P. 1
Tisdale Amicus Brief to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals FILED 3-20-12

Tisdale Amicus Brief to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals FILED 3-20-12

|Views: 87|Likes:
Published by puzo1
Amicus curiae brief filed by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. in the Obama eligibility case pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Amicus curiae brief filed by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. in the Obama eligibility case pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

More info:

Published by: puzo1 on May 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/24/2012

pdf

text

original

Amicus curiae is a natural person and an attorney at law of the State

of New Jersey. He is not a publicly held corporation or other publicly held

entity. Amicus curiae does not have any parent corporations. Amicus curiae

is a natural person and does not issue any stock. No publicly held

corporation or other publicly held entity has any ownership interest in

amicus curiae. There is no other publicly held corporation or other publicly

held entity that has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this litigation.

Amicus curiae is not a trade association. This case does not arise out of a

bankruptcy proceeding.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 20, 2012, the foregoing document was served

on all parties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they

are registered users or, if they are not, by serving a true and correct copy at

the addresses listed below. I also served a hard copy by mail on the pro se

plaintiff-appellant, Charles Tisdale, by sending him a copy at his address of

record which is Charles Tisdale, P.O. Box 401, Richmond, VA 23970.

Dated: March 20, 2012

s/Mario Apuzzo
Mario Apuzzo

Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 12-2 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 2 of 42

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT…………………………… 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………… 5

STATEMENT OF IDENTITY, INTEREST IN CASE,
AND SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE……………………………... 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………………………12

ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………12

I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THOSE
BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, REGARDLESS OF THE
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARENTS, ARE CONSIDERED ARTICLE
II “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS”………………………………………. 12

A. The Rule of Constitutional Construction…………………… 13

B. The Constitutional Text……………………………………… 13

C. The Constitutional Structure………………………………… 14

D. Historical Evidence…………………………………..………. 14

1. Purpose of the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause……….. 15

2. The Founders and Framers Looked to the Law
of Nations and Emer de Vattel and Not the English
Common Law for Their Definition of a “Natural
BornCitizen”………………………………………….. 17

3. David Ramsay………………………………………….20

4. The Early Naturalization Acts…………………………21

5. St. George Tucker………………………………….… 22

E. The Fourteenth Amendment………………………………….. 26

Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 12-2 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 3 of 42

4

F. Minor v. Happersett………………………………………… 26

G. Wong Kim Ark…………………………………………….. 30

H. Perkins v. Elg………………………………………………… 37

I. Hollander v. McCain……………………………………….… 37

J. Schneider v. Rusk……………………………………………. 38

K. Application to Candidate Obama……………………………..39

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….40

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE……………………………………. 41

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………….42

Appeal: 12-1124 Document: 12-2 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 Page: 4 of 42

5

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->