Donate

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen



Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 9, 2016

Image result for image us supreme court
On June 28, 2016, I filed on behalf of Pennsylvania resident Carmon Elliott a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Petition can be accessed at https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliott-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16 .  The Court docketed the Petition on June 30, 2016.  Ted Cruz’s response to the petition is due by August 1, 2016.  The U.S. Supreme Court docket can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-13.htm .   
The parties stipulated in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always been a U.S. citizen from the moment of her birth; that at the time of Cruz’s birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States for more than ten years, including at least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that Cruz was a citizen at birth.  
Elliott filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz pursuant to which he sought to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the Office of the President.  In his objection, petitioner alleged that given that Cruz was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, his name should be stricken from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.   
Cruz filed his opposition, contending that Elliott’s objection raised a non-justiciable political question.  As to the merits, Cruz contended that a person born to at least one U.S. citizen parent, regardless of where the child may be born, if a citizen at birth under any law, is an Article II natural born citizen through inheritance of citizenship from the parent (jus sanguinis) and without needing to be born in the United States (jus soli).     
The lower court ruled that the political question doctrine did not apply and then went on to decide the merits of Elliott’s objection.  After discussing some articles written by some authorities, the court held that: “Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.  Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmen Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.”         
Elliott appealed the Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed that Order on March 31, 2016, and also denied Victor William’s Notice to Intervene as Appellant and Elliott’s application for oral argument. 
In our Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, we argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important question of constitutional law concerning the definition of an article II natural born citizen that has not been but should be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Having a person sit as President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is not a natural born citizen puts the national security of the United States vitally at risk.  Whether or not the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately sitting in those offices impacts the nation’s foreign policy.  The nation needs a definition of “natural born citizen” for future presidential and vice presidential elections.  Congress, the executive, the political parties, and the voters cannot define a natural born citizen.  Only the judiciary can define a natural born citizen.    
We argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important constitutional question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Under those precedents, Cruz is at best a naturalized citizen of the United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, not an Article II natural born citizen under the common law to which the Framers looked to define the clause when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.   
We also argue that U.S. Supreme Court review is warranted because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and it Secretary of State, by allowing an ineligible presidential candidate to place his name on the presidential primary election ballot, has violated Elliott’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right and privilege to life, liberty, and property and equal protection of the law which is implicated if Elliott is forced to live under a president who is not an Article II natural born citizen. 
Finally, we maintain that the important constitutional issue raised by Elliott’s ballot challenge has not been mooted by Cruz voluntarily suspending his presidential campaign because there is nothing stopping Cruz from again running for President or Vice-President and the issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is capable of repetition yet evading review.  
We urge Americans who are committed to having our politicians and government respect our Constitution and the rule of law to support our cause.  Express yourselves not only privately, but also in public.  Write letters and leave comments in print and electronic media.  Call into radio shows and tell the hosts what you think.  Mr. Elliott is also conducting a fund raising campaign to raise funds to meet our printing and filing expenses.  We will appreciate your contribution which you can make at https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4   .  
I will be posting updates as the Petition makes its way to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 9, 2016
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright © 2016
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved  


UPDATE as of July 29, 2016:
On July 14, 2016, Ted Cruz filed a waiver of his right to respond to the Petition.  The Clerk has distributed the case for the U.S. Supreme Court conference of September 26, 2016.  Here is how the docket appears: 

No. 16-13           
Title:     
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner
v.
Ted Cruz
Docketed:           June 30, 2016
Lower Ct:            Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
  Case Nos.:         (29 MAP 2016)
  Decision Date:  March 31, 2016
~~~Date~~~        ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2016         Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
Jul 14 2016          Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.
Jul 27 2016          DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.

UPDATE as of October 3, 2016:

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.  See ORDER LIST: 580 U.S., published on Monday, October 3, 2016, accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100316zor_9ol1.pdf ,  The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give.  The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits.  We will just have to wait until another day.  





265 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 265 of 265   Newer›   Newest»
Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Based on your statement, the Constitution has no meaning because 'many individuals were Framers.'"

I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Apuzzo. Out of respect for the Framers and for our Constitution, I have to disagree with your opinion there. The many Framers worked out a whole lot of meaning to adopt our original Constitution, and all the states ratified their text.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. continued:
"Also, you state there is no evidence as to the meaning of natural born citizen, yet you argue that my meaning is wrong."

False, as to the first part: I did not state that there is no evidence; in fact I cited evidence. See above.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Finally, you act as though I am the only one with any burden of proof."

No, I just don't claim more than evidence warrants. Keeps my burden manageable. You claim to know how the Founders defined "natural-born citizen", while I claim there's no record they ever did. When neither of us can cite the Founders defining the term, that's me making my burden and you failing.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You are the one advocating a position which since the Founding of our nation and only until recently has been rejected, i.e., that a person born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to be President."

I've been explaining for about eight years that the eligibility of native-born children of foreigners was clear and settled long ago, while that of foreign-born citizens from birth is a relatively recent consensus of the American legal community. I've over and over met the burden of supporting that explanation.

You, Mr. Apuzzo, above wrote, "in the eyes of the Founders and Framers, Cruz...". Perhaps you'd find supporting your assertions more tenable if you did not pretend to see through so many other people's eyes.

Finally, while here neither of us bears the burden of convincing the other, you, Mr. Apuzzo, chose to take your arguments to court. When you lost you first case and appeal you wrote pretty good summaries, but after that you railed against your judges as if it were their job to convince you. It was the other way.

Unknown said...

Ajtelles wrote:
"Bryan, who has never really been mean to you or others here on your Natural Born Citizen blog, has become nicer in his commentary"

That was unintentional.

Ajtelles, in your comments here you hold -- and please challenge me if you think I'm wrong on this -- that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married. My position is that your position is so obviously garbage, so clearly unworthy of serious consideration, that to debate would show undeserved respect. Your theory deserves naught but mockery and derision.

Mean enough?
-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan,

Maybe next time you will be able to write something of substance here which demonstrates that I am wrong rather than that I am right like when you insisted: “My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth." Bryan Gene Olson, February 10, 2014 at 11:33 PM.

ajtelles said...

1/

Shallow & "unintentional"

Mario,

I, being a "crank nonsense" spotter, noticed instantly that Bryan came through again with "crank nonsense" on July 7, 2017 at 3:40 AM, and his comment indicates that he is not a very deep thinker at 3:40 in the morning - with or without a drink or two or three or...more.

First, I noticed that he asked a debate question and then finished the paragraph with a shallow thinker insult and then says that to debate me would "show undeserved respect" because my "position" is "unworthy of serious consideration".

Ha!

Bryan wrote:
>>" Ajtelles, in your comments here you hold -- and please challenge me if you think I'm wrong on this -- that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married. ...."

Bryan, are you serious?

Bryan, do you really believe that the constitution delegates and states' ratifiers were implicitly promoting the myth and theory that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship would quality a person to be president without the parents being married only to each other before the child is born?

Really?

Bryan, are you a Muslim or simply a Muslim supporter (supporting is not a bad thing, but the intent could be detrimental to U.S. internal security if it supports jihad and imposition of sharia jurisprudence as superior to the U.S. Constitution) and, whether you a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or an animist or a Buddhist or an atheist, do you believe that Muhammad’s multiple marriages, including his marriage to 6 year old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9 years old) are an example of a good role model for persons in the United States who may aspire to be president if they ALSO have multiple wives OR ALSO marry a 9 year old child? Since you don’t really care for the rule of law, forget for now that consummating marriage with a 9 year old is not lawful in 2017 America just as it was unlawful in 1787 America when Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”.

Bryan, do you really believe that in 1787 America the Founders and Framers of the Constitution were promoting the myth, the “crank nonsense” theory, that ANY person could be president of the United States simply because they were born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction to only one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe that in 1787 America the social custom of that era would tolerate a child to be eligible to be president if the child was born on U.S. soil to a foreign female who had a child out of wedlock (emphasis is on "lock" by marriage) to a foreign male?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe that when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington that Jay implied and Washington agreed that ANY child born on U.S. soil could be eligible to be president even if born to a U.S. citizen female prostitute who was not married to anybody?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe your "crank nonsense" drivel implicit in your question to me: "...that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married"?

Bryan, are you serious?

ajtelles said...

Shallow & "unintentional"

2/

Bryan, do you really believe the implicit "crank nonsense" that to be eligible under Article II one's parents did NOT have to be married?

Really?

Bryan, it is your own shallow thinker "position" that is truly "unworthy of serious consideration" but it is definitely worthy of derision because of it's shallowness and thoughtlessness and the opportunity it presents to point out “crank nonsense” as soon as it is posted here on Mario’s Natural Born Citizen blog.

Bryan, that's not mean, but it is responsive.

Bryan, you have revealed – again – that you are simply argumentative without substance?

And Bryan, dittos back at you with your own words:

>>" My position is that your position is so obviously garbage, so clearly unworthy of serious consideration, that to debate would show undeserved respect. Your theory deserves naught but mockery and derision."

Bryan, your position is definitely not worthy of serious consideration, but, you come back, ok, cuz' you are fodder* for "crank nonsense" spotters and your shallowness is just so easy to refute that it is fun to respond and in that way educate others who may happen to read what you write and how you are substantively rebutted and refuted as you try spitting against the wind in your defense of the "crank nonsense" myth and theory of ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president.

* Check the dictionary: the second definition in my American Heritage Dictionary for “fodder” is “Raw material, as for artistic creation.” You’re the fodder Bryan, I’m the artistic creator as is Mario.

AND Bryan, are you aware that you NEVER refer to John Jay to support your "crank nonsense" position that ONLY U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president was NOT Jay's ONLY implicit reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" but that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president.

AND Bryan, are you aware that you NEVER refer to John Jay as a person who would agree with your "crank nonsense" that it does not matter whether or not the couple who reproduced a child should be married for their child to be eligible to be president?

Really? ALSO dual and ALSO not married?

So Bryan, tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock…, still waiting for you to adduce the historical record of the debate by the convention delegates and states’s ratifiers.

My common sense position is that since they did NOT debate ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president, the delegates and ratifiers did NOT debate and simply accepted John Jay’s implicit reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” because the obvious does NOT need to be debated.

Jay implied the obvious:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil / jurisdiction
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the child is born

Bryan, see how easy it is to state the obvious?

Now, you try to stat the “obvious” as you see it, and keep your intentional mean attitude to yourself – especially after 3 am, unless that’s when you do your deepest thinkin’ and writin’.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

POUND POUND
SQUARE SQUARE
ROUND ROUND
SIGH SIGH

ajtelles said...

Dittos Carlyle and Mario - sigh...

However, and, as Churchill might say:

NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
QUIT!!!!!

REPEAT...

NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
QUIT!!!!!

The truth has no agenda other than to be, to be repeated, to be protected, and to be promoted in full sentences with articulation until the thought leaders in America like Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Prof. Solum, and Prof. Rob Natelson know enough to admit the "obvious".

What is the obvious?

The U.S. Constitution is under attack by myth makers, neo-birthers with subtle theories such as the “implicit constitution” of Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar who do not know or who do know but do not care that the "obvious" truth is that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president and that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship was NOT in 1787 America and is still NOT in 2017 America the "obvious" reason for John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" on July 25, 1787 in his note to his friend George Washington.

The truth is on the side of the obvious about what the original genesis original intent implication of John Jay was in 1787 when he underlined the word "born".

John Jay, when he underlined the word "born", implied ONLY ONE obvious "original genesis" and ONLY ONE "original intent" about who is eligible to have command of the U.S. military and to be president of the United States.

To be eligible to be president John Jay's ONLY implication is obvious - ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and definitely NOT ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY "by birth alone"
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the child is born

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) to get in touch with the obvious.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

Are we REALLY supposed to believe THIS:

If prior to the necessity of The Obama Situation forcing us to accept a ridiculous and perverse definition of NBC, we had openly and objectively discussed the definition of NBC?

A severely anti-American foreigner and agitator happens to visit USA and his wife plops out an anchor baby. The baby is taken back to hostile foreign country and indoctrinated for many years. Child/adult moves to USA and takes up residence. Upon living here 14 years and achieving age of 35 he can become president.

Now, tell me with a straight face that Founding Fathers would have thought this was just great.

SIGH

ajtelles said...

Dittos "a straight face"

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...where's Bryan (not Linda)?

I'm still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) to get in touch with the obvious implication of John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Jay would NOT have agreed with "a severely anti-American foreigner and agitator", or even a "friendly" foreigner, being eligible to be president when it is obvious that Jay's ONLY reason for underlining the word "born" is that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualified a person in 1787 to be president with the implication that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was to be a perpetual implication from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

It is NOT possible for Jay to have had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the ONLY reason for underlining the word "born" and to have ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship as an implication for underlining the word "born". The myth, the neo-birther theory, the “implicit constitution” suggestion that Jay implied and Washington agreed that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to have command of the U.S. military and to be president, is, well, that theory is just nuts.

In the court of public opinion, this simple and obvious implication of John Jay, the underliner of the word "born" and the author of "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington as implying that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to have command of the U.S. military and to be president, MUST be repeated and repeated and repeated. It MUST be repeated for two reasons: first, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president is very simple to state and to understand and to repeat to others, and second, Jay's original "implication" is NOT debatable, it is NOT refutable, it is NOT rebutable, it is NOT inclusive.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive.
ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship is inclusive.

It is obvious that Jay was promoting the idea that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president and so it is obvious that Jay definitely was NOT promoting the idea that a person was eligible to be president just because a person was born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to only 1 OR 0 U.S. citizen parents (see SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark error about the Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” language) OR born on foreign soil to either 1 OR 2 U.S. citizen parents (see the 1795 Naturalization Act).

Concerning who is eligible to have command of the U.S. military and to be president of the United States, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive for a security reason. The myth that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to command the military and to be president MUST be exposed as the “inclusive” fraud that it is and it must NOT be allowed to gain traction in the discussion that Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar is promoting with his “implicit constitution” theory.

In conclusion, and to repeat the obvious as I posted above:

To be eligible to be president John Jay's ONLY implication is obvious - ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and definitely NOT ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY "by birth alone"
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the child is born

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) and other myth makers and neo-birthers to get in touch with the obvious reality about Jay’s security concerns.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Maybe next time you will be able to write something of substance here which demonstrates that I am wrong rather..."

Maybe re-read my first comment under this article. We both know what you did.

ajtelles said...

Maybe...

Mario,

Ir seems that Bryan (Unknown) is too shallow in intellect to respond to my tick... tock...tick... tock... tick... tock... comments on July 14, 2017 at 9:02 PM or July 10, 2017 at 12:24 AM or July 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM or, well, earlier, so he challenges you on a silly subject.

Oh well, Bryan has revealed himself as inconsequential, intellectually shallow and intellectually irrelevant, so, what to do?

Well, I guess, just be kind to and ask Bryan for a credible intellect who can refute and rebut John Jay's original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

What did Jay mean when he underlined the word "born"?

To be eligible to be president, what was John Jay's ONLY obvious implication?

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president?
OR
ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president?

It's ONLY one OR the other - John Jay definitely did NOT imply both.

Bryan and et al., including Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Larry Solum, and Prof. Rob. Natelson - What did Jay "imply" in 1787 if NOT

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY "by birth alone"
_ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
_ONLY married
_ONLY to each other
_ONLY before the child is born

Tick...tock... myth makers and neo-birthers - get in touch with the obvious reality about Jay’s security concerns - please.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown (Bryan),

Whatever Mr. Elliott may have argued prior to my representing him does not nor can it change the simple fact that you have agreed with me when you said on numerous occasions:

“My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth." Bryan Gene Olson, February 10, 2014 at 11:33 PM.

ajtelles said...

Clarification...

Mario,

In your response to Bryan on July 16, 2017 at 7:20 AM, to whom is Bryan (not Linda / Unknown) referring?

Those who "...gained their citizenship upon birth..." is referring to whom?

To "...the Article II natural born citizens..."?
or
To "...United States citizens"?

Since it is Bryan, the inarticulate promoter of the myth, the 2000s shallow thinker theory, that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president, my natural assumption is that those who "...gained their citizenship upon birth..." is a reference to the children and not to the parents.

Is that correct?

If so, Bryan's confusing sentence structure should be rewritten this way:

>> "...the Article II natural born citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth are the proper subset of United States citizens."

Is that correct?

Thanks.

PS.

Bryan and et al., including Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Larry Solum, and Prof. Rob. Natelson - what did Jay "imply" in 1787 if NOT

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY "by birth alone"
_ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
_ONLY married
_ONLY to each other
_ONLY before the child is born

Tick...tock... myth makers, neo-birthers, and "implicit constitution" constitutional "scholars" - please get in touch with the obvious "natural law" reality about Jay’s security concerns - please.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

1/

Natural Born Citizen "Gender Essentialism" vs. Transgender Citizen

Mario,

Prof. Lawrence Solum posted an interesting abstract by Melina Bell on his Legal Theory Blog on July 3, 2017:

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/07/melina-constantine-bell-washington-and-lee-university-has-postedgender-essentialism-and-american-law-why-and-how-to-sever.html

An Article V amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be the only way to stop the future of who determines who?/what? is a U.S. citizen. If the "gender system" (the last two words of the last sentence of the abstract) is altered, who will be a "natural born Citizen" and who will be eligible to be president? Will your "Natural Born Citizen" blog be necessary in a "gender system" in which "gender essentialism" is history?

"Bell on Gender Essentialism

"Melina Constantine Bell (Washington and Lee University) has posted Gender Essentialism and American Law: Why and How to Sever the Connection (Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Vol. 23, 2016) on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

"American law presumes that all persons are born either female or male, and rests a surprising number of legal entitlements on this presumption. Persons’ legal rights to express their identity at work, to use public accommodations, and to retain legal parenthood status with respect to their children may all depend on whether they are female or male. Yet we, as individuals, generally have no choice regarding whether we are legally designated female or male, just as people had no choice as to whether they were designated “colored” or “white” under past racial discrimination schemes.

"The American legal system plays a significant role in the construction, maintenance, and coercive enforcement of the binary gender system that requires people to conform their identities in distorting ways to be included politically. By sustaining the gender system, legal institutions unnecessarily undermine human well-being, and unjustly and disrespectfully constrain individual liberty.

"The United States and state governments should re-examine laws that use sex or gender as a category by adapting the Law Commission of Canada’s methodology in Beyond Conjugality. In this fashion, American law can begin to move gradually away from the creation, maintenance, and enforcement of the gender system."

ajtelles said...

2/

Natural Born Citizen "Gender Essentialism" vs. Transgender Citizen

This is the url for the SSRN article by Melina Bell:
Gender Essentialism and American Law: Why and How to Sever the Connection

>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2994349

Why is "gender essentiallism" an important issue to discuss in the context of who is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president?

Well, consider this quote by a "trans veteran who served six tours in the Middle East": "My gender was female, but at birth, my sex was male".

This is the url for the July 30, 2017 article on Politico.com:
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/transgender-veteran-on-trump-military-ban-215432

There is so much that could be written, but, well, no wonder that John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington is ignored today in 2017 America. Confusion about original genesis has become a mental illness that is being legalized in front of God and everybody on earth, atheist, theist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, statist, globalist, original genesis original intent constitutionalist, etc.

What did John Jay imply by underlining the word "born" if NOT

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship/allegiance
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the birth of the child

Mario, tick...tock... it's only a matter of time before Prof. Akhil Reed Amar's "unwritten constitution" with it's "implicit" serendipities discovers that "gender essentialism" was not the ONLY essential that was implicit in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" language in conjunction with the 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark "citizen" fiat "declaration" by the Supreme Court.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

Hey, check this out:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/09/21/anyone-heard-obamas-birth-certificate/

I was particularly fascinated by these comments.
I suspect about 90% of the sheep believe like this guy:

=====================================================

T.F. B0W
Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM

Hawaii also verified the information on the long form to two Secretaries of States.

prsmith is free to believe anything, but all the judges who considered the issued ruled Obama’s Hawaiian birth was sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship.


prsmith
Friday, September 22, 2017 at 11:49 PM

Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. Junior was born a Kenyan national and a British subject. He is not a natural born Citizen regardless of what those papers say.

=====================================================

THE LUNACY NEVER STOPS!

ajtelles said...

THE LUNACY...

Mario,

Carlyle's final "lunacy" comment is appropriate.

The word "lunacy" is a reference to "lunar", which is a reference to an outside force from earth which influences the ocean water and tides, i.e. the moon which is 132,000 miles from earth, which is 400 times closer to earth than the sun, which also has a "climate change" effect on earth.

What is the "outside force" that impels intelligent fellow U.S. citizens to say that a person born on U.S. soil or born on foreign soil to only one... yes, ONE (1)... U.S. citizen parent is an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" and so eligible to be POTUS?

What is the "outside force"?

Well, as a customer of mine told me only two days ago (September 30, 2017) that only one U.S. citizen parent is the "natural" source of a singular U.S. "natural born Citizen" and that her fellow U.S. citizens who think that Pres. Donald Trump is a fellow citizen who wants to represent the U.S. Constitution as still relevant in American politics and American society, she said that people who think that Pres. Trump is truthful and honest are thought of by Democrats and Hillary Clinton supporters as being followers without understanding about what is happening in America.

In essence, she said that "natural born Citizen" promoters and Pres. Trump supporters are shallow thinkers, an opinion which she confirmed was informed by CNN, NPR, MSNBC and other left of "center", left of the constitution news sources.

The "lunacy" continues and it is becoming more obvious every day that CNN, NPR, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and et al. are experts in "shallow thinking" about what is true Americana and what is the true "original genesis original intent" of the founders and authors of "natural born Citizen".

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

Check this out. It is not the first time this week. Earlier, Chuck Todd, expressed the same dismay. Specifically he said that Judge Roy Moore did not believe in the constitution because he believes rights come from God, not the government.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/06/chris-matthews-bewildered-that-some-say-constitutional-rights-come-from-god/

If the ruling elites (i.e. our "betters") are this totally ignorant, how can they govern us? No wonder they have such trouble understanding the Presidential Eligibility Requirements. I bet these same people think we are a Democracy and not a Republic. I bet they are equally bewildered by the Electoral System and think it is some sort of archaic relic that interferes with the majority will of the people.

Perhaps the major cause of their ignorance (stupidity?) is in the following observation.
There is a book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" in which the author maintains that in our big universities, they do not actually teach anything about the constitution itself. Even in the "constitutional studies" curriculum they do not study the history and background of the constitution, nor even walk through the body of the constitution itself. Instead, they focus all their energies on Supreme Court precedents and most particularly on the twists and turns of the 14th Amendment.

SIGH


Carlyle said...

This is EXACTLY the point.

One of my correspondents sent me this personal observation: "Most of the Libs' hysteria (no misogyny intended) over most talking points are usually just idly repeated drivel with no self research." This is SO true in SO many areas.

A simple case-in-point will provide a good example: When I first heard of claims against Obama's eligibility and birth narrative, I thought it was so preposterous as to be totally unbelievable. I was curious about what prompted this and why people would say these things. It took less than one hour of "self research" to discover something terribly important. While it is true that there is no credible evidence that he lied about these things, neither is there evidence that he didn't. This seems stunning - no records whatsoever, anywhere. Don't you think SOMEONE (MSM? Conservative politicians or pundits? Anyone?) would find this at least "interesting", and probably even "remarkable"? Instead, we find NO CURIOSITY WHATSOEVER. Just a total echo chamber.

What is the actual truth, I don't know. But neither does anybody else. Why is this not worthy of research? Why is this not alarming?

What we do know for sure is a lot of negative information. Foremost among these things are:

1. No birth or early childhood records - not even the putative hospital will confirm his birth.

2. No gradeschool, highschool, or college records, except one tiny scrap from a Muslim school in Indonesia.

3. No passport or other travel records.

4. Credible questions about the authenticity/forgery of the odd birth certificate posted by the White House.

Furthermore, any attempts to resolve any of these issues have been met with incredible resistance.

All this is known. What is not known is pretty much everything else.

Even this blog is drying up - almost no activity. Have we all fallen yet again into the bottomless pit of "at this point, what does it matter?"?

Carlyle said...

Do we know if Nikki Haley is a Natural Born Citizen?

She is turning out to be a great Leader on the
National Stage!

Ilíon said...

No, Nikki Haley is not a natural born US citizen.

Carlyle said...

SIGH

Ilíon said...

Eh, she spells her surame wrong, anyway. ;)

ajtelles said...

Llion & Carlyle...

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is NOT an Article II Section ! clause 5 "natural born Citizen" of the United States and so is NOT eligible to be president of the United States because both of her Indian citizen parents were still Indian (foreign-alien) citizens when she was born on U.S. soil.

However, according to the erroneous 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark arbitrary "fiat" (based on nothing) decision from the Supreme Court, based on nothing but their own judicial feelings, a person born on U.S. soil to two persons who were NOT U.S. citizens was by judicial "fiat" a U.S. "citizen", yes, BUT definitely NOT a "natural born Citizen".

A "natural born Citizen" is a "natural born Citizen" by birth ALONE, and NOT by judicial fiat.

Contrary to the arbitrary 1898 U.S. Supreme Court "citizen" decision, what did John Jay imply by underlining the word "born" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington if NOT:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship/allegiance
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before the birth of the child

Just askin' on behalf of George Washington, John Jay and common sense.

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

The Natural Born Citizen book

Hi Mario,

This is just a quick comment about what I heard Alex Jones say in the first half hour on his Sunday 2017-12-31 InfoWwars Live program with guests Jerome Corsi, who talked about Pres. Trump's newest executive order which will result in the confiscation of the assets of persons who have committed certain crimes, an executive order which Jones calls martial law, and also Roger Stone and his sources who say that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will definitely exit the Trump administration in March or April 2018 (this is the current url of the live stream)

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIb-rhS-2Bo.

In the firs half hour Alex had a respectful comment about Ivanka Trump Kushner and her influence over her father President Donald Trump - - and then he said that she could be president of the U.S. if she wanted to.

My point for pointing out Jones's comment is that there is still confusion in the United States about who is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS because many are still not educated and informed about John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, and Jay's original intent has still not penetrated the national psyche. Alex Jones's respectful statement about Ivanka's eligibility to be POTUS is indicative of the national misunderstanding that is still prevalent.

Mario, about three years ago I wrote here on your blog that I hoped that you would write a book about the original genesis original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the meaning of the words "natural born Citizen" and the implication by John Jay, the author of the "nbC" words, and, these are my words, that

ONLY a person born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married to each other
ONLY before the child is born could convey
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship status to the
ONLY U.S. "citizen" who is eligible to be POTUS.

Well, Mario, that's all tonight and for 2017.

Are you going to write a book about the original genesis original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5 and "natural born Citizen"?

Feliz Navidad
Feliz Ano Nuevo 2018

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Robert Pilchman said...



Happy New Year Mario:

Previously, I inquired about the following scenario "Suppose Jane Doe - a wife (who is not a U.S. citizen) suffers the death of her husband (who is also not a U.S. Citizen) during the third month of pregnancy - and during the fifth month of pregnancy Jane Doe (while still a widow) becomes a U.S. Citizen - and Jane Doe (while still a widow) gives birth in the ninth month of pregnancy in the United States (and in U.S. jurisdiction). Would the framers hold that such a child is considered a "natural born Citizen"?" You seemed to take the position that the child would NOT be a "natural born Citizen" but I believe that the child would be a "natural born Citizen". In my opinion, Vattel holds that the land is not sufficient - rather to naturally assume citizenship (i.e. allegiance) it is necessary to have more; if at the time of birth there is only one living parent then that should be enough to naturally assume citizenship (i.e. allegiance) - the allegiance of the dead parent to a different country should be irrelevant because allegiance can only exist with the living - not the dead - and the state at the time of birth is what counts.

In any event, here is another scenario; I call it Scenario B. Suppose Jane Doe (who is 9 months pregnant) and her husband John Doe are both U.S. Citizens and are in a car accident and are declared dead several minutes prior to the birth of their child in the United States (and in U.S. jurisdiction). In my opinion, in Scenario B the child would NOT be a "natural born Citizen" but according to you the child would be a "natural born Citizen" - correct?

All the Best
Robert

Robert Pilchman said...

Happy New Year Mario:

Previously, I inquired about the following scenario "Suppose Jane Doe - a wife (who is not a U.S. citizen) suffers the death of her husband (who is also not a U.S. Citizen) during the third month of pregnancy - and during the fifth month of pregnancy Jane Doe (while still a widow) becomes a U.S. Citizen - and Jane Doe (while still a widow) gives birth in the ninth month of pregnancy in the United States (and in U.S. jurisdiction). Would the framers hold that such a child is considered a "natural born Citizen"?" You seemed to take the position that the child would NOT be a "natural born Citizen" but I believe that the child would be a "natural born Citizen". In my opinion, Vattel holds that the land is not sufficient - rather to naturally assume citizenship (i.e. allegiance) it is necessary to have more; if at the time of birth there is only one living parent then that should be enough to naturally assume citizenship (i.e. allegiance) - the allegiance of the dead parent to a different country should be irrelevant because allegiance can only exist with the living - not the dead - and the state at the time of birth is what counts.

In any event, here is another scenario; I call it Scenario B. Suppose Jane Doe (who is 9 months pregnant) and her husband John Doe are both U.S. Citizens and are in a car accident and are declared dead several minutes prior to the birth of their child in the United States (and in U.S. jurisdiction). In my opinion, in Scenario B the child would NOT be a "natural born Citizen" but according to you the child would be a "natural born Citizen" - correct?

All the Best
Robert

ajtelles said...

natural birth...

Hi Mario,

Robert Pilchman makes an "in my opinion" point about Vattell with which John Jay and George Washington would definitely NOT agree - - the land WAS important to Jay and Washington and the delegates who adopted the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5 on September 17, 1787. When Jay wrote to Washington on July 25, 1787 that only a "natural born Citizen" should be eligible to be POTUS, both Jay and Washington would NOT agree with Robert Pilchman and other neo-birthers that the land of birth was NOT relevant. For example, the language of A2S1c5 explicitly states that 14 years residence on U.S. soil BEFORE eligibility to be POTUS was relevant - - a positive law that was dependent on natural law - - birth - - somewhere.

The "positive law" "14 year residence" on U.S. soil requirement BEFORE eligibility to be POTUS is inherently associated "natural law" and a "birth" requirement on U.S. soil/jurisdiction for the child born to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other before the child is born for the child to be a U.S. "citizen" and, as a U.S. "citizen" by birth alone, also an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" by birth alone and so "eligible to the Office of President...."

The land of birth definitely is relevant about who is eligible to be POTUS.

Jay and Washington would NOT agree that a "natural born Citizen" could be born on foreign soil to two (see the "citizen" language of the 1795 Naturalization Act), one, or ZERO (one and zero are implicit in the 1795 N.A.) U.S. citizen parents, and they would NOT agree that a "natural born Citizen could be born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents (the decree by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court) or born on U.S. soil to only one non-citizen parent.

The natural law presupposition that supports positive law is that ONLY birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction -- ONLY to TWO (2) U.S. citizen parents -- ONLY married -- ONLY to each other -- ONLY before the child is born could be a U.S. citizen with -- ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is consistent with 14 years residency and with eligibility to be "to the Office of President...."

Mario, I do not know of a congressman or senator in the history of the U.S. Congress (1787 to 2018) passing statutes regarding immigration, naturalization, citizenship proposing the thesis that "natural law" does not consistently presuppose positive law.

In my opinion, Vattell would agree with John Jay and George Washington and ALL of the delegates to the constitutional convention who adopted the implicit and explicit language of Article II Section 1 clause 5 that the U.S. soil be the soil of birth of the commander of the military might of the new and still militarily weak United States of America.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Robert Pilchman said...




ajtelles --- '[N]eo-birther'; will I also get called late for dinner? You totally misrepresented me; it is CLEARLY necessary to be born in the United States (i.e. in U.S. jurisdiction) and I never held otherwise! Did I ever type otherwise? Moreover, to Vattel it is necessary to have more - the parent(s). The question becomes what about the two scenarios I posted on January 5th or what about the scenario in which one parent is citizen of the United States and the other parent is not a citizen of any country? The third scenario seems less likely to be "natural born Citizen"; of course, Mario taught us that the wife had the same citizenship as the husband - however, now this is not necessarily the case. Again one must be born in the United States plus more - but how much more? K.I.S.S. - It is necessary to be born in the U.S. and when both parents are U.S. Citizens; why think about extremely unlikely scenarios (to really understand what Vattel (and the framers) think(s))?

ajtelles said...

ONLY...

Hi Mario,

Hi Robert Pilchman, the two part first scenario that you posted on January 5 about (1) the two parents who both are not U.S. citizens but then (2) the alien citizen husband dies and the alien citizen wife becomes a U.S. citizen before the child is born was answered by John Jay in 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

The natural law implication of the underlined word "born" is that birth is ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction and birth is ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents BEFORE the child is born. The positive law implication of "BEFORE" is that in 1787 America the wife ONLY acquired the U.S. citizenship of the husband by marriage. That means that if the U.S. citizen husband died before the child was born, the child would a U.S. "citizen" recognized as a U.S. "natural born Citizen"because of birth to two U.S. citizen parents. If the mother dies at the birth of the child, of course, the child is by natural law the "natural child" of the two human persons, and also, of course, the child is by positive law a "citizen" of the two U.S. citizen "parents" and, also again, because BOTH parents are U.S. citizens BEFORE the child is born the positive law "citizen" child is a "natural law/positive law" "natural born Citizen" -- "natural born" is a natural law word and "Citizen" is a positive law word -- and as a natural law/positive law U.S. "natural born Citizen" the U.S. "citizen" child is "...eligible to the Office of President".

Soil of birth and birth parents are both necessary, of course, and John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington supports your scenario #2 but not your two parts of scenario #1.

In scenario #2, if both U.S. citizen parents die minutes before the child is born on U.S. soil, John Jay and George Washington would both claim the child, born to two deceased U.S. citizen parents, to be a U.S. "citizen" who is definitely a U.S. "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS.

You two scenarios are easy to clarify if John Jay's implicit intent, what I like to call Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and who was eligible in 1787 and obviously into perpetuity -- generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

Jay's original genesis intent is contrary to the neo-birthers of any age and any presidential candidate (Chester Arthur, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, etc., including all four children of President Trump) who would not be able to agree with the obvious intent of Jay's use of the word "born" and eligibility to the U.S. presidency. -- the commander of the military of a new but weak United States of America.

Ps. Robert

A "neo-birther" is not pejorative for the same reason that "birther" is not pejorative. A "birther" starts with the presupposition that Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" was noble in 1787 and is still noble today in 2018. A "neo-birther" is simply a proper word to identify a person who is not a John Jay and George Washington "birther".

That's all that "birther" means to me.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Ilíon said...

"Jay's original genesis intent is contrary to the neo-birthers of any age and any presidential candidate (Chester Arthur ..."

Arthur's opponents (Dems, mostly) and supporters weren't pretending that "the Constitution doesn't define" the term 'natural born citizen', and thus its meaning is obscure ... as though the Framers didn't write exactly what they meant in every clause of the document. So, since no one was in denial of what the term means, the political argument was over whether Authur was indeed a natural born US citizen; in contrast to these days, when the "argument" is "Who cares?"

Arthur's mother was a natural born US citizen, married to a British subject who became a naturalized US citizen at some point during the marriage. The point of contention was whether Chester Arthur himself was a natural born US citizen. Some of Authur's opponents claimed that he was born in Canada; some claimed that while he was born in the US, his father was still a British subject at the time of his birth. In other words, back then, the Democrats were arguing exactly the points ajtelles is making.

ajtelles said...

1/2

About "point of contention"

Hi Mario,

Hi  Ilíon, I'm going to be a little redundant but the repetition is not directed at you, it is for the benefit of anybody reading who has not been following Mario's Natural Born Citizen blog and maybe just came here today. Who knows?

The points I'm making corresponds to John Jay's natural law and positive law implications, his patriotic presupposition, for underlining the natural law word "born" in association with the positive law "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

It was obvious in 1787 and it is still obvious today in 2018 that Jay was not implying that birth anywhere on earth to two, one or zero U.S. citizens would qualify a person to be eligible to be POTUS. The 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language clarified what the constitutional convention delegates meant by "born" in "natural born Citizen" when they adopted the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5.

It is not so obvious to many neo-birthers since Pres. Chester Arthur's time in office and up to Pres. Barack Obama's time in office and including the 2016 election season when Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal contended for the Republication nomination to be POTUS (Gov. Nikki Haley was mentioned as a possible candidate but never committed to run), that when Jay underlined the word "born" that Jay meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is possible ONLY by birth alone ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents who were married ONLY to each other ONLY before the child is born ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction.

As you mention Ilion, there were claims and counterclaims about Chester Arthur's eligibility to be POTUS. My point is simple, if a child is born AFTER both of the parents are recognized as U.S. citizens, either both by birth or both by naturalization or one U.S. citizen and one naturalized Citizen BEFORE a child is born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction, the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents is by positive law passed on to the child who acquires ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.

ajtelles said...

2/2

About "point of contention"

The natural law and positive law "point of contention" is simple to state and understand.

If Pres. Chester Arthur's father naturalized AFTER his son Chester was born, either in Canada (in an area NOT under U.S. jurisdiction) or on U.S. soil, that would mean that Arthur would have been "born" to ONLY one (1) U.S. citizen parent. Born to only one U.S. citizen parent means that the positive law implication of the positive law word "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" -- that ONLY "two" U.S. citizen parents could pass on singular U.S. citizenship -- is not possible to pass on ONLY singular U.S. citizenship if the parents have different citizenship status. It is obvious that dual citizenship of the parents would pass on to the child dual U.S./foreign citizenship. John Jay's original genesis implication of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, his "singular" presupposition for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen", would disqualify Arthur to be "...eligible to be President".

Whatever Pres. Chester A. Arthur's citizenship status (singular or dual), or the citizenship status of candidates in recent U.S. history, John Jay's inspired and prescient implication of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship in his "born" note to his friend George Washington was accepted and adopted by the September 17, 1787 constitutional convention delegates and also accepted by the ratifiers of the states (and affirmed by the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language).

Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the "natural born Citizen" language is the first and last authority for determining who U.S> "citizen" is eligible to be POTUS for the same reason that Jay's prescient original genesis original intent suggestion was accepted and adopted by the 1787 delegates and states ratifiers -- ONLY singular U.S. citizenship -- ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen parents -- ONLY on U.S. soil -- simply makes obvious self-defense sense for a new and militarily weak new nation in 1787 and with the understanding that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was to be perpetual. It seems to me that the alternative, dual U.S./foreign citizenship, simply would NOT make sense to John Jay, George Washington, the delegates and ratifiers in 1787 America as the presuppositional implication that would have inspired Jay to underline the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and a suggestion that was accepted as is without debate by Washington, the adopters and ratifiers.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

Carlyle wrote:
"Don't you think SOMEONE (MSM? Conservative politicians or pundits? Anyone?) would find this at least 'interesting', and probably even 'remarkable'? Instead, we find NO CURIOSITY WHATSOEVER. Just a total echo chamber."

What you write, Carlyle, is simply false. Way back in August of 2008, two reporters from the University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org went to the office of the Obama campaign in Chicago where they inspected and photographed the candidate's Hawaiian birth certificate. You can still read their report at: https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa

Carlyle wrote:
"Even this blog is drying up - almost no activity. Have we all fallen yet again into the bottomless pit of 'at this point, what does it matter?'?"

Of course, but that the lies you push are now so unimportant does not make them less disgusting.

-Bryan

Unknown said...

Carlyle asked:
"Do we know if Nikki Haley is a Natural Born Citizen?"

Yes, of course. Took me about ten seconds to look up that she was born in South Carolina in 1972. If you don't think that's sufficient, cry hard.

-Bryan

Ilíon said...

Queen Victoria's father made sure that his wife was in Britain when Victoria was born, so that the child would be a natural born subject of the British Crown.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan,

Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on what definition of the clause one accepts. The historical and legal evidence demonstrates that a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth. Hence, this is the original meaning of the clause under the Constitution.

While Nikki Haley was born in the United States, she was born to parents who were both non-U.S. citizens. She is therefore a "citizen of the United States" at birth under the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment which did not amend the natural born citizen clause. Not also being born to U.S. citizen parents, she is not an Article II natural born citizen.

Carlyle said...

Whether or not I am "disgusting" - - -
Whether or not I am right or wrong - - -

It does seem passing odd that there is FAR more interest in Trump Collusion (over which there is next to zero evidence) than there ever was about Obama's Bonafides (over which there was a huge cloud of doubt and stink).

Not even to get the the nub of Mario's argument(s) about NBC. There has yet to surface any evidence that BHO was any kind of citizen at all. And NOBODY (MSM, for instance) seems to
appreciate the obvious double standard.

Carlyle said...

PS - And people like Bryan are so afraid of discovering that actual truth that they are continually screaming and calling people names. You would think if they really thought they were right, they would be first in line to clear up the situation. Personally, I don't KNOW the actual and complete truth - but I would like to find out - and I am not afraid of what it might be.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
"Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II 'natural born citizen' depends on what definition of the clause one accepts."

At this point, Esquire Apuzzo, I don't actually want you guys to accept reality. I told you to "cry hard" and you obeyed. Please continue.

-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan,

You have asked me to continue, so here we go.

Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on what definition of the clause one accepts. The historical and legal evidence demonstrates that the Founders and Framers in matters of allegiance and citizenship took their legal norms and definitions from the law of nations and the common law thereunder. That body of law defined a natural born citizen as a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth. The first Acts of Congress in matters of naturalization reflect this definition when they provided for the naturalization of all others not born under such circumstances. Hence, the original meaning of a natural born citizen under the Constitution is a child born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth.

While Nikki Haley was born in the United States, she was born to parents who were both non-U.S. citizens. She is therefore a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment (not the common law) which did not amend the common law definition of the natural born citizen clause. Not also being born to U.S. citizen parents, she is not an Article II natural born citizen.

As you see, there is no crying involved, just historical and legal evidence and reason.

Unknown said...

Carlyle wrote:
"Personally, I don't KNOW the actual and complete truth - but I would like to find out"

Did the link I gave not work for you? I'll check again... yeah it works:

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on"...

It sure doesn't depend on what you say, Esquire Apuzzo. Here we are, over two hundred comments under an article you wrote a year and a half ago about challenging the Article II eligibility of Ted Cruz. Need I remind you of your results on that?

We all know that Ted Cruz was a tangent for you, as is Nikki Haley, but he was by far the best chance you ever had. Your perfect test case: a Canadian-born son of a Cuban. You vandalized your client's efforts with your crank nonsense, but the arguable notion that a good lawyer might have done better against Cruz will not help against Haley. I don't know whether Ambassador Haley will run for our highest office, but I can safely predict that she will *not* run for president of your fantasy world.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown/Bryan ,

It must really smart losing your arguments here.

Carlyle said...

@unknown/bryan

That is just more opinion. Like any good historian, I want access to original source documents.

There are also MANY other unanswered questions and/or mysterious inconsistencies. The usual news diggers (and folks like yourself) have had zero interest or even the least curiosity. The only logical explanation is that all are afraid of what they might find.

ajtelles said...

1/2
What...Unknown...again?

Mario,

Unknown is such a waste of time because he lacks depth and substance. He merely ridicules with shallow soul silliness.

Unknown, aka Bryan has not and he never will respond to my request for a response about what John Jay, the author of the underlined word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, what did Jay mean by the natural law words "natural born" as associated with the positive law word "Citizen" which was accepted without debate by the constitutional convention delegates?

Did Jay mean that eligibility to be POTUS was ONLY by birth alonw ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other ONLY before the child was born ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, or was eligibility to be POTUS ALSO by dual U.S./foreign citizenship whether born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

It's such a simple question with ONLY one answer, not two, not either or, which would definitely be confusing to John Jay and George Washington.

Mario, the shallow thinking by the neo-birthers, as articulated by Unknown/Bryan, is boring 'cause they, well, they are not very deep, they are shallow when it comes clarifying what John Jay's original genesis original intent was on July 25, 1787 for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen", a suggestion that was adopted and subsequently incorporated into the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1 clause 5 on September 17, 1787.

It seems to me that America still needs information about who is "...eligible to the Office of President" with the talk by some Pres. Trump supporters that Donald Trump Jr. or maybe Ivanka Trump Kushner could be POTUS in the future. Well, not if they are not "natural born" Citizens.

Here are the urls from two previous posts here on your Natural Born Citizen blog about ALL 5 of the children of Pres. Trump, who, while U.S. citizens, are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligible to be POTUS, articles that I posted here on February 2, 2016 and February 7, 25, 2016

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that.html
>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html

Here is the first article:

"...birth alone..."

Mario,

In your third paragraph you accurately state "...birth alone. ... birth does not exist in a vacuum."

>> "A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone.
>> "But birth does not exist in a vacuum.
>> "There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth.
>> "Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born
>> "and the place where one is born. ..."

One of the circumstances as you mention in this article, and in the previous two articles, is the citizenship of both parents and where the child is born.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Trump about how to clarify who a "natural born Citizen" is that will get the respect of the Cruz birthers, the Rubio birthers, etc., and that is to bring into the eligibility conversation the naturalization date of his first wife, Ivana and the birth dates of his own children with Ivana.

If Donald Trump were to simply state that his own children are not natural born citizens because, while they were born on U.S. soil, they were not born to two U.S. citizen parents, so they are not "...eligible to the Office President" according to the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5, so he, as a presidential candidate must insist that both Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio not pursue the presidency of the United States because they [were] not natural born citizens.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ajtelles said...

2/2

See Ivana's naturalization notice in the May 26, 1988 Lewiston-Auburn, Maine Journal. She naturalized 11 years after Don was born, 7 years after Ivanka was born, and 4 years after Eric Trump was born.

>> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19880527&id=LiEgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YmYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5053,3823442&hl=en

"With her at Wednesday's ceremony was her husband, billionaire developer Donald Trump."

[...]

"Mrs. Trump, a 38 year-old, Austrian-born, former Czechoslovakian national, came to this country 10 years ago after working as a model in Montreal."

"Donald John "Don" Trump, Jr. (born December 31, 1977)...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump,_Jr.

"Ivanka Marie Trump (/iˈvɑːnkə/, born October 30, 1981)...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump

"Eric Frederic Trump (born January 6, 1984)...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Trump

Maybe Mr. Trump's friend, author Ann Coulter, could take the bull by the horns and write at least one entire article about how Mr. Trump's children are not eligible to be president of the U.S. for the same reason that Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio are not eligible: all 5 "citizens" do not fulfill the original genesis (birth) original intent (citizenship) of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two (2) U.S. citizen parents.

Here is the second article:

>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html

Here is something relevant to the “nbC” “issue” issue; an update about the POTUS eligibility of Donald Trump’s five children, Don, Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, Barron.

_Ivana naturalized four years after third child Eric was born.
_Fourth child Tiffany was born before Donald and Marla were married.
_Melania naturalized four months after fifth child Barron was born.

I posted the dates earlier here on July 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, and here is another Wikipedia page that has the dates all on one page in the Personal Life – Family section. Melania’s naturalization date of July 28, 2016 is not noted but she did reveal it during her RNC speech on July 19, 2016.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Family

Listen to Melania at 5min. 35sec. of her RNC speech. She naturalized July 28, 2006, three months and three weeks after Barron was born March 20, 2006.

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQsj95dI1c

Mario, all five of Donald Trump’s children are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 natural born citizens.

Although all five children were born to at least “one” U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil in accordance with the implication of the Fourteenth Amendment language that “All persons born...in the United State...are citizens of the United States….”, all five were not born to two U.S. citizen married parents in accordance with the implication of “born” and “citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5.

Well, Mario, that’s the current situation concerning the eligibility to be POTUS of Pres. Trumps 5 children.

If it wasn’t for John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted “as is” by the constitution delegates, we would not have an “original genes” (born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents) starting point for understanding Jay’s original intent about who would be eligible to be POTUS and commander in chief of the U.S. military (ONLY a U.S. “citizen” who was by birth ALONE a “natural born Citizen).

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

Date correction...

Hi again Mario,

While the urls are correct on yesterday’s comment here (January 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM), I got a couple of dates wrong.

This quote has the correct dates --

"Here are the urls from two previous posts here on your Natural Born Citizen blog about ALL 5 of the children of Pres. Trump, who, while U.S. citizens, are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligible to be POTUS, articles that I posted here on" February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM, and July 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM.

February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that.html

July 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM
>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html

Also, Melania naturalized on July 28, 2006 (not 2016), four months after Barron was born on March 20, 2006.

PS.

Mario, I wonder if the neobirthers, Democrat or Republican or Independent or Libertarian or Anarchist or whatever and whoever, who assert the "myth", the "theory" that ONLY one U.S. citizen is implied in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, will they defend the children of Pres. Trump if they want to be elected POTUS even though they were born with ONLY one U.S. citizen parent?

Here's a sensible question for neobirthers:

If ONLY "one" U.S. citizen parent is, as some neobirthers have said before, "good enough" and "sufficient" (for national security purposes) for a person to be eligible to be POTUS, is ONLY "two" of lesser sufficiency or of greater sufficiency? If they say that "two" is of greater sufficiency for security purposes they are admitting that ONLY "one" is of lesser sufficiency and is NOT "good enough" to protect the integrity of the original genesis original intent of John Jay's underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 not to George Washington.

To protect the integrity of the office of president, ONLY two U.S. citizen parents is sufficient because ONLY two U.S. citizen parents can pass on to the child ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and eligibility to be president.

Now, if any neobirther can articular how and why a child born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship is better than OR equal to a child born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, well, let them try 'cause Unknown/Bryan sure can't -- he's never tried and he never will 'cause he can't -- and neither can ANY neobirther defend the "myth", the "theory" that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is better than OR equal to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to the office of president.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Robert Pilchman said...


4th Scenario / Scenario D:

A child is born in the United States (in U.S. jurisdiction) to two parents (John and Jane Doe) who both have dual citizenship - both John and Jane Doe are American citizens but they both are also citizens of another country. Would the child be a natural born Citizen? Also would it matter if the other country that John and Jane Doe are citizens of would be the same or different? In my opinion, if the other country that John and Jane Doe are citizens of would be the same then it would be even more difficult to believe that such a child would be considered a natural born Citizen to Vattel. Any thoughts?

ajtelles said...

1st Scenario ONLY...

Hi Mario,

Hi Robert Pilchlman, is any other scenario relevant for consideration if the ONLY original genesis original intent scenario of John Jay, when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, was:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married
ONLY to each other
ONLY before their child is born

Now, if, and it's a BIG "if", if Jay implied by underlining the word "born" that a child could be born anywhere on earth (U.S. soil OR foreign soil) to zero or one or two dual citizenship parents (or two alien citizen parents as the 1898 United States v. Wonk Kim Ark "fiat" decision proclaimed and which has never been corrected by statute or amendment by the U.S. Congress), well then, MAYBE, multiple scenarios could be considered to bring clarity to what a "natural born Citizen" is so that a person could be "...eligible to the Office of President" of the 1787 militarily weak United States of America.

I don't think that John Jay and George Washington would have considered any other scenario to be relevant to the natural security of the new nation but ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that could ONLY be passed on to the child by ONLY two U.S. citizen parents who did NOT have dual U.S./foreign citizenship but who had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship to pass on to the child.

If anybody, a neobirther with an agenda or a constitutional scholar, has ever articulated a dual U.S./foreign citizenship scenario for the parents that would make their child a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, well, they certainly have NEVER done so yet, at least not that I am aware of and have never heard about.

PS.

A "neobirther" is simply a handle for anybody who promotes the 20th/21st century myth and theory that ONLY one parent with ONLY U.S. citizenship is the sufficient intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. One U.S. citizen parent (or two dual U.S./foreign citizenship parents) is contrary to the semantic original genesis intent for original "birther" John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, an original "genesis" intent that could ONLY imply that "born" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that could ONLY be passed on from ONLY two married parents with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

If ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is Jay's only scenario, all other scenarios are picayune, of little value or importance for consideration because the 1787 reason for Jay underling the word "born" in his note to Washington was the national security of the new and militarily weak United States of America.

My conclusion is that Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in 1787 is that Jay and Washington agreed that the command of the new U.S. military was to "devolve" ONLY on a person with singular U.S. citizenship which Article II Section 1 clause 5 identified as a "natural born Citizen" of the new and militarily weak United States of America.

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

Carlyle wrote:
"That is just more opinion."

Does the internet work differently for you? Reporters from the University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org went out and checked the facts. I linked their report of the facts: https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/


Carlyle wrote:
"Like any good historian, I want access to original source documents."

So please cite for us some of the histories you've published with the original birth documents you used in your research.


Carlyle wrote:
"There are also MANY other unanswered questions and/or mysterious inconsistencies."

Proponents of crank conspiracy theories pretty much always say that.

-Bryan

ajtelles said...

Opinion vs. Fact

Hi Mario,

Carlyle makes a valid point about wanting "access to original source documents" and Unknown/Bryan offers the ancient Factcheck.org article which is not sourced because there is no source for the hospital of baby Obama's birth.

For example, it is a fact that officials at the Department of Health and at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children claim that they can't give out private info about baby Obama's birth in Hawaii or at a hospital. However, it is also a fact that if baby Obama had been born at Kapiolani Medical Center (or at Queen Medical Center) either hospital would definitely have had a public announcement (without private info) of baby Obama's birth at their facility and would have put a plaque on at least one hospital wall, either inside or/and outside.

It is also a fact that not one hospital in the United States has EVER had a public announcement about baby Obama's birth at their facility.

"Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children denies President Barack Obama was born there".*1 "Neither hospital recognized the fact that he was born there and not only that, but you would think that the hospital that gave birth to the president of the United States would have some kind of commemorative plaque or something," and "the White House has dropped statements by the president’s family and other spokesmen claiming he was born in Queens Medical Center, instead asserting the president was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center."*2

*1 (2011) http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/27/leo-berman/state-rep-leo-berman-says-kapiolani-medical-center/

*2 (2009) http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/103796/#kPHXKA1zEpzAYhVf.99

It is also a fact that Factcheck.org, Unknown's source, mentions that the Department of Heath "confirmed" baby Obama's birth in the state of Hawaii, but nowhere on the page is a hospital mentioned. Did I miss it? Did Factcheck.org forget to ask for the name of the hospital?

>> https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."

"Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate."

Ok, the "health department holds Obama's original birth certificate," but in which hospital was baby Obama born, and which hospital issued a birth certificate?

So Carlyle, it looks like you're not going to get a serious response from Unknown/Bryan who still has no source after 10 years.

What's up with that Unknown/Bryan...or any neobirthers who may be reading this? Are there no new online articles from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 that can be adduced which name the hospital which can claims credit for naming the doctor who saw baby Obama's birth? Is there no single source -- yet, after 10 years -- taking credit for being the only place on earth as the birth place of baby Obama?

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

Ajtelles, I'm impressed. You outdid yourself with that claim and citation that you marked with "*1". You asserted it as fact, and cited it to a Politifact article that rates it, "Pants on Fire". Wow. How can you top that?

-Bry

ajtelles said...

A "fact" vs. an "article that rates"

Hi Mario,

Come on Unknown/Bry/Bryan, you know better than to assert innuendo as fact. Politifact rates the comment by the Texas State Rep. as "pants on fire" but does not refute the accuracy of the statement contained in the header of the 2011 article, "Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children denies President Barack Obama was born there."

After 10 years can you refute it Bryan?
Has Kapiolani Medical Center claimed baby Obama as their own?

The header of the article states that Kapiolani "denies" baby Obama's birth there, but the more accurate header statement would be that Kapiolani has never "claimed" that baby Obama was born there.

In 2009 WND.com posted the article that Queens Medical Center was "dropped" by the White House as the place of baby Obama's birth and claimed Kapiolani is the birth hospital: "...the White House has dropped statements by the president’s family and other spokesmen claiming he was born in Queens Medical Center, instead asserting the president was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center."

Again, it is the Obama's making the claim of being born a Kapiolani, not Kapiolani claim that baby Obama was born there.

In 2011 WND.com again (and Snopes.com*) posted an article showing baby Obama's Certificate of Live Birth that was provided by BHO, but, and it's a BIG but, it is Obama making the claim of being at Kapiolani. Kapiolani still has NEVER claimed baby Obama as their own.

* https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

Deal with it Bryan and Obot neobirthers, since baby Obama's alleged birth in "Hawaii" in 1961 no hospital in the United States has EVER claimed baby Obama as theirs... no public or private announcement... no plaque on no wall... no nothin'.

Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

Originalism and Corpus Linguistics

Hi Mario,

On December 31 Prof. Larry Solum posted an abstract about "...a newly released corpus (or database) of founding-era texts" by Thomas R. Lee (Government of the State of Utah - Utah Supreme Court; Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School) & James Cleith Phillips (The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; University of California, Berkeley - Department of Jurisprudence & Social Policy) - - "The initial beta version will contain approximately 150 million words, ... ."

Paragraph 4:

"To showcase corpus linguistic methodology, the paper will analyze important clauses in the Constitution that have generated litigation and controversy over the years — commerce, public use, and natural born."

Here a some sentences of the abstract:

"The threshold question for all originalist methodologies concerns the original communicative content of the words of the Constitution. ... . Dictionaries generally just define individual words; they don’t typically define phrases or allow for the consideration of broader linguistic context. And while dictionaries can provide a list of possible senses, they can’t tell us which sense is the most ordinary (or common). ... .

"Originalists have also turned to examples of usage in founding-era documents. ... . Originalists tend to turn only to certain sources, such as the Federalist Papers or the records of the state constitutional conventions, and those sources may not fully reflect how ordinary users of English of the day would have understood the Constitution (or at least have used language). Second, the number of founding-era documents relied on is often rather small, ... .

"But all is not lost. Big data, and the tools of linguists, have the potential to bring greater rigor and transparency to the practice of originalism. This article will explore the application of corpus linguistic methodology to aid originalism’s inquiry into the original communicative content of the Constitution. We propose to improve this inquiry by use of a newly released corpus (or database) of founding-era texts: the beta version of the Corpus of Founding-Era American English. The initial beta version will contain approximately 150 million words, derived from the Evans Early American Imprint Series (books, pamphlets and broadsides by all types of Americans on all types of subjects), the National Archives Founders Online Project (the papers of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, including correspondence to them), and Hein Online’s Legal Database (cases, statutes, legislative debates, etc.).

"The paper will showcase how typical tools of a corpus — concordance lines, collocation, clusters (or n-grams), and frequency data — can aid in the search for original communicative content. We will also show how corpus data can help determine whether a word or phrase in question is best thought of as an ordinary one or a legal term of art. To showcase corpus linguistic methodology, the paper will analyze important clauses in the Constitution that have generated litigation and controversy over the years — commerce, public use, and natural born. We propose best practices, and also discuss the limitations of corpus linguistic methodology for originalism.

"Larry Solum has predicted that “corpus linguistics will revolutionize statutory and constitutional interpretation.” Our paper seeks to chart out the first steps of that revolution so that others may follow."

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

The url.

Mario, here is the url for the "Originalism and Corpus Linguistics" abstract.

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2018/01/lee-phillips-on-originalism-and-corpus-linguistics.html

Art

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Thank you for sharing this article with us. I took a quick look and will examine it in more depth.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

John C. Moritz of the Caller Times and USA Today Network argues that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. See https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2018/04/23/what-you-need-know-ted-cruz/522021002/ . He is mistaken.

To throw off all vestiges of a monarchy and to assure absolute loyalty to and thus survival of the constitutional Republic, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that today the President of the United States, who also serves as the Commander in Chief of the Military, must not only be a "Citizen of the United States." Rather, the President must be a "natural born Citizen."

Under the law of nations and the applicable common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, an Article II natural born citizen was a person born or reputed born in the county to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. Hence, a natural born citizen became a citizen of the country in which he or she was born by virtue of birth circumstances alone and not by the aid of any positive law. The Framers adopted this definition into the Constitution and to date it has never been changed.

Senator Ted Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen. Senator Cruz was born in a foreign country (Canada) to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother. In other words, he was born not only in a foreign nation, but also to a non-U.S. citizen father. Being born to a U.S. citizen mother alone is not sufficient to make him a natural born citizen. It is not enough to give him that allegiance or tie to the United States which a natural born citizen has and which the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military must have, i.e., unwavering attachment to the nation by being born in it to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

A naturalization Act of Congress made Senator Cruz a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” Without this positive law, he would not have been a U.S. citizen at all, let alone a U.S. citizen at birth. One does not become a natural born citizen by way of a naturalization statute passed by Congress. Rather, one becomes a natural born citizen under the common law by the circumstances of birth alone, i.e., being born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Hence, Senator Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (a positive law), not an Article II natural born citizen by virtue of his birth circumstances alone. Senator Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. Senator, who needs to be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 9 years, but not the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military who must be a “natural born Citizen.”

Ilíon said...

"A naturalization Act of Congress made Senator Cruz a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” ..."

And, in fact, since his mother didn't fill-out the paperwork required by that Act of Congress until he was 16 years old, Cruz wasn't technically a US citizen until he was 16 ... and here 'technically' means "in fact of law".

ajtelles said...

Dittos...

Hi Mario,

John Jay, the author of "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington, would agree that you made an excellent point about the lack of natural born Citizen status of Texas Senator Ted Cruz who was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, and it does not matter the date when the statute was codified by the U.S. Congress.

This quote is from the last sentence of your last paragraph posted here on your Natural Born Citizen blog on April 24, 2018 at 6:15 AM:

>> "Senator Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. Senator,
>> who needs to be a 'Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 9 years,
>> but not the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military
>> who must be a “natural born Citizen.' "

To be 1787 Article II Section I clause 5 "...eligible to the Office of President" of the United States of America, a person must obviously, as John Jay implied, have

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY by birth alone
_ONLY on U.S. soil
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
_ONLY married
_ONLY to each other
_ONLY before their child is born


Anybody who says otherwise must first adduce text where founder John Jay said and Constitutional Convention President George Washington agreed that a "natural born Citizen" eligible to be president of the United States was ANY person born ANYWHERE on earth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, OR born on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent OR... OR... according to the 1898 United States vs. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "fiat" decision, that a person born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. citizen parents was a U.S. "citizen" and so eligible to be POTUS.

Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

John Jay, the ultimate definer of the natural born meaning of "natural born Citizen" and my "nbC" new best friend has the final word on the ONLY original genesis original intent meaning about "natural born Citizen" and thus eligibility to be POTUS.

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/

ajtelles said...

Natural Born Citizen...

Hi Mario,

"John Vlahoplus has posted 'Natural Born Citizen': A Response to Thomas H. Lee (American University Law Review Forum (Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

"In "Natural Born Citizen" Thomas H. Lee provides a challenging and in his own words "novel interpretation" of the original meaning of that constitutional term. ... ."

This is the url for the abstract on Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog:
>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2018/04/vlahoplus-on-lee-on-natural-born-citizen.html

This is the url for the SSRN download page for the 19 page pdf:
>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3154894

I. THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN"
II. LEE'S ANALYSIS
III. OBJECTIONS TO LEE'S STATUTORY ANALYSIS
A. Calvin's Case
B. Blackstone
C. Common Law and Acts of Parliament
D. American Understanding of Common and Constitutional Law
E. Relevance of Vattel


D. American Understanding of Common and Constitutional Law

"In his 1783 Notes on British and American Alienage Thomas Jefferson
wrote that "[t]he state of the father . . . does not draw to it that of the child,
at the Common law."101 Instead, "a Natural subject having a son born in a
foreign state; the son was an alien at the Common law."102 Jefferson did not
believe that the statutes were declaratory of the common law; instead they
naturalized the foreign-born child. "The stat. 25.E.3. st.2. first naturalized
him if both parents were, at the time of his birth, natural subjects; and
7.Ann.c.5. and 4.G.2.c.21. where the father alone was."103 James Madison
agreed, writing in 1813 that Britain "naturalizes persons born of British
parents in Foreign Countries".104 And the most widely used law dictionary
in the early Republic105 listed the Acts of Edw. III, Ann., Geo. II and Geo.
III under the term "Naturalization" along with the act naturalizing persons
who lived in the colonies for seven years and private acts of Parliament
naturalizing foreigners.106

"John Adams also denied that children born out of the monarch's
dominions were natural born at common law. He wrote in 1775 that "our
ancestors, when they emigrated, . . . could not have taken arms against the
king of England, without violating their allegiance, but their children would
not have been born within the king’s allegiance, would not have been
natural subjects, and consequently not intitled to protection, or bound to the
king."107

"In addition, all of the members of the First Congress who spoke in the
reported debates over the first federal naturalization act recognized that
foreign-born children of American citizens are aliens who can only become
citizens by naturalization. In discussing them Rep. Sherman stated that the
difference between a citizen and an alien is that "the citizen is born in the
country."108

[...]

"The historical evidence from Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the First
Congress demonstrates that Americans did not consider foreign-born
children of citizen fathers who had gone abroad for private purposes to be
natural born citizens under the common law or the Constitution."



Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Hello Art,

Thank you for sharing that with us. I agree with John Vlahoplus in part. I agree with him that a child born out of the United States to one or even two U.S. citizen parents who are out of the country for private reasons is not a U.S. citizen under the common law, but rather can only be a naturalized citizen under a naturalization Act of Congress, and that therefore such child is not nor can he or she be a natural born citizen under the Constitution. I disagree with how he dismisses the relevance (requirement) of the birth parents ("jus sanguinis") in the natural born citizen definition.

As you know, my years of research and litigation in the courts has led me to the conclusion that there are two elements in the definition of a natural born citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and therefore under the Constitution, i.e., (1) birth or reputed birth in the country (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. While the 14th Amendment could have changed this definition, it did not. Nor can any Act of Congress supplant it.

ajtelles said...

Dittos...

Hi Mario,

As you wrote in paragraph two - -

"...there are two elements in the definition of a natural born citizen under the common law...."

I concur and I think that John Jay would also agree with you. Jay was a founder and New York ratifier of the U.S. Constitution, including the "natural born Citizen" language in Article II Section 1 clause 5, POTUS eligibility language that was included in Jay's short note on July 25, 1787 to his good friend George Washington and his wife Martha.

As I have written before here on your Natural Born Citizen blog and have extrapolated about the original genesis original intent of John Jays' implicit meaning for writing the words "natural born" in conjunction with "Citizen" in his note to Washington sixty-two days before the language of the constitution was adopted, John Jay could ONLY have meant, ONLY implied one thing, marriage to ONLY one spouse ONLY BEFORE the birth of the child.

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
>>>>>[definitely NOT dual citizenship]

_ONLY by birth alone
>>>>>[ONLY birth and "natural law" and definitely NOT birth and "positive law"]

_ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction
>>>>>[self-evident because dual citizenship was definitely NOT implied]

_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
>>>>>[self-evident because obviously NOT implied was one OR zero U.S. citizen parents]

_ONLY married
>>>>>[definitely NOT implied was ONLY one U.S. citizen parent]

_ONLY to each other
>>>>>[definitely NOT a husband with multiple wives, Mormon OR Muslim]

_ONLY before their child is born
>>>>>[self-evident by commonsense, NOT by implication]

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

Dittos addendum...

Hi Mario,

A few hours ago I was thinking about your two points in paragraph two of your post yesterday here on your Natural Born Citizen blog on May 5, 2018 at 6:44 PM.

>> (1) birth or reputed birth in the country
>> (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth

Mario,

To refute your informed conclusion about the two points you made yesterday in the second paragraph, all that needs to be done is for the Obama Obots and the Cruz Cbots, both of which promote the thesis that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be POTUS, even if the child is born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil (Sen. Obam) or born on foreign soil NOT under U.S. jurisdiction to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent (Texas Senator Ted Cruz), all they need to do is adduce text where at the least one, ONLY one, just ONE, of the 1787 constitutional convention delegates said that ONLY one U.S. citizen is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be POTUS.

In all the recorded discussion among the constitutional convention delegates about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 between July 25, 1787 and September 17, 1787, was any delegate recorded as stipulating that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent was the implication of "natural born Citizen" in A2S1c5?

Not that I know of.

Does any neobirther, Obot or Cbot, know of any such discussion?

Not that I know of.

Mario, it seems that your two points in paragraph two on May 5, 2018 at 6:44 PM are irrefutable.

Art
_OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com
_Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com
_StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 265 of 265   Newer› Newest»