The “Two Citizen Parents” Requirement??? Oh Yeah, The Birthers Built That!!!

Aha! The Birthers Were Privy To Secret Information After All!

Well, I am not above ripping off the “You Didn’t Build That-Yes I Did Too Build That” partisan squabble theme.  Sooo, lets look at the Imaginary Law that the Birthers built, all by themselves.  Now we could do this by reading Wong Kim Ark (1998) and then Ankeny (2009) and so forth and so on, and prove the Birthers entire theory is not based in REAL law, and thus by that process infer that their theory is totally manufactured.

But it would be far more fun to take the Birthers’ own thought processes and examine how they go astray from their end. Thankfully, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  is on retainer with the Birther Dreamwerks, so we won’t have to look far. Plus,  he is an Article II Constitutional specialist on this stuff, in much the same way as Lem Putt is a specialist in his chosen field. (see Note 2, below).

Here is what I found at Apuzzo’s blog, and with this one six-sentence  paragraph we can see where the Birthers derive their weird beliefs and why judges equip their bailiffs with butterfly nets whenever the Birthers come to visit:

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Here is a link, in case you want to read the whole thing:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/08/barack-obama-ballot-challenge.html

Now, let’s examine this sentence by sentence to see how Apuzzo ending up constructing the ramshackle hovel of his theory.

Sentence 1: The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Well, this is true. No problem so far.

Sentence 2: It [14th Amendment] does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”

Whoops! @#%!!&**#. Mario just whacked the crap out  his thumb with the hammer. Apuzzo is making a conclusion here. This was a FALSE assumption on his part. Because when you refer to the SCOTUS case, Wong Kim Ark (1898), section V., you find this:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

From sections II and III of the Wong Kim Ark decision, we know that “fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion” was also known as NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP:

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.

Further down in section III, we find this put even more succinctly:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

So Mario Apuzzo Esq. is simply, and badly, wrong. By the clear holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court, the 14th Amendment DID INDEED give those born within the country, and not subject to the two exceptions, “the status of a “natural born Citizen.” This fundamental mistake is where the Birthers first start to go off course.

Sentence 3: When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.

This is true. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1868.

Sentence 4: Hence, they surely did not write the clause [natural born citizen] into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also true, because the Constitution came first by about 80 years.  But, that does not mean that the opposite is also true.  In fact, it is very possible for the 14th Amendment coming 80 years later to  “have in mind a citizenship standard that is contained in the Constitution.”  Repeating again the introduction to section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Did you get that Mario??? Both the 14th Amendment, and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866, affirmed the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion. This was the common law on natural born citizenship. For, as is stated further down in Section V, and cited with approval:

In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.

2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394.

and here is more from section V, which proves the 14th Amendment was declaratory of pre-existing law, that is – the common law relating to natural born citizenship, [cites omitted]:

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.

And what was that common law they were referring to? One more time for the slow:

[E]very 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.

So no, Article II of the Constitution did not contemplate the 14th Amendment, but the 14th Amendment sure contemplated the Article II common law on natural born citizenship.

Sentence 5: And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Very true. The 14th Amendment did NOT repeal or amend the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. That is because the 14th Amendment actually AFFIRMED the Article II natural born Citizen. From the bottom of section V of Wong Kim Ark:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory. . .

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject. . .

Sentence 6: Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

No they don’t. For persons born within the United States, they are the same thing. Which is what court after court keeps telling the Birthers. Those courts either cite the same things from Wong Kim Ark, that I have, or they simply cite the reasoning in the Ankeny decision, which in turn is based on WKA, as persuasive.

You see, the courts aren’t looking to play devious little word games which back up their personal desires. They are just courts, and judges, who read the law and try in an honest fashion to figure out what it means. In their simple and naive fashion,  the judges and courts think that:

1. The common law concept that persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

and:

2. The 14th Amendment provision bestowing citizenship on persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

are:

3. Talking about the same group of people – native born citizens, or citizens at birth, or natural born citizens.

They think this because the same requirements are met by both groups, to wit:. . . born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers. In fact, for this NOT to be true, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. would have to amend his 5th sentence above to read the reverse of what it does:

The Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Because if 14th Amendment didn’t repeal or amend the previous common law, then those  born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers are the same people, no matter which law you use. In effect, Apuzzo’s own assumptions and reasoning destroys his own argument.

This has been a step by step analysis of how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ended up in legal La La Land.  This is how he ends up believing Emerich de Vattel sets the standard for natural born citizenship. This is how Apuzzo latches on the the two citizen parents stuff, because that notion is nowhere to be found in the 14th Amendment. It isn’t found in the Constitution either, but since the term isn’t defined there, it is easier to play games with. But first, Apuzzo has to get rid of the pesky 14th Amendment or his other tenets  can go nowhere.

But, as you can see above,  Apuzzo went astray in his reasoning early on. And it is obvious to the non-Birther community. This is why the Birther mantra, “there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen” keeps getting bounced out of courtrooms across the nation.  This is why the Apuzzites are getting assessed court costs, and  having their arguments called frivolous, and without merit.

Apuzzo can not even maintain internal consistency in his own argument. Sooo, with the image above in mind, people should be careful about entering his sanctuary. You might fall in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I found this image (An outhouse at Goat Peak, 6,305 ft (1,922 m) above sea level) at Wiki, which has many interesting things to say about Outhouses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhouse

Note 2. Lem Putt, The Specialist.  My father had a copy of this book.  Here is a online link to the short 1929 book:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/specialist.html

Note 3.  Privy. For ESL’s, this word has two meanings:

1. outhouse: a small outbuilding with a bench having holes through which a user can defecate

2. privy(p): (followed by `to’) informed about something secret or not generally known; “privy to the details of the conspiracy”

Reader hklrnaa47 has provided this additional information about the etymology of these two definitions in the comments below. I am updating this note to add this. Thank You hklrnaa47!!!

Hi Squeeks. Your 2 part definition of the word ‘privy’ doesn’t actually explain how the same word gained those 2 definitions.

In fact ‘privy’ is a very old word having to do with toilet and the location of emptying ones bowels. Once upon a time, Kings, being special people and all, were provided with special servants, called ‘Privy Counselors’ whose job it was, quite literally, to wipe the Kings ass.

As you can imagine, someone entrusted with this rather intimate access to the Kings person had to be completely trustworthy and dependable. They would grow, over time, to do more than just help with the Kings movements, they would be entrusted with secrets of all kinds.

Thus definition number two.

For the Image Easter Egg. Another word play. Going over the edge is an idiom which means to go crazy. However, the word “going” or “go” (which also means to use the restroom) combined with a privy perched on the edge of a cliff,  and presumably emptying  out over said edge, means something else entirely.

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

84 responses to “The “Two Citizen Parents” Requirement??? Oh Yeah, The Birthers Built That!!!

  • Dave B.

    But Squeeky, you illustrated your story about a two-citizen theory with a one-citizen privy.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Dave B:

      Well, believe it or not, the first image I had WAS a two seater. Let me edit this comment and I will show you what I had, and the Easter Egg:

      The Easter Egg was “A Little Deuce Coop.” But I like the other image better, because it was wired up, and sitting on the edge of a cliff.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Dave B.

        Well you done good. Hey, did you ever hear the old Utah Phillips story about the job he had working for the Rural Electrification down in the Navaho country, running lights for all the outhouses? Said he was one of the first people to wire a head for a reservation.

  • Monkey Boy

    Squeeky

    Are birthers outhouse rats?

  • hklrnaa47

    Hi Squeeks. Your 2 part definition of the word ‘privy’ doesn’t actually explain how the same word gained those 2 definitions.

    In fact ‘privy’ is a very old word having to do with toilet and the location of emptying ones bowels. Once upon a time, Kings, being special people and all, were provided with special servants, called ‘Privy Counselors’ whose job it was, quite literally, to wipe the Kings ass.

    As you can imagine, someone entrusted with this rather intimate access to the Kings person had to be completely trustworthy and dependable. They would grow, over time, to do more than just help with the Kings movements, they would be entrusted with secrets of all kinds.

    Thus definition number two.

  • realist

    Well done. It will, of course, fall on deaf ears to birthers, as they only want to believe what their birther heroes state, without regard to history or the constitution or legal precedent.

    It’s amazing that 6 birther “lawyers” are correct and all of history is wrong, the constitution is wrong, supreme court precedent is wrong, the courts who continually tell birthers they area wrong are wrong, not one case has been won on even one point, yet… they continue to BELIEVE!!

    It truly boggles the mind.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Hi Realist!!!

      This is all foretold in the Birther Bible, 2nd Book of Judges, 2:5-11

      5. Perhaps it wouldst be a wise thing for us Birthers to haveth ready made excuses near at hand, to explaineth away these defeats, and the ones yet to cometh.
      6. Therefore, let it be said, when we meet with defeat in the Courts of the Law, that the Judges thereof are but exchanging false decisions for gold and favors.
      7. Or, let it be said, that the Judges are but minions of the Usurper, and thus provide false decisions out of loyalty unto him.
      8. Shouldst the Judge be of a group opposed to the Usurper, let it be said that he has been threatened for his life, or that unknown persons have graven images of him in compromising positions of adultery, which they doth dangle over his head.
      9. Also might we blame our defeats on our Advocates, saying that they doth secretly labor on behalf of the Usurper, or are not truly wise in the ways of the Law, having learned their craft at long distances from the places of teaching.
      10. Nor shouldst we stoppeth with these alone.
      11. Let our explanations be called Legion, for from these signs and omens, great will be our needs.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    So what happens to your theory if the first sentence to the 14th Amendment is repealed?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David says: “So what happens to your theory if the first sentence to the 14th Amendment is repealed?”

      Actually nothing changes David, it was just codifying what was always understood.

      The Fourteenth Amendment initially contained no definition of citizenship. Senator Howard of Michigan proposed to insert the definition that became the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment:

      “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”

      • David Farrar

        Thank you, Jim.

        I assume you also know then that Sen. Howard went on to exclude foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

        He did not say, “foreigners or aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • David Farrar

        Jim,

        Another question: What ‘natural law’ grants citizenship by jus soli alone?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • G

          Well, that sounds like a trick question and one that cannot be honestly answered, as “natural law” is just a fictional construct by you people. It may get mentioned in papers, but it doesn’t really exist, as per what the term would imply.

          Citizenship is a matter of man-made constructs of nationality. The only borders in nature are physical barriers, such as mountains, large bodies of water, etc.

        • Jim

          David: What “natural law” treats people different just because their skin color is different?

    • Dave B.

      David, just so we can all rest easy, you don’t keep medical books out there, do you?

  • Reality Check

    So Maryland Judge Stansfield joins the growing list of judges Mario Apuzzo says is wrong? There must be two dozen on that list by now. Of course Mario is 0 for 8 in various courts all by himself.

  • David Farrar

    G

    But the term “natural law” isn’t used by me in this statement. It’s Senator Howard of Michigan’s statement:

    “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      David “out of breath”,

      Just how dumb are you? Senator Howard said that citizenship is jus soli according to natural law—so he certainly believed it was true. This destroys your entire argument here from the get go. Additionally in the construction: “foreigners, aliens, who belong…” the term “aliens” is a parenthetical clause clarifying the term “foreigners”, NOT an element in a list—you can tell that because the sentence doesn’t work as a list and the two words, in any case, are synonyms. Furthermore, the fact that he said the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of existing law completely invalidates your argument since you are claiming that it added a class of citizen that didn’t exist before. It is very sad that you choose to be dishonest and willfully ignorant, although at this point more evidence that birthers lack integrity is hardly surprising…

      • David Farrar

        You are as welcome to your delusions as I am to mine.

        Nevertheless, I will try and address your points. Howard said: “…every person born within the limits, within the legal limits, of the United States”… not boundaries. And for those who must rely upon positive law (i.e. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) to obtain their US Citizenship at birth, are naturalized US Citizens at birth — by positive law.

        I stand corrected on your second point. Thank you.

        Lastly, a naturalized US Citizen at birth may be looked upon as new, but it is certainly within the constitutional authority of Congress to create via positive law, as opposed to natural law, which it cannot create.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Jim

          David Says: “a naturalized US Citizen at birth”

          Show me in the law or Constitution where there is such a thing in the US. SCOTUS only recognizes 2 types of citizens in the Constitution, born or naturalized.

        • G

          WTF is a “naturalized US Citizen at birth”??? You’ve made that up.

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          Your argument about “naturalized at birth” is nothing but unmitigated crap—Wong Kim Ark could not have been a naturalized citizen BY LAW (the Chinese Exclusion Act). Therefore Mr. Wong (as well as President Obama) is unquestionably natural born.

        • Jim

          David, let me see if I can help you out.

          http://www.examiner.com/article/constitutional-law-scholar-on-natural-born-issue

          “In order to clarify whether or not President Obama is eligible for the Office of the President, I consulted constitutional law scholar, Mr. Jesse Choper. Mr. Choper is the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley. He is the former Dean of Boalt Hall and served as law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

          “I asked Mr. Choper about the language in Article II, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” Mr. Choper responded that “natural born” simply meant “not naturalized.””

        • Slartibartfast

          G,

          I believe that Rogers v. Bellei (1971) may have said or implied that a class of citizens born overseas to citizen parent(s) was “naturalized at birth” (because they became citizens by an act of Congress), but this has nothing to do with President Obama (nor do I think that the SCOTUS would ever rule John McCain, for example, ineligible—nor should they [in my opinion]).

          Take this with a grain of salt as I am not a lawyer nor do I play on on TV (or the intertoobz). 😛

    • G

      It is still a nonsensical term, in practical application. As to the rest of your typically misconstrued claims on this one; Slarti has responded and pointed out where you are (as usual) wrong.

  • David Farrar

    G

    And another thing….

    “Citizenship is a matter of man-made constructs of nationality. The only borders in nature are physical barriers, such as mountains, large bodies of water, etc.”

    Do you deny then there are also natural laws that govern “citizenship”? Be careful now, you may become a recipient of my Sioux Indian lecture on Citizenship.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • G

      Such as? Please, “enlighten me” and explain how anything you are saying is truly “natural law” and not, as I quite specifically pointed out, a product of man-made constructs of nationality and borders.

  • David Farrar

    I guess the bottom line here is: do you believe US citizenship at birth a constitutional right or privilege?

    If you consider yourself, by English common law, a natural born subject of this Constitutional Republic, you would consider then US citizenship at birth as a constitutional right.

    If you consider yourself a free, natural born US Citizen, you would consider US citizenship at birth a privilege shared only by those who have agreed to support and abide by the US Constitution, i.e. the Consent of the Governed.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David Says: “I guess the bottom line here is: do you believe US citizenship at birth a constitutional right or privilege?”

      Jeez David, you are so damn insecure! IDk about you, but I consider it a right and a privilege, one I embrace for one and all.

      • G

        “Jeez David, you are so damn insecure! IDk about you, but I consider it a right and a privilege, one I embrace for one and all.”

        Agreed. Same here.

    • Slartibartfast

      David “out of breath”,

      You continue to try an spout Sov Cit nonsense as if it trumps the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court. Neither you, nor anyone else has ever agreed to support and abide by the US Constitution at birth—the only persons who have done so when they received their citizenship are naturalized citizens. Why are you arguing that only naturalized citizens can become POTUS? Is it because you are a dishonest bigot who will stop at nothing to smear a democratically elected president? Barack Obama is president by the consent of 130 millions Americans who voted in the 2008 election (by voting you are consenting to abide by the lawful results). If you don’t believe in a democratic republic, then please leave this country that you seem to hate so much.

      • David Farrar

        “Neither you, nor anyone else has ever agreed to support and abide by the US Constitution at birth—the only persons who have done so when they received their citizenship are naturalized citizens.”

        Is this true?

        So you see yourself as a natural born subject, who still believes in a perpetual allegiance to a central Sovereign, rather than a free natural born Citizen, who, as a matter for free choice, has agreed to live by a set of enumerated powers for over two-hundred years?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • G

          This whole “natural born subject” is again, nothing but a false trope of your imagination. You are terminally stuck in a past term that does NOT apply to the USA or how we are governed.

          So NO, I do not see myself as a “natural born subject”, but a “natural born citizen”.

          As usual, you spout fictional nonsense that you gullibly picked up from dishonest hacks like Mario the Putz and Leo the Paraclete. You are a deluded fool.

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          Neither you nor I nor anyone else had any sort of choice regarding the circumstances of our birth—only a moron would suggest otherwise. Please try to use this Sovereign Citizen bullshit on a judge, though—it should increase your chances of being sanctioned considerably…

  • Jim

    Slarti says: “Barack Obama is president by the consent of 130 millions Americans who voted in the 2008 election (by voting you are consenting to abide by the lawful results).”

    I wonder, if you told that to all the birthers and right-wing nutjobs, would it encourage them not to vote?

    • David Farrar

      That’s true, Jim.

      But my vote, as well as many others, presupposed that the candidates were legally eligible to take the oath of office for which they sought; did it not?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • G

        But you didn’t vote for him David. So you DID excecise your Constitutional right to make a choice. You voted for someone else, as is your right. You are entitled to do that, but you are NOT entitled to your vote overrulling the majority, whom also exercised their rights and felt that Obama was their valid and preferred choice. Your candidate simply lost, fair and square. You are nothing but a terminally bitter sore loser.

        Welcome to how Democracy works.

        • David Farrar

          G

          You are talking about after the fact. I am talking about before the fact.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • G

          No David, I am talking about BOTH. If you had “concerns” about the issue before the election, you folks should have come up with them then. Obama’s rivals campaigns worked very hard to uncover any “dirt” they could use against Obama and came up with nothing.

          In regards to the specific false claims against his HI birth, McCain’s own campaign advisors (as well as the HI governor, Lingle) have come forward and stated that they looked into those rumours and couldn’t find anything to substantiate them.

          So, you are still left with your free ability to NOT vote for someone that you “didn’t trust”, which you exercised. But that does NOT entitle you to “win”. The rest of us were left with our free ability to vote for someone we felt completely satisfied as being eligible for the office. We happen to be the clear majority.

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          President Obama satisfied all of the Constitutionally mandated requirements before being inaugurated as President. The proper time and place for your challenge would have been to get at least one Senator and one Congressman to do so in writing to Dick the war criminal before Congress certified the vote of the electors. Are you aware that the last time this was done was 2004?

      • Jim

        Well, considering that Congress, the SCOTUS, the electoral college, over 65 miilion voters, the state of Hawaii and every court in the country agrees he is eligible, I guess you’re consenting then.

    • Slartibartfast

      Jim,

      It can’t hurt to try… 😉

  • David Farrar

    Jim
    August 31st, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    David Says: “a naturalized US Citizen at birth”
    Show me in the law or Constitution where there is such a thing in the US. SCOTUS only recognizes 2 types of citizens in the Constitution, born or naturalized.”

    “US. SCOTUS only recognizes 2 types of citizens in the Constitution, born or naturalized.”

    Please cite your case. You are not citing yet another legal precedent from Minor again; are you?

    I’ll save you some time:

    Yes, Jim; as yet another legal precedent in Minor states: “There are only two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized.”

    Further: A natural born citizen (NBC) is someone who is a citizen at birth. A naturalized citizen is one who was an alien at birth and later became a citizen. A citizen is one or the other. There is no third class of US citizen.

    Even you can see Jim that by using de Vattle in this equation as his Law of Nations observed natural born citizens, does not hinder this precedent in anyway.

    There are, indeed, only two constitutional ways to create US citizenship: either by natural law or by the plenary authority of government, by positive law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • G

      You are just going in circles and repeating a mish-mash of meaningless gibberish, David.

      Simply put, you can’t get around the simple basic construct of only two general types of US citizens – EITHER one is natural born OR they are naturalized. All fall under one or the other and therefore anyone who is a citizen who is NOT a naturalized citizen IS a natural born citizen. Simple as that.

    • Slartibartfast

      David “out of breath”,

      Sorry, but Vattel never mentioned natural born citizens, just indigenous ones, so seeking the meaning of a term in a treatise in which it was NEVER USED is a display of both stupidity and dishonesty.

      • David Farrar

        John Jay did. John Jay would have also seen the terms: native citizens, indigenous citizens, and natural born citizens as all meaning being born with the natural citizenship as one’s own ancestors; imho.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • David Farrar

        de Vattel says ‘natural born subjects’, yes. I know. But John Jay certainly had the political awareness to recognize that the word ‘subject’ had to be changed to ‘Citizen’, as a matter of political necessity if one was addressing Gen. G. Washington, Chairman of the Constitutional Convention at that time, in the summer of ’87; would he not?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Slartibartfast

          David “out of breath”,

          Vattel said “natives” or “indigenes” and all of the Founders would have equated the term “natural born subject” a well-defined and understood term of art in the English common law, with the term “natural born citizen” (and, in fact, the terms were used interchangeably in their era). You are just a willfully ignorant, incompetent liar.

  • Jim

    David, thanks for admitting you’re wrong and there is no such thing as naturalized citizen at birth. You know, David, I’m going to have to take to calling you Mario Jr., because all these arguments you’ve presented have been turned down by the courts when Mario presented them. In fact, they’ve been called “without merit” by the courts…which is the courts way of saying nicely “your arguments ain’t worth sh*t”.

  • G

    “perpetual allegiance”… well, that is a new meaningless word combo from you. Pray tell, what does your latest manufactured concept have to do with the price of tea in China, as they say…

    Who the heck was arguing about “perpetual allegience”, before you just made the issue up, just now…?

    • David Farrar

      G,

      Citizenship based on jus soli alone. You were a natural born subject if you were born under the King’s domain: nemo potest exuere patriam.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • G

        David, stop living in the past. We DO NOT have kings here. How many times does this have to be drilled into you?

        So we are NOT talking about “subjects” in regards to American citizenship at all. Nada. Zip. Zero. Not born under any “kings domain”.

        “citizens” only please. So no, there is no American concept of “perpetual allegience”. You are just full of imaginary hogwash.

      • Monkey Boy

        David, you conveniently move on from embarrassing questions, either by disappearing, or by throwing out some other putrid, made up nonsense.

        WHERE ARE THE HOSPITAL (NATAL) RECORDS PRODUCED BY BLOVIATING IDIOT NUMBER ONE, DONALD TRUMP, IN “TWO DAYS TIME?”

        You are just a lying sod.

  • Plutodog

    Before reading through fifty-some comments, Squeek, I’m going to assume nobody’s pointed out an error in first para since it’s still there. You have the date for Wong Kim Ark case wrong. — United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), NOT 1998. Typo.

  • Lena

    In his treatise, The Law Of Nations, the world famous philosopher and legal expert, Emmerich de Vattel, has validated the requirement that all natural born citizens are born of citizen parents. Else, birthplace is merely a place of birth.

    The founding fathers rely on hsi expertise, we know because Benjamin Franklin say so. And George Washington himself borrowed, and failed to return, a copy from NY Library.

    Founding fathers even say that they punish criminals according to “Law Of Nations.” Proof that they were guided by Vattel in all matters.

    Moreover, they hate all thing English and fight war against her. Braindead obots, stop being dishonest and see truth.

    Obama has no papers that are legimate, so we don’t know WHERE he was born. Some say Kenya, some say Canada. WE DON’T KNOW.

    • David Farrar

      Thank you, Lena. I couldn’t have said it better myself, as to the truth of the matter, that is..

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Monkey Boy

        David, where are the hospital records of Trump’s birth???

        WHERE ARE THE RECORDS?????

        SHOW ME THE RECORDS, LYING PUTZ!!!!

      • G

        David, the only reason you “couldn’t have said it better” yourself is because you repeatedly demonstrate that you are INCAPABLE of saying anything correctly at all. There is no “truth” in anything you say. Just a mish-mash of nonsense and abuse of the English language.

        As to Lena, the American colonists may have hated the crown but they WERE born and raised as English citizens, until we got our independence. Therefore, their entire foundational understanding of language, culture and law primarily stemmed from that English heritage. *duh*

        You folks only “don’t know” because you are nothing more than modern day Know-Nothings, bitterly burying your head in the sand and intentionally ignoring the “inconvenient truths” all around you. You wrap yourselves in a web of lies of your own making. That is the very defintion of being a dupe and a fool.

    • Yulia

      Obama not born like people. Was made by Hitler doctors. They go to Haiti to learn to make somby. Take many years.

      When they learn, they mix dna of Haiti people with Hitler dna so America never suspect Hitler in Obama. So, is necessary to forge many papers.

      America very stupid.

    • linda

      So where, exactly, does it say the founders looked to Vattel for citizenship matters? Links? Smoke signals? An uncle’s cousin’s hairdresser remember something?

  • Monkey Boy

    #2 worst obot, Monkey Boy, very stupid. Only know how to insult. Need go to Alcatraz. Cannot swim, so be there all ways.

  • Monkey Boy

    #1 worst obot, Squaky Frum, need go to labor camp in Yukon and freeze tochus off. Not get pictures of margaritas there.

  • Monkey Boy

    #3 obots, Slartibartifast and G, not bad. Only lose wealth and get deported.

  • Monkey Boy

    Obot on low-down, David Farrar, not wear obot uniform in war time, so must hang.

  • Monkey Boy

    Closet Obot, David, has subtly drilled a birther talking point. He slyly asserts (untrue, of course) that Donald Trump to “2 days” to find and release the hospital records of his birth.

    He is cleverly spotlighting the hypocrisy of birthers who claim that Kapiolani does not have records of the President’s birth. Obots can challenge birthers to produce hospital records for Trump. Of course, they can’t, so it shows up the duplicity of Trump and birthers.

    Well done, David.

  • linda

    Hey Squeeky,

    That Mario is at it again. He thinks he may have just told you off but good…., but you know how he is. He had to just Apuzzo it all up. I replied in support of all that is true and good in the world.

    Cheers

    • Slartibartfast

      Linda,

      Can we get a link? It’s always fun to watch Mario get slapped down… 😉

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Hi Linda and Slarti!!!

      Thank you Linda for letting me know he answered. I will answer him today some time. I am working on another post right now, and just about have it finished.

      Slarti, it is at the link above down at the bottom of the comment section.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Slartibartfast

        Found it—thanks!

        I wonder if Mario is lucid enough to be embarrassed that a Girl Reporter is schooling him on the law… 😉 I’ve never been sure if he truly believes the crazy he spouts or if someone (like Cdr. Kerchner) is paying him and he is doing his best to play a losing hand.

        • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

          Slarti:

          I think he knows better and is doing his best to play a losing hand. You can tell from all the verbiage that he isn’t stupid. He is just trying like hell to make the Birther legal case as respectable as he can.

          There is method to his madness, as I will reveal in a new post tomorrow. (Teaser!) Let me finish the one I am on right now, and then I will put out the Internet Article that explains Mario to the “T.” In a very artsy-fartsy way.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        • Slartibartfast

          Squeeky,

          I look forward to it.

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    Slarti:

    I just finished and posted the one I was working on. Here is a tip just for you since you are up late. Go to the Birther Bible link at the top of the page, and read the first book there. I went ahead and posted it into that a few days ago, in case the hurricane blew me away or something before Sunday.

    Which is an appropriate day for it.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • davidfarrar

    Squeeky*,

    I am carefully reading both your case in chief as to the meaning of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen as well as Mario Apuzzo’s case in chief.

    Although I have barely scratched the surface between the two arguments, it seems to me the first point brought up between the two is the question of “accquiring US citizenship by birth.”

    While you and Mario vary as to your conclusions, there does seem to be an agreement as it relates to the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

    “…Birth and allegiance go together.” Isn’t this the central point of Mr. Apuzzo’s argument?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    *cc: Mario Apuzzo

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: