Baldwin has not spoken to the Founding Fathers, but Obama, Cruz, and Rubio have.

Somebody born under the birth circumstances of a Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father, was not even a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States, until 1934, when Congress passed a naturalization Act for the first time allowing children born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father to qualify as a citizen of the United States.

Somebody born under the birth circumstances of a Marco Rubio, born in the United States to alien parents, was not even a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States, until the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which made such persons citizens of the United States from the moment of birth. The U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) had said they were not even citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Minor v Happersett (1875) had explained that "there have been doubts" whether such children were even just citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are defrauding the American people, telling them that they are natural born citizens of the United States when they are only citizens of the United States. The U.S. media is allowing them to get away with it as it did Barack Obama. Donald Trump needs to forcefully expose these two frauds.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The Obots are out in droves providing cover for Levin which translates into cover for Obama.

Zammo See, so you think that you convince anyone with what you write here. I know how difficult it is for Obots to follow along, but we are talking about me accepting Levin's challenge. Of course, anyone who does that must believe that Levin's "majority" view is wrong. Obots like you think they are so clever, but they really are so stupid.

I see that you did not want to answer my question about how you feel about getting trounced by me on a daily basis. Or are you so stupid that you think talking about formatting a comment is some answer to my question? And you further show how much of a dullard you are by thinking that my not sending someone an email somehow answers my question. On losing in court, that does not matter much since you are getting trounced in the court of public opinion. After all, you have always said that the natural born citizen question does not belong in the courts. So its not in the courts and you are losing badly. Given the great public response that we see, I do not think that my theory on what is a natural born citizen is flawed. As to your comment on Kerchner v. Obama, that case ended up being about standing. Do you really think that you can stop the great public momentum that we have by arguing about standing? When people vote, they have standing. And I just love how you appoint yourself as Mark Levin's mouthpiece. I do not think that Levin needs any help from a flunky like you. I hope I have formatted this message well enough for you.

<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-1014647565"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1014647565)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.birtherreport.com%2F2016%2F03%2Ffollow-up-letter-about-article-ii.html%23IDComment1014563897#IDComment1014647565&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Follow-Up%20Letter%20About%20Article%20II%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Requirement%20Sent%20To%20Broadcaster%20Mark%20Levin%20-%20Birther%20Report" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1014647565)">Close Message Reality Check,

How does it feel to get trounced on a daily basis my me, Mario Apuzzo?

Your argument is meritless. First, the general principle of Bellei is still good. That principle is that if one is born out of the territory and jurisdiction of U.S., even to U.S. citizen parents, the only way one will be a citizen of the United States is if Congress allows you to be one by exercising its naturalization power and passing a naturalization Act to that effect. Without such naturalization Act so providing, any such person is an alien. That means that such a person is naturalized by Congress and therefore is not a natural born citizen.

Second, you go on about how Cruz is a natural born citizen because of the Naturalization Act of 1790. But yet, apart that the very text of the statute does not support your position, we know that that Act was repealed in 1795. Yet, you do not tell us like you do about that part of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1955 used in Bellei which you say is no longer good law that it is no longer good law because it was repealed.

If your arguments are to have any merit, they must be both supported by legal principles and consistent with your other arguments.

<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-1014050601"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1014050601)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.birtherreport.com%2F2016%2F02%2Flisten-live-natural-born-citizen-expert.html#IDComment1014050601&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Listen%20Live%3A%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20Expert%20Attorney%20Mario%20Apuzzo%20Will%20Be%20On%20Peter%20Boyles%20Radio%20Show%20-%20Birther%20Report" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1014050601)">Close Message I very much enjoyed being on the Peter Boyles Radio Show this morning, discussing the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikkie Haley satisfy its definition. For those of you who listened or will listen, you can see that my conclusion is that none of them are natural born citizens and consequently none of them are eligible to be either President or Vice-President.

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, one of the three requirements to be President of the United States and its Commander in Chief of the Military, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, is not that the individual be a human. Nor is it that the individual be a citizen. Rather, the requirement is that the individual be a natural born citizen. (Under Article II, one was eligible to the Office of President if one was just a citizen if one had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution.) That simple dichotomy tells us that a natural born citizen has birth characteristics which are not possessed by humans in general, or even citizens in general.

Of course, people who are natural born citizens are all human and citizens. But not all humans are natural born citizens nor even just citizens. Also, not all citizens are natural born citizens. The difference between humans, citizens, and natural born citizens is that only those who are born in the country to parents who were its citizens are natural born citizens. Those who do not have those birth circumstances, but who are still citizens under some positive law (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty) are citizens. Those who are neither natural born citizens (not born in the country to citizen parents) nor citizens (they do not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty) are just humans.

Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikkie Haley are humans. They are also all (assuming Obama was born in the U.S.) citizens (all citizens only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, except for Cruz who is a citizen only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress). But none of them are natural born citizens because none of them were born in the country to two parents who were its citizens at the time of their child’s birth. Hence being neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, none of them are eligible to the office of President.

Too bad that Mark Levin has not accepted my acceptance of his challenge that he expressed on his radio show to millions across the globe that he is willing to debate any attorney, authority, or scholar on the meaning of a natural born citizen and that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under that definition. He has not accepted my acceptance to do the debate on his radio show. Maybe with the new Levine TV, he will be willing to do the debate on his television channel. We can do it at a college or university. I think the College of William and Mary would be a great place to do it, assuming the college would allow it. If not, we can find another college or university.

Maybe those who have access to Mr. Levin can communicate with him and advise him of my suggestion.

As I explained during the radio show, the 1790 Act provided "shall be considered as citizens of the United States" for alien adults becoming naturalized citizens of the United States after their birth, "shall also be considered as citizens of the United States" for their minor children becoming citizens of the United States after their birth upon the naturalization of their parents, and "shall be considered as natural born citizens" for children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. In all three cases, the language is nothing more than naturalization language, proven by the fact that Congress used the same language for alien adults and their minor children who it naturalized after their birth. Hence, when Congress said "shall be considered as natural born citizens," it was doing nothing more than naturalizing those children from the moment of birth. So, there is no basis to your statement that in two of the cases it could only mean "are."

<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-1010736160"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1010736160)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.birtherreport.com%2F2016%2F01%2Flisten-live-attorney-mario-apuzzo-and.html%23IDComment1010700919#IDComment1010736160&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Listen%20Live%3A%20Attorney%20Mario%20Apuzzo%20And%20CDR%20Kerchner%20Talk%20Article%20II%20Eligibility%20And%20The%20Cruz%20Deception%20-%20Birther%20Report" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(1010736160)">Close Message I do not understand why you keep telling me about Rogers v. Bellei as if you made some new discovery. The case has been identified and discussed . Yes, you are late to the party, but still welcome. Yes, you might want to listen to the radio show again.