Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson's 
Article Defending Marco Rubio's Constitutional Eligibility
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Fred Thompson has written an article in which he argues that Marco Rubio is eligible to be Vice-President. See it at this link. I have left this comment at his blog:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President today.

The clear distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” is natural and therefore universal, for a civil society must start with original members (called “citizens” in a republic) who are the creators of that society. Their children, grandchildren, etc. (“Posterity”) then are the “natural-born citizens.” This is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in effect says. The creators of the new republic were “Citizens of the United States” and their “Posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution) were “natural born Citizens.” The Founders and Framers also allowed for new citizens through naturalization. Hence, any naturalized citizen under any Act of Congress becomes a “citizen of the United States,” just like the original “Citizens of the United States.” A reading of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it also only adds to the “citizens of the United States,” simply by persons being born (without requiring “citizen” parents) or naturalized in its jurisdiction. And the children (“Posterity”) born in the United States to those new first generation “citizens of the United States” then become “natural born Citizens,” just like the children of the descendents of the original “Citizens of the United States.”

Minor defined a "natural-born citizen" under the "common-law" with which the Framers were familiar. The definition it gave is a child born in a country to parents who were "citizens" of that country at the time the child was born. Some argue that this definition is not dispositive, because the Court did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural-born citizen.” This argument is frivolous, for we need to understand what the Court intended by what it said, and not by what it did not say. If I want to define a dog, I include as many of a dog’s attributes, including that a dog by nature is an animal with warm blood. I do not also have to say at the same time that by nature a dog is not an animal with cold blood. There is no indication that this definition is not totally inclusive and exclusive. On the contrary, this has always been the definition of the clause. This definition has never changed.

It is more than clear that Minor had two types of “citizens” in mind, a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen,” and it cannot be otherwise. In the doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen” presented by Minor and to which you also concede, the parents are “citizens” and the children are “natural born citizens.”

So, there was no question for the Minor Court whether children born in the United States to alien parents were or were not “natural-born citizens.” Those children simply did not meet the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural-born citizen.” So, they were not “natural-born citizens.” The only question was whether those children now fell under the new Fourteenth Amendment which included as “citizens of the United States” children born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States. Minor did not need to answer that question, for Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen."

Minor did not itself create this definition but only confirmed it. In fact, Emer de Vattel had already stated this same definition in 1758 as follows:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural-born citizen,” at the time of birth, the child had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents. See also The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (“The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”).

Minor added that "some authorities" go further. But the Court was referring to whether a child "born in the jurisdiction" to alien parents is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether that child is an Article II "natural born Citizen." After all, the Founders and Framers had only one definition of a "natural born Citizen" in mind and the Court stated that doubt-free definition. That definition came from the law of nations and was confirmed by our First Congress which passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Congresses which passed the acts of 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens), and also in 1814 by Founder, Chief Justice Marshall. When the Constitution was adopted, that one definition became the supreme law of the land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Minor would also not have referred to the Founders and Framers as "some authorities" and even add that "there have been doubts" about their definition of a "natural born Citizen." In fact, the "natural born Citizen" clause was not even debated during the Constitutional convention, so surely there were no doubts about its definition.

On the contrary, the Court even said that there were no doubts about the definition of a "natural-born citizen" that it gave.

Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor and said that those children, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Wong Kim Ark twice demonstrated that those children are only “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” Wong Kim Ark recognized that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The first time he said: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney's name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'” Id. at 694. It is critical that when he mentioned it for the second time, his sentence followed the Court’s conclusion which he based on how the English common law held aliens in amity to have sufficient allegiance to the King to make his children born in the King’s dominion “natural born subjects,” that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So twice, Justice Gray told us of the distinction between a child born in the country to aliens and a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. He explained that both are “citizens,” but only the latter is a “natural-born citizen.”

So, Minor confirmed the original definition of a "natural born Citizen" used by the Founders and Framers. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who are “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. To date, that definition has not been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only defines a “citizen of the United States) or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (construing the Fourteenth Amendment, only defined a “citizen of the United States”). Any other U.S. “citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty. So, today, a “natural born Citizen” is still a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition continues to be the supreme law of the land until changed by constitutional amendment.

Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all not born to U.S. “citizen” parents (“natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth. Being born to just one U.S. “citizen” parent (Obama’s birth circumstance) is not sufficient because the child inherits through jus sanguinis from the one non-U.S. citizen parent a foreign allegiance and citizenship just as strong as if born to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence, Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are all not “natural born Citizens.” Rubio and Jindal, being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he too is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But what this means is that since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are neither Article II “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” they are not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military or Vice-President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 31, 2012

_________________________________________

"Mr. Thompson,

I would appreciate it if you would release my comment from moderation."

My second comment is also still in moderation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 31, 2012
_________________________________________

I posted my response to Mr. Thompson yesterday which he did not release from moderation. My response contained nothing but my legal argument on the question of whether Marco Rubio and Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal are "natural born citizens." I followed up with an inquiry as to why he did not release my comment from moderation. He also did not release that second comment. Today, I see that my two comments have been totally erased from Mr. Thompson's blog."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 1, 2012
_________________________________________

Fred Thompson's article can be read here: http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible

You can find Attorney Mario Apuzzo's blog here: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 2ND OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 1ST PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...

50 comments:

  1. Add Fred Thompson to the list of traitors. He sits on his fat 'Senate Pension' receiving ass and pretends to fight for the Constitution when in reality he is as dangerous to the destruction of our nation as Soetoro. Eat me Freddie boy you belong in Gitmo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Time to remind ourselves of our own Citizen duty:

    It's The Truth, Stupid! Pledge

    I insert your name
    do solemnly swear on my sacred honor: to defend and uphold the
    Constitution of these United States of America, in opposition to all
    enemies foreign, or domestic. I forever support the principle that the
    Constitution and all of its Articles. Sections and Clauses are not
    sever-able nor subject to the whims of the majority, nor a consensus, nor a
    popular vote. This pledge forever affirms that I will not have my vote
    stolen, nor become complicit in the usurpation of the Office of the
    Presidency and Commander in Chief for any Party, Agenda, or Cause. This
    pledge forever guarantees I will not vote for any Presidential ticket
    that is not transparently and fully guaranteed to meet the Article 2
    Section 1 Clause 5, “Natural Born Citizen" requirement. I forever affirm
    that I will either skip my vote or vote for the opponent of: any
    candidate who does not take this pledge nor commits to renew and obey their
    Constitutional oath. I swear to follow through to it's end the truth and
    prosecution of Barack Obama's crimes against these United States and
    it's Constitution and the truth and prosecution of any and all collateral crimes by any sworn official, be it of silence, omission, complicity, violation of oath, bribery, blackmail,
    coercion, extortion, intimidation or failure of duty to the citizen's or Constitution, no matter the consequences: 'It's the Truth Stupid!' This pledge shall
    be considered my official notification to The Republican National
    Committee, that they may take this timely and limited opportunity to change their
    duplicitous ways, to end their silence, to pledge to not present a Non-
    Natural Born Citizen Presidential Ticket, and to prosecute the obvious
    mystery and fraud known as Barack Obama and to admit their part in this
    fraud and it's consequences or accept that:” Failure to do so will cost them my vote: be it for President or any other office sworn and pledged to uphold the
    Constitution. So help me God."

    It’s the Truth Stupid!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fred Thompson, you are a political coward and enabler of the usurpation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by both the Dem and Repub establishment. Repubs like Fred are the ones who allowed Obama to go unvetted in 2008. What a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see that I am not the only on who is awaiting moderation from Fred Thompson's article. I doubt it will be posted, but this is what I wrote in his comments section:

    Fred Thompson…..with all due respect sir, you are an idiot. There is no need to rehash what a good number of Patriots have already laid out as to what a Natural-Born Citizen means. You need to get educated on the matter….and stop the lame argument that being a NBC is open to interpretation. As charismatic as Rubio may be….we don’t want him….do you understand??? Even as a Half-Latino, I could NOT in my heart of hearts vote for Romney if he makes such a stupid decision as to pick Rubio. Personally, I think Romney is taking a dive for Obama the same way that McCain did. If you have connections to the RNC, then why not suggest that they light a fire under Romney to get him to go after Obama’s sealed records and fraudulent documents?? Yeah…it is obvious that the fix is in. In addition, why don’t you talk to Jerome Corsi or Joseph Farah of World Net Daily….I’m sure they can cure that minor case of ignorance you are suffering from.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Always knew Fred was a liberal. Silencing those that disagree, particularly those as scholarly as attorney Apuzzo is a liberal method, is it not?

    To (further) illustrate that Thompson is clueless: he said “….several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose.”

    Rubio is certainly not eligible for POTUS, but the Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”.

    Rubio should not be the VP nominee because he is ineligible to be VPOTUS too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fred Thompson also promotes reverse mortgages. His best bet is to reverse his stance on eligibility or wear mud on his face the rest of his career. Why do these people not understand Constitutional wording, intent, and preservation of this Republic? Idiots by choice. Not even multiple choice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Therefore Thompson is a scared little weasel who licks the hand that feeds him, may his chains rest lightly upon him, and may we forget that he was our countryman.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It must be tough on you folks living as you do in a country where it seems just about everyone in any position of prominence at all is a traitor if not an out-and-out co-conspirator and only you are capable of seeing it.

    Yet even though you see it you do nothing about it except pay people like the author of this piece to file lawsuits you know or, by now, should know in advance are bound to fail which makes me wonder if maybe you aren't part of it all too...

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Added my two-cents worth, and it's "awaiting moderation." I wouldn't be at all surprised if it too was censored:

    Fred Thompson,

    I am sorely disappointed and flabbergasted to learn that you consider the very important topic of presidential eligibility “a bunch of foolishness” that only serves to mislead people.

    The short essay you offered constitutes a trite ill-formed argument. In this era of open borders — in this era where a battle is being waged for the very soul of our republic — in an era where divisive forces are run amok — in an era where our founding principles have been compromised by fascists, collectivists and communists at the highest levels — in an era where a foreign nation, Kenya, has declared our president their native son and who in his own words declared himself Kenyan-born prior to his bid for the presidency — how can you possibly conclude what you have here?

    What you should have argued is that it is high time the Supremes settled this question once and for all and stop shirking their responsibility. As Justice Thomas indicated they have thus far evaded tackling head-on this all important constitutional question. The truth is you can only hazard a guess as to how the Court would rule. You can bet though, that if and when they take it up you will not hear either side of the argument describing it as a foolish exercise.

    Badly done, Mr. Thompson. Badly done indeed.

    CA Holly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now we know why Romney won't fight back on Obame's eligibility. He's pickin Rubio. He can't fight back. How fuckin stupid is that? This is what Fox wanted all along. After all -they work for Saudi Prince Awaleed Bin Talal !

      Delete
  10. My main exposure to Thompson was when he had the conceit to run for President. He was clearly out of his depth then, as he is now. Stick to Twittreing, Fred.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks to Mr. Appuzo for taking the time to once again confront this issue in the public square. I am encouraged by the number of informed citizens here challenging the nonsense on Thompson's blog. And my opinion of Fred Thompson (& company) has also taken a nosedive. Below is my comment for Fred Thompson's blog which has also not been released from moderation:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    To suggest that “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution followed English common law, i.e., “natural born subject” is nonsensical and ludicrous.

    The preeminent treatise on Natural Law by Emmerich de Vattel was THE textbook for those who studied law at the College of William and Mary, which was attended by many of the founding fathers. In ordering more copies, Franklin makes mention of his copy being passed around the Continental Congress, George Washington kept a copy for reference while serving as President.

    Consider this sequence of events in history:
    June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton drafts Constitutional requirement as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol II (page 407) Edited by John C. Hamilton.

    July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (President of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” (the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth).

    September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”

    September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “natural born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts of the Constitution. (Madison’s notes of the Convention)

    The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

    Had there not been a concern for security and undivided allegiance to there would never have been a need to change Hamilton’s original draft. If the intention of the founders was as you say, this change from “born a citizen” to “natural born Citizen” would never have occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Robert

    If you are going to quote Madison on his position of natural born, then you should include this...

    "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember during one of the early debates when Newt said --if I'm elected I will hold these judges accountable for makin these calls against the peoples will? . Well FoxNews didn't like that because it wasn't p/c -.- they also didn't like it because Romney didn't say it. If Romney had of said it- oh that was wonderfull. I wish we had Newt now instead of this pussy Romney !!!

      Delete
  13. It's too bad that nothing Mr. Apuzzo states is historically correct, constitutional nor legal precedent. And... he knows it... or certainly should know it.

    While it's highly unlikely, perhaps one day he'll get to argue his ridiculous "legal theory" before SCOTUS, though the fact he could not even convince an administrative law judge of his nonsense, I doubt the SCOTUS justices will be impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous,

    (1) You have not given us Madison’s complete quote. Here it is: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." You left off from the end of his quote, “his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” They leave the “ancestor” part of the quote out because it goes to recognize that Madison did not only look to place of birth but also to parentage. Hence, Madison did not only look to place of birth, but also to parentage.

    (2) William Smith, who was running for Congress, only needed to be a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years under Article I, Section 2. Hence, Madison only defined an Article I and II “Citizen of the United States,” (Congressional citizenship) not an Article II “natural born Citizen” (presidential citizenship). Madison was speaking in 1789 about the definition of a "citizen of the United States” which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. We know from Article II itself that such a "citizen" is not necessarily a "natural born Citizen." The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Smith had been a "citizen of the United States” for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Madison concluded that at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Smith, being a minor and being born into the society which after the declaration of independence became the new American society, still owed primary allegiance to that new society, no longer owed secondary allegiance to the British government, and was therefore a “citizen of the United States” and that he did not lose that status at any time thereafter by any neglect or over act. But at the time of the Declaration of Independence, no minor or adult in being of the Founding generation was a "natural born Citizen." Only children who were born after July 4, 1776 could be “natural born Citizens.”

    (3) Madison did not make any reference to the English common law. South Carolina did not have any law that provided an answer on the matter and so he just gave his personal opinion on the issue. We also know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison, who called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution, would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    (4) You also have to tell the readers that in 1790, our First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. Of the seventy-nine members of the original Congress, twenty had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So any English common law rule notwithstanding, the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed only one year after, abrogated in the United States any jus soli rule under the “jura coronae” or English common law in the United States. So that put an end to place of birth as the sole criterion for citizenship. In fact, the 1790, 1795, 1802, and other Congressional Acts up to the time before Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts show that Congress, since 1790 and up to the time Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, adopted jus sanguinis citizenship and not jus soli citizenship.

    Reliance upon Madison's quote for a definition of a "natural born Citizen" is therefore misplaced.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good to see it is NOT the PARTY which matters, but the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Bravo, Atty Apuzzo!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rubios Parents were living in a US protectorate when they left Cuba. Puerto Rico is a us protectorate and all Puerto Rico are considered US citizens. American Samoa is a US protectorate, territory, and all citizens are considered US citizens. So one could argue that Rubios parents were US citizens when he was born. Yes the applied for citizenship later but that did not invalidate the citizenship the already had but made it for certain. I say Rubio and his parents were and are loyal with out a doubt to the USA unlike Obamas. He is qualified to run.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Anonymous

    Go spread your disinformation elsewhere!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm hoping Mario can answer this. What would be the citizenship status of Rubio and Obama at the time the constitution was ratified? Would either even be citizens?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kanbun: Obama would not be a US Citizen at all.

    Anony 6:03 is right, Cuba was a US Protectorate under the Platt amendment when Rubio's parents were born there, they were nothing BUT US Citizens. Since Marco was then born in Miami, he was a natural born citizen.

    But notice that Fred Thompson does not use this argument, he fucks things up using British Common Law, because a natural born subject of Britain CAN BE BORN ANYWHERE. We don't use BCL; The Law of Nations by Vattel is what the USC is based upon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ol' Fred, as both a politician and a member of the media, knows how to play ball. But don't worry, we're not going to let Romney pick Rubio - we don't want the birther issue to cross over to the progressives, it's easier to marginalize you when it's just conservatives.

    You never seem to realize that we operate three steps ahead of you. You cannot win.

    Calamity Jane.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Anonymous

    Just like your claim that Kreep's election was rigged so he would lose?

    Get lost Obot!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Of course, every legal scholar has pointed out that Mr. Apuzzo is wrong. This includes law professors as well as the Supreme Court of the United States of America. While Mr. Apuzzo may think he's on to something, he's wrong. It's sad that he holds those beliefs so dearly that he can't see the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Andy

    "Of course, every legal scholar has pointed out that Mr. Apuzzo is wrong"

    Another Obot liar.

    Herb Titus whom taught constitutional law for 30 years agrees with Apuzzo.

    As does Notre Dame professor Charles Rice.

    Take your lies back over to Fogblow.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If Romney chooses Rubio as his VP choice, he and his GOP country club counterparts, such as Karl Rove, will be asking birthers and Constitutionalists to drink their political correctness unconstitutional hemlock. Romney needs all the votes he can garner to make up for an anticipated election of cheating on the Democrat side.

    I dare say that if Romney chooses Rubio, he will throw the election to Obama. Birther and Constitutionalist Conservatives and Independents won't drink that bitter poison of presidential ineligibility by voting for Rubio. Two Constitutional wrongs don't make a US President right.............

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel
    If the choice in November is between Obama's reelection and Rubio being on the Republican ticket and siphoning off enough Florida favorite son votes and Hispanic votes nationally to defeat Obama, which do you choose?

    ReplyDelete
  26. If it comes down to Rubio (or Jindal) being on the ticket I would still vote for Romney albeit relunctantly. I think Obama is that evil.

    ABO 2012!

    ReplyDelete
  27. " But notice that Fred Thompson does not use this argument, he fucks things up using British Common Law, because a natural born subject of Britain CAN BE BORN ANYWHERE. We don't use BCL; The Law of Nations by Vattel is what the USC is based upon.
    August 1, 2012 7:27 PM "

    A statement which proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    Where do you get this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  28. @AnonymousAnon @ 7:27: Thanks, I had heard that and would be interested to understand the details. Nothing has changed since then that would make someone that would not have been a citizen then a natural born citizen now.

    As for Rubio, I have also heard the protectorate argument before. There is no legal precedent for this and I don't think it holds water. If Rubio's parents were already U.S. citizens, they would have no need to naturalize, which both did after his birth. Something's not right with the protectorate argument, although it would be better than just spinning like Thompson has. The problem for Thompson et al would be if they make the protectorate argument they essential admit that NBC requires two citizen parents, which those that are protecting Obama will not do.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fred Thompson is just trying to legitamize Obama..Rubio is INeligible..period.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Anonymous

    Being a Constitutional Scholar implies more than reading the Constitution. Mr. Titus may have taught Constitutional law, but he apparently didn't learn any of what he was teaching.

    And Mr. Rice falls into the same boat.

    Teaching something doesn't make one an expert per se - you also need to have your colleagues believe you, and agree with what you are saying. Mr. Titus and Mr. Rice lack that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I regret supporting Fred Thompson.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Adios Fred. It's been nice to know you...I even supported you in the primary...but you just lost any/all respect I had for you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. As for me as a retired veteran, I will NOT vote for a ticket that has anyone on the ticket that is not qualified under the Constitution. Rubio, Jindel and obama are NOT qualified.

    If I have to, I will vote 3d party or not vote for President.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Please post the direct link to the source of reply you posted by Mario. He has a huge website so simply linking his site is not sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mario... We might add, If the definition is not exactly as you denote... Why then would bills be presented in Congress to change the Article II requirements... precisely to what Fred and others say they are?

    •June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to “permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.”

    •Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
    •Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
    •Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.”
    •Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s.
    •Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
    •April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
    •Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.

    They know it... and We know it.. NBC is.. "Born within the Territorial Jurisdiction of The United States.. of United States Citizen Parents"
    To 'believe' anything else is ignorance or Treason... you pick.

    Duke-Jinx

    ReplyDelete
  36. Censorship is a tool of tyrants

    Duke-Jinx

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Anonymous

    [ Please post the direct link to the source of reply you posted by Mario. He has a huge website so simply linking his site is not sufficient. ]

    #####

    Mario provided us with his response by email. It was not posted at his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Anonymous

    Can you show a single citation to support that the Founders thought it a requirement to be born of citizen parents? Any source. From a founder. That thought our Constitution had that in it?

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Moderator


    http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/

    Duke-Jinx

    ReplyDelete
  41. Fred Thompson relents - Mario's post can now be seen on Thompson's blog. Apparently he doesn't want to be too much of a liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thompson is testing the waters for Romney to see what kind of backlash will occur if any .. it will be the media that Romney wants to gauge .. this is one issue mainstream Republicans want to AVOID as has been done from 2008 to present.

    ReplyDelete
  43. romney has yet to prove his eligibilty, he needs to provide certified copies of everything plus his vp as well. i will vote for obama if romeny does not provide the info. The US needs 4 more years of obama for things to come to a boil. we need to water the tree a little if you know what i mean. My watering can is locked and loaded for the past 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The illegal has zero opposition. Unless we remove the illegal, he'll remain in the WH. Bottom line is, we've been taken over by criminals and traitors. How much do you want your country back?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mr. Barry SoetoroAugust 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM

    (Fred Thompson has failed to post the following comment after removing it from moderation pending status. A print screen of the comment awaiting moderation will be sent to the web master for proof it doesn't appear on Fred's site soon. Censored comment follows.)

    Fred Thompson is absolutely wrong and he knows it. Don't be fooled, learn the facts"

    "The usurper Obama is not eligible for multiple reasons including:
    1. Failure to be a "natural born citizen" as required by Article 2, Section 1.
    2. Being born a British citizen pursuant to British Nationality Act of 1948.
    3. Law enforcement investigators have concluded his birth certificate is fraudulent, which along with other identity anomalies i.e., suspected fraudulent selective service registration, suspected fraudulent social security number(s) and multiple aliases, very likely means Obama is not even a U.S. citizen!

    The most authoritative source for the meaning of a "natural born citizen" as one born in U.S. of U.S. citizen parents (plural), is in fact the Constitution. The meaning of a natural born citizen is further confirmed by American history, the Founders, Congress and the Supreme Court."[1]

    1. http://www.obamabirthcertificate.net "Summary of Obama's Ineligibility" http://www.obamabirthcertificate.net/2012/07/summary-of-obamas-ineligibility.html (July 2012)

    ReplyDelete
  46. > If the definition is not exactly as you denote... Why then would bills be presented in Congress to change the Article II requirements... precisely to what Fred and others say they are?

    No, all of these changes would have made NATURALIZED (= not born in the US) citizens eligible.
    Nobody claims naturalized citizens are eligible right now, just that birth in the US is enough.

    > Being born a British citizen pursuant to British Nationality Act of 1948.

    Repeat after me: FOREIGN COUNTRIES DON'T DETERMINE WHO CAN OR CANNOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Repeat after me: FOREIGN COUNTRIES DON'T DETERMINE WHO CAN OR CANNOT BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."


    The usual straw man argument. Of course foreign countries don't determine that. Natural Law and the Constitution determine who is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS!

    ReplyDelete
  48. From Orly Taitz website:

    Submitted on 2012/08/05 at 4:45 pm
    I found this post at Expose Obama and it certainly sounds authentic to me: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ written by a Mr.Nightmare:
    I was in Pakistan in Sept. 1981 working for the CIA… I was there 24 times and because of my relations Heather Mercer and her missionary friend kidnapped by the Taliban after 9/11 did not die, they were freed in Ghazni by ME.
    I have friends from that time with the ISI…
    Several years ago, actually nearly 3 years ago, I asked an ISI friend to dig deep into records from 1981 into where Obama went and with whom.
    After over 2.5 years he came back and what he knows is that Obama spent nearly 2 months in a Muslim Brotherhood training camp in Baluchistan.
    Tells me that Obama has been a sleeper agent for the Brotherhood since 1981.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.