Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural Born Citizen Not Same as Natural Born Subject
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44441770/Constitutional-Article-II-Natural-Born-Citizen-Not-Same-as-English-Common-Law-Natural-Born-Subject ^ | May 19, 2010 | Mario Apuzzo

Posted on 03/17/2011 1:54:19 PM PDT by STE=Q

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of therevolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen andassigned sovereignty to the people. The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, [2 U.S. (2 Dall.)419 (1793)the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among usmay be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. . . . Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. [Id. 471-72 (Jay, C.J.)].

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizens; commonlaw; feudalismvsrepublic; independence; marioapuzzo; monarchy; naturalborncitizen; naturalbornsubject; nbc; notthesame; oboma; republic; revolution; subjects; usurper

1 posted on 03/17/2011 1:54:30 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Puzo1

Ping!

STE=Q


2 posted on 03/17/2011 1:56:14 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Nor is it the same as native-born.


3 posted on 03/17/2011 1:58:48 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

The apparent new 0dumbo spin is that a natural born citizen is one who is born in USA versus a naturalized citizen
BUT I do not think there was status called naturalized citizen in 1789.

No Dem has evern had a good explanation for why only the POTUS must be ‘ natural born” as proscribed by our Constitution.


4 posted on 03/17/2011 2:01:21 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

If King Obama has his way, we’ll be re-classified as Natural Born ‘Subjects’.

Cheers


5 posted on 03/17/2011 2:04:15 PM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated! - (South Park))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility
Tells ABC: ‘The reason is because he grew up and nobody knew him’

Read more: Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276269#ixzz1GtPVnY26


6 posted on 03/17/2011 2:05:36 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

The problem with this article is that while it recognizes that the Supreme Court, a great many moons ago, long before PC ruled the land, held that the two terms are indeed more or less the same, the author disagrees.

So for his issue to become effective law the Court would have to reverse itself on a precedent that has stood more or less unchallenged for well over 100 years. For obvious reasons, this ain’t likely to happen.


7 posted on 03/17/2011 2:21:34 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
If King Obama has his way, we’ll be re-classified as Natural Born ‘Subjects’.

I'm laughing, but in the bizarro world of Obazo you are most likely right!

STE=Q

8 posted on 03/17/2011 2:22:53 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

I don’t know where Soetoro was born but I suspect he is a dual citizen—country of birth/Indonesia—which would disqualify him from the presidency. This needs to be settled in court. We also need to get to the bottom of why he uses multiple Social Security numbers.


9 posted on 03/17/2011 2:29:21 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

Would someone please make 2 lists:

A. all the LEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN

B. all the ILLEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN


10 posted on 03/17/2011 2:36:18 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Subjects are a conquered people living in the city or country of the conqueror..


11 posted on 03/17/2011 2:43:07 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

This could also present problems for Marco Rubio if he has any presidential ambitions.

We need to know if his parents had or had not become US citizens by May, 1971.

It concerns me that I haven’t been able to find that information anywhere.

According to the Castro regime, Marco is a Cuban(dual) citizen because his parents did not have the right to renounce Cuban citizenship under Cuban law and their children would therefore be Cuban citizens regardless of US birth.

If the Rubio’s remained Cuban citizens at the time of Marco’s birth, then he is disqualified from the US presidency and Rush and others should forget about him as a potential candidate.

We need to be as strict about our own people as we are about the ‘Rats.

As for the Castro regime and their rules? Que se vayan al carajo!


12 posted on 03/17/2011 2:46:39 PM PDT by Scanian (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Nobody knew him and he can’t seem to name a single favorite player from his supposedly childhood favorite MLB team.


13 posted on 03/17/2011 2:51:38 PM PDT by CommieCutter (Promote Liberal Extinction: Support gay marriage and abortion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The problem with this article is that while it recognizes that the Supreme Court, a great many moons ago, long before PC ruled the land, held that the two terms are indeed more or less the same, the author disagrees.


I assume you are referring to this statement, by Apuzzo(in brackets):

{”I submit that both Wong Kim Ark and Obama’s supporters are wrong in concluding that a ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same thing as an English common law ‘natural born subject’.”}

The problem is that the decision in Wong Kim Ark NEVER said Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.

I believe it said that Wong had all the same “rights” that a Natural Born Citizen has.

This is true.

So do naturalized citizens have ALL the rights of a Natural Born Citizen; however, naturalized citizens can’t hold the executive office of President Of The United States.

My understanding is that Wong was deemed a citizen (under the 14th amendment) but that the court never said he was a Natural Born Citizen, nor did it confer same on him.

STE=Q


14 posted on 03/17/2011 2:55:14 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
If the Rubio’s remained Cuban citizens at the time of Marco’s birth, then he is disqualified from the US presidency and Rush and others should forget about him as a potential candidate.

Not correct!

The ONLY requirment is that Rubio’s parents were BOTH US citizens (naruralized is OK) AT THE TIME of his (Rubio’s) birth.

If so, then he is a Natural Born Citizen!

STE=Q

15 posted on 03/17/2011 3:03:14 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

“According to the Castro regime, Marco is a Cuban(dual) citizen because his parents did not have the right to renounce Cuban citizenship under Cuban law and their children would therefore be Cuban citizens regardless of US birth.”


Doesn’t matter what the Castro regime says, if his parents were both AMERICAN citizens when he was born he is a Natural born Citizen.

If they were not AMERICAN citizens, then he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

STE=Q


16 posted on 03/17/2011 3:10:34 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
The apparent new [...]

New? What's new about that part of our Constitution? And what's new about the idea that those citizens who aren't Natural Born have to be Naturalized? I don't think the dichotomy is very difficult to see.

BUT I do not think there was status called naturalized citizen in 1789.

"Naturalized" is from centuries before the Constitution.

No Dem has evern had a good explanation for why only the POTUS must be ‘ natural born” as proscribed by our Constitution.

You mean "prescribed," and for the answer, ask John Jay why he didn't include the Congress or Judiciary in his letter to George Washington.

17 posted on 03/17/2011 3:52:09 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354."

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

18 posted on 03/17/2011 3:56:00 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Thanks for posting


19 posted on 03/17/2011 3:56:50 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

There is no legitimate reason to have more than one SSN. By law yYou can only have one.


20 posted on 03/17/2011 4:25:45 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

The new part-in my estimation —is the Living Constitution/sic interpretation that allows the government powers not seen in the written Constitution.Thus when the 0 took that oath of Office to defend the Constitution what he heard in his socialistic global citizen head was quite different from what any Patriot might hope for from their entrusted public officials.


21 posted on 03/17/2011 4:52:36 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
I'm not going to read all this but I think Apuzzo is probably wrong if he thinks the adjective natural-born doesn't mean the same thing when narrowing the class of citizens as opposed to subjects (or even athletes). It means something about what is in a person's blood. It doesn't mean that he was born in a particular place. (Like Yankee Stadium!)

ML/NJ

22 posted on 03/17/2011 5:23:57 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
I'm leaning more toward “born a fraudulent bastard” now.
23 posted on 03/17/2011 6:30:36 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Could be. I doubt his mother and sperm donor ever married.


24 posted on 03/17/2011 6:56:53 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
I think his real father was a French Canadian circus clown who ran off to Mexico with a gay pygmy. I'm serious.
25 posted on 03/17/2011 8:57:56 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Not cesarean so he must be a natural born illegal alien!
26 posted on 03/17/2011 9:00:13 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; All

This is the bottom line for me:

Quote:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio — considered the “FATHER” of the Fourteenth Amendment — on March 9, 1866:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

End quote

(emphases mine)

Now ALLEGIANCE means a Complete and Total Allegiance as reflected in the oath a naturalized citizen had to take as part of the naturalization process, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...”

Obama — through ‘fight the smears’ — freely admits that he was a dual citizen at his birth, as follows:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

Therefore, Obama was born OWING ALLEGIANCE to a Foreign entity!(see John Bingham quote above)

At his birth Obama had not even the ALLEGIANCE required of one to become a naturalized citizen.

How could he possibly be a Natural Born Citizen?

Fight the smears further claims that:

“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

What?

Natural Born Citizenship isn’t something one “loses” and then “gets back” sometime in the future.

One cannot “BECOME” a Natural Born Citizen.

One is either a Natural Born Citizen — at birth — or not.

So how can Obama claim to be a Natural Born Citizen under Article II - Section 1, of the united States constitution?

“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”

The short answer?

He cant!

STE=Q


27 posted on 03/17/2011 11:32:21 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

My bottom line: A formal decision of the Supreme Court, spending page after page describing why the common law definition of citizenship should be applied to the Constitution is vastly more authoritative than the personal opinion of a single congressman, no matter how important he might be historically.

I have never seen a single convincing reason given why natural born citizen has any other meaning than native born citizen or citizen at birth. From what I can tell the two NBCs have frequently been used interchangeably in judicial decisions, legislation and regulations.

I respect your opinion, and certainly your right to it, but I respectfully disagree.

I will of course support any definitive judgment reached by the Supreme Court, the obvious body to settle such questions of constitutional interpretation.


28 posted on 03/18/2011 5:02:46 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

you posted
“The apparent new [...]
New? What’s new about that part of our Constitution?”

What is new is the spin the obamites are using as a definition of natural born
and I used the word proscribed because that is the correct word in tht context.

Do you think odumbo is ‘ naturaL born”?


29 posted on 03/18/2011 10:20:45 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

This is an excellent point
“Would someone please make 2 lists:

A. all the LEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN

B. all the ILLEGITimate reasons that one would use more than one SSN”

MSM and even most conservative outlets ignore this.
Thee is absolutely NO question the SSN he used when he applied for his draft status was from a state in which he never lived and it also is a number issued to someelse

that isn’t a rumor or conspiracy theory

why can’t this get more traction?


30 posted on 03/18/2011 10:24:26 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

Then why is it okay to change the Constitution to “native born” from “natural born”?


31 posted on 03/18/2011 4:33:42 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; bushpilot; patlin; DoctorBulldog
I have never seen a single convincing reason given why natural born citizen has any other meaning than native born citizen or citizen at birth.

I will admit that there is an appealing "tidiness" to the "native born" reliance on Jus soli to exclusively confer "Natural Born Citizen" status.

Yes indeed, everything seems to fit together very well...that is... until one looks a little deeper into the historical underpinnings of our break from "mother" England, at which point things get a little messy.

The problem with exclusive reliance on Jus soli is that it reeks with the stench of feudalism!

The founding fathers intended for their posterity (that's us) to be sovereign-Citizens -- not Subjects of a sovereign!

They did not intend us to become surfs.

Words have consequences.

Notice the prefix "SUB" in Subject:

Origin: 1275–1325; (adj.) < Latin subjects, placed beneath, inferior, open to inspection, orig. past participle of subicere to throw or place beneath, make subject,... etc.

The elitist want to make the sovereign-Citizens -- We "the people" -- their subjects!

President Abe Lincoln got it right when he said at Gettysburg Pennsylvania, 1863:

... "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of THE PEOPLE, by THE PEOPLE, for THE PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth."

(emphases mine)

How many have died so that "we" the sovergn "people" should be free rather than 'sub'jugated to a potentate?

No... words have power!

We are Free and Sovereign Citizens!

A Citizen has unalienable -- Natural (God given) -- rights.

The "rights" of a subject are at the disposal of his sovereign, and may be alienated at the pleasure of same.

No... a Subject and a Citizen are to different animals.

Take a guess which one is the mouse and which one is the man?

STE=Q

32 posted on 03/18/2011 6:05:03 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

IT becomes ok in the minds of those who have first changed the written constitution into a living Constitution.For them and they alone it is then possible to claim the change to native born is acceptable. For those who yet believe we have a written Constitution that means what the terms used suggest it will never be “ok” to change natural born into native born.


33 posted on 03/19/2011 3:56:46 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"I have never seen a single convincing reason given why natural born citizen has any other meaning than native born citizen or citizen at birth."

Maybe John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and the Constitution of the United States of America will convince you:

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

"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."

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

"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. "

This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed "born a Citizen". Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

"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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Convincing enough for ya?

34 posted on 03/19/2011 4:28:49 AM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

obumpa


35 posted on 03/20/2011 10:03:58 PM PDT by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

There are a few things to understand about English common law. Aliens who were in England were considered to have “actual obedience” to the Crown. There’s no equivalence to that in U.S. law. Second, English common law granted that those born to British fathers in other countries were “natural born subjects” at birth. This concept was not considered in force for U.S. citizenship. It’s why the naturalization act of 1790 declared children born abroad were “considered as” natural born citizens. If the U.S. was following English common law, there was no need to legislate citizenship this way. You quoted U.S. v. Rhodes: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” This follows a citation of Shanks v. Dupont, where in both circumstances, this is referring to children born IN THE UNITED STATES. IOW, birth in this country did not automatically make you a U.S. citizen, because you could be born in the allegiance of the King (through your parents). Again, allegiance to the King required “acutal obedience, but the only way to determine allegiance to the United States would be through an oath (such as naturalization oath) or birth to citizen parents who themselves (or their parents, and so on) had taken an oath.


36 posted on 03/23/2011 9:05:22 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson