I started reading Apuzzo's
analysis above, but immediately encountered so many errors, that I had to stop.
When I was doing the necessary research
before writing "The Federal Zone," and before the Internet became
widely available, it was very difficult and time-consuming to track down
standing court cases which held that we have two (2) classes of citizens in
America, not one class. We've summarized
those cases here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm
The second class -- uniquely called
"federal citizenship" -- did not even exist prior to the 1866
Civil Rights Act.
This can only mean that all 3 Qualifications
Clauses refer to the one and only primary class of State Citizens, namely, Citizens
of ONE of the States united. See People
v. De La Guerra: "United
States" in these clauses means "States united".
Although Mr. Apuzzo
makes a valiant attempt to appear scholarly in his article above, he does his
readers a great disservice by confusing those two classes, and by failing to
identify any errors in the decisions he cites.
Most dramatically, the so-called Fourteenth
amendment was never properly ratified: Dyett v. Turner (27 < 28
!!)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett
Here is the proper and historically correct
way to distinguish those two classes:
"Citizen of the United States"
means State Citizen, i.e. Citizen of ONE
OF the States united
"citizen of the
United States" means federal citizen, i.e.
citizen of the District of Columbia
Accordingly, he leaves his readers almost
totally incapable of deciphering what Apuzzo, and the
Courts he cites, really do mean when they persist in using the term
"citizen parents" -- citizens
of WHAT, please?
Things get even muddier when Apuzzo repeats the vague phrase "born in the United
States".
It doesn't help Apuzzo's
argument that the Supreme Court has now defined "United States" to
have three different legal meanings, each different from the other two. Hooven & Allison v. Evatt. Thus, "born in the United States"
must have three different meanings too!
Because the three Qualifications Clauses
refer to the one and only primary class of State Citizens, it necessarily
follows that both parents would need to be State Citizens for their offspring
to be eligible for the Office of President.
This conclusion necessarily follows from the
fact that only one class of State Citizens existed when the Qualifications
Clauses were being drafted. See Pannill v. Roanoke for a ruling that is
definitive, and dispositive, on this key point:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill
But, I have come to suspect that licensed
attorneys in America remain as brainwashed as the "robes" they envy,
because they cannot seem to rid themselves of this false and rebuttable myth
that we presently have only one class of citizens in America.
If you are interested in pursuing these
details much further, please have a look here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
Summary:
Congress could not remove the obstacles
identified in the Dred Scott decision solely by means
of Federal legislation enacted by that Body. Instead of proposing the correct
constitutional amendment, Congress attempted to bypass Article V by creating a
second class of federal citizens intended for black Americans who were recently
freed by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Paul Andrew
Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964