In discussing Ankeny, Judge Bent [in Paige v. Obama] said that “‘natural born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.” But upon close examination, this distinction is not logical at all. This argument is tantamount to arguing that any person who is a “citizen at birth” is a “natural born Citizen.” This is fallacious reasoning called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. We know from the definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by Minor and other historical sources and U.S. Supreme Court case law cited, that satisfying the definition means that one is necessarily a “citizen” from the moment of birth. But being a citizen from the moment of birth is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for according to Minor v. Happersett, the definition also contains the two requirements of being born in the country to “citizen” parents. Hence, just showing that one was “a citizen at birth” only satisfies part of the definition which by the very nature of the definition is necessary but not sufficient. Here is an example of this fallacy: If someone is smart, then someone is a professor. Someone is a professor. Therefore someone is smart. This argument is not valid. It demonstrates the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The first premise does not state that if one is a professor one is smart. Rather, it states that being a professor is the consequence of or follows from being smart. So, being a professor does not necessarily mean that one is smart. So likewise, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not state that being “a citizen at birth” makes one a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, being “a citizen at birth” is the consequent of or follows from being a “natural born Citizen.” Being “a citizen at birth” does not prove that one is a “natural born Citizen,” for the other two conditions of being a “natural born Citizen” must also be proven. There is also case law and statutes which prove that simply being “a citizen at birth” does not make one a “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said that children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents are citizens at birth, but are made such by naturalization statutes of Congress and not the common law or even the Fourteenth Amendment. We know from a plain reading of these statutes that they only define “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.”
Mario Apuzzo, “The Vermont Court Errs in Dismissing Presidential Ballot Challenge H.
Brooke Paige v. Barack Obama,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-vermont-court-errs-in-dismissing.html.
Thank you very much for the additional insight.
I am not not a lawyer. But after 4 and half years I certainly have an understanding of this aspect of the Constitution that I never appreciated before.
To see the twisting and lying and deflection around this aspect of our laws is disheartening.
Politics and political correctness continue to carry the day. There are no winners in Washington with this issue. I believe we all understand that. In fact given the situation in the minority party I believe we will see further obscuring of this part of our Constitution to suit their needs in 2016. And that is a sad thing.
I have learned up over the last few years and much from your blog. I will call outright lies when presented. It is time that that is done.
Thank you.
bc6