Mario Apuzzo

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44696
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2451

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:20 pm

Apuzzo has it backwards. (What else is new?) And burying everyone in a load of irrelevant words and pseudo-analysis can't hide the fact that Apuzzo has no idea what he's talking about.

Nevertheless HE WINS AGAIN!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12488
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2452

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:04 pm

How very prolix and pointlessly Blovario.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2453

Post by bob » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:38 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote: An article by Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute on the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause states:
Citizenship

Also known as the Naturalization Clause, the Citizenship Clause is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States.
But then the same source, commenting on the meaning of a natural born citizen in another article, states:
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.
In both statements, the writer identified the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause as being a “Naturalization Clause.” But in the second statement, the writer adds that under the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

There is a contradiction between finding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause is a naturalization clause and then at the same time concluding that by virtue of that same clause and Wong Kim Ark which interpreted that clause anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen. The writer of these statements got it right in concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause is a naturalization clause. But the writer got it wrong in then concluding that under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark any person born in the U.S. while subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

[ * * * ]

The natural born citizen clause exists in the original Constitution. Hence, there were natural born citizens prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Minor (1875) and Wong Kim Ark (1898) explained that the clause was defined at common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. If children born in the U.S. to alien parents were under the common law not only “born” citizens of the United States but also “natural born” citizens of the United States before Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment, why would those children need to be naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment? The answer is that under that national common law (not to be confused and confounded with state common law) they were neither “born” citizens nor “natural born” citizens of the United States. The writer of these quotes must have recognized that at common law those children were not and that they needed to be naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment. The historical record demonstrates that the writer is correct on that score. Emer de Vattel in Section 214 of The Law of Nations explained: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” From this statement on the law of nations we can conclude and I have so done for over 10 years that the Fourteenth Amendment, which according to Wong Kim Ark incorporated the English common law jus soli (right from birth on the soil) rule into the Constitution, naturalizes a child born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their child’s birth to be a “born” citizen of the United States. I have also maintained that such a child, while generally a “born” citizen of the United States, is not an Article II “natural born” citizen of the United States. Such a child is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen if he or she needs to be naturalized at birth by the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, we can see the contradiction between the statements by Cornell Law School.

Indeed, a “born” (although naturalized) citizen of the United States only under the Fourteenth Amendment (and only under a naturalization Act of Congress that applies to persons born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents) is not nor can he or she be a “natural born” citizen of the United States. Only a person born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the person’s birth is an Article II “natural born” citizen of the United States. A person born under such birth circumstances needs no law to be made a “born” citizen of the United States. Needing no law for such birth status, that person is a “natural born” citizen of the United States by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone and not just a “born” citizen of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment or some naturalization Act of Congress.
Executive summary: Apuzzo defeats Cornell Law! :dance:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44696
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2454

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:50 pm

Blovario should really read Rogers v. Bellei and try to understand it. It would make his head explode.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2455

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:23 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:50 pm
Blovario should really read Rogers v. Bellei and try to understand it. It would make his head explode.
That has happened already.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12488
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2456

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:03 pm

Just because someone writes an article and improperly titles one section of it Blovario gets all twitterpated and takes things out of context. Oh, wait, that's nothing new or even unusual.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2457

Post by bob » Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:48 pm

Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2458

Post by Atticus Finch » Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:03 pm

bob wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:48 pm
Of course, Apuzzo is wrong on this point.

A child born in the United States has only one allegiance and that allegiance is the United States. To have a "dual allegiance" at birth a child must be under the jurisdiction and control of TWO sovereignties at birth in the United States which is a legal impossibility since the United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of its residing citizens with another country.

Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn't inherit a parent's allegiance at birth. “t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928) (child born in the United States to German nationals)

"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. “ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925) (internal citation omitted)

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2459

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:32 pm

Atticus, all those court decisions are wrong. Mario is the only authority who can define Natural-Born Citizen.

I :sarcasm:

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34842
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2460

Post by realist » Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:35 pm

:fingerwag:

Atticus. Atticus. Atticus. Tsk Tsk Tsk

You just don’t get it. Being born a citizen of the United States or an American Citizen is not good enough.
"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)
While that person is indeed a citizen of the United States, they are not a natural born citizen without that two parents thing.

Apuzzo says so. And Apuzzo ALWAYS WINS.

:blink:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2461

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:02 pm

realist,

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7153
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2462

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:38 pm

Atticus Finch wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:03 pm
Of course, Apuzzo is wrong on this point.

A child born in the United States has only one allegiance and that allegiance is the United States. To have a "dual allegiance" at birth a child must be under the jurisdiction and control of TWO sovereignties at birth in the United States which is a legal impossibility since the United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of its residing citizens with another country.
A child born abroad to two US citizen parents (generally) automatically acquires US citizenship at birth. Are you saying that that child has no allegiance to the US? If so, the US government disagrees with you because it considers those citizens liable to federal taxation. (Or so I believe based on stories of non-American US citizens, such as the UK's prime minister Boris Johnson, having difficulty detaching themselves.)

What works one way works both ways. Just as the US considers such babies born in Otherland to have allegiance (if citizenship implies allegiance) to the US so Otherland can consider babies born in the US to Otherland parents to have allegiance to Otherland by deeming them Otherland citizens. That is not something the US has any say over, any more than Otherland could deny US citizenship to a US-parented baby born on its soil.

So either you are just using allegiance as a synonym for under effective jurisdiction, in which case I don't know what point you are making because everybody in any country is under that country's jurisdiction (diplomats blah blah) and that has nothing to do with citizenship, or if it's related to citizenship it appears to be incorrect.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2463

Post by bob » Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:54 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote: In Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1947] A.C. 347, the House of Lords (then not a separate court) had to decide whether William Joyce committed high treason against the King of the United Kingdom, a violation of the Treason Act, 1351. The decision called upon the House of Lords to delineate the scope of treason which the House found to be inextricably tied to whether the accused owed a duty of allegiance to the King at the time he committed the offending acts, no matter where those acts may have been committed.

The evidence at trial was that Joyce, while his British passport was still valid, worked for a German radio station in Germany and that he broadcast in English propaganda injurious to the Crown and for the benefit of the King’s enemies. He was prosecuted in the Central Criminal Court and acquitted on the first and second counts, the jury concluding although erroneously that he was a British subject. He was found guilty of the third count and sentenced to death on September 19, 1945. He appealed to the Criminal Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal on November 7, 1945. The Attorney General certified that the appeal presented a question of exceptional public importance. Joyce then appealed to the House of Lords which accepted the case for review. The House of Lords, with the dissent of Lord Porter, affirmed the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeals and dismissed the appeal.

The House of Lords held that Joyce committed high treason by adhering to and giving aid and comfort the enemies of the King, even though he was an alien (a U.S. “natural born citizen”) who committed the offending acts while physically present outside the King’s dominion, because he continued to owe allegiance to the King at the time he committed the treasonous acts. The House of Lords found that Joyce owed allegiance to the King not because he was his natural born subject, but because he had resided in his dominions, received his protection while so residing, obtained a British passport which was not expired at the time of the alleged treasonous acts that were committed by him outside the King’s dominions and which document provided him with the Crown’s protection while outside the King’s dominions, and had not surrendered his passport but rather had continued to possess that passport (although the passport was not placed into evidence and there was no evidence of that) or otherwise renounced his allegiance by the time he committed those acts. What is important about this ruling is that the House was willing to hold that the alien Joyce continued to owe the Crown allegiance even though he was no longer present within the King’s dominions from the mere fact that the jury could infer that he continued to possess the British passport while outside the King’s realm.

[ * * * ]

This decision is interesting for our purposes because the House of Lords found that Joyce was born in the United States in 1906 to a naturalized American citizen and therefore a “natural born American citizen.” This is a significant finding given that the House of Lords said he was a “natural born citizen” and not just a “citizen” of the United States. We can surmise that the House of Lords was willing to use the “natural born citizen” language given that Joyce was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (in 1906, under then-current Acts of Congress, an alien wife automatically became a U.S. citizen either upon marrying a U.S. citizen or when her alien husband became a U.S. citizen).

What is also significant about this decision is that the House of Lords found that even though Joyce’s father had been a natural born subject of the King, he lost that status when he naturalized to be a citizen of the United States which he did prior to Joyce’s birth (stating that such casting off of allegiance was not allowed by the common law but then available under recent statutes). Hence, it found that upon his birth, even though born to a former British natural born subject, Joyce was not a British natural born subject. This is an important finding because it shows that Joyce’s father’s naturalization cut off all allegiance that he had to the British Crown and Joyce did not inherit that allegiance through birth to his former British natural born subject father (through jus sanguinis). This cutting off of allegiance is the crucial mechanism of being a U.S. natural born citizen. It shows that a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (whether natural born citizens, citizens “at birth,” or citizens after birth) is born with unity of citizenship and allegiance and hence with sole allegiance to the United States.

[ * * * ]

[T]he first and second count was premised on William Joyce being a British subject. The Attorney General conceded that he was not and so Judge Tucker instructed the jury that they had to find him not guilty on those two charges and it id acquit him on those two counts. So, I agree with you that the jury never concluded that he was a British subject.

It is worth noting that Justice Tucker instructed the jury that Joyce was an “American subject” by the fact that he “was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalized American subject.” Again, under the then Acts of Congress, Joyce’s alien mother would have become a U.S. citizen as soon as her husband naturalized as a citizen of the United States. Hence, Joyce was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents which the House of Lords said made him a natural born citizen.
Wow! Dicta from a 1947 House of Lords decision is indirect confirmation that Obama was ineligible! :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12488
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2464

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:48 pm

Joyce couldn't have been a UK citizen because his father would have had to have renounced his UK citizenship prior to becoming a US citizen, thus depriving Joyce of birth citizenship since his father was not then a UK citizen. He was a US citizen by virtue of both birth and his parent's citizenship.

Blovario even gets this wrong.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44696
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2465

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:49 pm

Blovario wrote:
What is also significant about this decision is that the House of Lords found . . .
Absolute dribble. Did Blovario wipe after dribbling this out onto the paper? There was nothing significant about this case that relates to U.S. law.

I thought he was stupid, but he's really really dumb.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7153
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2466

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:48 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:48 pm
Joyce couldn't have been a UK citizen because his father would have had to have renounced his UK citizenship prior to becoming a US citizen, thus depriving Joyce of birth citizenship since his father was not then a UK citizen. He was a US citizen by virtue of both birth and his parent's citizenship.

Blovario even gets this wrong.
? Is that correct? Afaik there is no requirement by the US for persons being naturalized to renounce their original citizenship(s). Do you have a reliable source for that assertion?

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2467

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:09 pm

http://uniset.ca/other/cs3/joyce.html

Joyce, aka Lord Haw Haw, obtained a British passport, claiming (either fraudulently or in error) that he was born in Galway Ireland, while Ireland was still part of Great Britain.
The appellant was born in the United States of America, in 1906, the son of a naturalized American citizen who had previously been a British subject by birth. He thereby became himself a natural born American citizen. At about three years of age he was brought to Ireland, where he stayed until about 1921, when he came to England. He stayed in England until 1939. He was then thirty-three years of age. He was brought up and educated within the King’s Dominions, and he settled there. On July 4, 1933, he applied for a British passport, describing himself as a British subject by birth, born in Galway.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12488
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2468

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:41 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:48 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:48 pm
Joyce couldn't have been a UK citizen because his father would have had to have renounced his UK citizenship prior to becoming a US citizen, thus depriving Joyce of birth citizenship since his father was not then a UK citizen. He was a US citizen by virtue of both birth and his parent's citizenship.

Blovario even gets this wrong.
? Is that correct? Afaik there is no requirement by the US for persons being naturalized to renounce their original citizenship(s). Do you have a reliable source for that assertion?
Try reading the actual naturalization oath, abjure and renounce play a front row piece.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7153
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2469

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:22 am

Yabbut the oath is just a load of words that people say, not the law. (Hmm… marriage vows?)

As a general rule, it's not possible for a person to renounce citizenship if that would leave them stateless, so renunciation cannot be achieved prior to applying for or actually obtaining US citizenship. It's definitely not a precondition.

I haven't done real research but here's a typical apparently knowledgeable piece from the JDSupra site: Can Naturalized U.S. Citizens Hold Dual Citizenship? It Depends!

Their first point is that the US only controls its own citizenship. Most countries appear to take the view that if you're one of thrir citizens, other citizenships are largely irrelevant. (Of course, there was the recent fuss in Australia when several elected members of parliament were found to be dual nationals, sometimes dven without being aware of it, which is not permitted by their constitution, but that's exceptional.)

Other countries vary in their views of renunciation when naturalizing to a different country, whether voluntary or compulsory. The article says two extremes are Canada, which doesn't permit renunciation, and Germany, which automatically terminates citizenship.

Also, i don't recall ever hearing of anybody being hauled into US court or a tribunal for failing to renounce dual nationality

So I still remain unconvinced!

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12488
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2470

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:13 am

It is a requirement if you are naturalizing, if you are born with it that is a different matter. If Joyce's father had not naturalized then he would have been born with dual citizenship.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2471

Post by bob » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:36 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Charles Hughes wrote:
Apuzzo wrote:It is worth noting that Justice Tucker instructed the jury that Joyce was an “American subject” by the fact that he “was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalized American subject.
So Justice Tucker said that Joyce was a natural born citizen because he was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalized American subject.”

Justice Tucker appears not to be aware that under US law Joyce's mother became a citizen when she married a US citizen or if her alien husband gains US citizenship. So while not knowing the status of one parent, he declares Joyce to be natural born citizen because he was born in the US with at least one citizen parent. Just like Obama.
Apuzzo wrote:First, we do not know what Justice Tucker's knowledge was regarding U.S. law. We do not know what he meant by "naturalized American subject." Did he consider the husband to be "naturalized" but not the wife, even though she automatically became a U.S. citizen upon her marriage to the U.S. citizen husband or upon his obtaining that status?

Second, if the English common law defined a natural born citizen in the U.S. as you have always maintained, why did Justice Tucker, when commenting on Joyce's citizenship status, say that Joyce was born in the U.S. to a citizen father which made him a natural born citizen? As you know, the English common law did not concern itself with the citizenship status of parents of children born in the King's dominion. Rather, under that law simply being born in the King's dominion and under his protection, regardless of the citizenship status of the child's parents, made one a natural born subject. You state that based on Justice Tucker's comment, a natural born citizen is defined as a child born in the U.S. to at least one U.S. citizen parent. Hence, you have conceded that Justice Tucker did not apply the English common law to determine the meaning in the U.S. of a natural born citizen.

Third, while the comments of the House of Lords on who may be included as a natural born citizen of the United States is academically interesting, it is not binding in the United States.
[ * * * ]
Charles Hughes wrote:If Justice Tucker understood the mother to be a US citizen, he would only have to say Joyce was "born in America, of American citizen parents."

Perhaps Justice Tucker thought that American citizenship statutory laws had changed the Common Law much as they had in England.

I agree comments made by the English House of Lords are not binding on the US. Which makes me wonder why you are commenting on them in the first place.
Apuzzo wins again?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44696
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2472

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:37 pm

How many aliens can dance on the head of a pin, Blovario?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2473

Post by bob » Mon Sep 09, 2019 5:35 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:A natural born citizen is a child "born in the country, of parents who are citizens." See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212.

Children who are "born out of the country in the armies of the state . . . are reputed born in the country." See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217.

John McCain was born to two U.S. citizen parents.

John McCain was also reputed born in the U.S. His father was in the U.S. Navy and stationed in Panama. His mother was accompanying her husband in Panama while he was serving the U.S. Navy when she gave birth to their son in Panama.

John McCain was a natural born citizen because, for purposes of the natural born citizen clause, he was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.
That was shockingly terse for Apuzzo.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44696
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2474

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:08 pm

He forgot section 214.

And actual binding or persuasive authority in the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS cases.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26918
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2475

Post by bob » Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:34 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:Children who are "born out of the country in the armies of the state . . . are reputed born in the country." See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217.
Charles Hughes wrote: Hmmmmm
5th Cir. wrote: We have not previously decided whether a military base located abroad qualifies as “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. However, we have addressed whether a person derived United States citizenship from his parents, who he claimed “became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory." In that case, we were required to determine whether the Philippines was “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. . . . Having already determined that the Philippines, which was “under the complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion of the United States” during its time as a United States territory was not “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes, we decline to hold that a military base located in Germany qualifies as such. (Citations omitted.)
Do any of the cases and materials that you cite and quote address the question of how would the Founders and Framers have viewed the citizenship status of a child born in a foreign country to parents who at the time of the child's birth were serving "in the armies of the state?"

Hmmmmm
Charles Hughes wrote:I'm sure they would have considered them as Citizens of the United States.
Would they have considered them Article II "natural born Citizens?"
Charles Hughes wrote:Are they part of an occupying army?
I don't think that our soldiers are in foreign lands on vacation of some sort.
Charles Hughes wrote:So is it your contention that McCain's father was part of an occupying military?
Your question assumes something about an "occupying" military. What is your authority for making that element a requirement of some sort?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”