I’d say. The medal may be granted to any United States citizen “who [has] performed exemplary deeds or services for his or her country or fellow citizens”. And heck, if Cheney can get it, why not a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Gee, Mario, I’m an inventor on about a dozen patents and author of a good number of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Is that real enough for you? All you’re doing is wasting time with junk lawsuits. Someone should sue you on behalf of the trees that were cut down to file your crap.
Now go chase an ambulance.
Scientist,
I can just imagine how trivial your little patents are. You probably have a patent on some shoe lace.
Scientist,
You sound like one of those guys that has all sorts of degrees but has no common sense.
Of course, the more degrees you get the smarter you feel but you just can never get there.
That patent made millions…
While degrees can help, the level of common sense is best determined from how one deals with them in real life. As such I have seen Scientist to be far more advanced in his common sense than others.
I wonder what is so common sense about holding that a legal opinion supports one’s argument when a clear reading thereof shows that it does not.
A ‘Minor’ detail, I’d say.
Thanks for pointing this amendment out Mario. Another authority confirming the English common law definition. Did you not read Nickles’ testimony:
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President. However, many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether children born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a Government post are not clearly, indisputably, eligible to seek the highest office in our land. Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for President. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible to run for President, but it is certainly not an inarguable point. The Natural Born Citizen Act would make it clear that these children would be considered “natural born” citizens within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Pretty simple: “It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.”
Gee, where have I heard that definition before?
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3697
So did Johnny-On-the-Spot
nbc,
It is realy useless to argue with you and your supporters here. The things that you say really do not merit a response. I’ll just say to you that based on the logic of your comment, in every Supreme Court case where there was a dissent, the dissenting judge(s) did not have common sense or was it the majority judge(s)?
Perhaps you are not familiar with the common practices of the Court that the majority decision is legally binding, the rest is just, well… history.
Afraid to present or argue your arguments here Mario? I can understand, most any commenter on this blog could rebut your claims in less than 5 minutes.
Poor Mario, first the NJ court and soon the 3rd Circuit… What then Mario, the Supreme Court, just for laughs?
Oops. Poor Mario. Now wonder he is not interested in discussing with people on this blog.
So what? At least he doesn’t have to depend on money bilked from from nutters.
You and Oily and the ilk are no more than current con men ( or con-people if you will).
You look down your nose at them as you steal their money. You’re just another rip off and run.
Mario: Johnny on the spot? That would be your area of expertise. You know, sh$$?
I can say this. In the course of prosecuting my own patents and managing others I’ve dealt with some of the top patent attorneys in the US, Europe, Canada and other countries. If I were interviewing to select a new attorney and one told me he had lost every case making arguments based on 18th century science but that it was because the examiners were corrupt or the phase of the moon was wrong, guess what? He wouldn’t be my attorney.
Mario,
If you’re not even trying to “argue with you and your supporters here,” why are you here at all?
It’s even more useless to fling poo like a monkey in a cage at the zoo, which is all you’re doing.
Well, maybe not useless — I assume it makes the monkey feel better. But it doesn’t impress the visitors or change his situation.
Neither do your infantile insults. The only thing your posting like this does is make it evident that when faced with a logic that you can’t answer, you just throw feeble insults.
And through the glory of the Internet, anyone ever again looking for “who is this Mario Apuzzo, and should I retain him for my case?” is going to find this evidence of your brilliant legal logic.
Dude, the way you show something “doesn’t merit a response” is to not respond. Like Duh.
Common sense? Let’s try this. Back on January 20th, who was that swearing in Obama? None other than the Chief Justice. And all the other justices were there watching. Now, a common sense guy would look at that and say, “Wow, it sure looks like the members of the SCOTUS think Obama is eligible!” Then the common sense guy would ask himself, “Since there are no new facts and no new law, what are the odds that a few months later these same justices (including one appointed by Obama) are going to all of a sudden change their mind?” And the common sense guy would have to say, “Slim to none.” So the common sense guy would have to say that purusing any birther lawsuits was a waste of time and would move on to something else.
Gee, Mario, you really are hard on yourself. Scientist is stealing candy from a baby, ie demolishing your arguments with ease?
Mario, I wish you peace of mind in your autumn years, for clearly you have none now. No one should have to feel that way forever.
ballantine,
So I see, the Constitution says one thing. Congress does not like what it says. But Congress knows it is difficult to amend it so they just pass a law amending it. That is pretty nice, don’t you think?
Ducktape,
I know they use ducktape for the mouth. I wonder if it works on the fingers, too.
nbc,
You know you would miss me if I stopped posting here and at Dr. Conspiracy’s. Tell the truth.
Scientist,
I do not think I would take your case. I like clients who can think in a simple and sound manner, and who have trust in what I am doing. The worst ones are the ones that get into these delusional, paranoid mental states. Those clients become so unpredictable and will turn on you in a second. Do you qualify as one of the latter?
Scientist,
I suggest you stick to science and leave the law to those who understand how it works.
Scientist,
“Facto ban.” Is that like a yute?
Mr. Apuzzo,
A couple of points:
1.) If there is a legitimate case to be made, why are the birthers 0 for 54?
2.) You seem to protest too much.
Give it a try on yourself and let us know how it works out, okay?
Hi Ana,
I have a very simple answer to your difficult question. It is my case that counts.
Ana,
I see that you have joined the sparring. I am not the one that goes around calling myself ducktape. Hence, both my mouth and fingers can roam as free as the buffalo.
Your comments make somewhat sense when applying it to children born to citizens (in the Vattel sense) abroad. There is some argument to be made that while Congress may not limit the class of who is natural born, without an amendment, it may pass by statute laws which expand the category to include for instance children born to one or more US citizens while abroad.
However, the Constitution is only saying that in order to be eligible for the Presidency, one has to be, amongst others, a natural born citizen. Here Congress is not redefining the meaning, but rather recognizing the meaning of natural born as found in history, legal and legislative arguments and rulings.
Furthermore, Congress has also been toying with the idea to reduce citizenship to exclude children born on US soil to illegal aliens. I would agree with you that this is unlikely to succeed based on passing a law.
It’s an enjoyable pasttime in the lull of legal developments but it’s not really that interesting in the larger scheme of things.
Do you think they will follow in the buffalo’s footsteps and become endangered
Isn’t your case part of the 0-56 count now? Do you have any reason to believe it will do better now that the 3rd Circuit has ruled on Berg’s lawsuit?
Hmmm
I see, you’d rather take on a client and argue that there was a ban on travel to Pakistan, even though there wasn’t.
Fascinating.
It’s much like the word ‘loosing’, perhaps that rings a bell?
Mario,
Rather than getting into blog wars, why don’t you do something more than blither and blather.
Consider the DC v. Heller case. The Pro-2nd Amendment folks made an all out blitz with media and the whole nine yards. You, my friend, are trading barbs back and forth, come on.
One thing you can do is show citations for why you think the non-birther crowds are wrong (including every single State Secretary of State, FEC, every member of Congress who did not object to Obama when they had a chance, every judge that has ruled against birthers, etc.
SImply take each of the arguments and show a citation and not merely guess work. For example, if there was a de facto ban and you needed non-US citizenship, show us the proof that there was no way, short of Obama having Indonesian citizenship that he could have made it to Pakistan.
Show us proof that the drafters of the Constitution relied on a translation of Vattel that was made after the Constitution was signed.
If you are not one of the can only have one allegience crowd, please ignore the following:
Citizenship is determined by national law as opposed to international law. In other words, Cuba can pass a national law that endows all those born with Cuban ancestry and born after January 1, 2010 with Cuban citizenship. That means that if such a law were passed, a child can be born in the US with two US citizen parents, but have both Cuban and US citizenship. They would have two allegiences according to most birthers, since they have dual citizenship and citizenship seems to be the same thing as owing an allegience to a state.
So is it that easy to eventually prevent anyone from becoming a US President? According to the dual citizenship theory – it is.
If you disagree, please explain. No birther has tried to explain this enigma to me.
Mario: If you want clients who trust you, I wouldn’t be a good choice.
Your case was as ill-fated as Orly’s and Berg’s and yes it counts alright, right along with all the other defeats of other birther lawyers because either you clearly do not understand the law or you are yanking the chains of the people for your own profit.
Either way, you’ll be a minor and soon forgotten footnote in history with all the other birther attorneys…well, except for Orly, because she’s in a league all her own…
Too bad leaving it to those who understand the law excludes the likes of birther attorneys such as yourself…wow, you shot yourself!
Birthers 0 – The rest of America 56
Typical Alinsky approach…The only one’s duping the people are you and the other Birthers.
If you are really Mario Apuzzo, your case is a joke. You’ll have to do better than hurl insults to convince a Circuit Court panel that your case has merit. In fact, in light of Berg v. Obama, you should probably be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal.
Actually, Mario, your “case’ is among the weakest of the bunch. The blond dentist at least had a Presidential candidate, even if he was only on the ballot in 3 states and got 0.03% of the vote. Even there, the judge was unwilling to say that he had standing.
Your “plaintiffs” are a guy who retired from the military almost 15 years ago and a few Joe Schmoes.
But NBC, no matter how the argument is positioned or how selective it’s interpretation of the law, it is still misleading the People and still a losing argument.
Is that the best you can do, Mario? You even fail at trash-talking.
Per Son,
You said:
“Citizenship is determined by national law as opposed to international law. In other words, Cuba can pass a national law that endows all those born with Cuban ancestry and born after January 1, 2010 with Cuban citizenship. That means that if such a law were passed, a child can be born in the US with two US citizen parents, but have both Cuban and US citizenship. They would have two allegiences according to most birthers, since they have dual citizenship and citizenship seems to be the same thing as owing an allegience to a state.
So is it that easy to eventually prevent anyone from becoming a US President? According to the dual citizenship theory – it is.”
Article II “natural born Citizen” status is determined at the time of birth. At that time we simply apply our own law, not international law. Our own law (federal common law) is that a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.” If at the time of birth, the child is so born, then he/she is a “natural born Citizen.” It does not matter that Cuba or some other country could pass a law (pre or post birth) making a child born in the U.S. under the circumstances described also a national or citizen of its country. For purposes of our Constitution, the child satisfies the “natural born Citizen” definition from birth and that status cannot be taken away by some foreign sovereign. For purposes of being President and Commander in Chief of the Military, it is important that the child attach to the USA from birth through citizen parents and by being born “in the country.”
The McCain situtation is a different circumstance that I will not get into here.
It wasn’t a difficult question unless you are using weasel talk. It is pretty straigtforeward. at 56 – 0 YOU ARE a lose, your cause is as loser (SEE War of the Rebellion 1865), and the Taxpayers are tired of spending money just to prove you are a loser.
Face it.
It is time for you to tuck your oily tail and find another souce of scam income for your house/mercedes etc.
Too bad you don’t know how the law works. At least scientist can converse succesfully in to different field of endeavor. You on the other hand are a failure at law. You need to try another line of work. Although, I guess bilking the birthers can be pretty lucractive since the obviously have more money than sense.
And that’s where you are wrong, again. Our federal common law, based on English common law practices of those days considered anyone born on US soil to be natural born. In fact, native and natural born are often used interchangeably to refer to birth on US soil.
Even under Vattel’s born to citizens (which refers to the concept of one or more citizen parents), would conclude that by virtue of being born under US jurisdiction, the child would be a natural born US citizen at birth.
There is just no support for your musings as this site as well as ObamaConspiracy.org have shown.
You said it, only US laws are relevant and they all point to President Obama being a natural born citizen.
The facts do not lie.
Bummer isn’t it? To have to argue a position where the facts suggest the opposite and where the Courts, correctly, refuse to grant standing.
Mario: Let’s use scientific logic here. The facts are:
1. The President must be a natural born citizen.
2. Barack Obama is President.
Therefore Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.
The great thing about science is that it is able to simplify things that appear complex to the untrained mind.
Mario,
You may think it’s fun making stuff up on the internet, but you put this kind of frivolous nonsense in court documents and you’re going to get in trouble. Everyone knows what the common law rule was and your playing word games won’t change that. The dissent and losers in Wong argued that the common law didn’t apply as no one would make a serious argument that the common law was really Vattel or that it required citizenship for parents as there is no such authority. There were some later cases following Ludlam claiming the common law had incorporated the rule that the child follows the condition of the father, but this was in addition, not in substitution of the basic rule based upon locality of birth. It is worth noting that these cases represented the minoroty view and was rejected by most scholars, congress and the Wong majority. I suggest you re-read carefully, as the majority cites early authority after early authority defining the common law in America in accordance with the english common law.
The bottom line is unless you can find any authority in America prior to the convention or in the early republic up to the mid-ninteenth century (the only period possibly relevant for the original meaning) that supports your definition, no court will give you the time of day.
Please tell us anyone during this early period defining natural born citizen or native citizen in accordance with your definition. Can you name even one? I don’t think so.
And no, courts citing Vattel on issues of international law unrelated to any question of citizenship at birth cannot be cited as authority as to citizenship at birth, at least by people who actually practice real law.
ballantine,
You have got to admit, it sounds pretty good.
I’ll be publishing something soon.
Clearly that would not be you.
The truth is that you are operating from a point of dishonesty. You simply do not want Barack Obama to be president, for whatever reason that may be–ideology, racism?
Thus, you are trying to twist whatever you can to try to make the case that he is not a natural born citizen, even if that means bastardizing the definition of natural born citizen.
The problem is the law does not work that way. The law looks at the facts and seeks to determine whether the facts support the case. The law does not operate on the assumption that the premise being argued is true and look to see whether the facts can be twisted enough to support it.
Bad lawyers do that, not judges. And that is why you will lose every single time. You are the bad lawyer, and you are not fooling the judges, even if you are fooling those more ignorant than yourself, which sadly, abound in this country and are commonly referred to as “birthers.”
Is this seriously your concept of witty repartee? Any lawyer of stature truly convinced of the merits of his or her case would not be hanging out on a blog dishing out mediocre insults.
No argument would convince you because you are not interested in weighing the facts. You automatically reject any facts that contradict your presupposition.
You are like the mother who is determined to hate all her son’s girlfriends, so you find fault with all of them before they even open their mouths.
The majority of people voted for Barack Obama and the majority of people continue to believe he is and always has been the legitimate president.
No judge or panel of judges–people with far more experience and legal expertise than you and Orly Taitz–has agreed that you have the right to ask these questions.
You are truly a paranoid nutjob.
That is only because English is his natural language. The arguments may be stated better than Taitz’s, but they are just as stupid.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Of course, based on your court filings and your statements here and elsewhere, it is pretty apparent you are incapable of recognizing the truth.
I was about to ask how it feels to know you will go down in history as a joke, but then I thought better of it, because the truth is, you will not go down in history any more than some guy who files a lawsuit accusing the president of being from Mars.
How does it feel to be standing on the wrong side of history? No matter how many cases or appeals you file on President Obama’s eligibility, you will never win–because you are wrong.
You are looking at the color red and calling it green, and you cannot understand why nobody agrees with you. That is because most of us, and the judicial experts, have much better eyesight than you do. No amount of verbal subterfuge will ever convince any judge to ignore Supreme Court precedents and buy into your absurd theory based on a misinterpretation of a book.
Debunker Hill,
It would help if you made at least some type of legal argument.
Mario,
In your answer to Per Son, you seem to conceed that dual citizenship does not prevent someone from being eligible to be President.
Debunker Hill read my mind when he posted this:
“Any lawyer of stature truly convinced of the merits of his or her case would not be hanging out on a blog dishing out mediocre insults.”
Two points for that!
Speaking of not making one convincing argument yet, your record in court on this matter quite plainly speaks for itself. FAIL.
Gorefan,
As long as a child meets the constitutional definition as of the time of his/her birth (i.e. born in the country to parents who are its citizens), he/she is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot control what other countries do.
Might ask you the same thing.
Mario,
What was the “constitutional definition” of natural born on August 4, 1961?
Is it possible to steer back into an actual discussion instead of high schoolish name-calling and hair-pulling? One of the joys of this blog has always been the extremely high signal to noise ratio. Lately it seems to have flipped the other way. I’m starting to regret begging Exploring to revive it.
Mario – in 1751, Great Britain signed the Treaty of Peace and Commerce with the State of Tunis. Article X of the treaty reads as follows:
“X. That whereas the ifland of Minorca in the Mediterranean fea, and the city of Gibraltar in Spain, do now belong to his Majefiy the King of Great Britain; it is. hereby agreed and fully concluded, That from this time forward, for ever, the faid ifland of Minorca fhall be efteemed (as likewife Gibraltar) by the government of Tunis, to be, in every refped, part of his Britannick Majefty’s dominions, and the inhabitants thereof fhall- be looked upon as his Majefty’s natural-born fubjeds, in the fame manner as if they had been born in any other part of Great Britain”.
In 1751 how would the Britiah government define the term “natural-born”?
I hear you. Will attempt to enforce some standard of relevance.
gorefan,
On that 1751, that treaty basically naturalized all the inhabitants of that new territory that come under the dominion of the Crown.
The British considered the people born in the King’s dominion (with the ambassador and alien army exceptions), those that were born out of it to British natural born subject parents, and even those they naturalized all “natural born subjects.”
Mario,
Is that the same as the definition of “natural-born” in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, that were published in 1765 – 1769?