U.S. Citizen Ted Cruz
Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?
Ted Cruz has just been sworn into office, and already rumors of a presidential run are swirling. Pundits are questioning if Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible to run for president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 of an American citizen mother and Cuban father. Although Ted Cruz was born in Canada, he is indeed a natural born citizen.
Due to misinformation propagated by birthers, many incorrectly assume one has to be born in a U.S. state or territory of two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, but the term “natural born citizen” refers to citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization. The 14th amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under the McCarran-Walter Act, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services summarizes the laws in effect when Ted Cruz was born:
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she meets the residency requirements.
Natural born citizen defined
Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen at birth.
Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.
Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…
A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
####
Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.
Given what the settled American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” when the child was born (Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)), the correct question is not whether Ted Cruz is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, but whether he was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when he was born. Being a citizen at birth is not a prescriptive definition, but rather only part of a description of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is only a necessary consequence of being a “natural born Citizen.” That consequence does not define what the definition’s necessary and sufficient conditions are for producing the status of being a “natural born Citizen” or even just a “citizen” at birth for that matter. The consequence itself does not provide any conditions for producing the consequence itself, let alone a prescription for being a “natural born Citizen” or even a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Again, the conditions to be a “natural born Citizen” are (1) birth in the United States (2) to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when the child was born.
Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any existing Congressional Act (even if it could which it cannot) has amended Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. Both the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts produce “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth of those children who meet their requirements for that status. But because this amendment and these statutes provide a different standard than does the American common law which provides the only standard that applies for defining a “natural born Citizen,” these birth citizens do not necessarily satisfy the two requirements of being a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, if they do not satisfy the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” they are “citizens of the United States” from birth, but they are not “natural born Citizens” and consequently not eligible to be President or Vice President. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (a “Citizen of the United States” is eligible to be President only if he or she had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution and for those born after that adoption, only a “natural born Citizen” is so eligible).
So do not fall for the fallacious reasoning (a tautology and fallacy of affirming the consequent) that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” of the United States or any person who is a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. Rather, a “natural born Citizen” is a child who satisfies the elements of the American common law definition of the clause which are born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” when the child was born.
Author John Woodman has done an excellent job of debunking the claim that Minor v. Happersett (1875) proves natural born citizens must have two citizen parents. Rather than ‘reinvent the wheel’ in debating you on this case, I will provide links to a series of articles John Woodman wrote about Minor v. Happersett (1875).
Did Minor v Happersett Set a “Binding Precedent” as to the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen?”
Minor v Happersett Gave No “Definition” for “Natural Born Citizen.”
Plain English Says the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett Never Claimed That Citizen Parents Are Required to Make a “Natural Born Citizen.”
The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett Never Claimed That Citizen Parents Are Required to Make a “Natural Born Citizen.”
At Least One Court Has Very Specifically Ruled that Minor v Happersett Says No Such Thing as What Birthers Claim.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) proves just the opposite, that a child born in the U.S. of two non-citizens is a natural born citizen. Although the U.S. Supreme Court was not asked to rule on whether Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, since eligibility to become president was not an issue at hand, SCOTUS quotes numerous cases stating that children born of non-citizens are natural born citizens (natural born subjects in England).
John Woodman has also written an excellent analysis of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and I agree with him. Link: In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court Set a Binding Precedent as to Who Is a Natural Born Citizen
Mario,
Nice theory on “natural born” clause. Do you have a single case that backs you up? My guess is NO.
Bob Quasius,
John Woodman has not debunked one thing that I have said. Woodman likes to state conclusions which do not follow from the sources he cites and the arguments he presents. He just inserts his own words into the mouth of courts or authorities so that he can arrive at the conclusion he needs. He then simply in broad brushes dismisses the arguments of others, stating that he has proved them wrong, but without actually demonstrating it.
Woodman misrepresents not only our constitutional history as it applies to defining a “natural born Citizen,” both also Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
I. Our Constitutional History
Woodman claims that the Founders and Framers defined Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause under the English common law when they did no such thing. Rather, they defined the clause under natural law and the law of nations which they incorporated as national common law. The only definition of a “natural born Citizen” was already used during the time the Framers inserted the clause in the Constitution as a means to assure the survival and preservation of the new nation as a constitutional republic. That national common law definition was a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens when the child was born, with parents meaning father and mother under the doctrine of unity of citizenship and allegiance of the husband and wife flowing from the husband. Hence, the event of natural birth had both place of birth and citizenship of parents tied to it. It was this natural unity of birth circumstances that allowed the event of being born a citizen to be characterized as “natural” and not brought about by any positive law. This type of birth citizenship needed no positive law to create it. This was a definition that existed since time immemorial as part of the law of nature and incorporated into the law of nations. See 1 J. J. Burlamaqui, Principles of Natural And Politic Law Ch. 5, § 9, at 213 (Thomas Nugent trans., Boston, John Boyle, Benjamin Larkin & James White 4th ed. 1792) (1748) (endorsing jus sanguinis citizenship); 4 Nathan Dane, A General Abridgment And Digest Of American Law Ch. 131, art. 2, § 8, at 700 (Boston, Cummings, Hillard & Co. 1824) (same); 2 Samuel Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae Et Gentium Libri Octo 994 (C.H. Oldfather & W.A. Oldfather trans., 1934) (1688) (same); Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Conflict Of Laws § 48, at 59 (Boston, Hilliard, Gray & Co. 5th ed. 1857) (similar); Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); and 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, And of the Commonwealth of Virginia app. at 152 (St. George Tucker ed. William Young Birch & Abraham Small publishers Phila. 1803) (“The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights. These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens. *** [Id. at Chapter the First, 43, 3] Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.” Id. at Chapter the Tenth, 12. No U.S. Supreme Court case has ever changed this national common law definition. The Fourteenth Amendment also did not change that definition. Rather, what has changed is how through positive law we have defined a born “citizen of the United States,” not how we have defined a “natural born Citizen.”
In the British colonies each colony decided for itself who would be admitted as a “natural born subject.” These “natural born subjects” included both those who were born in the colonies and those who were naturalized there. Hence, the English common law did not distinguish in name between their ‘natural born” and naturalized, calling them both “natural born subjects.” But the Framers in Article II did distinguish between “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States.” They expressed that the former were naturalized neither at birth nor after birth, while the latter could be either.
When the Framers created the Constitution, they decided that our naturalization laws would be made uniform and gave Congress the power to do that in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Through the “natural born Citizen” clause, they also made uniform who would be given the privilege of being eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To accomplish the goal of uniformity, the law of nations was incorporated into the “Laws of the United States” which along with the Constitution and treaties made up our federal laws. See Article III, Section 2. The law of nations was even expressly referred to in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. Hence, the “natural born Citizen” definition became part of American federal common law and the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875) confirms this fact. Hence, the matter of federal citizenship became a federal issue, and not a state issue, although the states were still free to make laws as to who would be considered citizens of their respective states.
But by using the word “natural,” the Framers gave Congress no power to define a “natural born Citizen” through the only power that it was given over citizenship, the power to naturalize. So, while Congress could use its naturalization powers to created “Citizens of the United States,” both at birth and after birth, it could not create a “natural born Citizen.”
The national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” was confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 120 (1830); Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); and both the majority and dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898). These lower court cases also confirmed it: Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (not a Supreme Court case but persuasive); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1860), aff’d, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863); and United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). This definition was also confirmed by Congress by a process of elimination through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, all of which were jus sanguinis based (only children born in the United States to citizen parents were not covered by Congress’s naturalization reach, not covered by these acts, and therefore implicitly recognized to be “natural born Citizens).
Through the years, there was confusion, debate, and doubt as to what a “citizen” was, but never as to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which only defined a “citizen of the United States.” The act was then replaced with the Fourteenth Amendment which still only defined a “citizen of the United States.” In so doing, the amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Rather, the amendment in its text confined itself to defining a “citizen of the United States” and made no mention in either that text or in its debates that it was designed to define or alter the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” There is simply no evidence that the framers of the amendment intended to or did constitutionalize a new meaning for the “natural born Citizen” clause. On the contrary, given the expansive application that the amendment has been given by both the courts and some scholars, granting birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens, it is hard to imagine that the Founders and Framers would have extended the right to be President to such children. There was also debate about whether a citizen of a state automatically made one a “Citizen of the United States.” The amendment also said that if one is a “citizen of the United States” one is also a citizen of the state in which one resides. Hence, it was confirmed that our citizenship is defined by national law and not by the common law or statutes of any one state.
II. Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Minor v. Happersett held:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Given similar treatment by prior and subsequent historical sources and court cases, one cannot reasonably argue that this is not a definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Also about two citizen parents, throughout our history and only until the Cable Act of 1922, which allowed women to have their own citizenship, in the U.S., a husband and wife always had the same citizenship which was that of the husband. Hence, the citizenship of both the husband and wife always counted to make one a “natural-born citizen.” So without doubt, when Minor, like other U.S. Supreme Court cases, said “parents,” it meant father and mother. So, we can see that John Woodman has misrepresented the meaning of Minor.
III. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
John Woodman has also misrepresented Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark confirmed:
“‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of [680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’”
Id. at 679-80 (citing and quoting Minor, at 167-68). Wong Kim Ark also continued: “Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: . . . ‘The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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.’ [666] p. 22, note.” Id. at 666-67.
Hence, Wong Kim Ark told us that a child born of citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen” and that a child born in the country of alien parents is a “citizen,” but not a “natural born Citizen,” although just as much a “citizen” as a “natural born Citizen.” So, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark told us that there are “natural born citizens” (the national common law definition confirmed by Minor) and there are “citizens” (the Fourteenth Amendment definition provided by Wong Kim Ark). But then we know that after the adoption of the Constitution, today only a “natural born Citizen” has the privilege of being eligible to be President.
John Woodman concedes that in Wong Kim Ark, “the U.S. Supreme Court was not asked to rule on whether Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, since eligibility to become president was not an issue at hand.” So, Woodman admits that Wong Kim Ark was not itself a case regarding what a “natural born Citizen” is. But he wants to use the decision as precedent that someone in Wong’s situation is a “natural-born citizen.” And he wants to accomplish that despite the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor clearly informing us in 1875 what a “natural-born citizen” is, which definition does not allow him to arrive at his conclusion. On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark was a Fourteenth Amendment case, not an Article II case. Minor informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, it explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” comes from common law with which the Framers were familiar. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court did not hold that a child born to two non-U.S. citizens was a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of that common law. Rather, it held that such a child was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The last time I looked, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 still says that “Citizens of the United States” today are not eligible to be President and that today ‘[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Second, there is no such thing as “numerous cases stating that children born of non-citizens are natural born citizens.” As to any case that in some way said so, Minor would have overruled the New York state case of Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844), which stated otherwise in dicta. Lynch had rejected jus sanguinis as the basis of U.S. citizenship and Minor shows that Lynch was wrong.
So we can see that John Woodman has debunked nothing that I have said. On the contrary, he simply misrepresents our constitutional history and U.S. Supreme Court cases in order to drive his political agenda.
For a full analysis and discussion of the cited other sources which confirm that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country, see, among other sources such as the various briefs that I have filed with the courts in New Jersey (Kerchner v. Obama; Purpura and Moran v. Obama), Pennsylvania (Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama), Virginia (Tisdale v. Obama), and Vermont (Paige v. Obama), and the many articles that I have written at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ , Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html (wherein I demonstrate that a “natural born Citizen” has always been defined in our nation as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of the country and that that definition has never been changed by constitutional amendment or by the U.S. Supreme Court and that a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark is not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born Citizen”) and Mario Apuzzo, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html (where I show how some lower courts and Obama eligibility supporters have engaged in fallacious logical reasoning in how they have defined a “natural born Citizen”).
Mario Apuzzo, I read the two cases you cited, and agree with Woodman.
By the way, could you provide us with a complete list of birther cases you have won? Were you sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases, or just scolded a few times?
I guess I was mistaken about you. You are not about honest and open debate on this issue. You are a phony.
Sorry Mario, but I find John Woodman’s arguments a lot more credible. I read the same two cases you cited in your first comment and they clearly don’t support your position. In fact, I’d say U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark supports the position that children born of two non-citizen parents on U.S. soil are natural born citizens.
Your claims that natural born citizenship as envisioned by the authors of our constitution is logically inconsistent with the facts:
1. Common law for many centuries before the constitution consistently held that children born of aliens on English territory were natural born subjects.
2. All thirteen colonies passed reception statutes embracing common law.
3. The constitutional convention did not see a need to define natural born citizen in the constitution, indicating the meaning of the term was clear. Surely a dramatic departure from centuries of precedent would elicit a definition?
4. One year after the constitution goes into effect, in 1790 Congress passed a naturalization law specifying that children born abroad of citizen fathers are natural born citizens, which directly contradicts your position that natural born citizens must be born in the U.S. of two citizen parents.
Now, about those birther cases you won…still waiting.
Mario, I’ve asked several times for birther cases you’ve won, but received no direct response. This is relevant because in your first comment you stated:
I decided to help you about your cases…and I found the cases below. Help us out here…tell us how you ‘won’ since it appears you ‘lost’?
Kerchner v. Obama –
Based upon the above I CONCLUDE that the petitioners have failed to meet their burden to establish that Barak Obama failed in any obligation to prove to theSecretary of State that he is qualified to hold the Presidency and that he is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America, as required by the United StatesConstitution. The petitions challenging his petitions are DISMISSED.
bquasius,
There is no need to apologize for your ignorance.
You make conclusory statements about Minor and Wong Kim Ark without any argument.
As to your four points:
1. You have not demonstrated that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, Minor said they used common law which could only be American common law given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” the Court provided.
2. The reception statutes passed by the new states (not the colonies as you state) only applied to state matters, e.g., contracts, torts, property, inheritance, matrimonial, etc., not to national matters such as national citizenship and naturalization. In any event, Congress abrogated any states laws on citizenship when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by those of 1795, 1802, and others, pursuant to its exclusive naturalization powers under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
3. Minor said “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.” But we know that under the English common law, there were no such doubts. So, the Founders’ and Framers’ silence on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” surely could not have been because they chose to use the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. Rather, that silence was because the original public meaning of the clause was understood to be based on natural law and the law of nations which is what Minor used to define the clause. Minor also explained that there was no doubt about the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” as so defined. Hence, there would not have been any debate at the convention on the clause because the Founders and Framers defined the clause under the law of nations and the new American common law which Minor explained presented no doubts rather than under English common law which Minor explained did present doubts.
4. The Naturalization Act of 1790 only said that such children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents shall be “considered as natural born citizen.” Those children were not in fact “natural born Citizens.” After all, Congress could not through a naturalization statute make “natural born Citizens.” Furthermore, the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States” which totally proves my point that birth in the country was necessary to have a “natural born Citizen.”
So, you lose on all the points.
Now, how about an argument from you that has any merit. . . still waiting.
I’m just a tad confused here, Bob. Your point 4 of your 1/13/13 point indicates – “children born abroad of citizen fathers….”. Yet, Bob, in Raoul’s assertion of American Citizenship at birth when he was born in Mexico from an American Citizen mother – and your follow-up to my questions of “What would birthers think about that” – you, Bob, indicated that because he had one parent (his mom) who was a citizen at the time of his birth in Mexico – Rauol indeed is an American citizen. See – http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/american-christmas-1946 – for this conversation.
I have no reason to question either you, Bob, or Raoul on this – but I am confused about the point 4 that you make dealing with a law passed in 1790 – that you indicate explicity indicates “fathers” rather than “father or mother” or “mother”.
Where would a “mother” fit into this 1790 law?
Just askin’,
Robert Allen
There is the common law concept of jus soli, where anyone born in a nation’s territory and subject to its juristiction (nearly everyone but diplomat families and Indians not taxed) is a citizen. The 14th amendment superceded common law and made former slaves, etc. birthright citizens.
Raoul and Ted Cruz are not birthright citizens because they weren’t born in the U.S., but they were born citizens by statute, with their status derived from their citizen mothers. The statutes have changed over time. I mention the 1790 statute in my piece because it reflects the thinking of the era. Under the articles of confederation, the states controlled immigration policy, and every one of the states passed a statute embracing English common law except where it conflicted with their constitutions (obviously anything about a monarch was out!).
Mario Apuzzo claims natural born citizen means born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, but clearly in 1790, one year after our constitution went into effect, Congress had a different view of the term natural born citizen than Mario Apuzzo claims.
Mario’s definition of natural born citizen: born in U.S. of two citizen parents
Ted Cruz and Raoul: born outside of U.S. of one citizen parent
Blackstone’s commentary also specifically mentions extending by statute the common law concept of jus soli (law of the soil) to include natural born citizens born outside England:
Thanks, Bob for again, clarifying my question. I’m absolutely sure, from the great number of threads that Rauol has started within this Blog Space, and his orientations over all, that he, Raoul, IS a 100% American Citizen – even though he was born in Mexico!!!!
With that in mind, Bob, again, there would be NO Question of Ted’s American Citizenship either, dispite the legal mumbo jumbo that Mario is throwing around.
So, Mario – I trust that you followed the link to Raoul’s thread that I cite in my question to Bob Quasuis – and trusting this, Mario – I ask you – WHY did the birthers get SO MUCH press over the Barack’s MOTHER – being an American Citizen, at the time of Barack’s birth???????
Just askin’,
Robert Allen
Robert Allen,
I guess your intellectual powers are not up to speed for this job, calling what I wrote “legal mumbo jumbo.”
It also looks like you do not understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.”
Apparently your lawyering skills are not up to the job of birther attorney, because your arguments are unpersuasive with judges. Can you name a single birther lawsuit you have won?
It’s a good think that Judges Sloviter, Barry and Hardiman let you slide on the proposed sanction for frivolous appeal. I’m sure you were hoping you wouldn’t get socked with a $20,000 fine like Orly Taitz received.
I appologize, Mario, for using the expression “legal mumber jumbo” – because, I’m not a lawyer, while you are.
With this in mind, though, Mario – I’m ALWAYS reminded of the Lawyer, John Mitchell – ALSO the Attorney General of the U.S. of A – WHO SHOULD of KNOWN BETTER – as a LAWYER – that it’s NOT LEGAL – to BREAK the Law.
Take THIS entry from the Wiki, Mario – start of quote -
“On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the “White House horrors”. The sentence was later reduced to one year to four years by United States district court Judge John J. Sirica. Mitchell served only 19 months of his sentence, at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, a minimum security prison, before being released on parole for medical reasons. Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic Party’s national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested.” – end of quote.
Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell
SO, Mario – JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS a lawyer – DOESN’T MEAN – that they WON’T break the LAW. It also DOESN’T mean that WHAT they SAY – means anything other – THAN JUST EXPRESSING a Personal Opinion!!!!
Just expressing a personal opinion,
Robert Allen
Robert Allen,
It is fallacious to ascribe any degree of truth to any statement merely because of who says it.
I would think, Mario, that lawyers as a whole, particularly a lawyer who becomes the Attorney General of this great nation of ours, WOULD have a vested PROFESSIONAL interest – in NOT BRINGING SHAME upon the profession!!!
However, as we all know, Ol’ John Mitchell – AS A LAWYER – not ONLY brought shame upon the profession – but ALSO BROUGHT SHAME – upon the President of the U.S. of A. – as the guy who appointed him as Attorney General.
HERE’s hopin’ that ALL LAWYERS will STRIVE to bring HONOR to their Profession,
Robert Allen
Bob Quasius,
You continue with your ignorance. Your fallacious appeal to what some lower courts have done or not done, with reference to sanctions against me, in place of your own reasoned and logical analysis shows your character. That is why I said you are a phony.
First, Kerchner v. Obama was decided on standing. Neither the New Jersey federal district court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reached my argument on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The Third Circuit stated: “We cannot discuss Appellants’ contention that ‘the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father.’ Appellants’ Br. at 18. That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” So as you can see, the Court never reached the merits of the “natural born Citizen” argument that I presented in the legal action.
Second, the Third Circuit’s reference to “damages and costs” was directed to my appealing to the Third Circuit on the issue of standing, not on what I argued to be the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The Court issued an order that I show why I should not be made to pay the defense “damages and costs” incurred in having to defend against my appeal on the issue of standing. I responded to the Court, showing why the issue of standing in the context of an Article II “natural born Citizen” litigation, with no U.S. Supreme Court decision on the matter, was not as defined as the Court had stated it was. The Court was satisfied that my research and argument on the issue of standing showed that the matter was not as clear cut as the court had represented. The Court discharged its order to show cause and thereby did not require that I pay any damages or costs to the defendants. That you want to use this occurrence to somehow show that your definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct and mine incorrect is intellectually disgusting.
Third, Tisdale v. Obama and Purpura/Moran v. Obama (which you call Patrick Galasso v. Barack Obama) both relied upon the state case of Ankeny which is bad law. Ankeny does not trump historical sources and cases from our U.S. Supreme Court like, for example, Minor v. Happersett (1875). What our U.S. Supreme Court decides is the law of the land, not what a lower state court decides.
Fourth, the simple point that you miss is that there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision which demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from any source other than American common law which has always showed and still shows that the clause means a child born in the country to parents who were citizens of the country at the time of the child’s birth. That U.S. Supreme Court definition is settled law and the supreme law of the land. That supreme constitutional law does not get changed by lower federal or state courts as they have attempted to do with Barack Obama or as you are attempting to do with Ted Cruz.
Fifth, you continue in our comments about “sanctions” against me and other nonsense. I have proven that you are a waste of time and have outed you as a phony.
Mario, in your very first comment you asserted your argument was long settled case law. You’ve made the same arguments in court several times now and it appears you lost every case, so perhaps this isn’t long settled case law after all! In fact, I understand over 100 birther cases were lost, many for lack of standing but a significant number for unpersuasive arguments.
I’ve asked you to name birther cases you’ve won but so far all I’ve heard is the ‘sound of crickets.’
Bob Quasius,
Like I said, you are a waste of time and a phony. You keep repeating the same tripe. The only “sound of crickets” that I hear is you not being able to make a reasoned and logical argument.
NOWHERE in 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, i.e. a native-born in England by necessity had to be “born under the ligeance of a subject” to be a natural born, otherwise the native-botn child was an alien born because as Lord Coke ruled in Calvin’s case “he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”.
Blackstone’s commentaries did not change this English rule, Blackstone merely concured with Lord Coke, but said it in a way that could be mischievously misrepresented and so those who engage in spreading the lie, i.e. that “alien parents + native-born child = natural born citizen child”, selectively use the Blackstone wording to deliberately misrespresent what the English law actually ruled.
English law clearly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and required a native-born to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”, for the child to be a natural born subject.
The majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case favorably and without objection cited to Horace Gray’s recogniton of two types of born US citizens i.e.
1. “the child of an alien, if born in the country”
2. “the natural born child of a citizen”
Clearly the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case held that the wording “natural born” pertained exclusively to parents.
As a consequence, Wong was ruled to be “the child of an alien, if born in the country”, it was impossible for Wong to be the only other option i.e. “the natural born child of a citizen”
The Wong Kim Ark majority knew that Wong could only be one or the other, hence Wong was ruled to be a “citizen of the United States”, which is the original term used in the USC for those citizens who were NOT eligible for the office of POTUS after the ratification of the USC.
It is proven fact that the English law NEVER ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
To cherry-pick Blackstone’s re-wording of Lord Coke’s holding of English law, and to assert that the English rule was other than what Lord Coke (who Blackstone referred to) said, is deliberately dishonest and deceitful.
Lord Coke – Calvin’s case, as was relied on by Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case where Lord Coke stated….
“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That THE PARENTS BE UNDER THE ACTUAL OBEDIENCE of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;”
“And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”
IF the Framers of the US Constitution did follow the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen of the US, that child would by necessity have to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”/US citizen father.
Kindly save your ad hominem and use of other fallacies, as no amount of citing to the number of people who have got it wrong or have been lying about what the English law actually ruled, will ever change the clear and simple truth that English law NEVER, EVER held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
Bob Quasius,
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided in pertinent part: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
First, Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution without duly passed amendment. Hence, Congress cannot give by statute a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that is different from what the Founders and Framers intended it to be. This is not to say that what the early Congresses did does not give us insight into what the Founders and Framers intended the definition to mean. In fact, the statutory scheme presented through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born) demonstrates that early Congress, and therefore most probably the Founders and Framers, defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens when the child was born.
Second, the First Congress used the clause “natural born citizen” through inadvertence, caused by its members examining as a model to emulate the English naturalization act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773)) which used the clause “shall be considered as natural born subjects.” A naturalized alien is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. With no presidential eligibility requirement such as existed in the United States, the English treated anyone naturalized at birth or after birth as a “natural born subject.” Congress knew that a “natural born citizen” was not the equivalent to a “natural born subject” and realized the mistake that it had made. Furthermore, Congress knew that the national character of being a “natural born citizen” was one of the presidential eligibility requirements of the Constitution. The Third Congress, with James Madison being on the Congressional Committee that proposed the needed correction so as not to give a wrong inference as to who may be eligible to be President, took corrective action and in the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” The same corrected language was repeated in the Naturalization Act of 1802 and 1855. This action by our early Congress not only reveals what the meaning of a “natural born citizen” is, but also demonstrates how careful Congress and the Founders and Framers were in distinguishing between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” and now serious they took the “natural born citizen” clause as it applied to presidential eligibility.
Third, using these Acts to give us clues as to what the Founders and Framers meant by “natural born citizen,” notice in these Acts, the reference is to “children of citizens.” This means father and mother.
William Blacktone in Blackstone’s commentary addressed the matter of English naturalization statutes treating children born to subject parents out of the King’s dominion “to all intents and purposes” as “natural born subjects.” He stated:
“To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain” (emphasis on “both” and “fathers” in the original).
We can see that in their naturalization acts even the English required that “both” the father and mother be English subjects. The parent requirement was relaxed to require only a subject father so as to encourage commerce, but for all intents and purposes also meant that the mother was a subject. But the U.S. Congress did not adopt the same relaxed parent standard. It did not like the English use the same explicit language that “fathers” be citizens. Rather, it wrote “children of citizens,” meaning that the child’s parents be “citizens” (in the plural).
Moreover, in the United States, it was the law and practice during the Founding and until the Cable Act of 1922 that a wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband. Hence, U.S. citizen fathers and mothers had to have just one allegiance and citizenship which was that of the husband. The point is even made in the 1790 statute itself when it later focuses on the “fathers” as having had to reside in the United States in order to give to his child his U.S. citizenship at birth. So, when Congress meant to say “both” father and mother, they used “citizens” and when they meant to say just one parent, they used “fathers.” But that they used “fathers” does not mean that a mother’s allegiance and citizenship was not required, for mothers followed the allegiance and citizenship of fathers. Furthermore, Congress knew that a “natural born Citizen” had to be born in the United States. That is the reason that it attempted to clothe a child born out of the United States to citizen parents with the character of a “natural born citizen,” using the language “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” But Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution without constitutional amendment duly passed under Article V. Hence, Congress cannot give by naturalization statute a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that is different from what the Founders and Framers intended it to be and which our U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed as existing in national common law. Recognizing the mistake it made, the Third Congress removed the reference to “natural born citizens.” Congress never again in our history and until the present day ever made the same mistake and therefore has never again attempted to define who may be a “natural born Citizen” in any of its statutes.
Fourth, the Cable Act of 1922 and its replacements did not nor could they amend Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. The settled national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” still required birth in the country to a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother as it always had and as it still does today. If we want to change this constitutional definition today, we can only legally do so through constitutional amendment or through a new interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I do not consider it at all credible that the Congress in 1790 used the words “natural born citizen” through inadvertence. The bill is less than one handwritten page long. Surely they had time to read and comprehend it. James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution was in Congress at that time, and George Washington, the President of the Federal Convention of 1787, signed the bill into law. Further I should remind that in England, the Nationality Act in force at the time made the children of British subjects born overseas “natural born subjects.”
There has only been one meaning of “natural born” in the English language, and that is having a specified position or character by birth” (Oxford English Dictionary). The 1790 Act made the children of foreign-born American fathers citizens at birth, and therefore by the plain understanding of the term, they were “natural born citizens.”
The debates in the Federal Convention all tied fitness and loyalty to office to length of time as a citizen. There is no amendment of Article II; it plainly means a citizen at birth, and Congress has the power to say who are citizens at birth.
I agree with the Congressional Research Service’s conclusion cited in the article, but it should be noted that the CRS qualifies its findings with the phrase: “[t]he weight of legal and historical authority.” I think this is consistent with the view of most authorities that while Mr. Cruz is almost certainly eligible, there is at least some room to legitimately argue otherwise. This is in contrast to the case of Mr. Obama, about which there is no legitimate argument.
Sorry but he was NOT a citizen of the United States when he was born and each can add their own spin to the meaning BUT after all the craziness of the “Birthers” regarding President Obama does anyone really think this would not wind up in the Supreme Court to be decided? That would be if Cruz, who is despised by his own party, even made it though a primary for the highest office in the land. Sorry folks but 9% of the population never elected a President, Thank God.
Sorry, but Ted Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen per the statutes in existence at the time, anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. Regardless of the facts, if Ted Cruz does run for president some day, no doubt birthers will dog him with constant baseless allegations of ineligibility, and sadly some believe their nonsense.
Bob Quasisus,
Only the unique and singular all-powerful constitutional civil and military office of the President and Commander in Chief, which carries with it a requirement of the highest allegiance of any other constitutional office, requires that today any person wanting to occupy those offices be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “citizen of the United States.” Having to be a “natural born Citizen” means one cannot be alien born and in need of naturalization. At common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, the only child that was not alien born and in need of naturalization at birth or after birth was a child born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875) (confirmed this American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” and said that any other person who did not meet this common law definition was born an “alien or foreigner”). See also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (using the colonial English common law, which naturalized at birth the children of a foreigner born in the King’s dominion to friendly, non-diplomatic alien parents to be a “natural born subject,” held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment [not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born Citizen”], and also found that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are subject to the naturalization powers of Congress and under that power are by a naturalization act of Congress naturalized at birth to be “citizens of the United States” at birth). This American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” became the supreme law of the land when the people ratified the Constitution and has never been amended or altered, including by the Fourteenth Amendment which only defines a “citizen of the United States” and Wong Kim Ark which interpreted and applied that amendment.
Ted Cruz does not satisfy the constitutional common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Ted Cruz was not born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of his birth. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father. Being born in a foreign country and to a non-U.S. citizen father, he was born with alienage (a jus soli citizen of and allegiance to Canada at birth and a jus sanguinis citizen of and allegiance to Cuba at birth) and therefore alien born and in need of naturalization. Minor. He was not born a U.S. citizen under American common law, but rather an Act of the U.S. Congress naturalized him at birth to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Wong Kim Ark. But being alien born and naturalized at birth by an Act of Congress, and therefore lacking sole legal, political, and military allegiance to the United State from birth, which is what the Constitution requires of all future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military, he is not nor can he be a “natural born Citizen.” Minor; Wong Kim Ark.
Ah, Mario – YOU and MichaelN – BOTH sure LOST Big-Time in that OTHER Lengthy Thread on – Birther Madness – SO, Mario, Poopsey, I see that YOU are attempting – AGAIN – to raise those LOSING arguments from THAT thread – in THIS thread!!!!!!!
Mario, Mario, Mario – SINCE YOU see yourself as WINNING the Birther Madness arguement – You OBVIOUSLY ARE – the Leader – or as they pronounce it in Italian – Il Duce!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND, Mario – Since YOU see yourself AS – Il Duce – and see yourself as WINNING the Victory of this Birther Madness thingy – I say to you, Mario – Hail Victory – or as they pronounce it in German – Sieg Heil !!!!!!!!!!
NOWHERE in 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, i.e. a native-born in England by necessity had to be “born under the ligeance of a subject” to be a natural born, otherwise the native-botn child was an alien born because as Lord Coke ruled in Calvin’s case “he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”.
Blackstone’s commentaries did not change this English rule, Blackstone merely concured with Lord Coke, but said it in a way that could be mischievously misrepresented and so those who engage in spreading the lie, i.e. that “alien parents + native-born child = natural born citizen child”, selectively use the Blackstone wording to deliberately misrespresent what the English law actually ruled.
English law clearly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and required a native-born to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”, for the child to be a natural born subject.
The majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case favorably and without objection cited to Horace Gray’s recogniton of two types of born US citizens i.e.
1. “the child of an alien, if born in the country”
2. “the natural born child of a citizen”
Clearly the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case held that the wording “natural born” pertained exclusively to parents.
As a consequence, Wong was ruled to be “the child of an alien, if born in the country”, it was impossible for Wong to be the only other option i.e. “the natural born child of a citizen”
The Wong Kim Ark majority knew that Wong could only be one or the other, hence Wong was ruled to be a “citizen of the United States”, which is the original term used in the USC for those citizens who were NOT eligible for the office of POTUS after the ratification of the USC.
It is proven fact that the English law NEVER ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
To cherry-pick Blackstone’s re-wording of Lord Coke’s holding of English law, and to assert that the English rule was other than what Lord Coke (who Blackstone referred to) said, is deliberately dishonest and deceitful.
Lord Coke – Calvin’s case, as was relied on by Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case where Lord Coke stated….
“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That THE PARENTS BE UNDER THE ACTUAL OBEDIENCE of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;”
“And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”
IF the Framers of the US Constitution did follow the English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen of the US, that child would by necessity have to be “born under the ligeance of a subject”/US citizen father.
Kindly save your ad hominem and use of other fallacies, as no amount of citing to the number of people who have got it wrong or have been lying about what the English law actually ruled, will ever change the clear and simple truth that English law NEVER, EVER held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
Ah, MichaelN – JUST like Clock-work, when Ol’ Il Duce, Mario – weighs in – but ONLY AFTER Mario weighs in (JUST like in that Birther Madness thread) – YOU, MichaelN – CHIME in with a – ME TOO – ME TOO – Look at ME TOO!!!!!!
Great Job, MichaelN – for being a Patsy for Mario – AFTER Mario serves as a Patsy for WASPs (See that Birther Madness thread, MichaelN, for what I me about Mario being a Patsy for WASPs!!!!) !!!!!
WHAT a Team – Mario and MichaelN – Just like Mutt and Jeff – Laurel and Hardy – Step and Fetchet!!!!!!