Tag Archives: natural born citizens

Translation By Anonymous!!! (Or, Does “S & M” Stand For “Sade & Mario”???” )

desademario

After A Wild Night Of Researching The Origins Of Natural Born Citizens, Mario’s Mind And Body Both Were A Little Unsound

OMG!!! I just read this over at the Fogbow:

FogBow Mario Quote

(Click On Image To Make It Larger.)

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=4945&start=500#p516317

As I will demonstrate in my up-coming essay, the anonymous English translator inserting the “natural-born citizen” clause into Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations in 1797, which he did only eight years after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, convincingly proves that the Founders’, Framers’, and Ratifiers’ source of the definition of the “natural-born citizen” clause was Emer de Vattel and the law of nations and not William Blackstone and the English common law.

I hate to play SPOILERS for  Mario Apuzzo, Esq., but I am afraid I already know who that anonymous translator is, and why Apuzzo is careful not to disclose his name – – – It is the Marquis de Sade!!!  His non-royal name was Donatien Alphonse Francois, or Don.  Now, you may ask how I know this. Well, I am not going to say exactly how I got the following document, because there may be some kind of silly law about Interstate Transmission  Of Anonymous Letters, or some kind of NSA problem with stuff written in Klingon, but you can read it for yourself:

Anonymous Patriot Letter

(Click On Image To Make It Larger.)

Also, here is a pdf of it, in case you have problems reading the Image:

Anonymous Patriot Letter to Mario Apuzzo, Esq

You can see from this Wiki blurb that the Marquis de Sade often went under the pen name, Anonymous!

During Sade’s time of freedom, beginning in 1790, he published several of his books anonymously.

In 1801 Napoleon Bonaparte ordered the arrest of the anonymous author of Justine and Juliette. Sade was arrested at his publisher’s office and imprisoned without trial; first in the Sainte-Pélagie prison and, following allegations that he had tried to seduce young fellow prisoners there, in the harsh fortress of Bicêtre.

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

Now, if The Law of Nations was anonymously translated in 1797, that falls squarely within De Sade’s Anonymous Period.  Plus, it is well known that Apuzzo just luuuvvvvveees the French! He thinks they are the inspiration for our Constitution. Add that to the letter above from the anonymous Patriot, and it is clear that Apuzzo is going to try to sneak a Marquis de Sade translation of the Law of Nations past everybody.

Some people may think that this is just Fantasy, and that I am just making all this up, and that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has a real, live legitimate source for what he is going to write. Well, I think that would be the real Fantasy!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Anonymous Authors.  Apparently, the Marquis de Sade started something by using Anonymous to publish his type of writing. Note that 12 out of 30 naughty books in the Victorian Period style are written by Anonymous or Unknown Writer. Plus, some of the names there look fake to me! Like Victoria Vane???

http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/victorian-erotica

Plus, here is a fun website, which has mostly nice books:

http://www.hotfreebooks.com/


Natural Born Encounters Of The Third Kind!!!

True, He Was A Little Rough Around The Edges, But He Had A Groovy Set Of Wheels

After my recent discussions with Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. (see notes below),  it looks like there must be THREE KINDS of natural born citizens. Once, there were but two:

1. Natural born citizens born inside the United States;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress.

If we assume for a moment that Apuzzo is right, and that natural born citizens born inside the United States must be born to two citizen parents, then what in the world do we do with the Third Kind of natural born citizen??? The kind described in the Wong Kim Ark (1898) (WKA) decision.

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 [1898], aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, [] [and] 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.

And, the kind described  in this case, cited with approval in WKA:

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, let’s see, Rhodes says:

All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens;

And the Supreme Court says the same thing, and defines “allegiance” to boot:

1. aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance of the English Sovereign, [unless within the two exceptions.]

2. 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.,

Well, that means that children born here of aliens, who are not foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, are within the allegiance and thus natural born citizens. That sounds right to me. I wonder if the WKA Court ever said any of this again??? Yep. Lookee! Here’s a big one,  from Section V:

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, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

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;

Wow! it looks like the WKA Court is even tying the 14th Amendment into this whole thing, but let’s ignore that for a moment. The Court clearly calls these children born here of aliens, natural born. And, the WKA Court is very comfortable equating natural born subject and natural born citizen, because in section III, they cited this case with approval:

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

Well, lets substitute the terms subject and citizen, and see what we get:

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 citizen, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born citizen;

All of the above analysis is unnecessary for most of us, because any honest and intelligent reading of Wong Kim Ark readily leads to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment simply affirmed the Article II common law notion of natural born citizenship and put it safely into the U.S. Constitution.

The reason I am going through all this to show that even to Birthers, there was definitely some kind of creature discussed in WKA called a natural born citizen who did NOT have two citizen parents. This creature, this WKA natural born citizen, could even have two alien parents, as long as he was born inside the country. Birther cryto-zoologists should be high-fiving each other and rushing off to the woods with camera traps. This is the equivalent of finding Big Foot!

Non-Birthers already knew about this, and it is no surprise to us. In fact, we tend to notice a suspicious lack of the phase “two citizen parents” running through the case at all. But why haven’t the Birthers ever admitted that there is some species of Natural Born Citizen in WKA that doesn’t match up to their Imaginary Law requiring two citizen parents??? The common law creature is certainly discussed and talked about. My goodness,  Sections II and III of the decision are all about him, and he surfaces periodically throughout the rest of the decision.

Hmmm, let’s redo our list and see what the reason might be:

1. The Birther natural born citizens born inside the United States, to two citizen parents, based on French law, and checked-out library books;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress; and

3.  The WKA natural born citizens born inside the United States, to parents who are neither foreign diplomats, nor invading soldiers, based on English common law, American common law, and a long line of legal cases.

Yes, comparing No. 1 to No. 3, I can see why the Birthers treat the WKA natural born citizen like a red headed stepchild at a family reunion. That whole French law-library book foundation seems a tad shaky. Is it safe??? Here, let me touch it with my mouse. . .click. . .

The Law Offices Of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Shortly Before The Vattel Cornerstone Crumbled

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I do not know which movie this is from. I saved this picture in the past without a link.  I searched images of old science fiction movies without success. If anybody knows, please tell me.

Note 2. The Squeeky – Mario Discussions link:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/the-squeeky-mario-discussions/

Note 3. Ignore This Note! I am just giving myself a place to link a silly picture:

 


Fifty Shades Of Stupid!!! (Or, Spanking Another Freeper Birther)

By The 89th Shade, They Were Really Having To Strain For Material

OMG!!! I stumbled across this little bit of SHEER TOTAL STUPIDITY while browsing the Free Republic Birther threads. There is sooo much Birther idiocy there that I could churn out 10 Internet Articles per day easily just by pointing out their legal mistakes, absurdities, and logical fallacies. It would be the equivalent of shooting very stupid fish in a very tiny barrel. Sooo, usually I just giggle and move on to something else. But this piece of nuttiness by Freeper Diogeneslamp was just too dumb to pass up.

Down below in the notes you can find links, and a screen capture of the idiocy.  Now, on with the story. The Freeper Birthers are all babbling and drooling and stuff, and Freeper Diogeneslamp pops out his little copy of John Adam’s personal Law book of English Common law, published in 1736. Which says:

All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.

and to the side of that the margin note says:

In Calvins Case those which were born in Normandy, Gascon, while under actual Obedience to the Kings of England, were Subjects born. And this by the Statute is declared to have been the Common Law; but those born there now are Aliens, those places not being in the actual Possession of our King.

Now, I debated Diogeneslamp on numerous occasisons before the Freeper Birthers got tired of me kicking their butts and got me banned. He knows about Wong Kim Ark, and argues mightily that it doesn’t provide precedent on natural born citizenship passing to those born inside the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents. And he knows, from that same case, that natural born citizenship passes to those born outside the country to American parent(s) by statutory law.

In short, Diogeneslamp is fully aware of this excerpt from Wong Kim Ark via the Ankeny Court:

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

Lookie!!! The Courts say the same thing as the book. “Within the Obedience” doesn’t mean “citizen.”  It means within the physical jurisdiction of the King.  Clearly, it is the place of birth which controls natural born citizenship for those born inside the country. But, to actually read from John Adams’ book and recognize that fact means you have to quit being a two citizen-parent Birther. Because you to have to face the fact that the citizenship of the parents has NOTHING to do with those born INSIDE the country. Criminy, if the country’s possession reverts, there goes the citizenship, parents notwithstanding. What, does your parentage change if the country changes hands??? This is not just my opinion.

Here it is again, in Ankeny, citing Wong Kim Ark:

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, and 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.

Diogeneslamp has been exposed to all this before. Numerous times. There is no excuse for him not recognizing it.  So, how does he handle this clear conflict between his own evidence and his own beliefs??? Simple. He ignores it and tries to pass it off as the same as Vattel’s definition. Like this:

A. English Common law says if you are born here, you’re NBC, and your PARENTS’ citizenship is irrelevant.

and

B. Vattel says NBC only occurs when both PARENTS are citizens.

equals

C. They must be the same thing as what Vattel says, because they both mention the word PARENTS.

I don’t think stupid is too harsh a word  to use. Here it is in his own words:

Hmm… It mentions that a person’s Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of “Natural-born Subject” sounds very much like the Vattel definition of “natural born citizen”! The first thing both definitions mention is “parents.” Loyal Parents. If “parents” aren’t important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

But, being the legal whiz that he is, Diogeneslamp must realize that the link to Vattel is a little weak. Sooo, how are we supposed to know that John Adams ascribes to the Vattel definition???  Simple. Because Adams stayed with Vattel’s published in France during the Revolutionary War.

Sooo, that is pretty stupid. Ignoring the Wong Kim Ark and the Ankeny Court saying the same thing as is found in John Adams’ book is pretty stupid. Trying to cobble Vattel onto the book in spite of the clearly opposite meaning is pretty stupid. Ignoring your own evidence is pretty stupid. Trying to convince us that Adam’s staying with the publisher is proof of anything is pretty stupid. But you know what is the stupidest thing of all that Diogeneslamp does???

He forgets to check the publishing date of Adams’ personal book on English Common Law – – – which proves to be 1736, or 22 years BEFORE the first publication of Vattel’s Law Of Nations in 1758.  Yes, Diogeneslamp believes, and expects us to believe, that Adams’ book is parroting a definition of citizenship that won’t be written for another 22 years. I could go on.

If somebody made a career of studying Diogeneslamp’s stupidity, I am pretty sure they would need a title like 1000 Shades of Stupid.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Screen Capture: Here is a screen capture of Diogeneslamp’s dribble. You can click on it to make it larger:

Note 2: Here is a link to it. Just scroll down to comment #224:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2913011/posts?q=1&;page=201;;comment=224

Note 3. Here’s a link to the 1736 book:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newabridgementof01baco#page/n5/mode/1up

Note 4. the Free Republic ban. Here is a link, with photos, of when the Free Republic Birthers wussied out and ran in panic stricken terror from me:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/zot-free-republic-birthers-run-in-panic-stricken-terror-from-the-truth/

Note 5: The Image.  This is a 1947 photo of Salvador Dali using a model as a desk.   Photograph by Bob Sandberg, Museum of the City of New York, The LOOK Collection.”  It is rumored that IKEA is working on reproductions.