Mario v Fuller

Ballantine responds to the following statement my Mario

Mario Apuzzo: And then Wong Kim Ark addressed those doubts and distinguished Wong from an Article II “natural born Citizen” and held that Wong nevertheless under the guidance of the colonial English common law was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth.

Simply a lie. The court didn’t conclude he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment, just a citizen after spending 21 pages saying he would be a citizen under the original Constitution and then 20 pages telling us the 14th restated the same common law rule. I see now that the majority has too many big words for you. Perhaps you should read Chief Justice Fuller great summary of the majority:

“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule

“was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;”

and

“that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

“Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.”…

The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that “every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them) or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England……And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

As clear as can be that BOTH the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment are the same. Fuller goes on to say he disagrees that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were defined by the English common law rule. So, Mario thinks for the only time in history, the dissent didn’t understand what the marjority said. Mario also doesn’t know since he never clerked that the dissenting opinions are always read by the majority before publication so they can comment on it. We know, Fuller dumb/Mario smart. Again, everyone who matters has no trouble understanding this.

So Mario, tell us what Fuller said that was wrong. LOL.

[NBC: And Fuller went on to say]

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Oh yes, they all understood…

Advertisements

143 thoughts on “Mario v Fuller

  1. There is no indication either in the text or legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment that it repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen” clause which Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed was defined under “common-law” and not the Fourteenth Amendment. I have shown that this “common-law” could not have been based on the English common law, but rather was based on the law of nations. Congress when drafting the Fourteenth Amendment was well aware of the distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” yet chose to call children born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.” Surely, if Congress meant through the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow “natural born Citizen” status upon those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it would have known how to do so like our First Congress did in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Congress could have with affirmative language easily separated out persons who become “citizens of the United States” after birth from persons who become “citizens of the United States” at birth, calling the latter “natural born Citizens” and the former “citizens of the United States.” It is telling that it did not make that dichotomy in the amendment. Hence, Congress did not intend nor did it grant the status of “natural born Citizen” to children who were born in the United States to parents who were not “citizens of the United States,” but who were nevertheless born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Rather, like the Third Congress, it only sought to grant the status of “citizen of the United States” which was the same status that person who naturalized after birth had.

    So, the Fourteenth Amendment only addresses the class of “citizens” called “citizens of the United States.” The amendment treats “citizens” who become so under the amendment by either birth or naturalization in the United States as “citizens of the United States.” There is no mention in the amendment of a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no mention of a “natural born Citizen” in the amendment like there is mention in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we simply cannot say that the amendment defines a “natural born Citizen,” which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 confirms is a separate and distinct class.

    Wong Kim Ark, holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth is completely consistent with this reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  2. There is no indication either in the text or legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment that it repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen”

    Of course not, the meaning always remained birth on soil. Have you yet to read Wong Kim Ark?

    And even Fuller, the dissenting Judge understood the impact of the majority ruling.

    Instead you appeal to a mythical third class of citizen, born but not natural born. But there is no support in any history or in the ruling by Wong Kim Ark.

    The Court in WKA observed that the 14th was merely declarative of common law and constitution, which it showed required the meaning of natural born to be found in common law understanding which the court showed to be jus soli.

    It’s so simple and courts have continued to abide by the logic.

    Mario may want to read for instance the following references provided by Kip Wainscott (Perkins Coie)

    It is a commonplace that the traditional ways of transmitting and acquiring citizenship at birth are jus soli and jus sanguinis. In this country, the former is provided for by the Constitution,2 and the latter is provided for by the enactments of Congress.

    U.S. v. Marguet-Pillado, 560 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir., 2009)

    A person is a natural-born United States citizen if that person was born in the United States. A person born outside the United States is also a natural-born citizen of the United States if, before the person’s birth, one biological United States citizen parent of that person was physically present in the United States for ten years, at least five of which were after the citizen parent reached the age of fourteen.

    U.S. v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001 (2011)

    Poor Mario, no respect from the Courts or history or scholars… Keep up the good work my friend. Of course with Orly going full out birther, your musings will fade away quickly.

    Mario is still confused that the 14th created citizenship when it did no such thing, it merely reiterated what was already the law and common law.

    If Mario had only read US v WKA and the debates, he would have been more familiar with the arguments. No worries, our friend Ballantine provides some useful references

  3. nbc,

    Too bad for you that your theory that the Founders and Framers defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” under the English common law rather than under the law of nations which became our national law and American “common-law” (Minor v. Happersett) does not square with the changes brought to America by the American Revolution, the text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the purpose of the “natural born Citizen” clause, the American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” the early naturalization acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) and current Congressional Acts, the text and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a correct reading of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

  4. “Arker” defined: A person who maintains that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth and an Article II “natural born Citizen” rather than that it only held him to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth and no more.

  5. There we go again, Mario pretending that his ‘arguments’ were never shown to be without any merits.

    Instead of addressing the words of Fuller, he retreats.

    Well done Mario…

  6. Yes: Citizen of the US includes ones born on soil (aka natural-born) and naturalized on soil.

    Mario somehow fails to understand this subtlety. Poor Mario’s logic is not very well developed.

    The Court in WKA had established that under Common Law, the meaning of the term Natural Born meant born on soil, with minor exceptions. Since the Court could not find WKA to be naturalized there was only one path to citizenship for WKA.

    Why is Mario so reluctant to read the ruling, the lower case ruling which had rejected Vattel, and the desperate arguments by the Government which mirror many of Mario’s arguments. All of which were clearly rejected by the Courts.

  7. Yes: Citizen of the US includes ones born on soil (aka natural-born) and naturalized on soil.

    Mario somehow fails to understand this subtlety. Poor Mario’s logic is not very well developed.

    The Court in WKA had established that under Common Law, the meaning of the term Natural Born meant born on soil, with minor exceptions. Since the Court could not find WKA to be naturalized there was only one path to citizenship for WKA.

    Why is Mario so reluctant to read the ruling, the lower case ruling which had rejected Vattel, and the desperate arguments by the Government which mirror many of Mario’s arguments. All of which were clearly rejected by the Courts.

    Mario should also read this posting for further education

  8. Nbc,

    You said: “Citizen of the US includes ones born on soil (aka natural-born) and naturalized on soil.”

    Poor nbc, he limits the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to being “born on soil.” He does not know that our early Congresses in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. Our early Congresses contained many Founders and Framers and they would have known how a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” were defined. Of the seventy-nine members of the First Congress, twenty had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, 894, n.75 (1988). So, it looks like nbc is simply wrong to say that those children were “natural born Citizens.” Children who were not even “citizens of the United States” surely could not be “natural born Citizens.”

  9. Mario is again confused about what these acts did and did not do. They merely would naturalize children born abroad to alien parents, when said parents would naturalize in the United States.

    There we go again with reading comprehension… And simple logic.

    We do know that the Founders found it necessary to take care of children born abroad to US citizens, expressly passing statutes, showing that it was not Vattel which guided their definitions of citizenship. While in their first act they inadvertently ruled these children to be natural-born, this was quickly removed. In addition, for some time, Children born abroad to US citizens abroad were not even citizens as pointed out by Binney and others.

    Understanding Mario… Understanding…

    BrianH was kind enough to remind you

    Under the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, the minor children of alien parents were themselves alien until the naturalization of their parents, or upon their own naturalization at the age of majority.

    Those provisions about children of aliens covered the case of children who emigrated to the U.S. with their alien parents. But assuming for arguments sake that you are correct, that J. Gray was in error, how then did that “error” affect his conclusions as to the pre-Fourteenth Amendment law? Does that allow one to explain why C.J. Fuller writing in dissent saw the majority opinion as effectively making a person like Mr. Wong eligible for the presidency?

    And the 9th Circuit Court affirmed

    It is a commonplace that the traditional ways of transmitting and acquiring citizenship at birth are jus soli and jus sanguinis. In this country, the former is provided for by the Constitution,2 and the latter is provided for by the enactments of Congress.

    U.S. v. Marguet-Pillado, 560 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir., 2009)

    A person is a natural-born United States citizen if that person was born in the United States. A person born outside the United States is also a natural-born citizen of the United States if, before the person’s birth, one biological United States citizen parent of that person was physically present in the United States for ten years, at least five of which were after the citizen parent reached the age of fourteen.

    U.S. v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001 (2011)

    Other than a spurious reading of Tucker, you have nothing that supports you interpretation of children born on US soil to alien parents being aliens…

  10. Also

    That the father and mother of the defendant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before the 4th of July 1776 it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after the 4th of July 1776 and before the 16th of September 1776, he was born an American citizen whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

    Source: Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor – 28 U.S. 99 (1830)

    Fascinating… how all these people got it wrong eh Mario…

  11. Who are aliens

    By the common law all persons born out of the king’s dominions and allegiance even the children of natural born subjects were deemed aliens. q. and the character of a natural born subject previous to any of the statutes which we shall have occasion to refer to was incidental to birth and whatever were the situations of his parents the being born within the allegiance of the king constituted a natural born subject r.

    A treatise of the law of descents By Henry Chitty

    The concept of alien does not include those born within the king’s dominions. And before you object that this is English Common Law, may I remind you of the ruling in US v WKA.

  12. nbc just keep trying but just keeps failing.

    Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872): In explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the Court said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” 16 Wall. 73. Note the Court excluded from citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment children born in the United States to aliens.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875): Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen” without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers 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.”

    Id. at 167-68.

    Note the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court informed that at “common-law,” children born in the country to alien parents were “aliens or foreigners.”

  13. Yes, I understand why you would resort to the Slaughterhouse Case but the Courts understood that this was mere dictum.

    Now I understand why your despair would cause you to quote dictum as if it describes a relevant opinion of the court but it fails and was in fact rejected in Wong Kim Ark.

    I have suggested to Mario to read the US v Wong Kim Ark case, in which case he would have noticed

    Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

    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.

    16 Wall. 73. This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together — whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

  14. nbc,

    I cannot believe that you are still peddling Justice Story’s minority view in Inglis. I have written on this extensively. The majority in Inglis rejected Story’s jus soli. Rather, they adopted jus sanguins.

    Justice Story in Shanks, which was decided after Inglis, then changed his position and followed the majority rule of Inglis (children follow the condition of the parents).

  15. nbc,

    Even if what The Slaughterhouse Case said may be dictum, it is still persuasive. Additionally, Minor confirmed The Slaughterhouse Case. What Minor said about citizenship was not dictum.

    Also, you have no problem contending that Wong Kim Ark can be extended to mean that it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” But that is not dictum for you.

    nbc, give it up.

  16. In other context BrianH similarly educates Mario:

    BrianH said…

    @Mario A

    And what authorities does Justice Gray cite to show that the English common law jus soli rule survived the American revolution at the national level? None.

    I’ve noted (twice now) that in Part III of the opinion, J. Gray analyzes how the English jus soli rule which he documented in Part II was recognized since Colonial days in America. And in Part III J. Gray cites as authorites: The Charming Betsy, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, Shanks v. Dupont, Levee v. Mccartee, Dred Scott v. Sanford, U.S. v. Rhodes, Gardner v. Ward, Kilham v. Ward, and State v. Manuel. Plus he cites to commentary by Chancellor Kent.

    Now, no doubt you have at the ready (or will soon prepare) some 7-part post trying to show that none of these authorities support the proposition of jus soli citizenship. Spin your wheels as you see fit. The salient point remains that the WKA majority signed on to the truth of the proposition.

    So are you then saying that you do not agree with the unanimous (9 Justices of the Court) U.S. Supreme Court in Minor in how it defined a “natural-born citizen?”

    I agree with the statement that Virgina Minor’s status as natural born citizen under the common law isn’t controverted. I disagree with the following claims that Birthers attempt to tack on beyond that: 1) that the Minor court purported to set forth a “definition” of NBC (it said no such thing), 2) that the “common law” refers to some purely “American common law” (the court makes no mention of such a thing), or 3) that the “common law” or the recitation of the common law as to Mrs.Minor reflects some incorporation of the “law of nations” (the Court makes absolutely no mention of this, and, as noted in my prior post, the WKA explicitly rejects that idea).

    That is rather hypocritical because the Obots tell me that I have to accept a court’s decision regardless of whether the court provided any authority for what it said.

    If it’s a SCOTUS case, and it’s the seminal decision on the matter (which WKA is as regards the question of a person born in the U.S. of alien parents), then, yes, you’re rather stuck with it insofar as the propositions set forth are clearly established. If you want to disagree and claim the opinion poorly reasoned or supported and should be overturned, have at it. “Birther” Tracey Fair remarked on Woodman’s blog that WKA is unconstitutional and should be overturned. I applaud her directness. You keep dancing around the point, ending up in effect claiming that J. Gray cites to authority he shouldn’t be, that he makes claims he doesn’t support, and further that C.J. Fuller is “sounding the alarm” needlessly because the majority opinion doesn’t say what Fuller makes it out to say, and further that Minor should have precluded Fuller’s concern at the outset.

    Your underhanded attempt to reduce the significance of the Minor decision on the matter of U.S. citizenship by trying to focus on voting rights is noted.

    Well, her being denied the vote was what she was challenging. She wasn’t being denied citizenship.

    Yeah, I’m clearly being underhanded here.

    There you go again replacing “natural born Citizen” for where the Wong Kim Ark said “citizen of the United States.”

    Actually, it said “natural born citizen,” too:

    “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    Following this is the portion I’ve been citing about understanding Constitutional provisions in light of the history of the English common law.

    So let’s call this Strawman argument alert #4. I wasn’t substituting anything.

    July 5, 2012 1:30 PM

    Time for another addition to the Files section I guess

  17. Regarding Inglis, you really believe that bunk that John Woodman wrote, that the country was still not formed so the Court used jus sanguinis rather than jus soli. Oh, yes, then at some undefined moment in the future, the nation would just magically revert back to using the English common law jus soli. Common on, nbc, give it up.

  18. No one is educating me. If anything, you are getting a good trashing here and everywere you debate me.

    Right Mario, right… Like your reading ability you are a poor judge of your own abilities.

  19. Oh, yes, then at some undefined moment in the future, the nation would just magically revert back to using the English common law jus soli. Common on, nbc, give it up.

    I guess you have yet to read and comprehend Woodman’s excellent rebuttals. But no worries… If you had only read US v Wong Kim Ark you would have known that it was cited

    In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

    It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.

    So yes, jus soli was the common law which continued in the early republic, as observed by the Court in US v WKA.

    See Mario…

    The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

    Now may I suggest you read and comprehend the ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark?

  20. I am glad that you admit that it was dictum. You call it persuasive but the Court in WKA was not convinced of such and found against it.
    Similarly, the dicta in Minor is of little relevance, and the doubt was resolved in US v WKA which found that anyone born on US soil, under common law, was considered a natural born citizen, resolving the meaning of the term as used in the Constitution.

    WKA is not extended in dicta as finding that the defendant was indeed Natural Born was essential to the ruling.

  21. The Court in WKA observed that

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    They understood what you failed to comprehend, and which let the Court in WKA to find that WKA was indeed a citizen as he was a natural born, which had to be interpreted as used in common law and which meant ‘born on soil’. No dicta, just ratio decidendi. I am sure that you are easy to confuse the two…

  22. Mario: No one is educating me

    Isn’t that the truth, a willingness to learn is a prerequisite to such. But others may not be unwilling to be educated.

  23. From the Apuzzo Files

    US v WKA common law not law of nations…

    While Fuller insisted that International Law was far more reasonable, the majority opinion reject this position and followed the lower Court’s findings in this matter.

    Like Mario, the government had strongly argued in favor of ‘law of nations’ but they did not prevail.

  24. Mario,

    You must have brass balls to continue on your line of argument when you have lost every case. You lost, this is all academic here. Problem is you seem to be the only one buyin it.

  25. I do concur but I find it fascinating that Mario returns as if nothing happened. Which is why I have been collecting what I call ‘The Apuzzo Files’ where readers can quickly see how Mario failed in the past and how he repeats his claims as if nothing happened.

    Fascinating, the display of cognitive dissonance is something the literature has pointed out as a risk to lawyers. Are we seeing it in action here? I believe there is a good possibility that we do.

  26. nbc,

    Your responses are pathetic. Read Inglis yourself. Justice Gray fabricated about the whole court agreeing with Justice Story. On the contrary, the majority rejected Justice Story’s jus soli minority view. The majority in the beginning of the decision also explained that with the American Revolution, we no longer applied broad notions of allegaince to define our new citizenship. The Court here told us that we no longer followed the English common law and its broad allegiance, making everyone born in the King’s dominions and under his obedience “natural born subjects,”

    On Wong Kim Ark, the holding was that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth, not that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    You really have poor reading comprehension skills.

  27. Typical Obot response, when you get get smacked down, you run to the courts for help.

    Did you not help in the filing of several cases in which you asked for the court for help but the courts rejected your efforts?

    But the Courts in the end do matter as they decide how to interpret terminology and in this case, the courts have correctly observed how the term natural born is to be found in our common law history, in which it meant, as the court in WKA so exquisitely explained: born on soil.

    Mario’s insistence on how to interpret WKA is rejected by the Government’s brief, the dissenting judge, common logic and the many cases in which the court ruled on similar issues.

    Fascinating how Mario has to reject all this…

  28. nbc,

    I did not say the courts do not matter. But when the courts do not adequately address the issue and until the U.S. Supreme Court gives us an opinion (not a denial of cert. with no comment), the matter is not “settled.”

    By the way, if the matter of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was “settled,” what are you doing still blogging about it?

  29. In Inglis the majority found that

    If John Inglis, according to the first supposition under this point, was born before 4 July, 1776, he is an alien unless his remaining in New York during the war changed his character and made him an American citizen. It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgement of their independence.

    Finding that

    The settled doctrine of this country is that a person born here, who left the country before the declaration of independence and never returned here, became thereby an alien, and incapable of taking lands subsequently by descent in this country.

    John Inglis never made an attempt to throw off the decision made by his father, otherwise he would have been considered a citizen. While this ruling is somewhat confusing, it takes into account that this was an era of war and citizenship was guided partially by treaties.

    Remember

    2. If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.

    The dissenting Judge observes

    “That all persons passing through, visiting, or making a temporary stay in the state being entitled to the protection of the laws during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay owe during the same allegiance thereto.”

    Woodman explains it quite well and Judge Gray did not see anything in Inglis that would run afoul of his interpretation. That Mario considers Justice Gray to have been wrong, only supports my conclusion that he too understands the impact of the ruling.

  30. See also

    One of our most distinguished judges says: “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth” Inglis v Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor 3 Pet 164 by Story

    It possibly may be contended that the common law principles in regard to subjects not apply to citizens But this position is untenable as will be obvious from the considerations The word citizen expresses precisely the same relation to the State which subject to the king. Indeed for a considerable after the revolution the word subject was as synonymous with citizen, Thus in the declaration of rights in the constitution of Massachusetts the word subject is several introduced where we should now use citizen. So in Mass St 1784 c 72 s 10 a punishment is enacted for kidnapping any of this Commonwealth or other person lawfully residing and inhabiting therein In this passage the word subject can have no other meaning than that of citizen.

    Neither the constitution nor statutes of the United States nor as far as we are aware do the constitution or laws of any State define what persons born within the country are native citizens. If therefore we cannot resort to the common law we are left without any guide on the subject. The right of the great mass of white persons born in this country to be considered citizens rests on the common law principles in regard to subjects.

    Miss Crandall’s second trial

  31. By the way, if the matter of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was “settled,” what are you doing still blogging about it?

    To educate those confused about this fact of course. Wow, that should be obvious to anyone… Not a very logical argument, again…

  32. On Inglis, are you trying to fool us by just writing anything. Please.

    The pot calling the kettle black. Notice also the absence of any attempt to an argument…

    No Mario… You have no credibility here.

  33. Ankeny citing Inglis

    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

  34. nbc,

    Your reliance upon Miss Crandall’s Second Trial for a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is misplaced.

    The English common law jus soli rule may have continued to prevail in the respective states after July 4, 1776. Under that jus soli rule, persons becoming citizens of the states became “citizens of the United States” when the Constitution was adopted if not sooner.

    But Congress then abrogated that English common law jus soli rule which prevailed in the respective states with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which brought national uniformity to who should be considered as a “citizen of the United States.” This act naturalized persons to be both “natural born citizens” (children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents were “considered as natural born citizens”) and “citizens of the United States” (those alien persons who satisfied our naturalization laws and their minor children regardless of where born were “considered as citizens of the United States”). This statute did not define who were the “natural born Citizen,” for Congress, on matters of citizenship only having the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization, did not have the constitutional power to make that definition which was already provided by American “common law.” When it came to “natural born Citizens,” this act only allowed children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizens” to be “considered as natural born citizens.” The Naturalization Acts of 1795 then changed the status of children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents from “considered as natural born citizens” to “considered as citizens of the United States.” With respect to children born in the United States, it still treated them as aliens if born to alien parents. The Naturalization Acts of 1802 and 1855 carried forward this same rule. So, since 1790, there was no longer any English common law jus soli rule which had existed in the states that prevailed on the national level in the United States.

    The Constitution also provided for “natural born Citizens.” These “citizens” were never defined by any English common law jus soli rule or Act of Congress. Rather, the “natural born Citizens” were defined by the law of nations which became U.S. national law and American “common-law.” Reading the American “common law” and the early naturalization acts of Congress in tandem demonstrates that a child born in the United States to “citizen” parents was not only a “citizen” but also a “natural born Citizen.” There was no other definition of a “natural born Citizen,” either in the Constitution, in any Congressional Act, or under any other common law rule.

  35. But Congress then abrogated that English common law jus soli rule which prevailed in the respective states with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which brought national uniformity to who should be considered as a “citizen of the United States.” This act naturalized persons to be both “natural born citizens” (children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents were “considered as natural born citizens”) and “citizens of the United States” (those alien persons who satisfied our naturalization laws and their minor children regardless of where born were “considered as citizens of the United States”).

    A total myth. First of all th 1790 act shows that Congress found it necessary to pass a law to naturalize children born abroad to US citizens, effectively showing that it was not jus sanguini which was the foundation for natural-born. Secondly, the 1790 act only naturalized children born aliens who came with their parents to the United States.

    Mario is so desperate.

  36. It provides context as to what the courts found relevant. That you remain confused about Inglis is quite interesting and even accepting that they somehow held to Vattel, the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark never found that position much of relevance, as it adopted the english common law.

    Remember that the Court had explicitly rejected the law of nations, thus there is no support for Mario’s position. No matter what he wants to argue, jus sanguini and the law of nations were not what determined the meaning of natural-born.

    It’s that simple.

  37. This act naturalized persons to be both “natural born citizens” (children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents were “considered as natural born citizens”) and “citizens of the United States” (those alien persons who satisfied our naturalization laws and their minor children regardless of where born were “considered as citizens of the United States”).

    But since WKA could not be naturalized, the finding by the Court in WKA disagrees with Mario’s interpretation of the 1790 Act and beyond and shows that the Court could not be referring to WKA being naturalized. No, he was born on soil and thus under our common law principles a natural born citizen.

  38. “Publius” on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 in the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:

    “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. “Wheresoever born,” (Jefferson in his citizenship law of 1779), if his parents were aliens, he or she was an alien. 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, eventually declared McClure to be 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.” I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the acts meant rather than yours in 2012.

  39. Mr Burke during the debates leading up to the 1790 act observed

    The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.

    Clearly showing that such children were not covered by the concept of ‘natural-born’ or jus sanguini. Under any Vattel/law of nations concept, such children did not have to be provided for. The clear admission that an act is required shows that like the English common law did not provide for such children.

  40. nbc,

    You have no real response to my arguments. Being an Arker, you just keep returning to Wong Kim Ark and recycling your same arguments. Lacking from your presentation is the breadth of history, word of any Founder, Acts of our early Congress, and case law of our U.S. Supreme Court.

  41. We know how the Court in Lynch v Clarke interpreted

    Lynch v Clarke – Gilbert M. Speir, for the defendant Clarke

    Mr. Vattel says it is by the law of nature that ” children follow the condition of their father;” but he decides this question by positive law, such as any particular country may ordain.

    Lynch v Clarke – Charles F. Grim, also for the defendant Clark

    Vattel was quoted as an authority against the rule for which we contend. Yet if his own explanation of his own terms is used, it may be an authority in our favor; he prefaces this chapter by stating that he had previously defined the term native country, and refers to §122, where he says, ” when we speak in general of the duty to our country, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member.” Patrick Lynch was an actual member of this state at the time of his daughter’s birth.

    Our state convention on 16th July, 1776, (see 20 Johns. R. 315, 326, which was referred to by the complainent’s counsel, with approbation,) shows its views of national law; it declares ” that all persons abiding within the state, and deriving protection from its laws, owe allegiance to its laws, and are members of the state,” and then distinguishes those passing through merely, or visiting, or making a temporary stay.

    .

  42. Mario is ready to give up even though he refuses to address my well argued responses.

    And thus we realize once again, that the emperor has no clothes… But only he believes he does…

  43. We also look at the definition of alien or foreigner

    Alien: A foreigner, one born abroad, a person residing in one country but owing allegiance to another, In England one born out of the allegiance of the King. In the United States, one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States and who has not yet been naturalized under the constitution and laws.

  44. In Ex Parte Dawson, Bradofrd

    In the present case there can be no doubt that the domicil of the minor was and is in the city of New York. The place of birth or the domicil of the father regulates the domicil of the child. Mary Jay Dawson was born in this city and her father resided here at the time of her birth and thence till his decease. This then was her domicil of origin. The domicil of origin can be changed only by choice and the domicil of choice being that which the person himself establishes it cannot be acquired by the act of the minor or by any other person save the father or the mother being a widow and not having married again. Scrimshire vs Scrimshire 2 ITagg Consist 406

    The domicil of the minor therefore had not been changed at the time the case was brought before the Court of Chancery in England. Whether a guardian can change the residence of his ward is not now under consideration. But again the minor was a native citizen of the United States By the Common Law she was an alien in England .

    When I say, says Blackstone t,hat an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions or allegiance this also must be understood with some restrictions The Common Law indeed stood absolutely with only few exceptions.

    So such a child would born on soil would not be an alien, and would does need no naturalization. In fact, she could not be naturalized.

    Mario’s fantasy about naturalization acts somehow naturalizing children born on US soil has no foundation in reality and he knows it when he sites an anonymous letter in a newspaper…

    Not much to support his position. And he knows it.

  45. Nbc,

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides for a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.”

    Per James Monroe’s letter of November 27, 1811 that he sent to Joel Barlow, Esq., U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson found and stated in his Certificate that McClure was a “Citizen of the United States,” which we know from Article I and II was a naturalized citizen. And since we are talking about Founders and Framers making these statements and decisions regarding McClure, they surely used their words wisely and knew the critical constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Even though there was no dispute that he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 (after the Revolution), Justice Johnson did not say that McClure was a “natural born Citizen.” And the reason he did not so declare is that when McClure was born, his father was a British subject. And the only reason he ruled McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” is that his father naturalized during his age of minority while McClure was dwelling with him in the United States.

    So there you have it. Justice Johnson declared McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States,” and not a “natural born Citizen,” even though McClure was born in the United States after July 4, 1776.

  46. So there you have it. Justice Johnson declared McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States,” and not a “natural born Citizen,” even though McClure was born in the United States after July 4, 1776.

    Citizen of the US includes natural born. You’re so funny… Since they only referenced his location of birth, it’s clear that was sufficient to find him born on soil, thus a natural born citizen.

    Logic and reading comprehension, two struggles…

  47. I see Mario the Mangler is still desperately flailing about and childishly thinking if he merely repeats his lies and calls things the exact opposite of what they actually are, that somehow that will magically make them true…

    What a sad sod.

  48. But entertaining at the same time.

    With the gradual build out of the Apuzzo files, showing how Mario’s claim have been long since rejected by logic, reason and history, we can hope to point to the obvious repetition by Mario of claims long since rejected as flawed.

  49. I would argue that Mario’s entertainment value is limited. Here and there he does add some new gems for the “Apuzzo Files” – true.

    But sadly, the overwhelming majority of his schtick these days amounts to little more than wasting lots of words repeating the same failed lies and nonsense over and over and over and over and over again…

    Mostly I just roll my eyes and yawn, as he’s become so stale and moldy…

    It really is “fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud” with him…. Does he even have any legal case alive at ANY stage here? I mean, he’s been smacked down in a consecutive NINE of NINE attempts so far, right? What does he even have left to try at all? He’s nothing more than empty bluster and busted ideas and fairly weak as even the bloviating one-trick pony hack that he is.

    Orly on the other hand, has proven to be much more entertaining. There seems to always be some new twist of crazy in nearly everything she does.

  50. Orly indeed is overtaking Mario in entertainment value at a rapid rate. But her inabilities to understand almost ANY rules of the court make it too simple too predict the outcome

  51. nbc,

    Why do you not read the historical record on the James McClure case. Clearly, he was decared a “Citizen of the United States” because he was naturalized after birth.

    Reading comprehension and lying big time are two major struggles for you.

  52. Mangler says: “Reading comprehension and lying big time are two major struggles for you.”

    *yawn*. Your grade school level of pure projectionism is weak as usual Mario.

    The only one here who is constantly demonstrating such behaviors is always you.

  53. Why do you not read the historical record on the James McClure case. Clearly, he was decared a “Citizen of the United States” because he was naturalized after birth.

    Reading comprehension and lying big time are two major struggles for you.

    It really is sad that you think that repeating the same lies over and over will somehow mean anyone will listen to you. Have you found a single person in history to support your definition of “citizen of the United States? Just one? We know, the framers and Congress when they wanted to refer to natural born and naturalized citizens used the term even tough it only meant naturalized citizen as they wanted to fool us all. But you figured out their secret code. Of course, there are many people in history who thing you are an idiot. How about:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen. Who does not know that all natural born persons, men, women, children, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

    Apparently, Mario. LOL. You like to quote Binney too.

    “the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. …But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg. 206 (February 1854).

    We know, we know everyone in history is wrong, Wong Kim Ark doesn’t count,and Justice Fuller was stupid.

  54. Here is Senator Howard, the person who introduced the language of the 14th Amendment and usually given credit for the language, on what he thought the law was prior to adoption of the 14th Amendment.

    “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

    Gee what rule does that sound like. Vattel? How come no one in the 39th Congress thought parentage was relevant to citizenship? We know, every is stupid other than MArio.

  55. Oh, I meant to quote Howard on “citizen of the United States.” Here is the law prior to the 14th Amendment:

    “Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    Howard dumb/Mario smart.

  56. Like one letter G, the haughty ballantine has arrived. Be warned that haughtiness and intelligence do not necessarily complement each other.

    Ballantine said: “Have you found a single person in history to support your definition of “citizen of the United States? Just one? We know, the framers and Congress when they wanted to refer to natural born and naturalized citizens used the term even tough it only meant naturalized citizen as they wanted to fool us all. But you figured out their secret code. Of course.”

    Too bad for ballantine that his reading comprehension fails him when he attempts to read and understand the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

  57. Too bad for ballantine that his reading comprehension fails him when he attempts to read and understand the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

    Yes me and all legal authority, which agrees with me. Have you found any court who has ever said any native born person was naturalized under such statute. Of course not. Such argument has been rejected by everyone who has raised it. Just like no one has your definition of “citizen of the united States.” Here are some more people who think you are dumb:

    “In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: “Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark

    “every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott dissent.

    “that every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.” Justice Story.

    “And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull

    And I posted these on the wrong thread:

    “I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Secretary of State Marcy, 1854.

    “a free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.” Attorney General Black, 9 Ops. Atty. Gen. 373.(1859)

  58. Poor ballantine, after four years at this, he still does not know that under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, to be eligible to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “citizen of the United States.”

  59. Gee, no one seems to understand the naturalization acts other than Mario

    “Under the 4th section of the act of April 14, 1802, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, &c., (2 Stats., 153,) such children, if dwelling in the United States, are declared citizens. That section provides, in brief, that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, &c., being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States,’ be considered as citizens of the United States. The section, of course, refers to children born out of the United States, since the children of such persons, born within the United States, are citizens without the aid of statutory law.” Attorney General Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862).

    “The general words used, do not prove that general words were necessary. The statutes were necessary, and every part of i them is fulfilled, although children bom here were already citizens. They operate on the much larger class of the children of aliens, viz: those who were born abroad.” Lynch vs. Clarke, pg. 250, 258 (NY 1844)

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

    “It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    But I go on; I beg pardon for this digression. I maintain that a negro cannot be made a citizen by congress; he cannot be made a citizen by any naturalization laws because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone….Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution…Then, if a negro is a citizen of the United States at all, he is a citizen by birth and by operation of the Constitution..” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 598 (1866).

    “What is the meaning of the term “naturalize?” It is investing an aliens with the privileges of a native-born citizen. What is an alien? A foreigner, one born in a foreign country.” Mr. Thorton, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 1156 (1866).

    “They have held expressly in several cases which are referred to in the decision I will read in a moment, the right of naturalization under the Constitution referred only to persons of foreign birth, that it had no reference to persons born in the United States.” Mr. Eldridge, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 1855 (1866).

    “I ask whether Judge Curtis in the opinion referred to, did not take the same ground in reference to a uniform rule of naturalization I take now, that they were only intended to apply, by virtue of power given in the Constitution, to foreigner, persons not born here – persons who come from another country.” Mr. Rogers, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pg. 1153 (1866).

    “Believing, as I do, that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power to confer citizenship except on naturalized foreigners, I believe such rights conferred by this act to be in violation of the Constitution…” Mr. Latham, at Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pg. 1295 (1866).

    “To the inquiry propounded as to the power of Congress over this subject of naturalization I respond that this authority to ‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization’ only confers upon the Federal Government the power to admit ‘aliens,’ that is, persons born out of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, to citizenship and does not covey the power to elevate to the rank of citizens persons of an inferior race born within its jurisdiction and allegiance. Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).

    “The American definition of the word “naturalize” is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, as is as follows: “Naturalization: The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States.” Bouvier defines a “Naturalized Citizen” to be “one who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the Constitution and laws.” The same author defines and alien to be “one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States who has not since been naturalized under their Constitution and laws.” Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).

  60. Poor ballantine, after four years at this, he still does not know that under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, to be eligible to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “citizen of the United States.”

    Yes, poor me. Someone who doesn’t have to make up his own definition to words to try to have an argument.

  61. Notice that ballantine does not have any authorities that discuss the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. I wonder why?

    They are saying that, by definition, Congress has no power to naturalize anyone but the foreign born. That would include the 1790 acts as all the acts had the same language. Duh!!! Now should me one auhtority who has every agreed with you. Crickets. Oh, and of course, the Supreme court has clearly rejected your argument going back to 1789:

    “it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States”

    We know. Supreme Court stupid/Mario smart. 39th Congress stupid/Mario smart.

  62. And as to the authorities which address what is a “citizen of the United States” and who ballantine presents as though they address what is a “natural born Citizen,” this is what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court thought about ballantine’s little presentation:

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers 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.”

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

    Wow, according to the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, at “common-law,” if a child was born in the United States but not born to “citizen” parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.” Looks like the Court did not get ballantine’s memo. Now is that not what the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 said, too? What changed this is the Fourteenth Amendment per Wong Kim Ark which held that such a child was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that the Fourteenth Amendment only gives the status of a “citizen of the United States,” not that of a “natural born Citizen” which continued to be defined by what Minor called the “common-law.” Looks like the Court in Wong Kim Ark also did not get ballantine’s memo.

  63. Mario some questions about the McClure case:

    Form the Alexandria Herald article:

    “Mr. McC[lure] went to France to reclaim the property of the ship; carrying with him a Passport from the American Minister in London confessing him to be a native citizen of the U. S.”

    Why did the US Minister in London issue him a passport declaring him to be a native citizen? Didn’t native and natural born mean the same thing?

    Also in the Herald article

    “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…”

    The language of the Virginia law of 1792 matches the language of the previous Virginia citizenship laws,

    1779: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth… shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,”

    1783: “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth… shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth”

    1792: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth… shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,”

    You have always maintained that this portion of the Virginia citizenship law of 1779 was a grandfather clause and not a jus soli clause. Publius says the Virginia law of 1792 is jus soli. Did the nature of the law change? When? By what language? Or where you wrong about the 1779 law?

  64. Wow, according to the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, at “common-law,” if a child was born in the United States but not born to “citizen” parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”

    If only the court had actually said that and if only the status of native born children of aliens was before the court. Back in the real world, no one has ever cited Minor as relevant to the question of the status of native born children of aliens. Simply a fact. Neither Fuller nor Gray thought Minor relevant and Fuller was making the Vattel argument. What an idiot. Actual courts and scholars we have seen understand what Wong Kim Ark say, and sadly, will never give your delusional arguments the time of day.

    “it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

    Help me, help me, I’m an Apuzzite and can’t understand these plain words.

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England”

    Help, the words are too big.

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

    Doesn’t count. Doesn’t count.

    “therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    Only reading between the lines in Minor counts. Gray and Fuller stupid/Mario smart. Now why not go read Justice Fuller great summary of Gray’s opinion and perhaps you will stop embarrassing yourself.

  65. And notice the Virginia statutes only provide for naturalization for persons who migrate into the State. Jefferson, of course, understand that the native born could not be naturalized. Seemingly everyone did except Mario.

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

  66. Wow, according to the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, at “common-law,” if a child was born in the United States but not born to “citizen” parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”

    That’s quite a misrepresentation of what the Court really said.

    Poor Mario.

  67. These acts show that the Founders found it necessary to care for children born to US citizens while abroad and make them citizens. This shows clearly that the Founders did not rely on law of Nations of Vattel.

    Thank you Mario.
    As to your reading comprehension… We all know… and love you for it.

  68. Attorney General Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862).

    Excellent find, the same of course applies to 1790 and 1795.

    Poor Mario, none of his fantasies hold up on closer scrutiny.
    Is this why he has to pretend the Minor court ruled about children born on soil to alien parents?

    Shocking, another smackdown of Mario.

  69. We know. Supreme Court stupid/Mario smart. 39th Congress stupid/Mario smart.

    Mario’s fantasy world must be quite pleasant as any contradicting data has to be ignored, to allow Mario to deal with the cognitive dissonance it causes.

    I observe a similar attitude but less severe in young children.

  70. Mario: Why do you not read the historical record on the James McClure case. Clearly, he was decared a “Citizen of the United States” because he was naturalized after birth.

    This is hilarious. Mario is so unable to admit to his smackdowns that he has to make up facts and accuse others of lying. Mario insists that he was declared a citizen because he was naturalized after birth, something contradicted by experts on the matter who understand that such cannot be done to a child born on soil. Furthermore, Mario is still confused about the term “Citizen of the United States” which he ‘argued’ to refer to a class of citizens who were naturalized. Such a reading is of course totally at odds with common sense as it would disallow natural born citizens from running for Senator.

    A far more logical conclusion is that McClure, due to his native birth was found to be a citizen. But that would shatter Mario’s beliefs which he appears to be protecting at all cost.

    Hilarious. I have never witnessed such a strong tendency to ignore logic and reason and make up ‘facts’. McClure was one of such cases, now Mario has lost perspective with the Minor Court.

    Oh boy, these smackdowns are fascinating. Time to expand the Apuzzo Files. This is too good to ignore.

    Thanks Mario.

    Note that, contrary to Mario’s earlier statements, there is NO evidence that the Administration considered McClure to have been naturalized. In fact we do know that the Minister stated that McCLure was given the passport because of him being a native.

    Gorefan observed

    Form the Alexandria Herald article:

    “Mr. McC[lure] went to France to reclaim the property of the ship; carrying with him a Passport from the American Minister in London confessing him to be a native citizen of the U. S.”

    Why did the US Minister in London issue him a passport declaring him to be a native citizen? Didn’t native and natural born mean the same thing?

    Also in the Herald article

    “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…”

    Ouch… Again, Mario’s reading comprehension shows its face and it ain’t pretty, but very educational.

  71. Gorefan is showing a much stronger argument than you. Your argument relies on a misinterpretation of the term “Citizen of the US”, a failure to understand naturalization acts and a misrepresentation of what the administration really did.
    We all agreed that they considered him to be a citizen. Mario insists that this was because of the Naturalization Act, but provides no evidence. Gorefan and Ballantine have shown that none of the arguments hold up under closer scrutiny.

    Mario licks his wounds but will return with the same argument as if nothing happened.

    Which is why the Apuzzo files are so helpful capturing Mario’s follies and this one is quite a fascinating one.

  72. ballantine does not know that Congress clearly saw itself with the power to naturalize persons born on U.S. soil. He not only does not correctly read the plain wording of the early naturalization acts, but also does not know that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which expressly bestowed the status of a “citizen of the United States” upon certain persons born in the United States.

  73. nbc,

    Referring to the early naturalization acts, you said: “These acts show that the Founders found it necessary to care for children born to US citizens while abroad and make them citizens. This shows clearly that the Founders did not rely on law of Nations of Vattel. Thank you Mario. As to your reading comprehension… We all know… and love you for it.”

    nbc, you really are ignorant. Why do you not try reading and comprehending Vattel’s Section 215 called, “Children of citizens, born in a foreign country.” You will see there that Congress did exactly what the law of nations said it could do, i.e., ordain by its “civil and political law” what the citizenship status of children born in a foreign county was going to be. Congress went from giving those children the status of “natural born citizen” in 1790 to giving them the status of “citizen of the United States” in 1795 to the present.

  74. that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which expressly bestowed the status of a “citizen of the United States” upon certain persons born in the United States.

    And quickly replaced it with the 14th Amendment because of concerns about whether or not the law would stand up constitutionally speaking.
    So rather than ‘naturalizing’, Congress saw it fit to recognize the ancient tradition of granting natural born citizenship to all born on its soil.
    The early naturalization acts again do not help Mario because Congress clearly understood the concept of birth on soil making one a citizen, as Bates showed as well.

    Sorry Mario, your continued inability to read, the fact that the Virginia acts clearly made any white person born on soil a citizen, all point against your ‘claims’.

  75. nbc,

    “Under the 4th section of the act of April 14, 1802, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, &c., (2 Stats., 153,) such children, if dwelling in the United States, are declared citizens. That section provides, in brief, that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, &c., being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States,’ be considered as citizens of the United States. The section, of course, refers to children born out of the United States, since the children of such persons, born within the United States, are citizens without the aid of statutory law.”

    Attorney General Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862).

    Guess what, ballantine and nbc, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) did not agree with Mr. Bates. Clearly, he would fall into that category of “authorities” who the Court said maintained that birth alone in the country, without any reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents, made a “citizen.” The Court said “there have been doubts” whether such a position was correct. Even the U.S. Government, ruling Wong to be an alien, did not agree with Mr. Bates.

    The only way those doubts were resolved was for Wong Kim Ark, with the aid of the English common law for justification, to give a liberal interpretation to the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, which allowed the Court to hold that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” If Mr. Bates was correct, the Court would have ruled like Minor ruled for Virginia Minor, that Wong was a “natural born Citizen” under the “common law” and not just a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

  76. Notice how Arker ballantine has to resort to recycling fragments of Wong Kim Ark in order to stay alive.

    Ballantine is not facing any need to ‘stay alive’ as his comments merely show why your claims remain unfounded.
    Since US v WKA remains the precedent in who is a natural born citizen, quoting from said ruling, which Mario appears to not have read yet, is of immediate relevance.

    Sorry Mario, you are projecting again

  77. . Why do you not try reading and comprehending Vattel’s Section 215 called, “Children of citizens, born in a foreign country.” You will see there that Congress did exactly what the law of nations said it could do, i.e., ordain by its “civil and political law” what the citizenship status of children born in a foreign county was going to be.

    Since Congress could merely naturalize, it is clear that Congress found it necessary to do so for such children, indicating that it did not believe that such children were natural born.
    Since you also interpret ‘citizen of the US’ to mean naturalized, I guess we all agree here. There is no foundation for your Vattel claims that natural born citizenship is jus sanguini.

    Poor Mario.

  78. Notice how Arker ballantine has to resort to recycling fragments of Wong Kim Ark in order to stay alive.

    Yes, citing unambiguous authority from the Supreme Court doesn’t count. Of course. How did you pass the bar exam? Seriously.

  79. ballantine does not know that Congress clearly saw itself with the power to naturalize persons born on U.S. soil. He not only does not correctly read the plain wording of the early naturalization acts, but also does not know that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which expressly bestowed the status of a “citizen of the United States” upon certain persons born in the United States.

    See, I quote what the members of the 39th Congress said on the subject. They pointed out what the Supreme Court had said on the subject. Mario just insists he is right even though he cannot cite any authority at all to support him. There is none. Gee, I just can’t understand why courts reject his argument. Senator Trumbull did argue that they could naturalize the native born until a mountain of authority was cited showing he was wrong. He then understood like everyone else. Trumbull clearly understood that Mario was wrong:

    “And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).

    Gee, that is not Mario’s interpretation. There is only one judicial interpreation of the Civil right act and it expressly rejected that native born blacks could be naturalized by a Supreme Court Justice who was a member of the Minor Court:

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866

    For all Mario’s bluster, the bottom line he cannot cite anyone who agreed with him. And, Congressman Niblack shows how normal people define words in the United States:

    “The American definition of the word “naturalize” is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, as is as follows: “Naturalization: The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States.” Bouvier defines a “Naturalized Citizen” to be “one who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the Constitution and laws.” The same author defines and alien to be “one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States who has not since been naturalized under their Constitution and laws.” Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).

    See, it really isn’t that hard. Again, can you cite anyone who counts that says you are right. Of course not.

  80. Guess what, ballantine and nbc, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) did not agree with Mr. Bates.

    Minor stayed silent on the issue. Still not understanding the ruling I notice… Sad…

  81. Mario just insists he is right even though he cannot cite any authority at all to support him.

    But he does show a great ability to make up claims about what he believes some have said. See Minor, or McClure… And when Ballantine/Gorefan show authorities which contradict him clearly, he immediately ignores such data.

    Classic case of cognitive dissonance

  82. Yes, citing unambiguous authority from the Supreme Court doesn’t count. Of course. How did you pass the bar exam? Seriously.

    ROTFL

  83. Guess what, ballantine and nbc, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) did not agree with Mr. Bates. Clearly, he would fall into that category of “authorities” who the Court said maintained that birth alone in the country, without any reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents, made a “citizen.” The Court said “there have been doubts” whether such a position was correct. Even the U.S. Government, ruling Wong to be an alien, did not agree with Mr. Bates.

    Actually, we don’t know if the Minor court agreed with Bates as they didn’t address the subject of children of aliens as it clearly stated. Of course, Wong Kim Ark, a case actually about citizenship, did agree with Bates as they cited him and made clear, over and over and over, that native born children of aliens were natural or native born citizens. I know this is difficult for you, but the court that actually addresses the issue is authority, not the court that declines to address the issue. Again, real judges have no trouble understanding this. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in law school. So Attorney Generals Bates and Black are stupid/Mario smart. Entire 39th Congress stupid/Mario smart. Justices Gray and Fuller stupid/Mario smart. All modern courts, scholars, treatises and dictionaries addressing the issue stupid/Mario smart.

  84. ballantine,

    You are the dullard who should have paid attention in law school. Don’t try to gloss over the fact that Wong Kim Ark, using the English common law as justification, held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth using the Fourteenth Amendment, and not a “natural born Citizen’ using the “common-law.” So, Bates was wrong because, not only was the Naturalization Act of 1855 then in effect, but there was also neither a Civil Rights Act of 1866 nor a Fourteenth Amendment in effect when he made his statement in 1862.

  85. nbc,

    You really are pathetic.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress cannot naturalize persons who are born in the United States? Nowhere. In fact, Parliament was asked to naturalize Calvin who was born in the King’s dominions and it would not do it for political reasons. Then it was left to Lord Coke to do in Calvin’s Case.

    You confuse some Congressional members’ racism against blacks as sound constitutional argument. What a loser you are.

  86. You are the dullard who should have paid attention in law school. Don’t try to gloss over the fact that Wong Kim Ark, using the English common law as justification, held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth using the Fourteenth Amendment, and not a “natural born Citizen’ using the “common-law.” So, Bates was wrong because, not only was the Naturalization Act of 1855 then in effect, but there was also neither a Civil Rights Act of 1866 nor a Fourteenth Amendment in effect when he made his statement in 1862.

    Of course, we know you don’t understand holding and dicta. Gray didn’t say WKA was a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. He said he was a citizen after spending 21 pages saying native born children of aliens were native or natural born citizens under the original Constitution and then saying the 14th Amendment simply re-stated the same rule. Perhaps you should read Justice Fuller’s summary of the majority opinion:

    “The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them) or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.

    And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction;”

    See, very clear. Both the NBC clause and 14th amendment are governed by the English common law rule. Which words are too big for you? Perhaps you should have your son read it to you. Explain how the 21 pages explaining the law under the original Constitution is dicta when the defintiion of the 14th Amendment is held to be merely declaratory of pre-existing law. In the words of Fuller:

    “Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

    Do you really have a reading comprehension problem? If so, I will stop making fun of you. If not, your argument is that Bates, Story, Black, Bouvier, Dane, Marcy, Townsend, Paschel, Pomeroy, Binney, Swift, Marshall, Duer, Burrill, every early state law case and every one in the 39th Congress is wrong and you are right. Sure.

  87. You really are pathetic.

    Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress cannot naturalize persons who are born in the United States? Nowhere. In fact, Parliament was asked to naturalize Calvin who was born in the King’s dominions and it would not do it for political reasons. Then it was left to Lord Coke to do in Calvin’s Case.

    You confuse some Congressional members’ racism against blacks as sound constitutional argument. What a loser you are.

    Again, we cite what the Supreme Court, lower courts and members of Congress said. You cite nothing. The members of the 39th Congress were not racists as they were in the process of correcting the injustices against the Blacks. They simply pointed out the uniform defintion of naturalization from the courts and legal scholars required foreign birth. Where is the legal authority that agrees with you. Oh, you just re-define terms as you like to try to make an argument. I forgot.

  88. Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Brulatour.

    No. 321.] Department Of State,

    Washington, July 30, 1883. Sir: Your dispatch, No. 370, of the 12th instant, relating to the application of Mr. George Schmidt for a passport for his two minor sous, Otto and Gustavus, has been received. You state that—

    Mr. Schmidt, an Austrian by birth, who obtained naturalization at Cincinnati on the 1st of June, 1883, and who holds passport from the State Department dated the 3d of June, 1883, applied to your legation for passports for his two sous, Otto and Gustavus, on the ground that, being both under age, his own naturalization also conferred upon them the privileges of citizenship. Messrs. Otto and Gustavus Schmidt, having at the same time declared that they had never beeu in the United States, the legation refused to comply with Mr. Schmidt’s request.

    Mr. Vignaud’s ruling and conclusion was entirely correct, and is approved. The young men in question are not entitled to passports. The provision of the act of the 14th of April, 1802 (section 2172, Eevised Statutes of the United States), has received both executive and judicial construction. The Attorney-General of the United States (Bates) in 1862 held that—

    Under the fourth section of the act of April, 1802, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, &c, such children, if dwelling in the United States, are declared citizens. That section, [continues the Attorney-General], provides, in hrief, that the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, &c, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States

    The section, of course, refers to children born out of the United States; since the children of such persons born within the United States are citizens without the aid of statutory law. (10 Opinions, p. 329.)

    You may, at your convenience, inform Mr. Schmidt of this conclusion of the Department. I have, &c,

    FRED’K T. FRELINGHUYSEN

    Why didn’t anyone understand? Mario is right, everyone else is wrong.

  89. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress cannot naturalize persons who are born in the United States?

    Because naturalization can only happen to aliens and people born on US soil are under the court’s interpretations native or natural-born and as such do not need any naturalization.

    I also notice that you have given up on the “if Congress believed in Jus Sanguini, it would not have found it necessary to naturalize children born abroad to US parents, thus rejecting that such children were natural born by virtue of blood.
    Clearly rejecting any notion that natural born, which is a ‘common law’ concept included such children. Especially salient is that in 1795 the term natural born was removed, likely when they realized that one cannot naturalize people and grant them natural born status.

  90. Why didn’t anyone understand? Mario is right, everyone else is wrong.

    And lost for arguments Mario resorts to name calling.

    Well done Mario…

  91. I also notice that you have given up on the “if Congress believed in Jus Sanguini, it would not have found it necessary to naturalize children born abroad to US parents, thus rejecting that such children were natural born by virtue of blood.

    Clearly rejecting any notion that natural born, which is a ‘common law’ concept included such children. Especially salient is that in 1795 the term natural born was removed, likely when they realized that one cannot naturalize people and grant them natural born status.

    Also clearly ignores that the only relevant legislative history on either the 1790 or 1795 Act shows they were copying English law which obviously needed to provide for the foreign born since they were aliens absent statute. From 1790:

    “[t]he case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” See, John C. Rives, Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856: From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from their Register of debates; and from the official reported debates, pg. 189 (1857).

    Congress in 1854 agreed when if amended to naturalization statutes to again provide for the foreign born after Kent, Binney and other scholars said that without statute, children of citizens born oversees were aliens:

    “By the common law, the better opinion always was, although there was a few dicta to the contrary, that children born out of the allegiance of the crown, and under the allegiance of another dominion, were aliens to the former and were subjects to the latter, or not, according to the municipal regulations of the country in which the birth might have happened to take place. Rep. Cutting, Cong. Globe, 33rd. Cong., 1st Sess. pg. 170 (1854)

    Everyone understood jus soli was the rule other than Mario.

  92. And, of course, the 1790 and 1795 Acts both made clear that “citizens of the United States” did not mean “naturalized citizens.” The 1790 Act:

    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

    No serious person would ever content that Congress would bestow such right only upon naturalized citizens. Neither Congress nor any legal authority would say “naturalized citizen” when they meant both “natural born and naturalized citizens.” For those who were awake during the lectures on statutory construction, the plain meaning of unambiguous language trumps every other rule of statutory construction. When Congress says “naturalized citizen,” they mean naturalized citizen. Duh.

  93. How come no one in Congress understood Mario’s definition of “citizen of the United States?” None of the following could possibly apply just to naturalized citizens. Doesn’t matter. Congress stupid/Mario smart.

    “And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court in all actions at law against citizens of the United States shall be by jury.” Judiciary Act of 1789.

    “And the Creek nation do hereby relinquish all claims to any part of the territory inhabited or claimed by the citizens of the United States, in conformity with the said treaties.” Creek Treaty of 1790

    “If any citizen of the united states shall, within the territory or jurisdiltion of the same, accept and exercise a commission to serve a foreign prince or state in war, by land or sea, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor…” Act of 1794

    “That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of the citizens of the United States, and being within the ordinary jurisdiction of any of the individual states.” Indian Act of 1796

    “And in consequence of the stipulation’s contained in the fourth article, his Catholic Majesty will permit the citizens of the United States for the space of three years from this time, to deposit their merchant dises and effects in the port of New-Orleans,” Treaty with Spain of 1795

    “and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Naturalization Act of 1795

    “Should the cruiser of Algiers capture any vessel, having citizens of the United States of North-America on board, they having papers ta prove they are really so, they and their property shall be immediately discharged.” Treaty with Algiers of 1796

    “In like manner the citizens of the United States of America may frequent all the coasts and countries of his Majesty the King of Prussia, and reside and trade there, in all sorts of produce, manufactures and merchandise…” Treaty with Prussia of 1799.

    “It shall be free for the citizens of the United States to carry on what commerce they please in the kingdom of Tunis, without any opposition.” Treaty with Tunis of 1799.

    “The Cherokee nation agree, that the Kentucky road, running between the Cumberland mountain and the Cumberland river, where the same shall pass through the Indian land, shall bean open and free road for the use of the citizens of the United States in the like manner as the road from Southwest point to Cumberland river.” Cherokee Treaty of 1799.

    ” That if any citizen or citizens of the United States shall, without the limits of the same, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly aid or be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming any private ship or vessel of war, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any prince or state with whom the United States are at peace, or upon the citizens of the United States, or their property, or shall take the command, or enter on board of any such ship or vessel for the intent aforesaid, or shall purchase an interest in any vessel so fitted out and armed, with a view to share in the profits thereof, such person or persons so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding ten years.” Privateering Act of 1797.

    “If any citizen or citizens of the united states shall, without the limits of the same, arm, or attempt to fit out and are, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly aid ..” Act of 1796

    “If any person, being a citizen of the united states, whether he be actually resident, or abiding within the united states, or in any foreign country, shall, without the permission or authority of the government of the united states, directly or indirectly, commence, or carry on, any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government….’ Act of 1799

    “That from and after the termination of the war in which the United States are now engaged with Great Britain, it shall not be lawful to employ, on board of any public or private vessels of the United States, any person or persons except citizens of the United States, or persons of color, natives of the United States.” Act of 1813

    “That if any citizen or citizens of the United States shall contrary to the true intent and meaning or this act, take on board, receive or transport any such persons, as above described in this act…” Slave Trade Act of 1794.

  94. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers 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.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

    So you insist: “‘The section, of course, refers to children born out of the United States; since the children of such persons born within the United States are citizens without the aid of statutory law.'”

    So, ballantine, it looks like the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court did not get your memo.

  95. You are not making much sense here, the Supreme Court is looking not at statutory law here but common law.
    Surely you must understand the difference.

    Reading and comprehension problems combined with a hasty response. Not a very good combination.

    Please Mario, I can’t keep up with your goodies…

  96. LOL. Of course, Mario, confronted with a mountain of evidence showing his arguments are delusional, can only go back to quoting Minor, as that is all he has, a case which expressly declined to address the status of native born children of aliens and has never been cited by anyone on the status of children of aliens. We know, everyone is stupid and only Mario sees the secret meaning of Minor. Doesn’t matter that anything Minor said about children of aliens would be dicta as the status of such persons was not before the court. Minor rules even if the Court unambiguously stated in Wong Kim Ark over and over, that Mario is wrong. Does’t matter how many courts, scholars, attorney generals, secretaries of state or congessmen say Mario is wrong. All that matters is a case expressly deciding not to address the relevant issue. Is it me, or do the high school dropouts on free republic make more sense than Mario.

  97. Poor nbc, he is having a tough time keeping up.

    So you insist: “‘The section, of course, refers to children born out of the United States; since the children of such persons born within the United States are citizens without the aid of statutory law.’”

    He said “the children of such persons [aliens] born within the United States are citizens without the aid of statutory law.” Hence, it would have been the “common-law” that provided that such children were “citizens.” But Minor told us that there was no “common-law” that so provided. On the contrary, under the “common-law” provided by Minor, children born in a country to “citizen” parents were “citizens” and “natural-born citizens” as opposed to “aliens and foreigners.” The court added that “there have been doubts” whether children born “within the jurisdiction” to alien parents were “citizens.” Minor also analyzed the naturalization acts and did not say that under those acts children born in the U.S. to alien parents were “citizens of the United States.” Hence, if there were doubts both under the “common-law” and statutory law, there could not have been any settled “common-law” or statutory law that provided that children born in the U.S. to alien parents were “citizens,” let alone “natural born Citizens.”

  98. Poor ballantine, he does not like it when the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with him. He calls it dicta.

    You asked: “Is it me, or do the high school dropouts on free republic make more sense than Mario.” The answer is that it is you.

  99. ballantine does not comprehend how it could be that everything that a “citizen of the United States” can do, so can a “natural born Citizen.” That is real hard for him to understand.

  100. nbc and ballantine,

    As ballantine points out we have this from 1790 with respect to the Naturalization Act of 1790: “[t]he case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” See, John C. Rives, Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856: From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress, from their Register of debates.

    Questions:

    1. We know that the English statutes said that children born out of the King’s dominions to English subjects were “natural born subjects.” So, if a “natural born citizen” was the same as a “natural born subject” and a “citizen of the United States” includes a “natural born Citizen” as you, nbc, and your Obot supporters contend, why did the Third Congress take all the trouble to remove “natural born citizen” and replace it with “citizen of the United States,” knowing that Article II said that in the future only a “natural born Citizen” was eligible to be President.

    2. And please do tell me if by changing the language such, did Congress mean to communicate that such children were or were not eligible to be elected President.

    Now, be sure to answer these questions.

  101. So natural born citizen is a subclass of citizen of the united states.

    I thought so. Of course anyone would understand this to be the case.

    Except ..

  102. We do not need the dissenting Judge other than to show that even the dissenting judge understood the ruling.

    Mario remains clueless.

  103. So we have the appealing Government, the dissenting Judge, the majority opinion all agreeing to the same and we have countless references that approve of said interpretation, culminating in more and more courts accepting this.
    And Mario is still ignoring the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling.

    Oh well. Mario has himself… What a happy duo….

  104. Nbc is so terribly confused. He says: “So natural born citizen is a subclass of citizen of the united states. I thought so. Of course anyone would understand this to be the case.”

    If what you say is correct, why did the First Congress call children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizens” parents “natural born citizens” and not just “citizens of the United States?” And then please tell me why the Third Congress removed “natural born citizens” and replaced it with “citizens of the United States?”

  105. nbc,

    Why do you not state for us here two things about Wong Kim Ark: the question presented and the holding of the Court. Please do not answer these two simple questions with a long-winded dissertation about the English common law.

  106. Because the naturalization statute can only make a citizen of the US not a natural born citizen. The reason the 1790 act used the ‘natural born’ reference is because it realized that such citizens were not taken care of by the common law rules and thus required an explicit statute.
    The Congress then used an English statute and copied the ‘natural born’ part, quickly revising it in the 1795 version

  107. Because the naturalization statute can only make a citizen of the US not a natural born citizen. The reason the 1790 act used the ‘natural born’ reference is because it realized that such citizens were not taken care of by the common law rules and thus required an explicit statute.
    The Congress then used an English statute and copied the ‘natural born’ part, quickly revising it in the 1795 version

    See also 8 USC 1401

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    Ouch… So natural born citizens are also citizens of the United States…
    Just as I thought.

  108. The question presented by the Government

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    Simple.

    The Court found that there are two sources for citizenship, birth and naturalization. Since Wong Kim Ark could not be naturalized, the only path to citizenship was via birth. The Court observed that the Constitution uses the term citizen and natural born citizen and observed that the term natural born, the only way to non-naturalized citizenship, remained undefined so its meaning had to be found in common law.

    The court carefully traced the meaning of the term natural born to english common law and observed that anyone born on soil, subject to jurisdiction would be natural born.

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

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    After showing that WKA was indeed born under the jurisdiction of the United States the Court found him to indeed be a citizen of the United States.

    The court also observed that

    This last sentence was relied on by the counsel for the United States as showing that the question whether a person is a citizen of a particular country is to be determined not by the law of that country, but by the principles of international law.

    Rejecting the proposal, as had the lower court done

    But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States; for he referred (p. 245) to the contemporaneous opinions in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, [p661] above cited, in which this rule had been distinctly recognized, and in which he had said (p. 162) that “each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens,” and, in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, he said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, “there are certain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law” [adding, in later editions “or the law of nations”] “as of unquestionable authority,” and stated, as the first of those principles, “Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country.” Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.

    Have you read the appeal briefs yet?

  109. Why do you not state for us here two things about Wong Kim Ark: the question presented and the holding of the Court. Please do not answer these two simple questions with a long-winded dissertation about the English common law.

    Rather, you need to explain why the long winded discussion of the English common law is dicta rather than the ratio decidendi. You cannot make any such argument as either you don’t understand these issues or realize you are wrong. Amusingly, you claim Minor is somehow precedent on the status of children of aliens when of course the court says such issue was unnecessary for the court to address. Again, everyone who matters understand I am right and you are wrong. Has to suck when no one in history agrees with you.

  110. Poor ballantine, he has to rely upon the dissent in Wong Kim Ark to try to convince us what the majority’s holding said.

    Rather you are the only idiot who has ever argued the dissent of a Supreme court opinion didn’t underwstand what the majority said. Do you not know that the majority reads the dissent before it is published as if often comment on it. Here the dissent actually quotes the majority. Oh, that’s right. You didn’t clerk and know nothing about how courts work. So the dissent and all subsequent case law says you are wrong. All modern scholars say you ar wrong. As we have pointed out, pretty much all legal authority in the past 220 years say you are wrong. Everyone is wrong and you are right. Of course, nothing counts other than a case that expressly declined to address the status of children of aliens and anything it did say would have been dicta. New Jersey really needs to make their bar exam harder.

  111. To remind Mario again of the Ms Crandall Case

    The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths accompanied them in the formation of the great compound commonwealth which ensued, They became citizens of the latter without ceasing to be citizens of the former and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a State became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity ( Rawle on the Constitution 86) It is observable that Mr Rawle makes no exception to his statement that every person born within the United States is a citizen

    Cheers my friend.

  112. ballantine does not comprehend how it could be that everything that a “citizen of the United States” can do, so can a “natural born Citizen.” That is real hard for him to understand.

    Sorry, the Framers and Congress understood how to read and write English. No one would say “naturalized citizen” when they meant “natural born and naturalized citizsens.” Under your logic Congress could never pass a law regarding only naturalized citizens as apparently everytime they used such term they meant to include natural born as well. No high school drop out on free republic even tries to repeat this argument as it is too stupid even for them. In fact, such might be the dumbest argument I have seen on the internet. I have cited many authorities stating that you are wrong. You cannot cite a single authority in history saying you are right. What kind of person makes up a definition that he cannot show a single person in history agrees with? What kind of persons insists on an interpretation of dicta is precedent when no one in history thinks such language is dicta. Clearly, a very pathetic. Again, every court and scholar looking at the issue has laughed at such arguments.

  113. Again, every court and scholar looking at the issue has laughed at such arguments.

    And what fun we are having with Mario…

  114. Questions:

    1. We know that the English statutes said that children born out of the King’s dominions to English subjects were “natural born subjects.” So, if a “natural born citizen” was the same as a “natural born subject” and a “citizen of the United States” includes a “natural born Citizen” as you, nbc, and your Obot supporters contend, why did the Third Congress take all the trouble to remove “natural born citizen” and replace it with “citizen of the United States,” knowing that Article II said that in the future only a “natural born Citizen” was eligible to be President.

    2. And please do tell me if by changing the language such, did Congress mean to communicate that such children were or were not eligible to be elected President.

    Now, be sure to answer these questions.

    Sorry, your questions don’t make sense. Obviously, both the United States and England provided that some foreign born would have the right of the natural born. Of course, statutory natural born subjects were not the same as the common law subjects as statutory subjects could not hold office. Sound familiare. The 1790 statute claerly was tracking the English rule There is no evidence of why they changed the language and no evidence that anyone agreed with your definition of “citizen of the United State.” The 1795 statute still referred to “citizens of the United States” when it meant to include “natural born citizens” with respect to foreign born children of citizens. Again, what kind of person insists on a definition that no one in history has every agreed with and, as I have pointed out, was clearly rejected by our courts and legal authorities.

  115. nbc,

    In answering my question as to why the Third Congress removed “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States,” you said: “Because the naturalization statute can only make a citizen of the US not a natural born citizen.”

    So, when Congress realized it needed to convey that the person was naturalized and not “natural born,” it removed the status of “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States.” And since it was only a naturalization statute, a “citizen of the United States” surely could not include a “natural born Citizen,” for if that were the case it would have served no purpose for Congress to change the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen of the United States.” So, when Congress wanted to show that a child born out of the United States was not a “natural born Citizen,” it called the child a “citizen of the United States.”

    Now let’s fast forward to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment which apply to children born in the United States. Even though these children were born in the United States, Congress also used the clause “citizen of the United States” in these laws. It did not use “natural born Citizen.” Let us remember that you say that the “natural born Citizens” are included within the “citizens of the United States.” Why would Congress use just “citizen of the United States” in these laws when it could also have used “natural born Citizen” to distinguish between who of the “citizens of the United States” were “natural born Citizens” and who were “citizens of the United States?” After all, as you concede, when the Third Congress wanted to convey that someone was naturalized, it called him or her a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Without Congress telling us who are the “natural born Citizens” like it did in the 1790 law and who are just the “citizens of the United States” like it did in the 1795 Act, how are we to know when Congress said “citizen of the United States” in the Civil Rights Act and in the Fourteenth Amendment who among them is a “natural born Citizen” and who is just a “citizen of the United States?” Did Congress actually expect us to use some other law to understand what it wrote in these laws? Why would Congress write laws that are not self-defining and need some other law to be understand? Why did Congress since the 1790 Naturalization Act never again use the clause “natural born Citizen” in any of its laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment?

  116. Did Congress actually expect us to use some other law to understand what it wrote in these laws?

    You still ignore the simple logic

    Citizen of the United States = Natural-Born and Naturalized

    When one becomes a citizen of the US through a naturalization act, one of course becomes a naturalized citizen, not a natural born one.

    Naturalization through statute is making an alien a citizen of the United States, while birth through common law is making one born on soil a natural born citizen.

    I am sure that most people could comprehend the simple logic.

    Why did Congress since the 1790 Naturalization Act never again use the clause “natural born Citizen” in any of its laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Because it cannot make a citizen of the United States a natural born through statute. Geez Mario… Have you been asleep again?

  117. 301.2 Definitions of national of the United States and citizen of the United States. The term national of the United States means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States whether or not he is a citizen of the United State. The term citizen of the United States means a person who through birth or naturalization has acquired citizenship of the United States and has not lost that status

    Simple

  118. Mario,

    If you had been granted pro hac vice status in Vermont, would you be required to inform the court about your failed complaint in New Jersey?

  119. So, when Congress realized it needed to convey that the person was naturalized and not “natural born,” it removed the status of “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States.” And since it was only a naturalization statute, a “citizen of the United States” surely could not include a “natural born Citizen,” for if that were the case it would have served no purpose for Congress to change the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen of the United States.” So, when Congress wanted to show that a child born out of the United States was not a “natural born Citizen,” it called the child a “citizen of the United States.”

    Again, just making things up. Naturalized citizens are citizens of the United States so it makes perfect sense. Such Congress said children of “citizens of the United States” were citizens and clearly meant both natural born and naturalized. You can’t say “citizen of the United States” in a statute means naturalized citizen when you want and the same term, in the same statute, means both naturalized and natural born. Wait. I forgot you were an idiot. Again, what kind of person claims a term means something no one in history has ever said it means. An idiot, I guess.

    Now let’s fast forward to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment which apply to children born in the United States. Even though these children were born in the United States, Congress also used the clause “citizen of the United States” in these laws

    And simply restates the two types of citizens of the United States which they said existed prior to the 14th Amendment. How about the chairmen of each judiciary committee’s:

    “This provision [the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act] is simply declaratory of what the law now is….. The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

    “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    They didn’t get the memo. How about the author of the 14th Amendment language on pre-existing law:

    “Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard (author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

    As Justice Gary made clear, they merely restated the same common law rule. So sad you never read what Congress said.

  120. I love to see ballantine and nbc attempt to answer questions when they cannot simply cut and paste their tripe.

    It is called citing authority. It is what lawyers actually do. At least ones who don’t have their cases laughed out of court. You see, we can cite authority after authority saying you are wrong. You cannot cite anything but your own opinion. How embarrassing it must be that everything you say is countered with authority after authority saying you are wrong. Court after court, scholar after scholar. I simply cannot understand anyone saying things he cannot find anyone in history to support.

  121. t is called citing authority. It is what lawyers actually do.

    Perhaps Mario, in his ‘legal career’ has not had to file many citations to law?
    Since court cases in our nation are based on precedent, it is important that when reaching a conclusion of making an assertion, one can cite relevant material.

    Now I understand that Mario may not be familiar with concepts like ratio decidendi and believes that the holding is all that matters.

    These are however basic law concepts.

    On the other hand, claiming that Minor ruled children born to alien parents to be aliens, could not be supported by any citation.

    Reading comprehension is the first step which takes as input the ruling and which translates it into steps that led the court to its conclusion. This is non-trivial and when one merely relies on the holding, one may miss the most important aspects of why they reached the conclusion.

    Once you have understood the relevant steps and arguments raised, one can take the next step and determine to what extent the case supports one’s claims.

    But it does require one to read the case, and if possible the briefs and the lower court ruling.

    I have suggested to Mario that this would be a good place to start.

  122. As Justice Gary made clear, they merely restated the same common law rule. So sad you never read what Congress said.

    Or what Justice Gray said? I am still not convinced that Mario has read the case, and understood it properly.

  123. Most likely… But the complaint raises some ‘interesting’ arguments and I am not sure any lawyer would be willing to be responsible for representing the plaintiff here.

  124. Bouvier Law Dictionary

    In American Law; One who under constitution and laws of the United States has a right to vote for representatives in congress and other public officers and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. Any white person born in the United States, or naturalized person born out of the same who has not lost his right as such men women and children

    2 Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office, naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States except the offices of president and vice president.

Comments are closed.