Posted on 12/16/2022 4:02:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Dec. 15, 2022) — What if your humble servant were to reveal something here at The P&E which could, once and for all, put an end to “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) debate raging in the comments sections of numerous posts here? What if recently-discovered “hard” evidence – in the form of a letter from John Jay to David Brearley, Chairman of the “Committee on Postponed Matters” at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 – was produced? And what if that letter confirmed the intent of the Founders to rely on § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations for its definition of an nbC, requiring birth in the nation to parents who were already U.S. Citizens? Would that change any of the minds of those who believe that the only criterion for an nbC is to be born here as a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth?” Curious? Read on. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You did not answer my specific question about what you believe is appropriate as to who can serve as the Commander in Chief of our military. Here is my question to you again. What is your opinion and answer?
Do you feel it is appropriate for a person born with foreign influence and foreign allegiance claims on them via being born a dual-Citizen or tri-Citizen, and thus holding citizenship and thus innate allegiance obligations and requirements since birth to more than one country, to serve as the Commander-in-Chief of our military?
My answer is: No.
4Zoltan, what is your answer to this question, yes or no?
I’m sorry. I must have missed your question to me. Feel free to post it again.
Hello DiogenesLamp: I have been actively writing about the “natural born Citizen” issue since the summer of 2008. I and my attorney, Mario Apuzzo (recently deceased), have been quite prolific writers on the subject for over those many years. Although Google has suppressed and sand boxed most of our writings, as did Twitter and Facebook, you can find more of our writing by using the Bing or DuckDuckGo search engines. Search on the subject with my name or Mario Apuzzo. You can also find links to my writings on the subjects of “natural born Citizen” and “presidential eligibility” and research about several major politicians who are not constitutionally eligible at my website ProtectOurLiberty.org Also, here is a White Paper I wrote a few years ago 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
In my earlier post to you I asked this:
Are you aware of this?
I consider that page to be very significant in this debate. I regard the source from which it came to be as good as we will likely find on the topic. It was the collected works of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in determining what English laws applied in the state of Pennsylvania.
I am d@mned sorry to hear about that. Mario Apuzzo was brilliant.
Although Google has suppressed and sand boxed most of our writings, as did Twitter and Facebook, you can find more of our writing by using the Bing or DuckDuckGo search engines.
I have read many of your writings for years. I have tried to contact you several times in the past, but I could never seemingly get a response.
The work you and Mario Apuzzo have done is wonderful and I have always regarded it as highly important.
I have always enjoyed reading your articles when I have found them.
BTTT!!!
*THAT* is more like the reaction I was expecting/hoping for.
This particular law book was prolific in the 1820 era in Pennsylvania. William Rawle very well knew about it, yet he wrote his own book "A View of the Constitution" in which he knowingly contradicted what his own supreme court said.
This is why I say William Rawle was deliberately lying. He had been told the truth, and chose to promulgate a falsehood.
Yes, that is a very powerful and factual finding. Good find. I had not seen that one before. Can you send me the source link? If you wish to share it privately you can contact me using my contact webpage information: http://www.kerchner.com/contact.htm CDR Kerchner (Retired)
It’s not a secret. Been known for awhile now. And I know Mario Apuzzo was aware of it.
This is from Mario’s blog
Judge Roberts contradicts Madison statements, Congressman Hillhouse’s statement, Congressman Swift’s statement and Rawle’s statement.
http://archive.org/details/digestofselectbr00robe
Here is another version of the same book on Googlebooks.
And here is the legislative direction to create the report.
As Mario Apuzzo use to say about the Rawle quote,
Roberts cites no legal precedents, no court cases or laws.
As You said about Rawle,
Roberts was not a Framer.
Not just Roberts. The Supreme court of Pennsylvania signed off on this book.
You might recognize some of these names.
... and Rawle’s statement.
Rawle was informed he was wrong in the Flora vs Gainsberry case. This book was the output of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, and as such it was considered to be the actual known law of that time.
Rawle contradicts what it clearly says, therefore Rawle is the one who is wrong.
This point cannot be emphasized too much. Rawle was a liar, and everyone informed by Rawle's claims are just wrong.
If it was common knowledge among the legal community of Pennsylvania, why would they need to cite anything in support of it?
It's like that definition of "Horse" in the Polish dictionary I mentioned earlier in the thread. "Everyone knows what a horse is."
Roberts was not a Framer.
No, but his mentor, William Lewis, was. Lewis taught him the law. In any case, the book is not Roberts' opinion. It is a compilation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judges. Your quibble is with the entire legal system of 1808 Pennsylvania, not Roberts. Roberts is just the messenger.
I think you made a typo, deliberate or not. Please post a correction if you made a typo.
Atty Mario Apuzzo would more like and frequently have said that about the 1829 published Rawle’s view on the citizenship status children of aliens born in the USA and not said anything like that about the page 26 (image copy posted before in this forum by DiogenesLamp) writings and compilation work of PA Supreme Court Report to the PA legislature compiled by Roberts in 1817. And if it was said exactly as you said it was said, it surely was taken out of some context you have not fully provided, i.e., in some other Roberts personal writings or statement somewhere else, not related to the words and footnotes on page 26 in the report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of PA.
Don’t ascribe words here (out of any context and without links) to a now deceased attorney who is not now able to come here and defend himself and who practiced citizenship law and helped many immigrants become new citizens and who wrote numerous writings on “natural born Citizen” as being one born in the country of parents who were both citizens of that country, with out the context it was stated in and a link to back it up.
It is far more likely that Attorney Apuzzo said William Rawle cites no legal precedents, no court cases or laws, if Atty Apuzzo was speaking about the “natural born citizen” assertion made by Rawle in 1829.
So 4Zoltan, show us the link where Attorney Mario Apuzzo said exactly what you say he said about Roberts in context and regards to what is stated on page 26 that the children of aliens born within the U.S. are aliens in the 1817 “A Digest of Select British Statutes Comprising Those Which According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court Made to the Legislature, Appear to Be in Force, in Pennsylvania ..” Show me/us a link to where Mario said exactly the phrase you say is said about Roberts in regards to the inheritance of citizenship.
For a third time — please answer my question.
You did not answer my specific question about what you believe is appropriate as to who can serve as the Commander in Chief of our military. Here is my question to you again. What is your opinion and answer?
Do you feel it is appropriate for a person born with foreign influence and foreign allegiance claims on them via being born a dual-Citizen or tri-Citizen, and thus holding citizenship and thus innate allegiance obligations and requirements since birth to more than one country, to serve as the Commander-in-Chief of our military?
My answer is: No.
4Zoltan, what is your answer to this question, yes or no?
William Lewis was at the Constitutional Convention?
I think you mean he was at the Pennsylvania state constitution convention. It resulted in the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution.
My quibble is that he cites no law of Pennsylvania or the United States. In the footnote 12 he simply states “In this particular, our laws differ from the English laws”. Which laws would those be?
You misunderstood my post. Mario use to say that Rawle never cites a precedent or a court case.
I’m saying the same is true for Roberts. He cites no legal precedent or court case.
I have answered it.
It is a electability issue for me. For you it is an eligibility issue.
OK, playing your evasive linguistic game a wee bit, even though it is implied in my question, in answering my direct question below, assume in your mind that the person described in my question did get elected somehow. Given that explicitly added point, answer the question as to your personal viewpoint on the appropriateness of such a person, born with foreign influence and citizenship in more than one country at birth, serving as Commander-in-Chief of our military.
Do you feel it is appropriate for a person born with foreign influence and foreign allegiance claims on them via being born a dual-Citizen or tri-Citizen, and thus holding citizenship and thus innate allegiance obligations and requirements since birth to more than one country, to serve as the Commander-in-Chief of our military?
My answer is: No.
4Zoltan, what is your answer to this question, yes or no?
Let me put it this way, I agree with President Teddy Roosevelt.
Dual citizenship does not make someone ineligible to be president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.