Replies

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.

“As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level.”

I would have to agree with you here.

However, I think he is trying to place the NBC definition in historical context...

... can be a little confusing and perhaps should be discarded in a legal argument, for the sake of clarity.

I REALLY like the way he explains the founders aversion the “titles and nobility.”

It brings up the infamous “lost” 13th amendment!

The amendment of “titles and nobility” that was (if I remember)only one state short of being ratified.

I am going to reread the article again and see what I may have missed.

STE=Q

Mario, Thanks.

The courts may not remove the president. But the people will. We spread the word of this fraud every day.

I suspect a good majority of people now know the truth, and this is, in part, why the Mid Term election was such a tidal wave. 2012, if he is on the ticket, there wont be many Democrats left standing. The truth is crushing.

Maybe you should consider signing up at Democratic Underground.

The Dems aren't too happy with Obama right now. They're already talking about 2012 presidential primary challenges. They blame him for the mess they're in and want him gone.

I think the market is ripe to expand the birther franchise. Turn it into a bipartisan effort. Explain to the disgruntled Democrats your plan to remove Obama from office. Swoon them with some Monsieur De Vattel poetry. They'll never be more receptive to the idea than they are right now.

Democrat Birthers...the new black.

Please have a look at this thread..Kind as an adjective is natural and native...plus the grouping of the definitons in the Greek-English dictionary.

The author of the Greek-Eng dictionary is the son of a Founder. Enjoy searching..but..explaining what I located..not so enjoyable.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts

Birther Kleagle bushpilot1 wrote...

"It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts?page=26#26

What say you?

Mario,

You do great work, however, you consistently have neglected the natural right of "expatriation" in your augments & writings. Expatriation is the "KEY" to proving that the founders & colonists had thrown off the feudal law of 'jus soli' & adopted the natural law of 'jus sanguinis'. When you write about the 14th, you can not define its meaning without the addition of the sister Act to it that was passed just mere days after the 14th was ratified. Without this right of expatriation, natural law citizenship does not exist and this right was proclaimed at the onset of the revolutionary war when people of the colonies had to make a choice, British or American, they couldn't claim both. This is the law of nature, man makes the choice, not the soil and thus it is the natural law citizenship that was adopted by our founders, not the feudal law of allegiance to a single person who claims ownership over the soil...

Good points and I don’t blame you for wanting to wash your hands of Orly Taitz...

Also, don’t forget that even if Obama had legal claim to a Natural Born citizen designation, Obama gave up his NB Citizenship status when he went to Kenya-—the other half of his dual citizenship-—and actively campaigned for Odinga.

Even the much ballyhooed “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” agrees with that!

Cheers