Sen. Fred Thompson Kicks Birther Butt!!! (Meanwhile, Apuzzo Squirms)

If You Get Knocked Out And Can’t Hear the Ten Count, Do You Still Lose???

Former Republican Senator Fred Thompson kicked serious Birther Butt in this piece concerning the eligibility of Marco Rubio, and others, for the presidency. His Internet Article  can be found here:

http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

Here is an excerpt:

Where the issue has been squarely before a court, the result has been otherwise. In Lynch v Clark, decided in 1844, the issue was the right to inherit. The New York court held that the child, born in the U.S. of British subjects, could inherit because she was a NBC. In 1898 the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark held the same way. Those cases are still good law today. These courts relied upon , in part, the English common law in deriving the intent of the Founders and pointed out that in England being born on English soil was sufficient for citizenship. The statements of James Madison, for one, make it clear that the Founders had no intention of deviating from the common law in this regard. This is further supported by official opinions of our nation’s Attorney Generals going back several years.

Finally, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which states, in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Reading this together with Article 2 would indicate that the additional “natural born” requirement of Article 2 for a citizen to be eligible to be president meant that being “naturalized” would not suffice. He must be born here.

In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”

While the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential candidate’s eligibility as a NBC, it is inconceivable that the Court would depose a president who was born on American soil. Some people love to excite and stir us up but we have an election coming up, folks. May I suggest that we resist the temptation to chase every rabbit that comes down the trail and focus, instead, on that?

Meanwhile, Apuzzo is going nuts because Thompson appears to be ignoring him, as can be seen in these tidbits from ObamaReleaseYourRecords:

Mr. Thompson,

I would appreciate it if you would release my comment from moderation.”

My second comment is also still in moderation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 31, 2012
_________________________________________

I posted my response to Mr. Thompson yesterday which he did not release from moderation. My response contained nothing but my legal argument on the question of whether Marco Rubio and Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal are “natural born citizens.” I followed up with an inquiry as to why he did not release my comment from moderation. He also did not release that second comment. Today, I see that my two comments have been totally erased from Mr. Thompson’s blog.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 1, 2012

Here is a link to Putative Attorney Apuzzo’s response:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/atty-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred.html

More on this later.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

30 responses to “Sen. Fred Thompson Kicks Birther Butt!!! (Meanwhile, Apuzzo Squirms)

  • David Farrar

    Thanks for the head up on the potential disappearance of posts on the Fed Tjhomson’s blog. I “PRINT.SCREEN” my two posts below:

    “Somebody should tell Mr. Fred Thomson we won the American Revolutionary War. We are no longer natural born subjects to a sovereign, but natural born CITIZENS in a Constitutional Republic.

    English common law doesn’t mention the word “citizen(s).” Contrary to Mr. Jefferson’s declaration, English common law most definitely did not see all men created equal. And certainly, English common law would never allow mere common natural born subjects access to the ruling class.

    But through a Declaration of Independence, a Revolutionary war, and finally, a Constitution, we are no longer natural born subjects, but natural born Citizens, all equally born, all with access to the ruling class, ordained by self-evident, inalienable natural rights.”

    * * *

    “These comments are overall astounding. All are so certain of the definition of “natural born citizen”, which in fact is not defined in the Constitution. Byron York has also addressed this question and he and Fred Thompson have the law of their side. Marco Rubio is eigible to be President”….by Daryn Kent-Duncan

    My Reply to Daryn Kent-Duncan

    @ Daryn Kent-Duncan

    “Art. II, §1, cl. 5 “natural” born Citizen is perfectly defined in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, that ordained our laws would be based on the self-evident fact that all men are created equal. Allowing Sen. Rubio access to the ruling class* without the inheritance of his US Citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of his US Citizen father, is unequal, illegal and unconstitutional.

    “The plenary authority of government cannot create the ruling class. Only the consent of the governed can create their own ruling class.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    *Art. II, §1, cl. 5: the qualifications of the President and Vice-President of the United States i.e. the ruling class.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      I made a comment there, too. it is still in moderation.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    • Slartibartfast

      You don’t even realize how un-American your ideas are, do you David? I hope you someday get your day in court–so you can be sanctioned for this frivolous crap.

      • David Farrar

        I will be again challenging the placement of Barack Obama’s name on the Georgia general ballot after the DNC convention. There is nothing frivolous about Art. II, §1, cl. 5 as it sets the criteria of the ruling class.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

    • Monkey Boy

      David Farrar’s bat droppings:

      English common law would never allow mere common natural born subjects access to the ruling class.

      Hmmm. I wonder which class Oliver Cromwell came from? Not impoverished, certainly, but to my knowledge, not nobility. And Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill?

      I really don’t believe that David is as ignorant and uneducated as he poses–I think that he just plays to low-information types.

      But through a Declaration of Independence, a Revolutionary war, and finally, a Constitution, we are no longer natural born subjects, but natural born Citizens, all equally born, all with access to the ruling class, ordained by self-evident, inalienable natural rights

      But, David–according to the excretions of you, Mario Putz and your cretin neo-Confederate associates, we melanin rich individuals were not equal at the founding, and could not be made equal by a constitutional amendment (13th & 14th). Are you now saying that a 14th amendment citizen has access to the ruling class and can be President? Be careful, you may have more than Darren Huff to be concerned about–like certain hooded individuals expressing their first-amendment rights by igniting a revered Christian symbol in front of your house.

      By the way, David, I never hear you express support for the remainder of de Vattel’s theories of law and citizenship; if it is
      true that the Constitutional Convention genuflected to his genius, commoners–like you and me–are not allowed access to firearms. Of course, we all know that they agreed with his idea of a monarchial executive, but were temporarily stymied by plebeian opposition. So, they waited for Obama to assume the mantle and sceptre.

      • David Farrar

        I am saying, as Minor did, that an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born US Citizen receives US citizenship naturally under the cloak of allegiance of the father and without the need of being subject to the jurisdiction (positive law). Whereas a first sentence 14th Amendment US born citizen is subject to the jurisdiction i.e. the 14th Amendment for its citizenship.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Monkey Boy

          Quit lying! Everybody posting here KNOWS what Minor said, and it ain’t what you claim, so that word salad is for nought.

          I see that you have adopted Mario Putz’ delusion that mere gassiness is a suitable substitute for intellect.

          Take heed to what my Grandmother used to say: “When you act like a fool, people don’t know that you are acting.”

      • Monkey Boy

        David rather ineptly avoids answering my queries with a meaningless word salad, I’ll repeat them:

        (a) What is the position of the founders (and you) on Vattel’s espousal of a monarchy? On forbidding arms access to commoners? On the establishment of a single state religion? Have I, a mere 14th amendment citizen, failed to comprehend their endorsement of those St. Vattel’ positions due to a congentital defect? We untermenchen await your response for our edification.

        (b) Haven’t every British Prime Minister (i.e., exemplar of the ruling class) been a commoner, natural-born subject since the Cromwellian revolution (ca. 1620)?

        (c) Are “14th amendment citizens” eligible to join the “ruling” class? Herman Cain? Alan West? Lloyd Marcus?

        _________________________________________

        I wonder do you really think about your verbal diarrhea before you spew? I would be ashamed for people to make the judgement that I am an idiot–no matter the monetary compensation.

  • Monkey Boy

    More on David Fatbut’s lies and lunacies:

    English common law doesn’t mention the word “citizen(s).

    Numerous courts have mentioned the word “citizen(s)” and the phrase “natural-born citizen” as equivalents to “subject(s)” and to “natural-born subject”.

  • EllenHancock

    David Farrar is right about the importance of the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration crushes his case. To be sure, citizens are different from subjects—who could disagree? But the question is are they different where the Natural Born quality is concerned? Surely, if the writers of the Constitution had meant to make a switch from the old, well-known jus soli to the new jus sanguinus, they would have told us. Well, they didn’t.

    Once again, citizens and subjects ARE different, but they are not different in every way, and there is no evidence that they are different where the Natural Born quality is concerned.

    More importantly, the Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” It is both sensible and loyal of us to hold that they really believed that, unless there was evidence to the contrary. There is some evidence that the did not believe it were slaves and Indians were concerned.

    BUT there is no good evidence that they did not believe that where the Us-born children of foreigners were concerned. They never said anything like: “The US-born children of foreigners are security risks.” Or “The US-born children of foreigners should be treated differently than the US-born children of citizens.” Unless they had said such a thing, we should not assume that they believed it.

    So, David Farrar, the Declaration of Independence is against you. As, of course, is the Constitution. Fred Thompson and Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, are right, and David Farrar is wrong.

    • David Farrar

      Equating English common law “natural born subject,” or more specifically, “aliens in amity” having offspring under the liege of the sovereign, becoming themselves “natural born subjects and post Revolutionary War Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born US Citizens, is simply incorrect. As I point out above: “natural born subjects” had no access to the English Crown, which to this day is based on paternal jus sanguinis.

      For a more accurate comparison to a common law natural born subject would be a naturalized US citizen at birth, without access to the ruling class i.e. the presidency or vice-presidency of the United States.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • David Farrar

        Ellen Hancock,

        As I stated above: Allowing Sen. Rubio access to the ruling class without the inheritance of his US Citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of his US Citizen father, is unequal, illegal and unconstitutional.

        The plenary authority of government cannot create the ruling class. Only the consent of the governed can create their own ruling class.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • EllenHancock

          Sure, citizens and subjects are different. But they are not different in every way. Citizens put their pants on one leg at a time. Subjects put their pants on one leg at a time.

          So, what is the EVIDENCE that the writers of the US Constitution intended that NB Citizens required citizen parents while NB Subjects did not require subject parents?

          Surely if they had intended to make such a change, they would have told us.

          Not only did they not tell us, but they did not say that they were relying on Vattel (who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers).

          But they did tell us something that DIFFERS from the two-parent concept. The told us that all men were created equal. They may not have believed that that was actually true, but it is good in principle to hold that they believed it, unless they actually told us something in contradiction to the principle.

          And they did not tell us that they held that the US-born children of foreigners were of a lower category than the US-born children of US citizens, that these US-born people were to be distrusted. The writers said nothing about it. There is nothing in there about the children of foreigners, nor is there in any articles.

          Sure, the framers did not want a NON citizen to be president. That is taken care of by the word CITIZEN in Natural Born Citizen.

          But they did not go any further than that. They did not say that the US born children of foreigners would not be citizens, and they did not say that they should be treated differently than the US-born children of US citizens.

          And we know that in 1803, the constitutional scholar Tucker was using the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth, not the parents.

          So, really, if the framers had actually intended to adopt the two-parent standard, they confused the experts at the time, who had assumed that they got their meaning from the common law. (Which, of course, they did.)

          It is absurd to believe that the writers of the Constitution would have made such a mistake, to mean two citizen parents but use a term that was commonly used to refer to the place of birth. If they had really, truly wanted to require two citizen parents, they would have said so somewhere—either in the document itself or in letters or articles. And there is no such information.

          Senator Thompson makes a somewhat different point. He is arguing for strict construction, although he does not mention the term.

          And a key principle of strict construction is: “If the law does not forbid it, it is allowed.” Well, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that forbids the US born children of foreigners from becoming president. That Thompson says is sufficient. It is not allowed under strict construction (even though liberals have done it, it is not right under strict construction) to argue from a theory—“the writers of the US Constitution were afraid of foreigners so they must have….” This determination from mere speculation is not allowed under Strict Construction, and with good reason.

          That, Thompson says is sufficient. And I agree.

          But there is more. There is the historical evidence that the writers of the Constitution used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law, which is the way that Tucker used it in 1803.

          There is no evidence that they used it the way that Vattel did, and Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers. And, worse, his words “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear in any English language translation of his work until TEN years after the Constitution was in effect.

          So, the notion that they got the two-parent principle from Vattel has very little to go for it. Sure, SOME of the framers spoke French, and some had read Vattel. But when John Jay wrote to Washington about the importance of the commander in chief being an NBC, Jay did not know that Washington spoke French (he probably didn’t) and he did not know that Washington had read Vattel. Washington may have read it at the time, but Jay could not have known it.

          So when Jay used the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was he referring to Vattel? Of course not. He was referring to the common use of the term NATURAL BORN, which as a lawyer he was familiar with from the common law. And in the common law it referred to the place of birth.

          Unless Jay had said “I mean the Vattel meaning” or “I mean with two citizen parents”–what he was referring to was the simple meaning that was common at the time, the common law meaning, the one that refers to the place of birth and not to the parents.

          Thompson implies also about the consequences of assuming that the NBC clause refers to the parents. He does not give details, but they would be profound:

          Currently most Americans are born in the USA of US parents. But there was a time when MILLIONS upon millions of us were born in the USA of foreign parents. These people were perfectly loyal and fought for America in two world wars, and the idea that they were less loyal than the children of US citizens is historically inaccurate.

          That being the case, it is even more important to demand proof of the allegation that the writers of the US Constitution thought that they would be less loyal. And there is no such proof.

          And BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution about dual citizen status either, and we have had at least four presidents who were dual citizens at one time in their lives or actually when they were president, and they were perfectly loyal.

      • Monkey Boy

        Candidate Obama in 2008: “Republicans take pride in being ignorant!”

        As I point out above: “natural born subjects” had no access to the English Crown, which to this day is based on paternal jus sanguinis.

        David again displays his abject ignorance, lack of education, and inability to learn from observing.” Wm. Shockley would declare him an honorary “14th amendment citizen.”

        The current heir to the British throne, Charles, Prince of Wales, derives his title from the distaff side of his parentage.

        And, to be accurate, the British monarch is not a “ruler,” but a ceremonial figure. The Queen (get that, David? the QUEEN) cannot raise or lower taxes, cannot impose or end conscription and cannot go to war. Hmmm, not much clout for this “ruling class.”

      • linda

        Riiggghhhttt…..I am sure you have been so concerned about the citizenship of all past presidents, that you have amassed a huge collection of their birth certificates and that of their parents. Care to share?

  • Monkey Boy

    Oh, where is David Farrar–there are so many questions to be answered, hours to go before I weep at his sheer brilliance.

    Does he like p***yboy, Mark Gillar, cravenly run away upon confrontation?

    • Northland10

      Oh, where is David Farrar–there are so many questions to be answered, hours to go before I weep at his sheer brilliance.

      The birthers are not lovely, but dark, not deep.
      for their promises they make are not to keep.
      So hours you must go before you weep
      So hours you must go before you weep

      (from “How to insult poetry”, by Northland10)

  • Monkey Boy

    I see that prolixious David, like his hero, Mario Putz, never fails avoid difficult questions by attempting a deflection with “worthless foam from the mouth” , so I am forced to repeat my queries yet again:

    (a)Did the founding fathers follow de Vattel’s recommendations concerning monarchial government? Did they establish a single state-sponsored religion? Did they restrict access to arms like de Vattel advocated? No? So why would they adopt and alien (to them) definition of natural-born citizen?

    When you reply cogently to those, I have some more and follow-ups.

    • Monkey Boy

      should be …an alien…

    • EllenHancock

      Well said.

      And the phrase Natural Born Citizen did not even appear in an English language translation until ten years after the Constitution. So, when people such as John Jay used the phrase, they could not know that the people they wrote to had read Vattel or translated his word “indignes” as “natural born citizen.”

      Jay was, of course, a lawyer and a justice, so when he used the term Natural Born, he was using it the way that it was used in the common law.

      That would have been natural to him. More importantly, it would have been inconceivable that he used the term Natural Born Citizen unless he knew that the person he wrote to had read Vattel (and he couldn’t know that) and that that person had translated Vattel’s “indignes” as “Natural Born Citizen.” He would have had to have said: “I mean as in Vattel” or “I mean with two citizen parents,” and he did NOT say anything like that.

      Absurd, isn’t it?

      • RoadScholar

        I am your fan for a day.

      • davidfarrar

        At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone.

        The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty that can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs at birth.

        de Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born Citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          davidfarrar

          August 7th, 2012 at 10:08 am
          At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone.

          And you base that on what? Every empirical measure says exactly the opposite. All this statement proves is that you are a shameless liar.

          The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty that can never be claimed by any foreign political power.

          They placed a clause in the Constitution to provide a check against foreign-born royalty trying to take over the country (a common practice at the time). By no means were they trying to contradict self-evident truths like “all men are created equal”. This is just more effluvia pulled from your rear end.

          The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs at birth.

          Right, the government who has jurisdiction over the parents at birth—exactly what the Constitution says (in the 14th Amendment). Standard jus soli established in Calvin’s case about four centuries ago and repeatedly confirmed since.

          de Vattel by including the parents

          Vattel referred to the French parens which was a general term for ancestors not a specific term for parents. And if Vattel’s word is law, when are you and the other birthers going to turn in your guns? After all, Vattel clearly says that you have no right to own guns.

          and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born Citizen ought to lie,

          Even by Vattel’s definition, President Obama, born on the soil and the descendant of a long line of United States citizens (probably including the child of the first documented US slave, John Punch—born free because he followed the status of his free mother, I might add) is an indigenous citizen (since Vattel never mentioned the term “natural born”), so even if you managed to get the courts to buy your ridiculous argument, you would still lose (but we all knew that even before you complete lack of competence was demonstrated by your epic loss to an empty chair.

          as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil,

          Not according to how Vattel would have understood it—not unless he had as poor a grasp of the French language at the time as birthers seem to…

          and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

          It is simply not possible that the term “natural born citizen” was anything but analogous to “natural born subject” in John Jay’s mind. Since the is no documented definition of the term conforming to your assertions that predates the letter, if he was referring to anything but the definition that had been established two centuries earlier and was universally understood, he would have defined it—most certainly the Founders would have defined it in the Constitution, as they did terms like “treason” which they didn’t use the accepted definition.

          Your shameful lies in service to your blind hatred and bigotry against President Obama are a disgrace to this country and all it stands for.

  • Monkey Boy

    I guess wimpy David has made another seagull post (poop on everything and fly off) instead of defending his nonsense bleating.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: