Tweet
The Faux Claims of John Woodman Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
4/2/2012
Excerpt:
"What is hilarious is how John Woodman, who claims to be a conservative Republican, is running around the internet proclaiming that he has saved the United States, its Constitution, and not only putative President Barack Obama, but also Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Bobby Jindal (all three were not born to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth) from the “Birthers.” He adds that he has proven that Attorney Leo Donofrio’s and my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is nothing but “lies.”
There is plenty of historical evidence that I have provided which shows that John Woodman is nothing more than a creation of his own mind and rhetoric. I have shown that history and legal precedents do not support what he and some others maintain is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., any child simply born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. I have shown that at the Founding, unlike the states which put in place statutes and state constitutions which retained the English common law on the state level except to the degree those laws were abrogated by the state legislature, the national government did not adopt the English common law for the needs of the national government, but rather the law of nations which was natural law applied to the affairs of nations. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents."
.................................................. ...
View the complete article at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/fa...regarding.html
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
4/2/2012
Excerpt:
"What is hilarious is how John Woodman, who claims to be a conservative Republican, is running around the internet proclaiming that he has saved the United States, its Constitution, and not only putative President Barack Obama, but also Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Bobby Jindal (all three were not born to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth) from the “Birthers.” He adds that he has proven that Attorney Leo Donofrio’s and my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is nothing but “lies.”
There is plenty of historical evidence that I have provided which shows that John Woodman is nothing more than a creation of his own mind and rhetoric. I have shown that history and legal precedents do not support what he and some others maintain is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., any child simply born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. I have shown that at the Founding, unlike the states which put in place statutes and state constitutions which retained the English common law on the state level except to the degree those laws were abrogated by the state legislature, the national government did not adopt the English common law for the needs of the national government, but rather the law of nations which was natural law applied to the affairs of nations. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
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.
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.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents."
.................................................. ...
View the complete article at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/fa...regarding.html