Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s

ObamaRelease YourRecords

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Fred Thompson has written an article in which he argues that Marco Rubio is
eligible to be Vice-President. See it at this link. I have left this comment at his
blog:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United
States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to
the Office of President.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen”
is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to
be President today.

The clear distinction between a “citizen” and a
“natural born Citizen” is natural and therefore universal, for a civil society
must start with original members (called “citizens” in a republic) who are the
creators of that society. Their children, grandchildren, etc. (“Posterity”) then
are the “natural-born citizens.” This is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in
effect says. The creators of the new republic were “Citizens of the United
States” and their “Posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution) were “natural born
Citizens.” The Founders and Framers also allowed for new citizens through
naturalization. Hence, any naturalized citizen under any Act of Congress becomes
a “citizen of the United States,” just like the original “Citizens of the United
States.” A reading of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it
also only adds to the “citizens of the United States,” simply by persons being
born (without requiring “citizen” parents) or naturalized in its jurisdiction.
And the children (“Posterity”) born in the United States to those new first
generation “citizens of the United States” then become “natural born Citizens,”
just like the children of the descendents of the original “Citizens of the
United States.”

Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” under the
“common-law” with which the Framers were familiar. The definition it gave is a
child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country at the
time the child was born. Some argue that this definition is not dispositive,
because the Court did not say that a child born in the United States to alien
parents is not a “natural-born citizen.” This argument is frivolous, for we need
to understand what the Court intended by what it said, and not by what it did
not say. If I want to define a dog, I include as many of a dog’s attributes,
including that a dog by nature is an animal with warm blood. I do not also have
to say at the same time that by nature a dog is not an animal with cold blood.
There is no indication that this definition is not totally inclusive and
exclusive. On the contrary, this has always been the definition of the clause.
This definition has never changed.

It is more than clear that Minor had
two types of “citizens” in mind, a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen,” and
it cannot be otherwise. In the doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen”
presented by Minor and to which you also concede, the parents are “citizens” and
the children are “natural born citizens.”

So, there was no question for
the Minor Court whether children born in the United States to alien parents were
or were not “natural-born citizens.” Those children simply did not meet the
Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural-born citizen.” So, they were not
“natural-born citizens.” The only question was whether those children now fell
under the new Fourteenth Amendment which included as “citizens of the United
States” children born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States. Minor did
not need to answer that question, for Virginia Minor was a “natural-born
citizen.”

Minor did not itself create this definition but only confirmed
it. In fact, Emer de Vattel had already stated this same definition in 1758 as
follows:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to
this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally
participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist
and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each
citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall
soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce
their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say,
that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a
father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only
the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Emer de Vattel, The Law of
Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel
1758). Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural-born citizen,” at the
time of birth, the child had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents. See
also The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring)
(“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are
citizens”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring)
(“The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents
who are citizens”).

Minor added that “some authorities” go further. But
the Court was referring to whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien
parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not
whether that child is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After all, the
Founders and Framers had only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” in mind
and the Court stated that doubt-free definition. That definition came from the
law of nations and was confirmed by our First Congress which passed the
Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Congresses which passed the acts of
1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien
parents as aliens), and also in 1814 by Founder, Chief Justice Marshall. When
the Constitution was adopted, that one definition became the supreme law of the
land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Minor would also not
have referred to the Founders and Framers as “some authorities” and even add
that “there have been doubts” about their definition of a “natural born
Citizen.” In fact, the “natural born Citizen” clause was not even debated during
the Constitutional convention, so surely there were no doubts about its
definition.

On the contrary, the Court even said that there were no
doubts about the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that it gave.

Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor and said that
those children, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien
parents, are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But
Wong Kim Ark twice demonstrated that those children are only “citizens of the
United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” Wong Kim Ark recognized that Wong
was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II
“natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The
first time he said: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a
citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same
principle.’ Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney’s name, and with the
note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was
published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for
February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later
in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United
States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “child, as said by Mr. Binney
in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the
natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’” Id.
at 694. It is critical that when he mentioned it for the second time, his
sentence followed the Court’s conclusion which he based on how the English
common law held aliens in amity to have sufficient allegiance to the King to
make his children born in the King’s dominion “natural born subjects,” that Wong
was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So twice, Justice
Gray told us of the distinction between a child born in the country to aliens
and a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. He explained that both are
“citizens,” but only the latter is a “natural-born citizen.”

So, Minor
confirmed the original definition of a “natural born Citizen” used by the
Founders and Framers. That definition is a child born in a country to parents
who are “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. To date,
that definition has not been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only
defines a “citizen of the United States) or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (construing the
Fourteenth Amendment, only defined a “citizen of the United States”). Any other
U.S. “citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty. So, today, a “natural born Citizen” is
still a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” at the
time of the child’s birth. That definition continues to be the supreme law of
the land until changed by constitutional amendment.

Barack Obama, Marco
Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all not born to U.S. “citizen” parents (“natural
born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at
the time of their birth. Being born to just one U.S. “citizen” parent (Obama’s
birth circumstance) is not sufficient because the child inherits through jus
sanguinis from the one non-U.S. citizen parent a foreign allegiance and
citizenship just as strong as if born to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence,
Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are all not “natural born Citizens.” Rubio and Jindal,
being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are
“citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Obama was
born in Hawaii, he too is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment. But what this means is that since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are
neither Article II “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” they are not eligible to be
President and Commander in Chief of the Military or Vice-President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Source:

2 responses to “Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s

  1. The British Nationality Act of 1948 proves Obama Jr was born a British Subject due to his father being a British Subject. John Jay would never allow a British Subject to ever become Commander in Chief! That is why he wrote to George Washington asking him to put the natural born requirement into the then new Constitution. George inserted it with no opposition from anyone under A2, S1, p5. It has never been amended and no Judge, Jury, Court, the House or Senate or any Bill or Law or even public opinion can change our great old Constitution! If you are not natural born you can not legally be President! McCain, Obama, Jindal, Rubio, and possibly even Mitt are not eligible. McCain was born on foreign soil. Obama has one non-American parent while Jindal and Rubio had both mother and father that were not Americans at the time Bobby and Marco were born. As for Mitt I have never seen prof his daddy George was not still a citizen of Mexico the day Mitt was born. Jus Sanguinis, Jus Soli

  2. And another thing: I am getting pretty tired of lower courts basing their decision on the clear fallacy that by English common law, a natural born subject occupies the same legal notch as a post revolutionary war “natural born Citizen, because it does not. For our purposes, the critical difference is access to the ruling class, which is essentially what Art. II, §1, cl. 5 is all about and what defines our American democracy.

    Are we part of a feudal system where natural born subjects have no access the British crown, or are we natural born US citizens, all with equal access to the presidency or the vice-presidency? This is why Art. II, §1, cl. 5, to me, is the most important article in the US Constitution. It allows the incorruptible natural political right of inheritance to create America’s ruling class rather than the corruptible plenary authority of government.

    Sadly, the lower courts have now crossed the Rubicon with the 2009 Ankeny decision declaring anyone born subject to the jurisdiction an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizen, thereby breaching the equal protection clause of the US Constitution i.e. some have their US citizenship bestowed upon them at birth by positive law, while others receive their US citizenship at birth naturally under the cloak of allegiance of the father.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s