“Minor vs. Happert stated that a NBC was certain one born in the USA with 2 citizen parents, that was doubtful for one born in the USA of only 1 citizen parent, and that did not exist for one born in the USA of no US Citizen parent.”

Minor vs. Happersett does not say that anywhere. Paraphrasing a court decision to say what you want it to say is worse than lying. But then, you didn’t read it yourself or you’d have at least gotten the names right. Here is exactly what the Chief Justice wrote in the majority opinion in this case:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who will be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law with the nomenclature which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. ”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7522834/Minor-v-Happersett-88-US-162-1874

“As to this class, there have been doubts.” Just like with the “he’s not eligible” ers of today. You have your doubts. But cases are not proven by casting doubts. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Prove Otherwise.

Minor vs. Happert stated that a NBC was certain one born in the USA with 2 citizen parents, that was doubtful for one born in the USA of only 1 citizen parent, and that did not exist for one born in the USA of no US Citizen parent.

No… it did not.

It said there was no doubt for the first.

It said there was some doubt for the second, but explicitly declined to settle that doubt.

It said absolutely nothing about the third. That part you simply made up out of thin air.

Sounds so simple, please go explain that to the dead Americans that were press ganged prior to 1812 and placed upon British Ships and ultimately died there. (further unneeded sarcasm)

It sounds simple because it is. And your example here does nothing to contradict that. In fact, it puts an even finer point on the truth of my position.

The “press ganging” of American sailors onto British ships is identical to (not merely analogous with) the “press ganging” of American citizens into dual citizenship by foreign (in Obama’s case British) laws. The latter is no more legitimate than the former. Your argument, though, is claiming that Obama cannot be president because he was “press ganged” into British citizenship against his will… probably even without his knowledge.

That argument is absurd on its face, let alone without any legal support.

No other nation’s laws can trump American laws when it comes to deciding who our natural born citizens are.

Choice of loyalty and Court assigned loyalty are two different things. I will make this simple, if a country can tax you or press gang you legally under their court system, they have a CLAIM on you. Two countries CLAIM you at birth, you are not a Natural Born Citizen. You may have ‘Italian citizenship’ but could they (by Italian laws) Tax you or draft you at your birth? What is the ‘Truth” here. You cannot serve two masters, and you can’t be Taxed by two countries (especially at 51% of your income each).

Are you even listening to yourself here? What “court” assigns loyalties? I must have missed that session in civics class.

1. We choose our loyalties.
2. We also choose which country gets to tax us, within the limits and complexities of international tax law which have almost nothing to do with citizenship.
3. If we are “press ganged” however, we have not made a choice. We have instead become victims of crime.

And as an aside… yes, the Italian government could have drafted me had they known I existed prior to my 40th birthday. Remember, my Italian citizenship was automatic (as Obama’s British citizenship was automatic). They didn’t even have to know I existed, and I didn’t even have to know I was an Italian citizen.

You gut your entire argument by the last sentence.

“We do not choose our loyalties” and “we do choose are loyalties”: each of these propositions are true in different cases.

A NBC does not choose his loyalties, the natural circumstances of his birth as regards place and parentage do that.

See… that’s where you demonstrate that you have missed the entire point of the argument. Jonathan Pollard and Robert Hansen were both NBCs. Are you honestly pretending that they did not “choose their loyalties” when they betrayed the nation of their natural born citizenship?

Loyalty cannot be assigned by an act of law. It is a personal choice.

But before you sought recognition, your loyalites were not divided, because you did not choose.

Okay. Hold onto that thought, because you are about to completely contradict yourself again. In your view, prior to voluntarily accepting an Italian passport, I was an NBC with undivided loyalties. Now… I was still a dual citizen, as Italian citizenship was granted to me automatically by Italian law. So you are forced by your own reasoning to agree that dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are not mutually exclusive.

Good. At least that issue is settled.

But additionally (as you explicitly acknowledge here) it takes a conscious choice for loyalties to be divided, not the involuntary imposition of act of law.

Then you do a sudden about face….

Zero if his father was Obama, did not choose, he was born with dual loyalties

Huh? But you just said that I had undivided loyalties until I chose to divide them. How then can you contradict that for Obama? He too must be accorded the same standard: i.e. he has undivided loyalties until such time as he chooses to divide them. It does not matter that British Law automatically granted him British citizenship (as you admit it did not matter that Italian law had granted me Italian citizenship), he was a natural born citizen at birth and there exists no evidence that he has ever chosen otherwise.

In any case, I see no reason to doubt Apuzzo’s legal expertise, even if he holds dual citizenship. The question is Zero’s citizenship status: why is it that you will never question that?

Oh, trust me. It is not Apuzzo’s dual citizenship that causes me to doubt his legal expertise. I have actually read his blog and his filings.

As to why I do not question Obama’s citizenship status, it is because he has proven that status as per the standards of the US Department of State. They have even declared as much under oath.

so in effect someone like Ahmamidgetman, dictator of IRan, or Chavez, or Kim Park, or retrospectively Adolf Hitler under our “laws” could come here, impregnate an American woman and that person could grow up to be president of USA ?

Yep. That’s exactly true.

Of course… there is the whole issue of an election, too. But why quibble about details?

You theory about the 14th Ammendment and born vs naturalized, runs contrary to what is said in Minor vs Happert, and thus, you are shown to be either ignorant or a liar.

Minor vs. Happert stated that a NBC was certain one born in the USA with 2 citizen parents, that was doubtful for one born in the USA of only 1 citizen parent, and that did not exist for one born in the USA of no US Citizen parent.

It uses naturalized and native as other terms for citizenship.

That is the US Supreme Court on the matter. Your opinion has constitutional no legal merit whatsoever.

…does it occur to you that your judgment on what to take seriously could perhaps be a bit off?

What — am I supposed to run things by you before I post them? I’d recommend you not holding your breath on that one.

-Phil

When you can cite evidence where your conclusion may actually have any basis in fact, then I might start taking such a comment seriously.

My facts there will check out. Phil, with the birthers’ record on these suits standing at zero for dozens, does it occur to you that your judgment on what to take seriously could perhaps be a bit off?

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Yes, I am one who has been waiting for the court to prove its honor.
It is disappointing to read comments that which are muddeled in the same way that the ‘08 campaign show was played. The Article is not a difficult application. I understand it. It is simple to comprehend lawfully, the difficulty appears when applied unlawfully.
And to the hopefully lawful citizens, would it not be prudent to request that simple laws be upheld and that honor continued in our courts? Gods’ speed Mr Apuzzo, your application and honor is apparent.

Sincerely

A lawful USA citizen

Prove me wrong. I doubt you can or will because so far you’ve flat out refused to reply to any of my arguments on this. I will repeat this yet again. Amendment XIV can not be used to satisfy Article II requirements for “Natural Born Citizen” because of the ‘or naturalized’ clause.

This doesn’t even make sense. Why would one need to use the 14th amendment to satisfy Article II. The supreme court has long declared the 14th amendment merely declaritory of the common law rule of locatlity of birth that unquestionably existed in the US through the civil war. The one thing that was clear in the legislative history of the 14th amendment is that no one thought they were changing the law, though it is not clear everyone agreed what the law was. Under the common law, there were two types of citizens, born in the US and naturalized. People born in the US were also call natives or natural-born. It is simply an historical fact. Thus, being born in the US is all that is necessary to be natural born as all authority in the early republic maintianed. To quote the most influential constitutional treatise of the reconstruction era:

“A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens ; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation….The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them). It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.” George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, pg. 167 (1868)

“You are 110% WRONG.”
- I am absolutely right. Born in the US = Natural Born Citizen. The Electoral College, the entire Congress, and the Chief Justice who swore in Pres Obama on Jan 20th agree with me. So does the DNC, the RNC, the FEC, the Dept of State, the Dept of Homeland Security, the 50 states, DC and 6 territories. All these people and agencies are wrong about Pres Obama’s eligibility and you, JeffM, are right? Nonsense.

- There are two types of citizen: born and naturalized. Born citizens are natural born citizens. A naturalized citizen is not, and could never be, a natural born citizen. I never said otherwise.
- You are exactly right that a born citizen is a natural born citizen. Born in the US = Natural Born Citizen. The 14th amendment amended all references to citizenship in the original Constitution.
- You prove me wrong. It is apparent that every controlling authority in this country agrees with me. As does every legitimate constitutional scholar.

Shelving it past any possible relevance took nine hours and ten minutes.

Apuzzo reports initially filing it on 20 Jan 2009 at at 2:50 a.m. EST. With no response from the court to the emergency petitions for stays and injunctions, events scheduled for noon of that day went ahead as planned. The U.S. Congress has the sole legal authority to remove the President, so now this case is just a matter of clearing garbage off the shelves.

When you can cite evidence where your conclusion may actually have any basis in fact, then I might start taking such a comment seriously.

-Phil

Sounds so simple, please go explain that to the dead Americans that were press ganged prior to 1812 and placed upon British Ships and ultimately died there. (further unneeded sarcasm)

Choice of loyalty and Court assigned loyalty are two different things. I will make this simple, if a country can tax you or press gang you legally under their court system, they have a CLAIM on you. Two countries CLAIM you at birth, you are not a Natural Born Citizen. You may have ‘Italian citizenship’ but could they (by Italian laws) Tax you or draft you at your birth? What is the ‘Truth” here. You cannot serve two masters, and you can’t be Taxed by two countries (especially at 51% of your income each).