PING!
STE=Q
What a crock.
Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?”
Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.
sfl
The one thing that has been made very, very clear is Obama’s loyalties do not lie with the United States of America.
“Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?” Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.”
I’m not taking a side on this issue. However, I do believe you did not read his article and understand his argument.
It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.
In his view/understanding only the FATHER of the child mattered and NOT where the child was born. The child of a CITIZEN FATHER would be natural born regardless of where born. The MOTHER (in context of the 18th Century) cannot confer natural born status. Thus, John McCain being the sone of a citizen father is natural born and Barrack Obama being the son of a non-citizen is not. The mother’s citizenship has no bearing.
I do not know if he is correct, but I would guess that a court wouldn’t buy it because when women became full citizens, then some would infer that they now have the power to confer natural born status on their offspring.
His arguments only work under his original presumption that only ammendments to the constitution can change its meaning....and in his thinking the meaning would have veen clear to someone living in the late 18th Century....only the father mattered.
Hello Jedi Pauly,
I read your article and criticism of my position on what is a “natural born Citizen.” I must respectfully advise you that you do not understand my position. I would recommend that you read with care what I have written in my briefs to the courts and on my blog. You might then better understand what I have written.
I would like to now address what you have written. I do not know why you place me together with Orly Taitz on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” I believe you understate the extent of my work by doing so. Again, you can read Orly’s work and my work so that you can fully understand what each have contributed to the understanding of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”
I have never said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has changed over time. I do not know where you got that from. Please provide a quote from me with a citation to support your allegation. On the contrary, I have always argued that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has always been the same and has to this day, unlike the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” never changed.
I never said that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents serving in our military are not “natural born Citizens.” On the contrary, I was probably the only one of the eligibility attorneys who said that a child born abroad to military U.S. citizen parents qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” under Vattel’s, Section 217.
As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level. Whatever positive laws have said or may say about their rights does not change their equality in nature. I do not know why you discount the female so easily. The point is that both parents must be U.S. citizens when the child is born on U.S. soil (or its equivalent). Under natural law, the child acquires as much natural allegiance from the one as he/she does from the other.
I hope that this clears things up for you.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Another man’s opinion...
This is a rather bold statement. Courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison and will continue to do so. The First Amendment has been interpreted beyond all original meaning to exile religion from the national fabric and well beyond the original and contemporary meaning of the establishment clause. The author's argument falls apart on its face.
Nowhere in this article is any mention of the 14th Amendment. Most jurists contend that the language of the 14th Amendment changed the meaning of Article II. Certainly, you can't make any argument about Article II natural born citizen without addressing the issues raised by the 14th Amendment.
This seems to be just another assertion of fact when it is just another argument that cannot be settled anywhere other than in the Federal Courts and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Life just isn't fair is it?
Of course. That's because there exists no such valid theory. Unfortuantely, he qualifies, and no amount of wishful thinking to the contrary will change that. Now stop wasting your time and energy on this dead end, and work to defeat him at the ballot box in 2012.