Attorney Mario Apuzzo on “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards

Click image for correct definition of “natural born Citizen” of the United States
Click image for more info on Atty Apuzzo’s legal filings and writings on constitutional term “natural born Citizen”

Attorney Mario Apuzzo on “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

 

# # # #

3-legged-stool-test-for-NBC
Click on image to learn more about the “Three Legged Stool Test” for “natural born Citizen”. A person born with “Sole Allegiance” to the USA at birth.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

P.S.  Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of which Obama is not:

1. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

Advertisements

An open message to NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno | from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

For more click on the image for the correct definition of "natural born Citizen" of the United States -- CDR Kerchner (Ret)
For more click on the image for the originalist meaning and definition of “natural born Citizen” of the United States — CDR Kerchner (Ret)
A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” Can Constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. Click on Image For More Information.
A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” Can Constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. Click on Image For More Information.

An open message to NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno from CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired) of ProtectOurLiberty.org:

I have read Admin Judge Masin’s decision and recommendation to you. It is very flawed in many areas including his improper citing or not citing important U.S. Supreme Court decisions about who are NATURALIZED Citizens (and Ted Cruz is one) created by U.S. Statutory laws, and the founding time frame history, intent, and understanding of the founders and framers in their use of the Natural Law term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause.  The judge blew off the writings of Emer de Vattel like he was some relative nobody and not well known the the founders and framers. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton and many U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the first 100 years of this Constitutional Republic would strongly disagree with the casual and low credit given to the writings and influence of Vattel on the founders and framers in the justification for the revolution and the writing of the founding documents and their understanding of who is a Citizen of a nation and who is a “natural born Citizen”. Both modifiers in that term mean some very logical, special, and restrictive not inclusive things as to who can be President and Commander in Chief of our military.

The “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution was put there for national security reasons as to who could be President and Commander in Chief of our military once the founding generation was gone.  The founders and framers had a “grandfather clause” in Article II Section 1 Clause exempting them from being a “natural born Citizen”.  But subsequent generations do not.  They knew the term meant a person with sole allegiance to the country at birth. Not just any sliver or partial allegiance such as being born a dual citizen or tri-citizen as Ted Cruz was. Ted was born with Canadian citizenship by soil, Cuban citizenship from his father, and U.S. citizenship via his mother if she had not at some point renounced that and became a Canadian citizen to register to vote up there, which she did. How is allowing a tri-citizen at birth to be eligible to be President and CinC a “strong check” against foreign influence in that office, as founders and framers John Jay and George Washington intended it to be. A natural born Citizen is one born with sole allegiance and singular citizenship to the USA and only the USA by being born in the USA to parents who are both citizens (born or naturalized citizen parents but citizens) when their child was born. See my white paper on this subject: https://www.scribd.com/…/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-Ho… Also see: https://www.scribd.com/…/Euler-Logic-Diagram-Shows-Logical-… and https://www.scribd.com/…/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Cit…

This question of eligibility MUST be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reject the recommendation decision by Judge Masin and do not allow the ineligible Ted Cruz to be remain on the NJ ballot for President. That, in addition to being the right originalist understanding and meaning defense of the Constitution and the “natural born Citizen” term, would also force this matter to the U.S. Supreme Court on an expedited basis since at that point two states, PA and NJ, would have ruled differently and SCOTUS would have to address the matter on the merits in an immediate and expedited basis.

Respectfully submitted,

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
ProtectOurLiberty.org

UPDATE 1 – 13 Apr 2016:  Exceptions challenges to Admin Judge Masin’s recommendations decision filed by Atty Mario Apuzzo to the NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/308404277/Atty-Mario-Apuzze-filed-Exceptions-to-NJ-LtGov-Challenging-Admin-Judge-Masin-Decision-to-Leave-Ted-Cruz-on-Ballot

UPDATE 2 – 13 Apr 2016:  Exceptions challenges to Admin Judge Masin’s recommendations decision filed by Atty Victor Williams to the NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno:  https://www.scribd.com/doc/308415950/Atty-Victor-Williams-Exceptions

UPDATE 3 – 13 Apr 2016 (Final Decision): Final Decision from NJ Secretary of State and Lt Governor published re Ted Cruz eligibility to be on NJ ballot for President: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308464019/Final-Decision-by-NJ-SoS-Williams-South-Jersey-Concerned-Citizens-v-Ted-Cruz

UPDATE 4 – 13 Apr 2016:  Feedback from Atty, Professor, and Presidential Candidate Victor Williams about the NJ decision is on his webpage:  http://www.victorwilliamsforpresident.com/shame-on-lt-govseretary-of-state-kim-guadagno

UPDATE 5 – 24 Apr 2016:  Amicus Curiae Brief Regarding Exceptions filed by Robert Pilchman (Pro Se):  scribd.com/doc/310122169/

# # # #

Read the: The Who What When Where Why and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term in Our U.S. Constitution

cruzandrubionoteligiblepetitionsbanner(596x130) Cruz and Rubio were Citizens at Birth of a Foreign Country (Ted of 2 Foreign Countries) – Both NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States

Get PDF Copy of Ted Cruz Foreign Citizenship Facts Petition Here — Get PDF Copy of Marco Rubio Foreign Citizenship Facts Petition Here – Neither is constitutionally eligible to serve as President and Commander in Chief or Vice President!

A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” Can Constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. Click on Image For More Information.

More historical and legal papers and analysis on the true constitutional meaning and intent of the founders and framers of the presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, in our U.S. Constitution can be found at this link: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo's legal filings and writings on the true meaning of the legal term of art "natural born Citizen"
Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo’s legal filings and writings on the true meaning of the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”

A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen

by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – 13 Mar 2015

I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude the Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .

They gloss over what the Framers’ purpose was for requiring the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to be a natural born citizen.  They do not engage in any real discussion on what the Framers were trying to achieve through the clause. They dismiss all debate on the subject of foreign influence by flatly stating without any evidence:  “The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace.”

The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  This is even more a blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes referred to persons born out of the King’s dominion to British subject parents as “natural born subjects.”  They fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible.  Hence, Congress referring to one as a citizen rather than a natural born citizen, given the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, was a serious thing.  They do not discuss what the language of the 1790 Act, “shall be considered as,” meant.  They fail to address the issue that this was naturalization language and nothing more.  They fail to discuss whether Congress even had the constitutional power to make anyone born out of the United States a natural born citizen, if that was Congress’s intent in the first place.

They assert without demonstrating that the English common law supports their position.  But they totally ignore that under the English common law, only persons born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that those born out of the dominion and therefore out of his jurisdiction became subjects only through a naturalization Act of Parliament.

They cite to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, but they do not cite to Emer de Vattel and his The Laws of Nations (1758) (1797) or Minor, two leading sources that inform on U.S. citizenship.  Both Vattel and Minor defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.  What is incredible is that they cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to demonstrate that British statutes called children born out of the King’s dominion to subject parents “natural born.”  But they fail to tell the reader that Wong Kim Ark considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized by acts of Congress. In fact, they give virtually no discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case because they know that the case said that under the English common law, only children born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that any child born  out of that dominion needed an act of Parliament to naturalize him or her.  They also fail to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), in which both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act without which those children would be aliens.   It simply defies logic and good reason to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen.

Katyal and Clement argue that John Jay had children born out of the United States while he was on diplomatic assignment and that he would not have disqualified his own children from being natural born citizens.  This is a really baseless point since Jay’s children would have been born out of the United States to parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the United States.  Likewise, they present the John McCain situation as proof for their position.  But they fail to realize that John McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States which makes him reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a natural born citizen under the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor.  See Vattel, Section 217 (children born out of the country to citizen parents serving in the armies of the state are reputed born in the country).  They give the examples of Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney who they say were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. The argument is meritless, for they were both born to U.S. citizen parents in U.S. sovereign territory subject to no foreign power and hence were born in part of the country known as the United States, all of which made them natural born citizens under the common law definition of a natural born citizen.

The authors conclude without demonstrating:  “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”  They simply make this conclusion without having shown how their position is valid given the historical and legal record.

The authors also show contempt to the constitutional requirement that the President has to be a natural born citizen and for any person who dare raise any such issue.  For example, they say: “simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad,” rather than saying that he was born in a foreign nation; “born in a Canadian hospital,” rather than saying that he was born in Canada;  “[d]espite the happenstance of a birth across the border;”  they call arguments with which they do not agree “spurious;” and they consider objections to candidate’s eligibility as “specious objections to candidates eligibility,” as if no one ever made any valid argument.

In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 13, 2015

Source link:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

# # # #

Update 18 Mar 2015 – Attorney Henderson joins in rebutting K&C Harvard Law Review disinformation article about “natural born Citizenship”:  http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/law-professor-and-former-aclj-senior.html

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

Will his Birther issue derail Ted Cruz’s presidential dream? | by Tony Castro | @ VOXXI.com

Will his “Birther” issue derail Ted Cruz’s presidential dream? | by Tony Castro | @ VOXXI.com

At VOXXI.com:  ” … And as Obama could likely tell Cruz, it’s an issue that doesn’t go away, even if you’re almost halfway through your second term in the White House. When asked about whether he’s eligible, Cruz’s stock answer of late has been:

“I was born in Calgary. My father is Cuban. My mother is American. My mother was a U.S. citizen by birth, so under U.S. law, I was an American citizen by birth. Those are the facts.”

Cruz maintains that he is an American citizen by birth, fulfilling the requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that a person needs to be a “natural born citizen” to be president.

But just as Obama is still hammered by some critics about his birther issue, so too do questions continue to be raised in some quarters about Cruz’s constitutional standing to become president because of his birth in Canada. … ”  Read the rest of the article here:  http://voxxi.com/2014/08/31/birthers-ted-cruz/

# # # #

Comment about this by CDR Kerchner (Ret):  A message to Senator Cruz from me and basic logic:  Being declared by man-made positive law that one is a Citizen at Birth is not sufficient.  Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens” at birth. Natural born Citizens are created by “natural law” and the laws of nature, not man-made “positive law”. Read more on types of citizenship and basic logic here: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

This important constitutional issue will not go away not matter how much both major political parties wish to make it go away so they can run politically sexy candidates of their choice without regard for the eligibility clause as to who is legally and constitutionally eligible. Watch as  Jim Rubens, U.S. Senate candidate in NH, does a polite verbal tap dance of sorts when asked about what “natural born Citizen of the United States” means to constitutional standards and its impact on several “rising star” potential Republican Party candidates for Pres and CinC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oIs7UPYsI0

Then learn the real facts about the true historical and legal meaning of “natural born Citizen of the United States” by reading the articles below and also linked to via the links below my signature.

Read these essays regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/