Dr. Conspiracy
Mario Apuzzo left a comment that included: “what [Happersett v] Minor put forth was American common law that had its genesis in natural law and the law of nations.”
To a small degree natural law was a part of the founding principles of the United States, the best example being in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Those truths were not from the common law, or international law; they did not require the application of logic to evidence; they were self-evident. This is the thesis of natural law, that some things are innately known and acknowledged by all, a part of our souls, a part of our humanity. Even St. Paul in the Bible wrote: (Rom 2:14-15 NASB) For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, … {15} …they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,…
I daresay nearly everyone has this sense of what is right in them. But another way of putting this is that everyone thinks they are right, and that clearly cannot be true, since there is wide disagreement on many things.
While in its noblest form, natural law appeals to one’s sense of decency; in its basest form, natural law is nothing more than a justification for prejudice. Whether it is Emerich de Vattel or Mario Apuzzo, their beliefs as to who are the true citizens of a country are nothing more than prejudice. When we as a people cannot agree, we vote. We voted to ratify the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The courts voted to decide cases. On the subject of citizenship, de Vattel lost. He lost because America is very different from de Vattel’s Switzerland. At the adoption of the Constitution, and in the colonial period that preceded, the country was starving for more people; we could not even maintain our population without immigration (due to a high infant mortality). This new country of immigrants could care less where you father came from.
Nowadays, people are afraid for their livelihood and blame immigrants for taking their jobs or for foreigners outsourcing them. To them what is “natural” is to circle the wagons against outsiders. Some of those feel that not only they are right, but that they are self-evidently right. This is why they are so certain, so adamant, even while being so totally lacking in legal support.
every single one of us, sane or insane, in order to protect our own egos, has to believe that we are right — otherwise, how could we justify the things that we do?
too often, unfortunately, in finding out ultimately who’s right and who’s wrong, too many of us end up needlessly dead:
Well, of course people act on what they believe to be true and right.
However, massive ego or not, a good portion of people, when confronted with new information that changes or even contradicts what they “thought was true” are able to eventually absorb the new info and adapt to reality as they now understand it.
(A good example – many of assumed that when our government told us there were WMDs in Iraq and that they had lots of evidence of such, we believed them and assumed it must all be true. As a result, the initial support for going to war was significantly high. Over time, more and more information came out showing that not only were there no WMDs, but that the evidence we were told existed wasn’t really there either. Most people eventually realized that we’d been misled and lied to and simply adapted to the new reality that WMDs were a false premise.)
You may call it being overly egotistical and obstinate, but I view those that cannot (at least eventually) adapt to new information as extremely weak, insecure and/or mentally ill.
There is an old saying “adapt or perish”. So, from that sense, I guess it still fits your conclusion of how it all ends with death.
g, grabbing the ball and heading into the bleachers:
i think you’ve read a little too much into my comment, especially if you think i’m arguing that people can’t or won’t process new information or change their minds.
of course many of us are capable of thinking and behaving rationally most of the time, but — here’s the rub — many of us value our self-esteem as much as our lives, especially when public prestige becomes part of the investment in a belief. none of us are immune to bending the truth to avoid or postpone humiliation. one does not need a “massive ego” in order to respond this way to basic instincts of normal psychological self-preservation.
my point is that because everyone wants to believe that they’re right, there is often little to sort out the sane from the insane, especially when objective evidence is untested or inconclusive or unavailable or hidden. what happens too often — and here is where orwell comes in — is that during the sorting out, as more and more facts become available, some of those people who are eventually proven wrong become all too willing to die or kill to avoid exactly that (which should be an important clue that they’re wrong). it has never taken very many of those folks to make life very difficult for the rest of us.
If this is a matter of Mario Apuzzo holding on to a mistaken impression he’s held for years, why wasn’t he talking about this a decade ago? He’s been an attorney for over a quarter century, and for all that time American legal references such as Black’s Law Dictionary have contradicted his two-citizen-parents theory.
Where were Mario’s law-review articles challenging the prevailing view? How come no one heard him state his theory until he needed reasons why Barack Hussein Obama cannot be President of the United States?
Over a century ago we had a president, Chester Arthur, who was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen. Mario will tell you that the fact was a big secret that no one knew, but reality is that no one cared that the son of an Irishman had become president until a certain faction realized it meant that the son of a Kenyan could also be president.
Aw, you’re spoiling all the fun.
As one trained in the biological sciences, I would be quite at a loss if asked to design citizenship laws or presidential eligibilty laws based on the “laws of nature”. Nature of course does not recognize countries. It does recognize physical features and climate zones, but these rarely correspond with national boundaries. Other than the Rio Grande and a section of the St Lawrence, the land borders of the US don’t correspond to any natural features. The Sonoran desert in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico are indistinguishable, as are the Rockies in Montana and Alberta. The borders don’t even follow those between Native American tribes, as many tribes exist on both sides of the US-Mexico and US-Canada borders.
In terms of habitation, biological species run the gamut. Plants are stationary, though in some cases seeds travel significant distances with the wind or animals. Many animals live in territorial bands, though when the resources become depleted they move. Others, especially migratory birds and ocean species literally span the globe.
Some want to say certain behaviors are “unnatural”. Homosexuality, for one. Yet it has been observed in just about every animal species where it has been looked for. Incest, for another. Yet, animal breeders know that if you put a female in heat in with her father or brothers, they will mate without a second thought.
What about humans? What is natural for us? We are all descended from a few thousand individuals who lived in East Africa around 100,000 years ago. In fact, all living humans are descended from a single woman (known as Mitochondrial Eve because we all share her mitochondrial DNA). Around 50,000 years ago, small bands left East Africa and dispersed throughout the world.
The best I could conclude from this is that if we were to truly apply natural law, there would be no countries at all and no citizenship other than in the human species.
How does this apply to presidential eligibility? We could look at how animal bands establish dominance heirarchies. The alpha (can be male or female) establishes itself through a combination of physical strength, will and intelligence. The alpha can be supplanted by a challenger who can come from inside or outside the band.
In summary, I see nothing in nature that leads to any particular conclusion as to who should or should not be a citizen or who should or should not be eligible for President.
There is an excellent French movie about the Valladolid Depate (it is in fact called The Valladolid Controversy and is based on a play, I think).
wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate
In a nutshell, this was a trial held in Spain by the Church to determine if Native Americans were human and could be enslaved.
To a large extent, the trial found in favor of the “Indians” but one of its unintended consequences was that everyone pretty much agreed that such discovery couldn’t possibly apply to Africans, and that was the theological /moral / legal foundation for the African slave trade thereafter.
The point of this is that the concept of “Natural Law” is rubbish — even something as simple as “Thou Shalt Not Kill” has been subjected to so many footnotes and amendments that its value as “Natural Law” is questionable.
The fact that it was deemed necessary to add a footnote to the second edition [should be 1863 French edition. Doc.] of Vattel to deal with the case of children born to unwed mothers proves the evolution of thought then, and we have little business today using an 18th century text other than for historical purposes.
I know Mario’s backers in their heart think that slavery is a much maligned concept and likely that women shouldn’t vote either, but they’re just nuts.
“Natural Law” is neither natural or the law.
It is at best an ethnic, religious or cultural set of mores or beliefs. In this specific context it is a Anglo-Saxon and Romano-Greco set of generally agreed principles to allow for the effective function of a specific societal type.
Legal constraints may, can and will be used to enforce these requirements but by their nature these laws are an artificial construct and not “natural”
These “truths that are self evident” are only applicable within the specific constraints and bounds of the Founders and our belief systems. These values are irrelevant or in opposition in different societies, different times and different places.
Mother Nature has only one biological rule and is interested in one thing and one thing only, the tyranny of the chromosomes, survive to breed. Everything else is subordinate to that driving imperative.
So the only “natural laws” are eat, shit, survive and breed.
There is NO such thing as Natural Law and you should not allow yourself to indulge in the fantasy…..it feeds the trolls.
Oh, sorry. Here’s a jolly quote, supporting Dr. C’s point:
“He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.” — George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
And who is to say they weren’t the law of nature for him and his tribe?
The mind only has to truly believe something to make it true. That YOU don’t believe it is true is inconsequential to the one who does believe.
We all have our own truths. If people can’t at least come to appreciate and respect that, then there is no hope.
This type of comment is exactly why scientists get the reputation they have – and apparently, so rightly deserve.
Wow – talk about getting out on the fringe.
So, Scott, if someone believes they can jump naked from the Empire State Building and soar like a bird over Manhattan, that means they can? Or do gravity and other real laws of nature apply?
Which is? Based in empirical reality? I plead guilty.
What is your reputation? One who has trouble distinguishing fiction from objective reality? It seems you would deserve that.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
– Daniel Patrick Moynihan
As Scientist suggests, no amount of belief will suspend the law of gravity. No amount of belief will make the world flat. No amount of belief will make it turtles all the way down. You can believe with all your heart and soul that you know exactly both the position and velocity of that electron. You don’t.
Dr. Conspiracy,
I see that now in your effort to justify Obama’s illegal presidency, you have declared war on natural law.
This is a very interesting thread that you have started here. I hope that we will have many contributions from both sides on this highly interesting topic.
Mario-No one has “declared war on natural law”. Let me make this simple for you. The “Laws of Nature” is an exceedingly broad term that encompasses: The Laws of Conservation of Energy and Matter, the Law of Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Koch’s Postulates, plate tectonics, probably even the Law of Supply and Demand, and countless other empirically-validated laws and principles.
So which SPECIFIC Law of Nature pertains to US Presidential eligibility? What is the empirical data to support that law? How could I test it for myself?
I will note that other countries have different laws on Presidential eligibility, which is prima facie suspicious, since the Laws of Nature should be universal.
Hi Mario! If I am travelling in my car at the speed of light, and turn on my headlights, will they project a beam?
“Obama’s illegal presidency”
Then prosecute him.
Misha if I get in my dolorean and travel 88 miles per hour will I go back to November 12th 1955? If I do it again after returning to the present and go back to the same date and run into my self who previously went back… will the world end? Will twinkies still survive?
You can actually equip ANY car with a flux capacitor.
.
The problem with natural law is that it is even more amorphous than the “law of nations.” Aristotle, Aquinas, Barbeyrac, Cumberland, Finnis, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Pufendorf, Spooner, and Vattel all thought they were describing natural law. Yet, they did not agree on all points, did they agree on any points?
Here’s a whole book from 1930 on natural law.
The reliance on “natural law,” should frighten conservatives especially. It is a recipe for judicial activism unmoored from precedent:
– Haines, p. 323 citing Gmelin, The Science of Legal Method (Boston, 1917), p. 89.
So, if a judge thinks it would “feel right and just” to write legislation from the bench, is that okay?
$240? It doesn’t even strobe. I want the panel as well though with the date and times. I might end up in some weird time and place without those
And, Mario, it’s not like natural law helps you that much.
Lord Coke thought that natural law lead to jus soli:
Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship
The founders thought of Coke as “our legal oracle.” They cited Calvin’s Case as providing the rationale for our revolution.
Blackstone also cited the natural law in his discussion of citizenship:
Civil law was only to protect the rights obtained from natural law, said Blackstone. The “primary object of law is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.” Vol. I, page 89. Absolute rights are those “such as would belong to man in a state of nature, and which EVERY MAN is entitled to enjoy, whether in society or out of society.”
So, let’s summarize –
Blackstone (quoted by founders in Constitutional debates) – Natural law = jus soli
Lord Coke (quoted by founders as rationale for revolution) – Natural law = jus soli
Vattel (not quoted once in Constitutional debates, never quoted in rationales for revolution) – Natural law = jus sanguinis.
There is no need to justify the simple fact that Obama is our duly elected President and that by any credible standard, he is indeed natural born.
The facts speak for themselves…
You’d know – it is your neighbourhood, after all…
No one is declaring war on natural law. Mario and his gang have just not shown any evidence that the founders based citizenship on any rule of natural law that differed from the common law, as all early authority we can find looked to the English common law. As for the notion that there was a federal common law that was different from the English common law generally is also contary to all early authority. Of course, Minor doesn’t say there was a different common law, it merely stated that there were differences of opinion with respect to the common law rule.
Since the court said we should interpret the original consitution by the common law, it clearly meant what was understood as the common law in the founding era. The framers themselves talked about the common law and there is no doubt that they meant the English common law. For example, in the Virginia ratification convention, some of the most important framers argued as to whether the consitution should expressly adopt the English common law like virginia and most of the state had done. Leading anti-federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason argued that without adoption of the English common law our citizens would not have all the protections under the common law afforded to Englishmen. Mason’s statements are quoted out of context by birthers as meaning that our common law was different than English common law. Mason was actually stating that we would have no federal common law if not incorporated into the consitution, not that our common law was different.
Birthers point out quotes that imply American common law was different. This is both true and false. The facts are that all the states adopted the common law following the revolution. The common law they adopted was the law in place in the colonies prior to revolution which was essentially the same as the english common law, thought there were minor differences due to local statutes and precedents. In addition, some parts of the common law were never adopted in the colonies even before the revolution. According to the supreme court in 1793:
“The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded, are those common to all the States. I know of none such, which can affect this case, but those that are derived from what is properly termed “the common law,” a law which I presume is the ground-work of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of Legislation controuls it, to be in force in each State, as it existed in England, (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States; and, therefore, it is probable the common law in each, is in some respects different.”
Thus, it is clear that our common law was substnatially the same as the English law. In addition, the birthers have shown no early authority that said our common law on native cititzenship was altered from the english rules, other than the Virginia statutes that contained both just soli and jus sanguinis citizenship.
Finally, there was a bitter debate that raged for decades as to whether the English common law was nevertheles adopted as a matter of federal law. This debate became partisan when the federalists tried to invoke common law jurisdiction under the alien and sedition aact. One can read St. George Tucker’s treatise for a discussion of all this. It is clear that the common law they were talking about in these debates was the English common law, not some other common law in Mario’s head. While the majority view was that the English common law was not adopted, as a matter of federal law “its maxims and rules of proceeding are to be adhered to, whenever the written law is silent, in cases of a similar, or analogous nature…” St. George Tucker, Blackstone Commentaries, App. E, pg. 429 (1803). This applies even today as federal courts still look to the common law when the law is silent, though our common law has evolved a bit since the founding.
All in all, we are still waiting for Mario to find us early authority that says our common law of native citizenship differed from the English common law.
I have declared war on prejudice and bigotry whether it cloaks itself in a white sheet or in the philosophical cloak of “natural law.”
I just wonder if you are aware of how one projects their on views onto the reading of law and nature.
I agree that I have occasioned a very interesting discussion.
Here’s what Professor Lawrence M. Friedman has to say about this:
The basic substratum of American law, as of American speech, is English…Each culture group had brought in its own law. Of Indian law and Swedish law, it is fair to say, not a trace remains. Some scholars have claimed to find a speck or two of Dutch legal influence surviving to this day. The office of district attorney may be Dutch in origin. French law gained a more or less lasting foothold in Lousiana, and there (in translation) it stays. Spanish law sent down wider if not deeper roots; no state can call its law Spanish, but pieces of Spanish or Mexican law (for example, the community property system), live on in California and other parts of the West. Everything else, if not strictly native, is English, or comes by way of England, or is built on an English base. – “A History of American Law,” p. 15
England remained the basic source of all law that was not strictly new or strictly American. The habits of a lifetime were not easily thrown over, despite ideology. Indigenous legal literature was weak and derivative. American cases were not commonly reported until a generation or more after Independence. To common law lawyers, a shortage of cases was crippling. To fill the gap, English materials were used, English reports cited, English judges quoted as authority. In the first generation, more English than American cases were cited in American reports. Blackstone was widely used by ordinary lawyers as a shortcut to the law; and Blackstone was English to the core.” – p. 98
In early education we call it assimilation and accomodation.
Actually, you’ve got it backwards. He’s declared war on illegal law in order to defend Obama’s natural Presidency. : )
MArio,
I’m the one who got shitey about “Natural Law” as a pure artifical construct without inherent basis outside of a very limited scope, not Dr C, feel free to pick on the right person.
Since we are on the topic can you please illuminate the immutability and universitality of said law with examples? Remember the topic is “Natural Law” and not Laws of Nature.
Your comment is really an excellent example of what Dr. C is talking about. You assume your opinions about scientists are so widely held that you don’t even need to tell us what they are. But in fact, although I can infer from your general tone that your opinion is a generally negative one, I really have no idea what you’re talking about.
There is a scientific explanation for everything.
misha,
No, and you might even run into a telephone pole. In such a case, you also will not have a meritorious suit. Going the speed of light, the defense can probably successfully argue that you were going to fast for the conditions of the roadway. If you were not using your cell phone, you might have a better case.
There are telephone poles in outer space?
your an ignorant [expletive deleted], Doc do you think a white sheet has to do with any of this this man is hell bent on confusing you into protecting him wake up you simpleton
Mario-So far the contributions from your side have amounted to “Anything I believe must be true” and “I hate science” (likely something to do with getting a bad grade in high school Chemistry). In particular, we have yet to hear anything specific as to which laws of nature pertain to US presidential eligibility and how such supposedly universal laws have lead to such different human societies.
This is looking so far like another 0-64 rout for you guys.
This is very interesting, because it was the same with American literature. For the first fifty years after independence, English literature dominated the new United States, to the great concern of the educated classes. Of course eventually a uniquely American body of literature began to emerge, with writers such as James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Catherine Maria Sedgewick.
Here’s what Einstein said about the question:
Basically, I think if you can come up with a clear answer to this question that does not create any mathematical paradoxes, you’ll win the Nobel prize.
Justice Story, In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet 248, said that the incapacities of femes’ covert, at common law, “do not reach* their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.”
Does Dr. Con disagree with the former-Chief Justice Story? Does Dr. Con disagree with former-Chief Justice Fuller? Dr. Con takes it one step further. He and his minions have resorted to calling two former-Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, “Birthers”. Why would he do that? Because they happen to disagree with him.
“Obviously, where the constitution deals
with common-law rights and uses common law phraseology, Its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, Involving, as it does, international relations, and political as contradistinguished from civil status, International principles must be considered; and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, It cannot be allowed to control In the matter of construction.” -Chief Justice Fuller
“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.” -Vattel
As early as the act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), applicants for naturalization were required to take, not simply an oath to support the constitution of the United States, but of absolute renunciation and abjuration of all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince or state, and particularly to the prince or state of which they were before the citizens or subjects.
Those becoming citizens via naturalization had to renounce allegiance, but Dr. Con would have you believe that it is acceptable for the Commander-in-Chief to have dual allegiance, or even multiple allegiances. Tell us Doc; which allegiance(s) has Barack Obama renunciated?
The ability to renounce allegiance does not comply with English common law. An attempt to imply that citizenship in the United States was the same as that in England, by implying that natural born subject has the same meaning as natural born citizen, is, well; un-American at its root.
And for those who don’t know what “feme covert” is: Under traditional English common law an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. A feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman’s existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own.
At the founding, not even being naturalized in another state could take away British citizenship. So a man could be naturalized in the US, and he was still considered a British citizen. So, in fact, were his children, and possibly his grandchildren.
Even though he naturalized before they were born!
So, no one born of someone who was once a British citizen could ever become president, right? Even if their parents naturalized in the US – because Britain doesn’t care and would still consider them a citizen!
In the real world, not birther land, Britain doesn’t get to decide who is eligible for our Presidency. If you are born here, you are a natural born citizen, regardless of whether your parents’ home country also considers you a citizen.
Congratulations Greg! You’re starting to see why the common law of England was not the law of the United States. The two are incompatible.
As Chief Justice Fuller stated in his dissent of Wong; “If that amendment bears the construction now put upon it. it imposed the English common-law rule on this country for the first time,..”
Chief Justice Fuller wrote the dissent in WKA. That means he lost. 6 SC justices disagreed with him about the state of the law.
And of course, Fuller believed that the case made Wong, and all children of aliens eligible for the Presidency. So, you seem to be saying that we should listen to Fuller when he’s describing the law even though his view was considered and rejected by the court, but we should ignore him about the meaning of WKA.
How wbout this. You can argue that WKA was wrongly decided. Maybe Gray got the law wrong. Maybe so did the other 5 justices and the hundreds of justices that have cited WKA approvingly. We’ll just agree to disagree. But admit that the Chief Justice was right and that WKA made Wong eligible for the Presidency!
You realize Fuller lost, right?
Greg,
The dissenting opinion of Justices is not considered to be a falsehood. The arguments presented by that judge, or those judges, still have merit.
“And of course, Fuller believed that the case made Wong, and all children of aliens eligible for the Presidency.”
Where did you pull that from? Fuller made no such determination or opinion. Never; I repeat, NEVER has SCOTUS opined that the child of an alien is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
“hundreds of justices that have cited WKA approvingly”
Why don’t you provide us with 20 out of those supposed hundreds? Can’t do it? That’s the problem with making things up. Isn’t it?
If you think Justice Story supports you, you need to do more research. Shanks was not about who was a citizen at birth. However, Story did tell us onthe same day as Shanks that the english controlled in America and that anyone born in US controlled soil after the declaration was a US citizen regardles of parentage:
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 Juy, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
He also told us the president must be a native citizen:
“It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)
He also told us that childen of aliens are native citizens:
“Thus, where A died seized of lands in Maryland, leaving no heirs except B., a brother, who was an alien, and had never been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and three nieces, the daughters of the said B, who were native citizens of the United States; it was held that they could not claim title by inheritance through B, their father, he being an alien and still living.” McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 354 354 (1824)
Finally, Story tells us the jus soli rule was the rule of international law as well:
“First — Persons, who are born in a country, are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of this rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents, who were in itinere in the country, or abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law such a qualification is universally established. Secondly — Foreigners, who reside in a country for permanent or indefinite purposes, animo manendi, are treated universally as inhabitants of that country.” Jospeh Story, Commentaries on the conflict of laws, pg. 48 (1933)
Need to do more research before you bring your nonsense here.
Actually the majority tells us a number of times, and in multiple citiations, that natural born citizen is defined by the english common law which it defined in great detail. The dishonesty by birthers with respect wong is pretty comical. Here is my summary of the case:
The court began its analysis by stating that “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States'” and that “[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Id. at 654. Accordingly, “[i]n this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….'[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.’ Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 465, 478 (1888).” Id. at 654-55. The court then goes on to define in detail the jus soli English common law rule of Calvin’s Case, concluding as follows:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Id. at 658. (emphasis added). Hence, the English common law rule of Calvin’s Case that defined allegiance by place of birth and made children of aliens natural born subjects “continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established” or, in other words, was incorporated into the Constitution. In case there was any doubt to the applicability of such principle to the definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, the court goes on to quote the only two Supreme Court justices who had specifically defined “natural born citizen” at such point, first citing Justice Curtis in his famous Dred Scott dissent:
“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth”
Id. at 662. The court then cited Justice Swayne in U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866):
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”
Id. at 662-63. The court went on to cite multiple authorities stating that “citizen” and “subject” were interchangeable terms, id. at 663-65, and authority after authority stating that allegiance and citizenship at birth in the United States had always been determined by place of birth under the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case, id. at 650-67, before holding the 14th Amendment to be declaratory of such jus soli common law rule. Id. at 693. Wong Kim Ark’s discussion of “natural born citizen” was technically dicta, it was necessary to the court’s holding. Once the court decided that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of existing law, it needed to tell us what existing law under the original constitution was.
Have you considered actually reading the opinion and dissent? In the paragraph beginning “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution,” Fuller is arguing against the Court’s ruling opinion precisely because it makes children of certain classes of undesirable aliens eligible to be president.
You will also find in the majority opinion that “natural born” comes from the English, and simply means “by birth”. See the quote of British jurist A.V. Dicey.
You will also find your claim:
Refuted by the Court in the majority opinion:
“Subject’ and citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
I’m on my blackberry, but you can pull up Fuller’s decision and hit ctrl-f and find his discussion of the presidency. He finds it ironic that Wong would be eligible for the Presidency under the language of the case but a child of Americans born abroad would not be.
It’ll help in discussing this case if you actually read it. Fuller thought that Gray’s decision made Wong eligible for the Presidency!
Obama was never a Kenyan citizen. He had a right through his father to claim Kenyan citizenship by affirmatively choosing it prior to his 23rd birthday. He did not do so, but rather allowed that right to expire and has had no claim on Kenya, nor Kenya on him after that date.
As far as an actual dual national being President (someone holding another citizenship while in office) no law forbids it. That person’s opponents are certainly free to raise it as a campaign issue and you are certainly entitled to not vote for a candidate for that reason. But that is a choice each individual voter must make.
It’s page 715 of the dissent. It argues against the majority decision by saying that it is unreasonable to conclude (like the majority did) that the children of aliens, even Mongol or Malay aliens were eligible for the presidency, but the children of Americans born abroad weren’t.
I’ve suggested, Questions, that you should read the briefs in this case so you can see how every one of your arguments is fully briefed, argued and rejected by the court.
I think, however, you should start by reading the case in its entirety before you start telling me how valid the dissent’s arguments are.
Oh, and if you want to see the hundreds of cases that have approvingly cited WKA go to scholar.google.com and search wong kim ark. If you limit your search to federal courts, you’ll find approximately 245 citations. Not once has any of these cases called into question any part of Wong.
LOL! Kudos, Mario. That was a good-spirited and very funny response. I enjoyed it.
Questions, I can’t believe that you argue based on a dissenting opinion! You’ll only win an argument based on a dissenting opinion if the court ruling is later on overturned by the court or a constitutional amendment is enacted making the majority opinion nul and void.
Fuller’s argument doesn’t cease to exist because he’s the dissent. It just means that his views were rejected. They are NOT the law.
Questions, IF you ever get around to reading the stuff you’ve cut and pasted, tell us how anyone can read Fuller to make Obama a citizen but ineligible for the Presidency. Seems to me that if Fuller is right, then Obama is not a citizen, period.
Dear “Questions”: I have a question for you:
You don’t trust the voters.
You don’t trust the Electoral College.
You don’t trust the Congress.
You don’t trust judges who rule against you (which is basically every living judge in the known universe).
The only ones you appear to trust are some long dead 19th century judges (though you might be surprized how even they would rule given the actual facts and circumstances). Unfortunately for you, they are dead and can’t vote.
So, who exactly do you think should select the President?
“you were going to fast for the conditions of the roadway.”
So, when you observe Lent, there are fewer potholes in the road?
But your answer to Misha was correct. According to Einstein’s interpretation of natural law. However, some people believe space is warped. And most people believe in some kind of projection. Meaning the immense majority believe that Obama is a legitimate president.
1. Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1
2. Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202
3. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 US 398
4. Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78
5. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144
6. Truax v. Raich, 239 US 33
7. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 US 273
8. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46
9. Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm’n, 334 US 410
10. Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100
11. South Carolina v. United States, 199 US 437
12. General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 US 375
13. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253
14. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 US 149
15. Perez v. Brownell, 356 US 44
16. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 US 253
17. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 US 299
18. Morrison v. California, 291 US 82
19. Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325
20. Schick v. United States, 195 US 65
20 cases without even getting out of the Supreme Court.
It was most recently cited by the Supreme Court in 2002 – JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd., 536 US 88.
At least five of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright. A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father.
Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”
Scalia and Thomas in concurrence: “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Ibid.”
Breyer and Ginsburg in Dissent: “I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669—671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)).”
Sotomayor quoted Wong in a dissenting opinion from a 2nd Circuit opinion that suggested that because Bermudans were not “subjects” or “citizens” of the UK, they were not covered in the alienage jurisdiction of federal courts. Sotomayor wrote that this gave foreign jurisdictions the power to trump our laws in a way that was unacceptable.
Her view was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2002 in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (in another case that cited Wong Kim Ark) which brings Kennedy into the group of justices that have endorsed Wong.
Of the current sitting justices, only Alito and Roberts haven’t cited Wong. Alito, however, came from the third circuit where the circuit decided the same issue as Sotomayor faced and decided it the same way as Sotomayor and the Supreme Court – Southern Cross v. Wah Kwong.
It keeps eating my posts, but let me point you where you can get some good lists. here is Google’s list of citations of the case. You get to twenty without getting out of the Supreme Court.
Here I detail how 7 of the current 9 justices have explicitly cited Wong approvingly.
It’s pretty clear that he believes that a carefully selected cross-section of white Southern male property owners should select the president.
Questions says:
Never; I repeat, NEVER has SCOTUS opined that the child of an alien is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
You really should take the time to read the briefs in Wong Kim Ark.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
In point of fact, the government acknowledged that the District Court ruling said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen:
The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)
The government went on to ask:
Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)
The government would have had no reason to ask that question but for the fact that a ruling in favor of Wong Kim Ark meant that he would eligible to be president. The question also shows that the government understood that the only requirement for natural-born citizenship is citizenship by birth.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-2, upheld the District Court ruling without exception. The District Court said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
It’s also worth noting that the government’s appeal cited Vattel (p. 7). The Supreme Court was not swayed.
I found 183 references to WKA
Decision date of most recent cite: November 12, 2009 …That is Ankeny v Indiana.
ballantine,
You go on and on. But you miss or avoid discussing the point. We are talking about defining a “natural born Citizen.” Were is your evidence that English common law defined such citizenship? Minor v. Happersett told us that it was “common law” that provided the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Given how Minor defined a “natural born citizen, it is quite clear that the common law relied upon by Justice Waite came from natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. The definition provided by Justice Waite included a reference to the child’s parents’ citizenship for a child born in the country which the English common law only did for children born out of the King’s dominion but never for those born within it. Please stick to the issue and do not go off on some irrelevant discussion about how English common law otherwise applies in our state laws.
Dr. Conspiracy,
I consider my self a fair person. Maybe you can help me see the errors of my ways. Please explain to me where there is any prejudice and bigotry in this definition which is grounded in natural law.
A “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.
Scientist,
I have never met a smart aleck real scientist.
Mario Apuzzo: Please explain to me where there is any prejudice and bigotry in this definition which is grounded in natural law: A “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.
While I cannot read anyone’s mind, it would seem that no one with the intelligence and training necessary to be a lawyer could actually buy the misrepresentations of law and history you publish. So that leaves one with the dangling question: why? It seems that the entire movement sprang into being overnight when Barack Obama was poised to become president. Now there are any number of reasons that someone might not like Barack Obama, only one of which is race. It seems, however, that those who have invoked de Vattel historically on the question of citizenship, were those bent on excluding a particular group of people from citizenship, specifically the children of enslaved Africans (and to some extent the Chinese).
We also see the conjunction of parentage and place of birth, in the racialism of the Nazis. But my point is simply that natural law is at its essence the codification of how one feels apart from objective reason, and that is essentially prejudice.
Put another way: I am not saying that invoking natural law implies bigotry, but that natural law is a convenient justification for the bigot.
I had brunch with a smart alec scientist. In fact, perhaps there’s some selection bias, but I haven’t met many non-smart alec scientists.
I think you would do better to hang out on some birther blog where comments like yours go for intelligent discourse. You are out of your league here.
Mario: a natural born citizen is anyone who is born in a natural way. It only precludes someone born by c-section, or who is from an immaculate conception, like Hercules. Remember, Hercules is the son of Zeus and a human woman. And Obama is invincible:
No man of woman born can harm Macbeth. So keep that in mind.
Remember, I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitress, and drive safely.
Ignoring the logical errors (sufficient/necessary conditions) for a moment, let’s say you’re right.
Minor referenced the law of nations.
Wong referenced British law.
Wong is the law.
It hasn’t been overturned.
It has never been questioned or even limited in its scope.
Okay, but let’s set that aside for a moment, too.
There is still nothing in any of Minor or Dred Scott or the dissent in Wong, or any of the other 2 cases you cite that suggests that someone could be born here, become a citizen because of that birth, yet not be a natural born citizen.
Basically, Mario, in order to avoid what is an obviously untenable position – that Obama is not a citizen at all – you’ve engrafted a third type of citizen into the equation between natural born and naturalized.
As almost completely absent of support is your argument that the Founders adopted the “law of nations,” as completely false is your argument that this “law of nations” required not one, but two citizen parents for their children’s citizenship, your notion that the law of nations distinguished between citizens and natural born citizens is even worse!
Not even Vattel imagines such a creature! It was not even thought up as a concept until 2008, and you know it, Mario!
Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions and say that Obama isn’t a citizen?
domicile- a general term for a place of permanent residence in legal terms
senior was not domiciled in the U.S. so this does no work for your argument
Does 0 for 64 (and growing) work for his argument?
Fortunately, the Constitution has a remedy for those unsatisfied with the current occupant of the White House. Its called November 6th, 2012.
Until then, you can always set up your own do-it-yourself government in Somalia or Haiti.
Domicile is not determined by looking back 30 years and concluding that, well, Senior never naturalized and he moved out, so he must not have been domiciled here.
Domicile is determined by looking at the intentions at the time. If Senior had formed, at the time, a present intention to remain in Hawaii permanently, then he was domiciled there.
Despite not having naturalized.
Regardless of whether he later moved.
In short, you don’t know whether Sr. had established an intention to remain in Hawaii permanently when Jr. was born which he later changed!
It’s like you’re just cutting and pasting things from the internet.
This is first year law school stuff, chufho.
Here, for example, is how the University of Hawaii explains it:
And how does one get a domicile?
He was married. He had a son in the state.
With those two facts alone, I’m confident that I could convince a judge or jury that Sr. had established an intent to remain in the United States that he only changed when his relationship with his wife soured.
Maybe you should learn something about the law before you venture into this area, chufho!
“domicile- a general term for a place of permanent housing of one’s record collection”
Also, Obama Sr had a pet dog, so it was his domicile. It’s true – Obama’s lawyer told me.
Dr. Conspiracy,
I can tell you many stories of how families are broken up because of our immigration laws. I can tell you of American-born children divided from their illegal alien mothers and fathers, with our Government deporting the parents and telling the parents they have to go but the children can stay. Can you imagine! I am not saying that it is fine for people to violate our immigration laws. But does it make much sense to make children citizens and break families up in such a manner? Is that prejudice and bigotry, too.
It’s not the definition, Mario, it’s the invention of the definition to coincide with the first black president.
Mario: do like Pearl Jam?
Sorry, do you like Pearl Jam?
chufho says:
domicile- a general term for a place of permanent residence in legal terms
senior was not domiciled in the U.S. so this does no work for your argument
Sorry, Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China to live eight years before his case was heard by SCOTUS (that’s why he traveled to China, to visit them). The Supreme Court didn’t care about that. The only relevant fact is that they were living in the U.S. at the time of his birth.
Once again you are confusing sufficiency with necessity. You might just as well argue that Wong Kim Ark doesn’t apply to Obama because only one of Obama’s parents was an alien, whereas both of Wong Kim Ark’s parents were aliens.
Such poor logic. You are advocating the removal of a Constitutional right from children because it may lead to the break up of families…
The child need not stay and would still retain its US citizenship…
Silly, truly silly logic, and I am being charitable with the word here.
Wow…
And those are the facts…
Why Birthers seem to be so unaware of them comes less and less as a surprise to me.
That’s too bad.
Well done
Yup
Greg,
The issue is what is a “natural born Citizen.”
Minor referenced the law of nations when it defined a “natural born citizen” in 1874. None of the judge’s had any conflicts of which I am aware.
Wong referenced the British common law that prevailed in the colonies when it defined a “citizen of the United States” in 1898. Justice Gray, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by Chester Arthur who was born to alien parents, a fact that was probably unknown to the American public.
Minor is more persuasive than Wong.
There is no third type of citizen. There are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” It is written all over the Constitution. “Natural born Citizens” are those children that are born in the country to citizen parents. “Citizens of the United States” are those children that are either born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
If Obama can prove that he is a “citizen of the United States” under Wong’s invention that English common law defined national citizenship after the adoption of the Constitution, then so be it. But that status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
nbc,
You said: “The child need not stay and would still retain its US citizenship…”
Evidently, you have yet to learn much about the real world. You have no idea what you are talking about. It must be that maturity thing.
misha,
If you put a flux capacitor on your car, Geico will not insure you.
“But that status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Are you clinically insane, or does it just seem that way?
That’s OK. I have Progressive Insurance. They’re the only ones reasonable about a motorcycle. I don’t own a car – just the bike.
“you can always set up your own do-it-yourself government in Somalia or Haiti”
Or, you could try Dominica.
.
Mario,
It sounds like the example you are giving is one in which you have 2 parents, both illegal in this country, who have a child within US borders. While this so-called “anchor baby” is a legitimate topic that has been debated for some time, under current law, those children obtain US citizenship at time of birth on our soil. To chance that would require Congress to pass a law (likely an Amendment) stating that this particular situation would exclude citizenship.
However, from everything I’ve seen, there is no real dispute in our laws that that NBC status would be provided to children born on US soil that are born of foreign citizens in our country legally (with the exceptions of diplomats, etc. as have already been pointed out on here numerous times).
Even in the illegal alien scenario, if even one of those parents is not an illegal alien, I don’t see how US citizenship is denied for a child born on US soil.
You obviously have opinions that differ in your beliefs on whether or not babies born under any of these scenarios should have NBC status, but please be honest and admit that such things would require a change in existing US law.
Wow, Mario lecturing me about maturity…
What a funny guy.
As to not knowing what one is talking about, I guess we have a clear winner eh Mario?
You are a funny guy.
Michelle Malkin and
PiyushBobby Jindal are anchor babies.Only “citizens of the United States” can be Congressmen.
That has led everyone but you to think that that term isn’t its own class, but an inclusive descriptor. Like “children” isn’t a separate class of child, but inclusive of both boys and girls.
There are two types of citizen – natural born and naturalized.
Minor doesn’t speak of any “citizen of the United States” that could be born here, get their citizenship by being born here and yet not be a natural born citizen.
You cannot find a single court case to suggest such a thing.
In fact, since it’s an argument made often by white supremacists and tax-evaders, it has been explicitly considered and rejected by at least a dozen cases.
So much for Minor being more persuasive than Wong!
(By the way, Justice Field’s view of citizenship – in re Look Ting Sing – adopted and extended by Gray, was the majority opinion in the circuits when Wong was decided. If Gray hadn’t been appointed, the decision might have been shorter, but there is no evidence to suggest it would have been different!)
There are also senior citizens. They get a discount if they arrive before 5 PM.
Natural citizens also are those who shop at Whole Foods. One concern of mine: what happens when senior citizens arrive before 5, by space ship? And will it fit in the parking lot?
Do they get the sr.citizen discount AND the AARP discount on rocket fuel? How fast could they fly from, say Denny’s in Florida, to Mombasa?
Is Obama more powerful than a locomotive? Wait, I have it figured out: Obama is secretly CLARK KENT!!
Mario,
Sorry, we can read. To everyone else on the planet, Waite did not provide a definition. If you want to say that Waite tells us that there was some authorities connecting the common law to the law of nations definition, that is fair. Let’s say a court said there is no doubt persons born in new jersey are citizens and that some people thought people born in Pennsylvania were citizens, but there has been doubt about the latter which it will decline to address. Seriously, if you really think such a court is saying only people in new jersey are citizens, there is something wrong with you. In the reality based world, it is only defining the term with respect to the former and merely ackownledging a dispute with respect to the latter and taking no poistion. Hence it is not authority on the latter, other than with respect to aknowledging there was a dispute. Minor takes no poition on the only issue relevant to Obama and hence is not authority on the issue. Thus, any court following up on Minor would be instructed to look at basis of such doubts and examine what the true definition of the common law was. This is what Wong did in great detail. We are still waiting for you to point out any early authority that says the common law required citizen parents. Since we can’t find it, whoever Waite had in mind could not be very important.
We ask what evidence we have to support the English common law rule. Well, we have a majority opinion of the Supreme Court that specifically adressess the term with respect to children of aliens. However, I don’t think the court would reply much on dicta in either Minor or Wong, but would look to the evidence in the founding era. In the absense of helpful legislative history, the court would look to what the terms were understood to mean in the founding era. That is all Scalia ever cares about. Hence, if you cannot find anyone defining the term in such era in accordance with Vattel, you are done. And any civil war era citations will be given little weight as, for example, Justice Thomas has said even 50 years after the founding is not very relevant to the original meaning. Unfortunately for you, there appears to be no early authority to support you as you have not shown one early authority connecting the terms “natural born” or “native” to Vattel and it appears there are none. All you have prior to civil war era is trying to claim meaning from extraneous language on citizenship in a citation that has nothing to do with citizenship, doesn’t even use the terms “natural born,” and is by a Justice who elsewhere defined American citizenship by birth in the United States.
We however can cite early authority after early authority conflating “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject,” specifically defining “natural born citizen” by place of birth and defining the presidential eligibility requirement in accordance with the English rule. It includes state legislatures, the most influential early scholars and the use of the term in any early court cases. Of course, in addition, there is a multitude of early authority stating America adopted the English common law rules with respect to american citizenship which would mean, by definition, such persons would be deemed natural born. If you don’t know this, you have a lot of research to do. It is all here if you want to educate your self.
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-united-states-court-of-appeals-for.html
The issue is fantasy versus reality. Mario, why would anyone want analysis from the loser of Kerchner v. Obama — and a national laughing-stock as a birther — when we can simply look up “natural born citizen” in Black’s Law Dictionary; the editors actually have the competence that you merely pretend.
Isn’t it great playing judge? In your head, on you blog, and in your paid advertisement in Reverend Moon’s paper, you win. Alas, the real courts have real judges, which makes you, Mario, part of the birthers’ record of 100% failure. More defeat is headed your way. I told you the defense would cite the Third Circuits precedential opinion on Berg v. Obama, and sure enough they hammered it. Expect the Court to cite it too.
brygenon,
Why don’t you put your brain where your mouth is.
Are you not tired of carrying water?
Greg,
You said: “Minor doesn’t speak of any “citizen of the United States” that could be born here, get their citizenship by being born here and yet not be a natural born citizen.
You cannot find a single court case to suggest such a thing.”
My response: You are exactly correct. Justice Gray in Wong, by going back in time to before the adoption of the Constitution and applying the inapplicable English common law to defining national citizenship, created a person who could be a born “citizen of the United States” but not a “natural born Citizen.”
You said: “In fact, since it’s an argument made often by white supremacists and tax-evaders, it has been explicitly considered and rejected by at least a dozen cases.”
My response: Are you kidding me! The next thing I will see appear in your arguments is that I believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio.
You said: “(By the way, Justice Field’s view of citizenship – in re Look Ting Sing – adopted and extended by Gray, was the majority opinion in the circuits when Wong was decided. If Gray hadn’t been appointed, the decision might have been shorter, but there is no evidence to suggest it would have been different!).”
My response: First, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether the California Circuit Courts were correct. That necessarily required that the Court make an unbiased and ethical decision. The Court could have said the Circuit was wrong as it does in so many of its decision. Second, none of that changes that Chester Arthur, who was born in the country to alien parents, appointed Justice Gray to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Gray wrote the “leading” Supreme Court case on what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” in the context of the question of whether a child born in the United States of alien parents was a “citizen of the United States.” Remember that the Government had argued that Wong was not a citizen. What does that mean? It means that our own Government necessarily argued that Chester Arthur also would not have been a “citizen of the United States.” What does that mean? It means that Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President. What does that mean? It means that Justice Gray was appointed by an ineligible President. Do you believe given those indisputable facts that it was appropriate for Justice Gray to sit with the Court in the Wong case let alone write the opinion which in the end made Justice Gray’s appointing President, Chester Arthur, a “citizen of the United States?”
Mario Apuzzo: It must be that maturity thing.
It is estimated that by age 85, about 35 percent of Americans will have some form of dementia.
That would require one to ignore Justice Gray’s reasonings.
You still have no evidence to support your claims now do you?
Even the Ankeny Court understood very well what Justice Gray had said.
Mario Apuzzo: … Chester Arthur who was born to alien parents, a fact that was probably unknown to the American public.
Interesting how you use the word “parents” here. Do you use it in the same sense as Emerich de Vattel did in Section 212, “parents who are citizens”? Because in both cases, it correctly refers to one parent: Arthur’s mother was a US Citizen born in the US. Only his father was Irish.
The other interesting word is “probably” which in the context of your remark means “I wish.”
I think you have painted yourself into a corner. On the one hand I hear you insinuating that justice Gray was biased in his opinion in Wong because he was appointed by a President (dead for a decade when Wong was decided) whose had an Irish parent. But on the other hand you have to somehow explain the fact that there is not a word in the historical record about anyone suggesting that Chester A. Arthur was not eligible to run for Vice-President because of his parentage. Somehow you have to claim both that Justice Gray knew Arthur’s parentage, but no one else did. The fact of the matter is that smear campaigns were just as present in Arthur’s time as they were today, and indeed an attorney (Hinman) investigated Arthur, searched records and interviewed people and even wrote a book Arthur’s ineligibility, but nowhere in that book is there the slightest suggestion that his parentage mattered. If any opponent knew and thought it mattered, you can be sure it would have appeared in the pages of the Brooklyn Eagle. So it is either the deepest of dark secrets or no one thought it relevant; no other explanation exists for the silence. What scant evidence there is suggests that Arthur’s parentage was known and deemed irrelevant.
So either Gray didn’t know it and there was no bias, or Gray did know it along with everyone else and thought it irrelevant and so no bias.
Touché
Mario Apuzzo: But does it make much sense to make children citizens and break families up in such a manner? Is that prejudice and bigotry, too.
Perhaps you can explain by example how making children born in the United States citizens breaks up families. I can see how deporting the illegal parent breaks up families, but not making the child a citizen. Are not such children free to follow their parents in any case?
There was a case just such as this heard in a district court. Do you recall it? It was Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Diaz-Salazar was an illegal alien who fathered two children in the United States. He argued that it was a great hardship that he be deported and separated from his American wife and children. Salazar did not argue that the hardship was his children being citizens, but rather that he, as an illegal alien, was being deported. The district court rejected his plea. The facts of case use this interesting language:
It was recognized by this court that even the children of illegal aliens born in the United States are natural-born citizens.
Mario’s new legal argument: Every law signed since September 19th, 1881 is now under suspicion.
Man, the anti-New Deal Libertarians are going to have a field day with this theory.
First, Mario, when I say that your arguments have been presented by racists and tax-evaders and rejected, it is to focus on the rejected part, not on who brought the arguments. Replace racists and tax-evaders with nuns and boy-scouts if you want, Mario, it doesn’t change the fact that courts have seen arguments positing a distinction between citizenships of those born here and rejected them.
You can see a string citation at the ADLs website. Google “adl idiot legal arguments.” (My blackberry won’t let me paste.)
No court before Wong saw a distinction and no court AFTER Wong saw a distinction. You have created this distinction out of whole cloth.
Taft, in Weedin Chin Bow, wrote for a unanimous court of the “excellent” decision in WKA and its reliance on British law. Rogers v. Bellei cited Weedin’s cite of WKA and concluded that it was now unquestioned that we have always followed British common law and jus soli. British common law never imagined a distinction between the children of citizens and aliens, so if the court has said multiple times that we follow British common law, then there is no reason to assume a distinction in American law.
Other than the two dissenters in WKA, no judge has ever questioned its reliance on British common law. No court has ever limited WKA. No court has ever cited the dissent in WKA approvingly.
By the way, your notion that WKA, in some way, created a distinction is undercut by the holding, IIRC in part VII that the 14th Amendment was in no way intended to LIMIT the citizenship that came before it. In fact, since WKA said that the 14th was simply declaratory of the common law, it is impossible to see how you can square your supposed distinction with the rest of the case. What law did Gray cite to create this distinction?
Justice Field was on the court when Wong was argued. He had decided in re Look Ting Sing while riding circuit. Was he appointed by Arthur? What about the other five justices that agreed with Gray?
Further, Gray wrote a scathing critique of Dred Scott after it came out that hit all the high points of WKA. This was, of course, before he was on the Supreme Court. Was he biased then?
Ouch, time after time the Courts rule against Mario’s re-interpretation of history.
You said: “We are still waiting for you to point out any early authority that says the common law required citizen parents. Since we can’t find it, whoever Waite had in mind could not be very important.”
My response: I guess the United States Government including Congress in all its naturalization laws was wrong for all those years following the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 until Wong was decided in 1898 for believing that the law of nations controlled the meaning of national citizenship and that a child born in the country of alien parents was an alien and needed to naturalize.
You said: “Minor takes no poition on the only issue relevant to Obama and hence is not authority on the issue. Thus, any court following up on Minor would be instructed to look at basis of such doubts and examine what the true definition of the common law was. This is what Wong did in great detail.”
My response: Article II’s “grandfather clause pertaining to “citizen of the United States” is obsolete. Hence, Obama needs to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Minor defined what a “natural born citizen” was. Wong did not define what a “natural born citizen” was but rather what a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” was. Clearly, Minor wins and Wong loses on the question of which case applies to Obama.
You said: “In the absense of helpful legislative history, the court would look to what the terms were understood to mean in the founding era. That is all Scalia ever cares about. Hence, if you cannot find anyone defining the term in such era in accordance with Vattel, you are done.”
My response: First and foremost, the text and structure of the Constitution supports my position and not yours. Second, I have weight and force of history on my side. You do not. You are trying to convince the world that the Founders used English common law to define national citizenship in the context of the American Revolution. Just the context of the American Revolution alone proves you wrong. Add to that the following: (1) evidence of what the political philosophy was during the Founding; (2) the intellectual content of the Founders learning; (3) the Founders’ warning of keeping foreign influence out of the new national government; (4) the Founders’ attachment to natural law and the law of nations as evidenced by virtually all of the Founders writings and speeches; (5) the Founders’ high esteem for Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, and especially Vattel; (6) citizenship being an international topic and not a mere domestic one; (7) the Founders’ rejection of English common law as a guide for the new national government; (8) what Thomas Jefferson told us in his Virginia citizenship statutes of 1779 and 1783; (9) all the early naturalization laws by Congress; (10) speeches and debates in various Congresses; (11) America’s historical rejection of dual allegiance; (12) the U.S. Supreme Court cases that defined a “natural born Citizen;” (13) the position always taken by the Federal Government up until the Wong case that children born in the country to alien parents were aliens and needed to naturalize; and (14) the national security reason for the “natural born Citizen” clause, which alone demands a stronger test of citizenship and not a weaker one for one who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States.
Given this overwhelming evidence against your position, you and your supporters better keep praying that the court does not grant the Kerchner case standing.
Weedin Chin Bow. That was written by Chief Justice Taft. He is, of course, the only person to serve as President AND as Chief Justice. Weedin was unanimous.
Mario, We won’t have ANY difficulty convincing the court that the US used British Common Law to define citizenship.
You, on the other hand, have to convince the Court that Wong was wrong, that Weedin was wrong, that Rogers v. Bellei was wrong when it said:
You give a list of things you think support your position. I want to reply to just a couple:
1. You mean the evidence of the Founders citing Calvin’s Case numerous times and Vattel on citizenship zero times?
2. Like the founders calling Lord Coke “Our legal oracle?” The fact that Blackstone sold as many copies in the US as in Britain?
4. And you’re certain it’s not the natural law referred to by Lord Coke or Blackstone?
5. Unlike their low opinion of Lord Coke (our legal oracle) or Blackstone?
6. You must know that there are dozens of cases saying the opposite, right?
8. When Jefferson said in 1779 that “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth..shall be deemed citizens” support your case? Seems to me that reading the whole thing gives you the same equation as Wong Kim Ark – jus soli for everyone born here, and jus sanguinis for those born abroad.
9. The same naturalization laws that WKA and every subsequent case has read to support jus soli?
10. Read James Ho’s Green Bag article for how your cherry-picked quotes from legislative debates will be torn apart and thrown in your face, Mario! OR, you could read WKA.
You seem to think that no one has ever looked at the legislative history. They have, and found it supports us.
12. You’ll find that WKA, Weedin, Bellei, etc., are more supportive of our position.
13. Other than in the war of 1812, when we told England that they’d kidnapped our citizens, defined so because they were born here not because of their parents’ citizenship. And Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.
14 This is the bottom of the barrel argument, the one made explicitly in the briefs of Wong Kim Ark. How can we allow Wong to be a citizen, then he’d be eligible for the Presidency, and the Chinese aren’t good for our national security.
How’d that argument work in Wong Kim Ark, Mario?
That’s Perkins v. Elg.
You’re going to have a tough time, Mario, convincing the Supreme Court that EVERYTHING they’ve decided about citizenship should be thrown out for dicta in Minor that explicitly declined to determine the question at issue!
As usual, you are not really making sense. The naturalization laws stated nothing about the native born. Please cite one authority that ever said native born children of aliens need to be naturalized. I have cited dozens of early authorities to the contary including the most influential scholars of the period. What do they know conpared to a DWI lawyer. By definition, if you actually research, “naturalization,” by definition, only applied to the foreign born. Why not try reading the majority opinion of Dred Scott:
“The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417
Or the dissent:
“It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)
Or Paschal citing Justice Swayne:
“But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated, note 274, (1968)
Whoops, it appears the native born cannot be naturalized. I can go on and on if you really wanted to learn, including Madison stating the same thing. You really need to do more research before coming here. Your assertions would certainly be news to all the early american scholars like Story, Kent, Tucker, Rawle, Bovier, Swift, Burrill and on and on which all disagreed with your silly assertions.
With respect to Wong and Minor, if you can’t see that Wong states that the Articel II definition and the 14th definition are both defined by the English common law, you can’t read english or are just dishonest. With respect to Minor, if you can’t see that the court merely says there is a difference of opinion as to the common law definition and that it expressly takes no position on such dispute, you shouldn’t be praticing law.
Finally, your posts clearly admit that you can find no early authorithy to support your definition. You can cite no statements from the founders, no early case law, no early scholar to support your silly assertions. You just make fact free assertions based upon you limited understanding of the history of the period adn can find no one in the early republic to adopt you definition. I have provided you with dozens and doezens of citations and you can provide nothing but fact free assertion. Apparently you think Madison, Story, Kent, Marshall, Tucker, Rawle, Duer, Swift, Burril, Bouvier, Paschal, Bates et al, didn’t get your memo that the common law didn’t continue to apply. You would be laughed out court trying to claim these people didn’t understand citizneship in the early republic when you can cite no authority to the contrary. Where are the congresional debates that support you? You obviously have not read the legislative history of the naturalization statutes or the 14th amendment where it is clear the common law applied. Have you still not read all the early constitutional treatises on the subject? Have you still not realized you are wrong on Jefferson’s naturalization statutes? The statute in place at the time of the founding is clear as can be. And the court cases agree:
“But the appellant, in this case, was born in Virginia. The laws of the state declare, that every free person born within it, shall be considered a citizen of it, and shall enjoy all the privileges of a citizen, until he relinquishes that character in the manner prescribed by law.” Custis v. Lane, 3 Munf. 579 (Va. 1813)
You have either not done the research or cannot understand english. Again, if you want to know what the law was during this period you can find it in the citations in link below.
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/
And, of course, the Supreme Court positively ackonwledged the circuit court’s determination that Elg was a natural born citizen. The circuit court, of course, looked to the English common law:
“The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
Gee, it seem no one got Mario’s memo that the English common law didn’t apply.
No such requirement existed. Love your imagination though…
I have no idea why Mario continues to make such ill informed claims which as Greg and others have shown, are trivially disproven as lacking a foundation in history or legal practices.
You’re a funny guy… Of course, the standing issue, or in Kerchner’s case, the lack thereof will cause the Appeals Court to rule as they did in the precedent setting case. But even if they were to grant Kerchner standing, the lack of much of any foundation to your claims and the existence of Wong Kim Ark, will quickly end the hopes.
Of course, standing will never be granted. The Constitution will be followed.
Mario Apuzzo: My response…
An assertion is not a response. That’s why it’s so easy to tell that you’re faking it: ballantine and Greg and others answer you point by point with cases and authorities. You respond with unsupported assertions (with a few gratuitous names and dates to add a patina of credibility). I presume you don’t respond because you can’t, and you know you can’t because your whole thesis is a fraud.
Here’s one example of an unsupported assertion:
The executive did argue that Wong was not a citizen, but where did they ever say he needed to be naturalized? Nowhere: the same racist tribe who were arguing he was not a citizen (and losing that argument) passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented his naturalization. So the Federal Government, at least in the case of Wong Kim Ark, certainly didn’t say he “needed to naturalize” since that would have been impossible. Would you argue that the Chinese Exclusion Act was not racist? For some period in our history the Federal Government did deny the citizenship of the Chinese and Africans born in the United States, but not the citizenship of those born of white aliens.
Cite a case where the Federal Government argued that a white person born of alien parents was not a citizen.
Actually, Dr. C., I hope that chufho et al., remain and continue to post. I enjoy reading the diligently sourced and intelligently argued responses to the birther’s spurious claims.
Mario-Let’s now leave the realm of your masturbatory fanatasies and move to the real world. No one gives a rodent’s behind about these dusty words of long-dead justices. Even if you are correct about what the law was in 1789 or 1822 (and you aren’t) that is irrelevant since last time I checked this was 2010. The law TODAY is that anyone born in the US is a citizen AND a natural born citizen and that Barack Obama is the President and was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts with the other Justices watching (well Thomas seemed to be dozing, but he was there anyway and he seems to be dozing most of the time on the bench anyway). That’s really all that matters.
This one goes out to Mario:
Dear Mario:
I appreciate the fact that you didn’t lose your cool. Even though your arguments and evidence were well and truly dismantled, you retained your civility and avoided swearing and typing in capital letters. In this day and age, that counts for something . . . don’t know what exactly, but something.
Your pal,
Arthur
I COMPLETELY agree. Dr. C, Ballantine, Greg, G, NBC, and anyone I missed — I can’t believe you folks spend so much time answering idiotic questions, but many of us hugely appreciate the effort.
“I can’t believe you folks spend so much time answering idiotic questions”
You should read the questions I get birthers to answer. Now, THAT’S talent.
I guess you do not know how conflict of laws works. On the question of national citizenship, any analysis of the question of citizenship started with the law of nations and only if that law directed one to local law was that law then applied. If the law of nations did not direct one to local law, the law of nations itself would supply the rule of decision.
Municipal law or the local common law did not determine citizenship and national character. Municipal law only affected civil rights which were involved in ordinary transactions that were normally of a local character. But when it came to political rights which were more general in nature, the general principles of the law of nations applied. Acquiring or losing a national character was surely a political right and not a civil right. Hence, it was the law of nations that applied to determine national citizenship and nationality and not mere municipal law or the common law applied by the states. The only time muncipal law was applied as the rule of decision was when the public law or the law of nations itself directd that the political law or municipal law of the nation were to supply the rule of decision. See Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830).
I wonder what Mario’s position on the 2-citizen parent theory would be if his daughter met a brilliant computer science student from India and became pregnant and married him and gave birth to Mario’s grandchild in New Jersey. Would Mario consider his grandchild to be a US citizen? Or, would Mario shrug and chalk it up to Vattel if his grandchild was denied US citizenship based on only having a single citizen parent and subjected to possible deportation to India if his parent’s marriage dissolved?
Scientist,
It is beyond me how one can have “masturbatory fantasies” about a case concerning national citizenship.
Maybe you need a little break from all this.
Arthur,
Nice to meet you. Dismantling is in the eye of the beholder.
The other day, Mario posted a message quoting a bit of Dredd Scott at some length.
I noted that the passage he quoted did not actually say what he claimed it said.
(It had to do with the “two parents citizens” myth if I recall.)
I certainly don’t feel competent to discuss US cases, but I can’t help feel that Mario isn’t quoting accurately or is parsing his quotes.
An ironic statement from someone who ignores the dozen or so times the Supreme Court has said that citizenship is a municipal issue, not one of international law!
What’s astonishing, Mario, is that you are totally recycling the arguments put forward by the losing side in Wong Kim Ark. And it’s not like they put forward these issues and they were ignored by the Court, they were put forward and explicitly rejected by Wong Kim Ark! For example, you direct me to “see Shanks v. Dupont.” So did the losers in WKA:
Most attorneys would shirk from submitting an argument that had been rejected entirely by the Supreme Court without at least changing it to address the SC’s rejection. But, not you, Mario! You submit the exact same argument and expect different results.
You’re wrong, Mario, and the Supreme Court told us how you were wrong 112 years ago!
Give us a new argument, Mario, not some moldy retread of what was rejected in WKA.
The fact that your so-called definition appears to be the same as the KKK’s founding document does not give you a moment for pause and reflection?
In view of today’s date, I will say, in the words of a famous countryman of yours, “Et tu, Mario”.
And as hard as it is to imagine it today, French literature as well.
In the 1840s, people actually queued in New York harbor to wait for the latest installments of French newspapers serializing The Count of Monte Cristo.
One good thing about your arguments, Mario, is that by copying and pasting from the losing argument in Wong Kim Ark, you save me tons of time in responding to you. I simply have to copy and paste the courts complete and total rejection of “your” arguments.
By not changing “your” arguments, one simply has to copy a string-cite of the more than 50 cases which have adopted WKA’s rejection.
Thanks for making it easy!
Indeed, if one looks at the part of Perkins v. Elg I quoted above, there’s a footnote that has a string citation, each reference in which rejects your interpretation of “conflict of laws.” For example, it cites Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, p. 25;
So, do you understand conflict of laws, Mario? It seems obvious that you don’t!
It was rejected 112 years ago because the primary arguement they made was trying to read the concept that the law of nations determined native citizenship by citing a quote by Story that had nothing to do with native citizenship and ignoring that Story the same day expressly definined american citizenship by the common law, had previously call native born children of aliens native born citizens and had told us that the president neeed to be a native citizen.
Pretty comical really that Mario’s only authority on citizenship being governed by the law of nations is a Justice who never said that and who expressly defined citizenship by the English common law. I am starting to think Mario is learning disabled as he keeps repeating the same weak arguments no matter how many times they are debunked.
Oh, and I forgot, Story thought the jus soli rule was the rule of international law as well, as did most 19th century american legal authorities and the most important members of the 14th amendment congress.
More from the string cite from Perkins:
Hyde, International Law, s. 342 (p. 611) “Citizenship, as distinct from nationality, is a creature solely of domestic law.”
Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, § 4
“The conditions on which citizenship shall be acquired and granted, the individuals to whom this status shall be extended, and the rights and obligations incurred by the relationship are fixed by the municipal public law of each state.”
Thank you, Mario, for making it so easy!
Lil’ Rajesh Mario Kashimpuria would be a native-born U.S. Citizen ineligible to be POTUS and a good candidate for Supreme Court Justice..
Do YOU have any court cases that support this distinction? As far as I can tell, no court in more than 200 years has ever imagined a citizen who was born here, became a citizen because of that birth here, yet was not eligible for the Presidency.
That’s what we lawyers like to call BS.
Funny to hear that from someone who appears to still be struggling with the Constitutional concept of standing.
You’re funny Mario… Or at least, slightly entertaining.
Sorry Dick: That argument was so discredited by the birther losers in 2009-2010 that young Raj’s opponent never dared to even suggest it. His grandfather, Mario, campaigned as hard as he could for him at his advanced age. Raj was elected in a landslide. His grandfather sat next to former President Obama at the inauguration smiling broadly.
Which is why Kerchner is now on appeal I guess 🙂
If is it is unimportant, or judicially indeterminate, as we learned in Sven Magnussen School of Law, then why put the citizenship or nationality of the parents on the birth certificate?
If Mario had only read (and understood) the arguments presented in the briefs by Appellants and Defendants then he would have realized that WKA laid to rest most of his ‘arguments’ in a well reasoned and thorough ruling whose impact reverberates through over 180 other rulings.
Must be hard to be re-arguing a case which was so clearly lost on the facts, or lack thereof.
Oopsy daisy, Dick. The birthplace of the parents is listed on birth certificate and not the citizenship or nationality.
Yeah! Two noogies for you, Dick.
By extension, citizenship may be determinate of current citizenship status of the parents.
See, that’s just what I was referring to–a level-headed guy; no ad hominen attacks. Didn’t call me a traitor, an obot, or a kool-aid drinker.
“then why put the citizenship or nationality of the parents on the birth certificate?”
Perhaps for the same reason that some birth certificates listed parents ethnicity? Or even their names?
Perhaps some of the information on birth certificates is there for reasons other than establishing the citizenship of the child.
Have I not told Apuzzo from the start that to prevail he had to first reverse Wong?
Let’s pretend, for a minute, that unlike most birthers, you’ve gotten a fact right. Why put citizenship or nationality of the parents on the birth certificate?
One word: Demographics.
Bag of hammers: 1, Dick: 0
Take a look at this birth certificate. It lists birthplace of the father and mother, not the citizenship.
Bag of hammers: 2, Dick: 0
And it lists the trade of the father and mother. Are those things determinative of citizenship?
Bag of hammers: 3, Dick: 0
It lists the industry of the father and mother. Determinative of citizenship?
Bag of hammers: 4, Dick 0
It lists the last date employed in this job. Determinative of citizenship?
Bag of hammers: 5, Dick 0
I think we have clear proof about who is smarter, a birther or a bag of hammers.
Not surprising, since his case seems to be cribbed from the briefs of the losing side in Wong.
Greg: FWIW, none of the BCs for myself, my spouse or our children lists parent’s nationality or citizenship. Only one even lists parent’s place of birth.
“Have I not told Apuzzo from the start that to prevail he had to first reverse Wong?”
Mario apparently loves a challenge. Here is Mario’s ‘to-do’ list that Sven sent me, so there is no doubting is authenticity:
a) Explain to Supreme Court how Wong was wrong.
b) Explain to Supreme Court how Vattel really explains what a NBC is
c) Explain to Supreme Court how majority of voters are so stupid that they don’t understand this, even though I have explained it hundreds of times.
d) Explain to Supreme Court how I was too busy to pursue all of this prior to the general election.
e) Explain to Supreme Court how they have jurisdiction to have the President removed from office.
f) Pick up dry cleaning.
Scientist says:
FWIW, none of the BCs for myself, my spouse or our children lists parent’s nationality or citizenship. Only one even lists parent’s place of birth.
My BC lists only the names of my parents. No parental birthplaces, no parental nationalities, no parental citizenship, no parental address. Nevertheless, it says that “it may be used as proof of age and citizenship.”
The only information on the birth certificate which pertains to citizenship is the fact that I was born in the U.S. to parents whose citizenship (according to the BC) is unknown. Hence, jus soli.
Anyone else worried that Sven is talking to himself, and still getting the answer wrong?
You forgot g. put forth a totally debunked theory about there being some sort of travel ban to Pakistan for Americans in 1981. And when confronted with evidence that shows that not to be true, pretend that the Court does not understand English and try and get them to believe that travel ban and travel advisory mean the same thing…
Correct answer, demographics.
A better answer would have been, “It’s an important vital statistic used by State, Federal and local agencies to make determinations concerning the child … like, ‘Is this person a Natural-born citizen or merely a native-born citizen?'”
Yep
He must have forgotten Wong and gone straight to the dissenting opinion…
Wonderful how Mario’s reading abilities are leading him astray time after time (Minor v Happerstett comes to mind).
SvenMagnussen says:
Oopsy daisy, Dick. The birthplace of the parents is listed on birth certificate and not the citizenship or nationality.
Correction: The birthplace of the parents is listed on SOME states’ birth certificates, but not on others. I would hope that by this time you would understand that there is no universal rule about what extraneous information is included on a birth certificate. All birth certificates list the name, date of birth and city of birth of the child, and they list the names of the parents (if the identity of the parents is known). Any additional information is optional – some states require it, others do not.
Even though many birth certificates do not include any information about the parents other than their names, those birth certificates are still accepted by the U.S. State Department as proof of citizenship. Which means, of course, that the citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant as long as the child is born in the United States.
So, since parent’s citizenship generally does NOT appear on birth certificates, clearly it is NOT important to determining anything relative to the child, including their citizenship.
You guys often do more damage to your own arguments than we do…
How so, simply knowing that someone was born in the United States, according to you, doesn’t mean they’re a citizen.
So, knowing your mother’s place of birth won’t tell you, according to your theory, whether or not someone is a natural born or native born citizen.
Duh.
Bag of hammers: 6, Dick 0!
PLUS, as I pointed out above, the father’s place of birth isn’t even requested any more.
Bag of hammers: 7, Dick 0.
Is there a mercy rule for stupid?
I feel for you, Dick, being dumber than a bag of hammers has to be embarrassing, but, you know what they say, better to remain silent and have everyone think you’re dumb, than open your mouth and remove all doubt!
Yes, the DoS will issue a U.S. passport to any U.S. citizen, regardless of birthplace.
So, why would a standardized form for keeping the the vital statistics of a birth include the birthplace of the parent if it wasn’t relevant to any State, Federal or local agency; such as a state’s Secretary of State or Federal Elections Committee chairman?
They generally don’t include the birthplace of the parents.
Actually, the birthplace of the mother and the father have been asked for on the U.S. Standardized Certificate of Live Birth since the 1900s. (Sometimes it asked for birthplace, birthplace (state or foreign country), or birthplace (city and state or foreign country)).
You are right, they do ask for the birthplace of the father. Here’s the model birth certificate reporting form as issued by the CDC in 2003. Notice all the things they ask for that couldn’t possibly impact citizenship. And the things they leave out, which, in your cockamamie theory are required to determine the true citizenship status of the child – specifically the parental citizenship.
But, I’ll take the last point off the score board.
Bag of hammers: 6, Dick: 0
We don’t have to invoke the mercy rule yet.
Demographics. It helps track the migration of our citizenry.
Knowing whether the mother is residing within city limits also doesn’t go to determining citizenship. Nor does knowing what county the child was born in. Nor does the date of the last prenatal visit.
How about this, you show us positive proof of how it is used to determine citizenship instead of arguing by the fallacy of incredulity, that because you can’t think of any reason why it would be there it must be citizenship. (You only really prove how unimaginative you are!)
It should be pointed out that what is requested by the CDC and what is reported by the hospital or put onto the “official” birth certificate which is used to prove citizenship to all concerned are not necessarily the same (for the first) and obviously different for the second.
According to HHS, there are more than 14,000 variations of the official birth certificate, in part because there are more than 6,000 issuing authorities.
Dr. Conspiracy,
You said: “Arthur’s mother was a US Citizen born in the US. Only his father was Irish.” This is not correct. Arthur’s mother married an alien. Under law of the time, she became an alien upon marrying her husband. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to alien mother and father.
You said “you can be sure it would have appeared in the pages of the Brooklyn Eagle” which really means “I wish.”
The United States Government in 1898 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that a child born in the country to alien parents was not a U.S. citizen. That sounds like Chester Arthur to me. What do you think? How can you say with a straight face that Chester Arthur not being a U.S. citizen is irrelvant to his running for Vice President and later occupying the Office of the President?
You say “So either Gray didn’t know it and there was no bias, or Gray did know it along with everyone else and thought it irrelevant and so no bias.” It does not matter what he or others knew or did not know. The law at that time and up until Wong knew it. Just like the law today knows that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and it is people like you and Obama that cause the respect for the rule of law to be thrown in the garbage can.
Greg,
It is our law that controls, not some other country’s. Hence, your English descendants example does not present any problems with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
Greg,
You really should be consistent in your approach. Why do you disagree with Justice Fuller on his definition of a “natural born Citizen” but you agree with him when he said that Justice Gray’s decision meant that Wong could be President?
A bit of advice for you: do not argue with blinders on.
Greg,
You said: “Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. at 274 U. S. 660. He referred to the cited English statutes, and stated, “These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.'”
So what. What we are interested in is what applied after the War of Independence.
It is our law that controls, not some other country’s.
I guess it’s out with Vattel then? And out with the concept of dual citizenship invalidating one’s natural born status.
Back to the drawing boards Mario…
Hahaha… Don’t argue with blinders on.. You are a funny guy.
Justice Fuller understood the implications of Justice Grey’s ruling and disagreed with the ruling, not the implications.
geez…
And they lost… Anything to deny citizenship to someone of Chinese descent…
The lower Court was well aware of the impact of their arguments:
Mario-Enough with the moldy old legal cases. Let’s look forward and see if you can answer the question I posed. Suppose your daughter marries an Indian citizen and gives birth to a baby, Raj, who is born in New Jersey. If he grows up and gets elected President will you attend his Inauguration and cheer him on, or will you sit home mumbling nonsense about Vattel? I think you are afraid to answer this question. Come on and prove me wrong.
Well said Mario.
Why do I disagree with Fuller when he states the law, but agree with him on the basic reading of the opinion written by his colleague about a case they both had heard together, an opinion that, if Supreme Court practice was similar to current practice, he probably saw in draft form?
Because he’s wrong about the law, which was pointed out in the majority opinion, but right about the meaning of the case, which is consistent with the way that every Supreme Court, every court, every legal scholar except you has interpreted it in the 112 years since it was handed down.
This isn’t rocket science, Mario.
Why do you, Mario, disagree with Fuller about the easy question (what did his colleague Gray, who he probably had lunch with every day, mean in the decision) but agree with him on the hard one – what did the early American founders mean when they wrote the Constitution?
Oops
Haven’t read that case either, have you, Mario? Chin Bow was born in 1916, which, if I’m not mistaken, was after the revolution.
Why don’t you exhibit your mastery of these issues by showing where in Weedin Chin Bow the court says the rule changed after the Revolution?
“it is people like you and Obama that cause the respect for the rule of law to be thrown in the garbage can.”
Yes- people like us- who argue that the way the law has been interpreted for the last 120 years- or longer- is correct are causing the lack of respect for the law.
Basically you are accusing the majority of American voters for causing the respect for the law to go down.
Personally, I am thinking that watching a few disgruntled individuals file law suit after failed law suit over the same discredited theory is showing the real lack of respect for the law.
Watching you guys heap more and more failure upon yourselves has gotten kind of old, but you’re still good for the occasional laugh. According to your blog, Mario, you have a new ad in Reverend Moon’s paper. The headline reads “OBAMA FLAUNTS THE CONSTITUTION“, but the text claims that Obama ignores the Constitution. Your blog already has a fan comment saying “Great ad”.
The word you were looking for is “flouts”.
Yes, the model is simply that – a model.
And of course the model doesn’t address the citizenship of the parents, anyway. Even if both parents were born abroad, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t U.S. citizens. And how is a birth registrar supposed to verify citizenship of the parents? By requiring the parents to produce their passports? Of course not. It isn’t done because it’s irrelevant to the citizenship of the child if the child is born in the U.S.
Mario, I would remind you of your ethical obligations as an attorney. RPC 4.1 and 8.4.
You’re right that it’s our law that controls, so England’s considering Obama a citizen of their country does not present any problems with the definition of a “natural born citizen.”
Thanks.
Mario Apuzzo: You said “you can be sure it would have appeared in the pages of the Brooklyn Eagle” which really means “I wish.”
No. I dug out the microfilm of the newspaper coverage of the Garfield election and its comments about Arthur that appeared in the Brooklyn Eagle. I am speaking of a fair characterization of the paper’s editorial stance.
Apuzzo: How can you say with a straight face that Chester Arthur not being a U.S. citizen is irrelvant [sic] to his running for Vice President and later occupying the Office of the President?
Arthur was born in the United States, so he was a natural born citizen.
Apuzzo: You say “So either Gray didn’t know it and there was no bias, or Gray did know it along with everyone else and thought it irrelevant and so no bias.” It does not matter what he or others knew or did not know. The law at that time and up until Wong knew it. Just like the law today knows that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and it is people like you and Obama that cause the respect for the rule of law to be thrown in the garbage can.
If you can’t answer the objection (which you took out of context) why don’t you just keep quiet instead of pretending you answered it. Oh, I guess if you stopped pretending, you’d have to withdraw all your lawsuits and close your blog. Never mind.
Mario Apuzzo: You said: “Arthur’s mother was a US Citizen born in the US. Only his father was Irish.” This is not correct. Arthur’s mother married an alien. Under law of the time, she became an alien upon marrying her husband. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to alien mother and father.
Is that a real law or a pretend law? If a real law, then please cite it. Or are you under the fantasy that British Law can alienate an American Citizen? We sort of fought a war over that, you know.
The “standard US Birth Certificate” changes every few years and “real” birth certificates are variations on that standard. I suspect, though, that most of the 14,000 variations deal with security paper and printing rather than content.
DickWhitman: So, why would a standardized form for keeping the the vital statistics of a birth include the birthplace of the parent if it wasn’t relevant to any State, Federal or local agency; such as a state’s Secretary of State or Federal Elections Committee chairman?
Statistics, Sven, statistics. It’s the same reason they collect the race of the parents (which I hope you would admit is not relevant to citizenship or electoral qualification either).
Greg: PLUS, as I pointed out above, the father’s place of birth isn’t even requested any more.
Eh? Block 10c.
Greg,
You are the one who cited Chin Bow as some secret weapon and now you want me to help you. Really, Greg!
Since each state is allowed to use whatever birth certificate they choose and this information may not be located on the one in use, then obviously the federal government could care less where the parents’ were born or where their citizenship lies with regard to whether or not the child is a natural born citizen.
nbc,
Why do you not add something here of substance rather than just carry water.
No, Mario, I don’t. But, the part I cited doesn’t say the law changed after the revolution, and you can’t cite anything in the opinion which says it changed.
Oh, and the stuff that applied before the Revolution, Mario, (and you would have realized this if you’d read, not even the case, but the part I’d cited) was the statutes which modified the common law.
Common law = born within the nation
Cannot be changed except by statute
7 Anne (1708), 4 George II (1731), 13 George III (1773) = extended NBS to those born to citizens abroad.
Those statute applied before the Revolution.
The court discusses the American laws from pages 661-670.
None eliminate jus soli as evidenced by the fact that the court wholly embraces WKA, and doesn’t overturn it.
You’d think a lawyer who was trying to overturn WKA or limit its application would know the cases that had relied entirely upon it!
Yeah, my bad. I missed it. But, I did take the point off the scoreboard for the bag of hammers. It is now only 6-0 for the hammer-bag. No need for the mercy rule yet.
However, knowing the birthplace of the parents, absent their parents’ citizenship cannot satisfy the birthers’ two-citizen parents test.
Here’s what the report says:
…
So, some of the differences are format, some are security paper, some are content, some are signatures.
With 14,000 different variations, there’s room for a lot of differences.
Well, Mario why don’t you follow your own recommendations…
Mario Mario, read the cases before you allow Greg to demolish yet another one of your ‘arguments’…
Here’s what a typical New York birth certificate looks like:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/rachelc/20090807140342.jpg
This is a California birth certificate:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kwaters/htdocs/genealogy/scans/birth_certificate_richard_waters_reduced.jpg
A New Jersey birth certificate:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cribbs/clippings/moculski_marie_birth_cert.jpg
A Connecticut birth certificate:
http://www.familyhistoryzone.com/Img/birth_certificate.gif
and a Michigan birth certificate:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_RjxkeLg6mns/RzB62n9_7II/AAAAAAAABYk/b2W8f4dj_io/s576/DeVries%2C%20Adrian%20-%20birth%20certificate.jpg
No two look alike, and of course even within those states the format has changed from time to time.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Your forgot the very dry martini.
Black Lion,
Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 after allegedly visiting his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. In his April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco, Obama said: “I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college –I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.” I guess we can surmise from his having such in depth knowledge about the difference between Sunni and Shia (an understanding that according to him not even Hillary Clinton or McCain had) that he spent a lot of his time while in Pakistan studying the subject.
In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” \\Secretary\legalfiles\Political\Obama\Pakistan\Travel Advisory Sheets Archive.mht; http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf. “The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared,” insist the State Department travel advisory. ” “We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared,” added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel. “Travel warnings, which the State Department has been making public to American travelers since 1978 and which cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns, originate with the U.S. embassy or consulates of a specific country. Then the Bureau of Consular Affairs—and, occasionally, other agencies—weighs in, with the final decision coming from the office of the Undersecretary of State. The State Department subsequently revisits the warnings, usually every six months.” http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1. That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.
When Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, the country was going through a civil war and was under martial law. It was experiencing serious social, political, and religious upheaval. A few years earlier, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown the government of Bhutto by way of coup. Zia-ul-Haq even created a separate electoral system for non-Muslims. Courts were created to make sure the country’s laws were not repugnant to Islam. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahedeen operated in Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. Government-issued visas to foreign visitors were good only for 30 days. The Government had in place Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, which allowed the Government to prevent any person who was in Pakistan from leaving the country even though they had valid travel documents without, in the name of “public interest,” even giving a reason for the action. Any person violating that ordinance faced 5 years of imprisonment. Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least. Also, there is currently a U.S. State Department travel warning for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan. “The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against non-essential travel to Pakistan in light of the threat of terrorist activity. This replaces the Travel Warning dated February 25, 2009, updates information on security incidents and reminds U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Pakistan.” http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html. Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban” on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one.
Furthermore, if there was no problem traveling to Pakistan in 1981 as you suggest, tell me the following:
1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981.
2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country.
3. What was the purpose of their trip there.
4. How long did they stay there.
5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country.
6. Why were they refused those visas.
7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan.
8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.
9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never speak about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it.
10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.
11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who–in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief–visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam.
12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan.
13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections.
14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies.
So as you see, playing word games–“travel ban” vs. “travel advisory” really does not get you very far when we consider the realty that existed in Pakistan in 1981 and all the unanswered questions that Obama’s visit there raises.
Faced with the task, indeed some alcohol would be welcome…
Ah…but therein lies the crux of what likely lies beneath most of the birther’s claims -either consciously or subconsciously – I highly suspect that sadly, deep down inside they *do* fee race is a qualification issue…
“Your forgot the very dry martini.”
I’ll drink to that, although I would recommend a Black Widow. Now, there’s a drink.
I posted my response to your repetitive nonsense but Dr. Conspiracy has not allowed it to be posted.
G,
Did those who challenged McCain see “deep down inside” race as the qualifying issue? If they did not, why is it different for Obama?
Lupin,
The KKK also targeted Catholics and Jews.
Greg and nbc,
It’s that conflict of laws thing again.
“The KKK also targeted Catholics and Jews.”
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Wouldn’t your definition of natural-born citizen also exclude jewish people as well, since they’re all born with potential dual citizenship, just like Obama?
Repititive nonsense? Really? In other words you have proof that there was a “travel ban against Americans from traveling to Pakistan in 1981” as you alleged in your infamous Kerchner lawsuit? Unless you have somehow provided proof one existed then the only nonsense is you continuing to beat this dead horse instead of admitting that you made a mistake and took someone’s word for it rather than do your own research. Again a travel advisory and travel ban do not mean the same thing…And your usual response of ignoring the question and trying to deflect by responding with the infamous “then what passport did he travel on” line would be considered a non responsive answer….
Ummmm….not to overstate the obvious, but because Obama was born in the US, and McCain was born in Panama. And no one seemed to think much of it when he ran for president in 2000.
Mario, I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. Why don’t you go pull the restatement of conflict of laws off the shelf and learn this area of law you are misrepresenting.
My last major case involved a US court applying British insurance law, federal privilege and procedural law, the law of the forum state on work product, the tort law of two dozen states, agency interpretation of its regulations and esoteric issues of whether the US court using British insurance law should approach any or all of these different areas as a British court would (giving near absolute deference to the administrative pronouncements of the agencies) or as a US court would (only giving limited deference).
So, my copies of the conflict of laws treatises are dog-earred and well worn.
Perhaps you’d like to amend your statement to base your falsehoods on some other area of law? I mean, it might take a few more minutes to debunk you if you base your lies on maritime law, or the law of outer space, maybe bailments? Adverse possession? Rule in Shelley’s case. Ooh, maybe the Rule against perpetuities can give you the intellectual cover you need, no one understands that.
Mario: I wrote this before, but am going to engage in repetitive nonsense.
I can’t wait until Romney chooses Jindal in ’12. Your crowd is going to go nuts. Popcorn.
African is not a race, it’s a classification people inhabiting a continent. For example, Ernie Els is African.
You must me a Judge in the Hawai’i District Court.
The objection to McCain was insignificant in terms of opposition. There was scholarly discussion since there was a legitimate question.
For Obama scholars found no issue, but the yahoos were all over it.
International law chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States, Charles Cheney Boyd, p. 611 (1922)
The filter moderates comments with too many URLs. It’s approved now.
Again, Mario, you might also want to advance claims that are not 100% in opposition to something the Supreme Court has said.
Perkins v. Elg. 307 US 325, 329
They cite to the following sources:
I quoted, above, Van Dyne:
I quoted two of the others above as well, Hyde and Borchard. I note that you did not respond to those.
So, Mario, as far as I can tell, you’re just 100% wrong that there is any reference to the conflict of laws doctrines when determining citizenship.
“African is not a race, it’s a classification people inhabiting a continent.”
From the 2010 Census form:
What is Person 1’s race?
Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.
Answers include “black, African-American, negro”
Census disagrees with you Dick. What a shock.
Birthers can not provide the proof that the “Travel Ban” existed, because it never did. However, that does not stop birthers from destroying their own credibility by not knowing that.
I say let them.
Mario, your defense of the Pakistani ban is desperate. I can only assume that you are advancing this desperation ploy because you have painted yourself into a corner, ethically and legally. Rule 11 requires some due diligence into the claims made, and not only did you fail to do the appropriate due diligence, you filed a verified complaint.
Yes, Pakistan had a travel advisory. That is not the same as a travel ban. You must know this by now, as you have repeatedly quoted the State Department which states that travel advisories are simply so that travelers can be well-prepared. Travel warnings can “cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns.”
You must also know by now that within months of Obama’s travel, the New York Times published a travel piece describing travel to Pakistan. So much for how terrible a place Pakistan was in 1981 – apparently so terrible, so horrible, so violent and anti-American, that the nation’s “paper of record” could go there and not notice any violence, horror or anti-Americanism!
Why do you keep quoting the 2009 and 2010 State Department warnings about Pakistan? Do you think they have something important to say about 1981 Pakistan?
Finally, your list of questions is a pathetic attempt at burden shifting. You are required by Rule 11 to do due diligence into claims you make in your complaints – much more so in a verified complaint. The fact that a prominent American journalist traveled to Pakistan and wrote a travel article about it in 1981, that no one took issue with that article, that the State Department verifiably did not have a travel ban on Pakistan all give the lie to your claim.
You made a claim in a verified complaint that was demonstrably false upon five minutes of research on the internet, Mario. I understand why you are furiously trying to obfuscate on the issue. If I had committed such an ethical lapse, I might be tempted to do so as well.
Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
The reality, Mario, is that you and your client did not tell the truth in paragraph 54 of your “Second Amended and Verified Complaint”, which reads:
That you are trying to confuse an advisory with a ban shows that this is not merely an accidental oversight.
Mario- why did you just repost your list of misrepresentations again?
I think this list really shows who you are Mario. You will not admit that you were wrong about the travel ban, and then just make up a list of rationalizations to support your statement.
By the standards of any reasonable or sane person there was no travel ban for Americans going to Pakistan.
I don’t think you are really deluded, so I can only conclude that you are deliberately lieing about your conclusion.
Correct CA’s BC from the 1990’s (my son has one) does NOT list the parental information beyond name. It also does not have the City or hospital as well. That is a fact. So I guess my son is not albe to meet the birther standard of LF BC.
Yeah right him and a few million others born in CA.
Can’t wait for a birther to try and disprove me.
Go ahead.
I am looking at my NYS BC, which I used for my passport, and driver license.
All it lists are my name, city, DOB. It does not list parents, hospital, doctor, or time. It is printed in the negative, i.e. black with white printing. There is a hand printed note of my name change, vertically in the margin.
Apparently, there was a stream of Americans that went to Pakistan.
Do you think that their being “Afro-Americans” made them less American, Mario? Do you think their being anti-communist made them less American?
The real question, Mario, is why your questions are so self-contradictory?
Mario says:
True, but what is your point on this Mario? The KKK, like a lot of other close-minded fearful bigots hated & feared anyone who looked different then them or worshiped different then them. Sounds like a lot of other hate-groups around these days.
So again, what is your point you are trying to make on this? When Lupin points out to you that the KKK tried to use language to discriminate against certain ethnic groups, your only reply is “hey, they also tried to discriminate against various religions too!”…
Sorry, but trying to defend the KKK as an “equal opportunity offender” or whatever doesn’t make them look any better for their actions – it only points out how vile they really are.
Eaasy-peeasy – You were born in NY State – your likely ineligible right there.
Everyone knows that NYC was filled with British Loyalists during the revolutionary war – NYC was under UK rule the whole time, thus, all person from NY are technically suspect in their loyalties. They could be the descendants of British soilders or a loyalist who never renounced the crown. I’m sure Vatel will agree.
The lack of a parental detail means you are in the special “non-NBC US Citizen” category – you can stay, but you can’t run for POTUS unless you submit all of your school records, your Pakistan visas from the 1980’s (or prove you were NOT in Pakistan on a foreign passport), your notarized certificate renoucing your UK citizenship, and the all the SS#’s you have had to use for inspection at the “American Grand Jury” vetting sessions to be held in a motor home in your area.
See that is why you need a Long Form – real NBCs all have them and display them proudly in public.
OK Mario, I’m going respond here to several of your silly points you tried to make earlier today over the course of your posts (and yes, the ridiculous Pakistan travel ban dead-horse retread you are trying to push again has been posted here and I’ve read it).
So let’s get down to it. I’ll focus on just the vapidity of your Pakistan Travel Ban rehash in this post and I’ll get to your other silliness in a follow-up.
1. RE: Pakistan Travel Ban:
– Seriously??? You are back to flogging this thoroughly trashed and debunked notion again? As we’ve played “Groundhogs Day” with you on this very issue countless times it is nothing but insulting to waste time covering this ground with you again. You’ve been thoroughly thrashed on this issue by everyone and it is contemptible that you even still try to peddle this card!
-I mean really, you need to stop coming across like a badly broken record on this.
-I really find it hard to believe that you are actually too stupid to understand the difference between a travel ADVISORY and a travel BAN. Therefore, I can only include that you are lying intentionally on this.
-All you had to add this time around in your defense on that issue was pointing to the fact that Obama stated he knew the difference between Shia & Sunni???
REALLY? ROTFL!
Um, you do realize that those are some of the two most basic factions in Islamic practice? Just because the average American has little knowledge of the world beyond his doorstep doesn’t mean that you should be proud of simple basic ignorance or be able to infer anything from it, just because others aren’t as ignorant as you!
So in Mario land, if someone didn’t realize that in Ireland there has been a long standing conflict between two prominent Christian factions (Catholics & Protestants) then I guess that must imply some sinister or ulterior reasoning behind their “knowledge”, eh? *faceplant*
Meg needs to get out in front of the Birther issue before Friday!
Welcome to the US where knowledge has become a cause for suspicion… Especially when coming from politicians.
The standard has been set lower and lower with some of our more recent presidents.
Mario says a lot of silly stuff, including:
Um, yeah. Gee…how did that “Challenge to McCain” go again? I seem to recall that the Senate came together and quickly, easily and quite handily passed a resolution that they agreed his unusual situation was qualified as NBC and therefore they had no problems with his running for POTUS.
I seem to recall that Obama & HRC, both of whom would have been his main opposition threat, were fully championing & supporting his being qualified.
I don’t seem to have heard much from the media as follow-up to this non-issue.
I don’t seem to recall very many lawsuits against McCain on this issue, other than by a few few nuts, including a few of the birther cases.
I don’t seem to recall the issue being a factor when he was running in 2000 either.
So again, what silly nonsense point about McCain are you trying to make here? Other than birther-types, nobody really cares or saw that as a problem either.
Mario is always good for a laugh. As Greg pointed out your response makes no sense. The fact that you are continuing to back your false claim about a travel ban is pathetic at best. In your history lesson you posted no where did it indicate that there was a BAN ON TRAVEL for Americans. You have never provided any evidence of Americans having any problems traveling to Pakistan, having issues with the government of Pakistan, or being prevented to leave because they had an American passport. Basically what you are attempting to do is not supply proof of a BAN by alluding to the possibility that Americans could have a difficult time there without providing any proof that any difficulties for Americans ever happened. But this is par for the course for Mario. He attempts to distract from the issue and creates a list of irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with the original issue, which was there was no travel ban for Americans in 1981 in Pakistan.
It means that Mario stated an untruth in his statement, which was our entire point. No matter how Marion tries to dance around the issue the fact remains. THERE WAS NO BAN ON TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS TRAVELING ON A US PASSPORT. I think Mario must think that the readers of this blog are as ignorant and willing to believe anything like the birthers are. And this is where he makes his mistake. I really don’t think that he thought that anyone would do research and catch him in the lie about Pakistan. And now he can’t go back because of how it would make him look. So he is hoping that we are all dumb to believe that a BAN and a TRAVEL ADVISORY mean the same thing. Which we all know they don’t. What Mario doesn’t realize that by continuing to perpetuate his Pakistan lie, he allows everyone to cast doubt on the rest of his so called complaint.
Luckily for Mario, the only issue in front of the Appeals Court is the issue of standing.
Justice Gray was wrong about the law, which was pointed out by the Government and prior Supreme Court cases and authorities in the dissenting opinion and even in sources not cited by either the majority or the dissent, but he is right about not addressing the dissents’ comment about Wong becoming President because his decision only defined a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen” which is consistent with the way that every Supreme Court and virtually every court and legal scholar except you has interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the 112 years since it was handed down.
This isn’t rocket science, Greg.
Greg,
You argument is pointless. We all know what the English common law was before the Revolution and that English statutes before the Revolution abrogated the common law. What we need to address is what was the American rule of decision on defining national citizenship after the adoption of the Constitution.
Your floundering when trying to make a point with the Chin Bow case shows that the case really does not say anything that helps you. Nice try.
nbc,
I see that you are still carrying water.
Mario Apuzzo says: “The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared,” insist the State Department travel advisory. ” “We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared,” added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel.
Mario is using an article about a travel advisory for LONDON as his definition that a travel advisory is a big bad scary thing. LONDON?? Not to mention that the article is incorrect and there’s no such advisory.
Sometimes I suspect Mario is pulling our legs. Other times, I wonder about those dry martinis.
Which is why you can’t cite a single source since Wong that says so. There’s not a single person other than you, Leo and Orly (don’t you hate being in the same group as those wannabes, Mario?) that think that the child of an alien can’t be President.
The government lost in Wong, and recognized their loss, never arguing again that the children of aliens were anything other than natural born citizens.
No court has ever revived even a jot or tittle of Fuller’s dissent despite the opportunity, most recently in response to amici in Hamdi.
As to why Gray didn’t address Fuller’s statement about the Presidency, I note that you’re resorting to mind reading again. The decision never explicitly says that WKA is not eligible for the Presidency, which you take as victory.
However, as I’ve stated before, that’s clearly a misreading of Wong. I ask again: What do you think that WKA is based on?
I think, based on reading it very carefully, that it is saying that NBC is exactly the same as NBS.
You seem to think something else. But, you never say what.
How, according to Gray, does Wong become a citizen.
Break down the decision for me. Gray is clearly talking about how NBS is exactly the same as NBC in the third part of the decision (pp. 658-666). Where does he shift to talking about a third type of citizen – native, but not natural born? Where does he get to the point in the decision where WKA’s citizenship is not based on the equality of NBS and NBC?
Gray didn’t address Fuller’s statement on the Presidency because he didn’t need to. Everyone, the Government, Wong’s side, the Dissent and Gray, understood that if Wong was a citizen by birth, he was eligible for the Presidency!
Better carry water than what’s in chamber pots like you.
Black Lion: And now [Mario Apuzzo] can’t go back because of how it would make him look.
And precisely how does Mr. Apuzzo look if he doesn’t correct his error?
Scientist,
Is nepotism, self-dealing, hypocricy, and corruption your cup of tea? I gather from the tone of your question that it is.
misha,
Maybe you can hire me as your attorney.
What do you have Misha to offer? Any proven track record?
Remarkable, everyone was wrong… And yet Justice Grey’s ruling was well documented and cited approvingly many times. And Justice Fuller stated that as long as WKA stands, a child born to aliens on US soil would be eligible.
So good luck on getting Wong Kim Ark repealed…
It ain’t gonna happen…
Good luck anyway on convincing the Appeals Court that you have standing…
brygenon,
I did not write the headline. Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. I will inform Reverend Wright and management about it and request that corrective action be taken immediately. You will see the correction in our next ad.
Management thanks you for your valuable input in helping us keep our standard high.
No one “challenged” McCain. It was simply a question of whether, having been born in Panama, McCain qualified as a natural born citizen. This was a real legal question, not a made-up one like the whole “both parent have to be citizens” thing.
I don’t remember anyone claiming that McCain’s father was not his father, or that his mother was not his mother. Nobody smeared him as a criminal or declared him unpatriotic for policy proposals that they disagreed with. Nobody invented an entire alternate theory of natural born citizenship in an effort to disqualify him. And, most of all, nobody invented an entire imaginary history for McCain with no supporting, real-world evidence to back it up. McCain is white and President Obama is black. So it is no difficut to attribute the different treatment meted out to the two men to race, because no other explanation really makes sense.
Abrogated, Mario?
Mark Twain writes of the difference between the RIGHT word and the word that seems right – lightning/lightning-bug!
If any statute had abrogated the common law, there would be no Weedin Chin Bow case. Bow’s grandpa was a citizen because the common law was NOT abrogated.
Greg: [Mario Apuzzo] made a claim in a verified complaint that was demonstrably false upon five minutes of research on the internet, Mario. I understand why you are furiously trying to obfuscate on the issue. If I had committed such an ethical lapse, I might be tempted to do so as well.
Having done original research on this question before a hundred web sites pointed to the NY times article, and totally not finding the Travel Advisory through my own efforts, I have some sympathy with one who didn’t have proof the claims were false.
What I have NO SYMPATHY for is someone asserting a claim for which they have no evidence, a claim that is nothing more than a rumor. That is unethical, irresponsible, and in the political realm unpatriotic.
Black Lion,
The real issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he went to Pakistan. Whatever travel restrictions Pakistan may have had (travel ban or travel advisory) is not dispositive of that question. Why do you fail to see such a simple point?
I know that you have to keep repeating that travel ban thing because you believe that it makes the obot side look so good. But please, answer the simple question and stop deflating the issue: what passport did Obama travel with when in visited Pakistan in 1981? (no guessing please).
Ooh- there was a traffic accident on the freeway here and they just announced a traffic advisory recommending drivers avoid that area.
Or as Mario would put it- there is a defacto ban on traffic on the freeway.
But the issue of the passport was linked to the non-existent ban… Without the ban, the argument breaks down.
Simple really…
You’re a funny guy Mario… Logic does not seem to be a strong point of yours though.
JoZeppy,
I am afraid you did not answer the question. The question is not why McCain was initially challenged on elgibility and Obama was not. The question is why can people challenge McCain and not be called racists but if people challenge Obama they are called racists?
Please refer to my article: The African Race.
Because there was a scholarly reason to doubt the eligibility of McCain?
In the case of Obama, there is no such foundation.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Sometimes I wonder about you. Don’t you think people did not care to continue challenging McCain because he lost and people continue to challenge Obama because he won.
Come on, Doc!
DCH,
It sounds like you watch a lot of sci-fi movies.
Alas now we have the traditional “I didn’t REALlY say that” from Mario…..
Mario,
You specific original statement was that Obama could not have travelled to Pakistan, on his US passport due to a (non existent) travel ban.
Now you have been multiply rebutted suddenly your stance is that what you really said was he never actually had a US passport….along with, as usual neither substantiation or fact.
I personally have no proof that you are not in fact the illegitimate get of a baboon and a slime mould….I mean I have never seen any genetic analysis….just saying.
Equally valid as your stance.
Next?
For the same reason some people can burn firewood but if you burn just one cross…
The issue is not travel ban or travel advisory. The issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he visited Pakistan in 1981? (no guessing please).
Black Lion,
The issue is not travel ban or travel advisory. The issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he visited Pakistan in 1981? (no guessing please).
Dr. Conspiracy,
The issue is not travel ban or travel advisory. The issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he visited Pakistan in 1981? (no guessing please).
SFJeff,
The issue is not travel ban or travel advisory. The issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he visited Pakistan in 1981? (no guessing please).
nbc,
Now you are getting absurd, dud,
The point is what passport did the man use, not whether Pakistan had some travel restriction.
More pathetic burden shifting, mario. There’s no more reason to think that obama traveled on anything other than a US passport than there is to believe Clinton or Bush did.
Are you a real lawyer? Do you understand you can’t just say “j’accuse?”
nbc,
So those who challenged McCain are scholars and those who challenge Obama are racists. You really should stay home, guy.
Greg,
It is people like you that are destroying this country.
“The real issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he went to Pakistan.”
Mario stop trying to dance around this.
You said that this was an issue because of the travel ban, and saying that Obama couldnt have travelled there with an American passport.
Without your imaginary travel ban there is no reason to ask what passport young Obama used to go to Pakistan- after all- no one demanded to know what passport George Bush used when he visited his father in China, when Bush Sr. was ambassador.
“Why do you fail to see such a simple point?”
Because we don’t ask Presidents to prove what passports they travelled on and there is no reason to start now
“It is people like you that are destroying this country.”
Mario’s fall back position
a) first propose outlandish theory
b) defend outlandish theory
c) after having theory disproven over and over accuse those people of ‘destroying the country’
Greg,
Can you read English: No guessing please!
SFJeff,
Admit it you are a loser.
How can I Mario- I haven’t lost a single court case!
This morning I got a call from a client. He told me he is getting married. The local registrar told him he needs to submit to her office a birth certificate before she will issue a marriage license. He faxed one to her. She told him that the copy was not good enough. He asked why. She said because anybody can make up a copy of a birth certificate.
I guess in America a little guy needs an original birth certificate to get married but a guy who is going to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and wield the enourmous power of those offices just needs a computer image of one to be eligible for those offices.
As has been stated over and over, there is a legitimate question as to McCain’s eligibility. He was not born in the United States. And even as such, the question was never raised in his 2000 campaign. As an old white man who was not born in the US was able to run for president without anyone questioning his eligibility, and only 8 years later, when he happened to be running against a black man, who was born in the US, and nonetheless being challenged, racism as motivation is a legitimate question (I’m not even going to wade into your B.S. argument about Vattel and two parents. The only lawyers throwing that garbage around are the terminally incompetent, and the geninuely dishonest. I which catagory Orly falls in, I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself which camp you fall in).
Personally, I think it’s less racism, and more an anti-democratic faction of the far right that refuses to acknowlege the legitimacy of any one but one of their own to lead our nation (see their attempts to remove Clinton that started before he even took the oath of office). But that’s another conversation. We’ll leave it at when you throw your hat in with a B.S. argument that are only supported by Constitutional Law think tank consisting of a DWI attorney, an ex-semi-pro poker player, and a mail order attorney, your motivation is a fair question.
Great company…
Actually not even a Birth Certificate is really needed. The BC was obtained to address another rumor that Obama’s middle name was Muhammed.
The original was open to inspection…
Of course, you would not really be interested in his COLB now would you…
What is absurd is you’re still beating this dead horse. Without a travel ban, there is no reason to think he would have had to use anything but a US passport, anymore than the thousands of Americans that traveled to London based on the State Department travel advisory regarding the saftey of London in the link you provided.
“This morning I got a call from a client.”
Really the idea of you having an actual client is hard to believe.
“wield the enourmous power of those offices just needs a computer image of one to be eligible for those offices.”
And you of course raised these concerns during Bush’s campaign? Or Clintons?
Odd isn’t it- that this is the first time you have this overwhelmingly patriotic need to have a candidate show his original birth certificate?
For all I know, President Obama showed the authorities the same documents as previous presidential candidates have shown. Which is how it should be.
I told you, as a top CIA operative, Obama didn’t use a passport to enter Pakistan. He arrived on a military jet and was met on the tarmac by top officers of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence (ISI) and taken straight to Peshawar.
This is not a guess, but rather a fact.
I can read English. I read what you wrote. But, this is a blog. And you aren’t even the owner of the blog – I don’t have to follow your rules.
Can you read English? The Court Rules are in English. The cases interpreting those rules are in English. They say that the plaintiff has the burden to raise an issue before the defendant has to answer those issues.
Are you unaware of those rules, Mario?
Do you think they don’t apply to you?
Mario-The idea that you would refuse to attend your grandson’s Inauguration because of the passport your son-in-law held is so loathsome that I am struggling to believe it even of someone as sleasy as you.
You’re just realizing this now?
If you don’t believe his birth certificate, don’t vote for him.
Or did you think that Obama would send each and every American their own certified copy of his birth certificate?
“a little guy needs an original birth certificate to get married but a guy who is going to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military…”
Mario – you know very well that all four candidates were vetted. You know very well the IRS gives all four the highest level audit of the previous five years returns.
You know very well the Obamas, the McCains, the Bidens and the Palins had to show a BC and a SS card at the beginning of the audit.
If there was anything to dig up, Clinton would have done it during the primaries. Just like it was Clinton’s campaign that released this photograph.
.
What rules… So far most of the Birthers have raised possibilities but failed to provide any evidence to support them.
Hey Mario- how come you are still claiming that there was a travel ban to Pakistan?
“Maybe you can hire me as your attorney.”
Why? Jindal was born on US soil, and per the 14th, he is a citizen by birth. He was born 7 months after his parents arrived here, so he won the citizenship lottery. He qualifies.
Personally, I hope Romney and Jindal are the candidates. Comedy gold. Letterman’s writers can work on autopilot.
Because it sounds so good.
nbc,
Lucky for you not me.
SFJeff,
The issue is not travel ban or travel advisory. The issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he visited Pakistan in 1981? (no guessing please).
Greg,
I did not know that I had to be the “owner” of this blog to expect an intelligent and responsive answer from you.
To all my friends here,
I have seen your responses to my simple story about the guy needing his original birth certificate to get married. How does it feel to be working for a flim-flam man?
“How does it feel to be working for a flim-flam man?”
Ask your staff.
Mario has staff?
Greg has provided many intelligent and responsive answers Mario.
I can understand why you’d refrain from an intelligent discussion here.
Was it not your ‘argument’ that since there was a travel ban, he could only have traveled on an Indonesian passport?
Take the flawed premise away and there is no reason to doubt on what passport he did travel now is there?
“The issue is not travel ban or travel advisory. The issue is what passport did Obama travel with when he visited Pakistan in 1981?”
Funny I thought that the issue was why did you lie about there being a travel ban?
Why did you lie about there being a travel ban Mario?
Is it because if there was no travel ban, only a total idiot would be demanding President Obama to demonstrate what passport he used to go to Pakistan?
Mario wrote, still trying to flog a long-decomposed horse corpse:
Oh, I’ll bite! Gee Mario, its really simple. The DEFAULT assumption is that like ANY OTHER US CITIZEN, he would travel out of this country on his US PASSPORT …*DUH*
You are being foolish and completely disingenuous to imply otherwise or that the default needs to be proved. YOU are the one who needs to produce evidence that would indicate OTHERWISE. Until then, you’ve still got nothing. Thanks for playing.
Now come back when you actually have evidence to support any of your crazy claims, instead of trying to crusade your case off of mere fantasy speculation.
We aren’t talking about you and me BS’ing on a blog, Mario, we’re talking about the propriety of filing a complaint in court with obviously false statements of facts. Your response was that you were, apparently, justified in filing such falsehoods because you still have questions. I have pointed out that you haven’t met your burden to pursue a case.
Your response is to shift the burden, again, asking that I prove what passport Obama traveled on. As if there weren’t a presumption that an American traveling abroad was traveling on an American passport.
It’s your case, Mario, and I just don’t understand why you think the Rules of Civil Procedure don’t apply to your case?
And you, Mario, are bringing disrepute upon our profession. You are advancing a frivolous claim for obviously inappropriate reasons. It is lawyers like you who make the public think that those in the legal profession will advance any legal theory, no matter how intellectually bankrupt, no matter how completely ahistorical.
Worse, you reinforce the view that lawyers will use any made-up misinterpretation of the law to interpose their will on the electoral system to try to overturn entirely proper elections.
You are deluding your followers, Mario, baldly misstating the state of the law. Those who take a moment to read the law and find it 180 degrees from what you say it is must look at you and conclude one of two things – that you have put the love of money ahead of your duty to your profession and have mistaken zealous advocacy for lying to the public and to the court (best case) or that you truly believe the swill you are spouting and that the legal system has utterly failed in policing out the incompetents.
misha and nbc,
The two of you have such a low IQ that you cannot agree on whether I have staff or not.
For legal purposes, a certified copy is required. Barack Obama posted an image of his certified copy on his web site for popular, not legal purposes. You don’t have standing to ask for one for legal purposes; the court told you that.
You assume (one of those “I wish” things) that Barack Obama has never shown a real certified copy of his birth certificate for legal purposes. It is almost certain that he showed one to get a US Passport, and it is possible that he provided one or more copies in qualifying to be on the 2008 ballot. We just don’t know.
Mario Apuzzo (to Greg): It is people like you that are destroying this country.
Just so the editorial position of this blog is made clear:
Mario Apuzzo: So those who challenged McCain are scholars and those who challenge Obama are racists[?]
No, those who publish in law reviews are scholars and those who publish on StormFront.org are racists. It happens that the challengers of McCain were the former, and those of Obama the latter.
Mario Apuzzo: no guessing please
It is clear that you and your tribe do not know the difference between a deduction and a guess.
In one of your first exchanges with me, you urged me to stay on topic. The topic is the bald-faced lie in the Kerchner v Obama verified complaint about a travel ban.
Stay on topic, Mario.
Mario Apuzzo: Don’t you think people did not care to continue challenging McCain because he lost and people continue to challenge Obama because he won.
That argument works after the election, but it does not work before the election when there was no traction challenging McCain either.
There is one point of similarity. Con men made fake birth certificates for both Obama (Kenya) and McCain (Republic of Panama) and both were filed as exhibits in lawsuits. However, no one hardly heard of the Hollander suit against McCain until it was cited by Judge Surrick in his decision in Berg v. Obama.
Your IQ is so low you think that knowing whether some lawyer in another state has staff or not is evidence of IQ!
Mario, trying to come up with another weak straw-man argument says:
How disingenuous of an argument! This is no different then the utterly weak “my son has to provide his birth certificate to play little league” meme that we’ve heard from you birthers.
OF COURSE you have to provide official documentation forms for various things, such as marriage, drivers license etc. *DUH* Nobody disagrees with that.
You try to somehow insinuate that all Obama has is a digital image of a birth certificate just because all *you* have access to is what he publicly posted on the Internet.
Where your argument is completely and utterly ludicrous is that it requires one to believe that somehow, Obama went through his *entire* life and *never* provided his birth certificate and *all* the other documentation that all of us provide any time official documentation is required. That somehow, he campaigned and held highly visible public offices, traveled out of the US and was privy to National Secrets without having to directly provide to the officials that vet such things the intense documentation and background checks that such responsibilities entail.
The simple and most rational truth is that like everyone else, he’s provided the actual, legitimate documentation needed whenever required and that he’s had to do so many times in his life – likely many, many more and to a much further extent than the average citizen ever has to because of the positions and clearances he’s held.
The simple and most rational truth is that as a candidate, he provided whatever proof was required, whenever needed and that means anywhere where they needed to see a birth certificate, an actual sealed and certified copy WAS, just as anyone else would.
Gee Mario, how do I know you’re a real laywer? I haven’t *personally* seen your law degree. In one of those pics or video clips on the Internet that shows you in your office, there “may” have been such a document in the background, but then again, that’s just a digital image on the Internet, so until you send me the actual document to inspect myself, I must assume you are lying about being a lawyer. And while you’re at it, I think we should all file complaints and tips to have you arrested for driving without a license. I’ve never seen your actual driver’s license, so how do we know you have one? Go ahead and post your driver’s license on the internet to prove me wrong and I’ll just complain that it is only a “digital image” that could be faked and start musing about how did you get away without showing it at a license bureau like everyone else does! Gee, because I haven’t *personally* inspected all your private documents, I should assume that *no one* has and that they either don’t exist or must be a fraud, right?
I think I’ve made my point of how completely, utterly STUPID your whole “birther logic” is on this crap. I’d like to assume that you are smarter than that and just being completely dishonest to mislead your poor, misguided followers. Well shame on you for pulling such a poor straw-man scam on them. And shame on you for insulting our intelligence for trying to pull such lame crap here!
Face it Greg, Mario has met more than his match with you.
Mario says:
Sorry Mario, we don’t work for you, so I wouldn’t know.
Maybe you should find yourself another occupation more suited to your crappy con-man skills, like becoming a timeshare salesman or start carnival barking the Sham Wow.
Kudos, best answer yet, Dr. C!
Exactly! Spot on again, Dr. C!
Nope, those who challenged McCain did so based upon scholarly concern about the eligibility status of children born to US citizens abroad. Those who doubt Obama’s eligibility do it based on a mostly frivolous reasoning which was rejected by the Court in Wong Kim Ark.
You need to do something about your reading comprehension problem…
So far I have yet to see Greg do something or propose something which would destroy this country. Unlike those who want to have a duly elected President removed through anti-Constitutional means based on a poorly argued case which was rejected by the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.
Thank God for the Constitutional requirement of Standing…
Then why did you raise the issue about the travel ban? To underline your claim that the President as a youngster could only have gone to Pakistan on a non-US passport?…
Really Mario..
Somehow I can’t imagine Mario doing a shtick like Billy Mays or Vince Shlomi.
Although, the thought is hilarious.
Mario: our banter here is like Weekend Update. Since it escaped you, please watch this, and then lighten up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Have fun!
BILLY MAYS HERE TO SHOW YOU WHY CHESTER ARTHUR WAS AN ILLEGAL PRESIDENT
Hey, don’t insult the memory of folks like Billy Mays, who were at the top of their craft and did their jobs well by comparing them to Mario…
Think more on the lines of the worst of the worst of 3am amateur infomercial types or low-end carnival barkers. Hmmm…I might be insulting those folks too, as they’re a bit more successful at selling their sham crap than Mario is in presenting a credible argument here or the entire birther movement is in its court actions…
So perhaps a more apt comparison are those shifty-eyed people on the streets that flash their trench coats to show you all their cheap imitation brand-misspelled knock offs that they claim are the “real deal” and just “fell off the back of a truck”…LOL!
SFJeff,
The only idiot is you. You need a passport to travel mental moron.
nbc,
Isn’t that bucket getting a bit heavy by now?
Dr. Conspiracy,
You are a joke to intelligent debate. You really are a charlatan.
Obama has not produced a contemporaneous birth certificate. Obama does not fit the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as defined by several U.S. Supreme Court cases. How is that racism?
Dr. Conspiracy,
I do not know what all the kudos are about. I do not even understand what you are talking about. What do you mean by “either?” Are you saying that there was no traction before the election for both Obama and McCain? What is your point?
Dr. Conspiracy,
A guess is salad and a deduction is salad with dressing on top.
SFJeff,
Moron, to have and use a U.S. passport, you need to be a U.S. citizen. We want to know if Obama is a U.S. citizen. Obama travelled. Therefore we want to see his what passport he used.
“Obama does not fit the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as defined by several U.S. Supreme Court cases.”
OK, name the cases. And don’t even think of citing Dred Scott. And don’t bother with the two dissenters in Ark.
So let’s see it.
“The two of you have such a low IQ”
Excuse me, but I tested to 140. So there.
Really, Mario? The only joke here is you.
On the BC – why don’t you prove to us your qualifications that anyone, Obama or otherwise owes you a personal copy of their birth certificate? Go ahead, I’m waiting. Until then, I think I’ll believe the officials in the State of HI who issue such certificates and have stood by it over you. You’ve got nothing and no credibility on this issue.
On the Supreme Court cases…LOL, please! Go ahead, name these cases and provide the evidence that they say what you claim – I dare ya! So far you haven’t been able to even cite proper court opinions in context that back up your novel notions of the definition and you have previously contradicted what you just said here by complaining that the Supreme Court has defined NBC…so I’m really curious how you back up your about face here.
But of course, we all know you can’t and its just more of your poseur posturing until someone calls you out on your crap.
Moron Mario says:
So Mario, your reduced to nothing put pathetic projection now? The only one making themselves repeatedly look like a moron on this issue is YOU.
Back here in reality, we have NO reason to deduce anything other than the DEFAULT position – that a former IL State Senator and US Senator and current president would be anything other than a US Citizen.
Gee Mario…simple quiz. If you are a US Citizen and you chose to travel out of the country, what document do you need?
Let me help you out, since you seem to be mentally incapacitated – US Passport, dummy.
Just because you and a few other tool idiots have wild fantasies that somehow the President of the US is a citizen of some other country doesn’t make it so.
Go back to basic school and try to stay awake this time and learn that the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Again, what real evidence do you have to support that he has a passport from ANY other country, other than the US?
ANSWER = NONE.
And show me any law or authority that you have that you have the right to see anyone else’s passport? Bet you can’t!
Gee Mario, let me help you out since you obviously can’t tell the vast difference between a “guess” and a proper “deduction”. In logical terms, they are miles apart. The fact that you don’t seem to grasp that distinction is quite telling, and I guess should be self-evident, from the poor quality of your arguments to date.
A mere “guess” is generally akin to nothing more than “wild *ss speculation” – the kind of thing that you seem to be terminally prone too.
Now, let’s move along the spectrum to more substantiated types of guesses, such as “educated guesses” and so forth, and you will eventually arrive at deduction.
A proper “deduction”, as used in the manner that Dr. C used, is much more solid than a mere “guess”. It is a logical process of reasoning that uses the credible evidence available to reach a conclusion. The truth or soundness of that conclusion is backed up by the logical consequences of its premises.
Still in the realm of speculation, but one that, when applied properly follows a rational process so that the evidence supports and drives that conclusion.
Of course, those with impaired logic abilities often poorly apply reasoning and therefore are likely to improperly apply deductive reasoning. For these poor folks, there is likely little difference between speculative guessing and what passes for speculative deduction.
I highly suspect you fall into this category, Mario.
Bravo!
It has been apparently clear that Mario purposefully chooses the “broken record” strategy, repeating the same erroneous statements, rather than admitting that he is factually wrong on an issue.
Re Obama’s passport:
I’m not familiar with your rules of evidence, but surely there must be something between “a guess” and a preponderance of evidence, no?
Personally, based on what I’ve read, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt (as the saying goes) that Obama’s foreign travels in the 80s were done under a US passport. It is not a “guess”, it is merely weighing the evidence before us.
Mario to the Doc:
“You are a joke to intelligent debate. You really are a charlatan.”
Oh the irony!
I have this image of Mario holding the boundaries of charlatanism tightly against his chest and running as fast as he can to enlarge his domain.
Did you learn that in law school or did you used to wait tables?
Mario Apuzzo: I do not even understand what you are talking about.
Prior to the election the McCain eligibility dispute was limited and supported by a relatively few people compared to the Obama eligibility dispute. This is all the more telling because the McCain controversy was a real controversy based on facts, specifically that John McCain was not born in the United States. The Obama controversy was based on unsubstantiated rumors that Obama was born outside the United States. It was only late that the definition of natural born citizen was questioned, and not by anyone with any stature.
Mario Apuzzo: You are a joke to intelligent debate. You really are a charlatan.
You’re welcome to present some evidence.
So, Mario, do you need to be an “article II natural born citizen” to have a passport, or can you be a native born citizen?
You wanting to see the passport is not the same as having made a case that a COURT should make Obama show you it. If travel had been banned to Pakistan, maybe you’d have a case.
Oh, and if when you go to bed the ground is clear, but when you wake it is covered with snow, you can GUESS that it snowed. Maybe it did, maybe someone ran a snow-machine all night.
There’s snow on the ground, Mario, and you haven’t given the court any reason to doubt that it is natural, not man-made, snow. Worse, you swore to facts that would give rsie to such doubts (it’s August) but those facts were a lie!
Mario, he traveled on a US passport because he was a United States citizen by virtue of being born in HI. He was never a citizen of any other country. He received his US passport at the age of 6 when he moved to Indonesia. He had it when he returned from Indonesia. You know the part when he arrives in the US and goes through the line for “US citizens only”…
You have never been able to provide any proof that he had a passport or he was a citizen of any other country. So the legal responsibility is to support you claim with dispositive proof that Obama had a passport from another country. If not the default logicical assumption is that because he is a US citizen, he had and still has a US passport.
However I can see why you want to cloud the issue. You in your overealous desire to be out in front of the birther cause you allowed Kerchner to provide you with false information. And you neglected to do the most basic legal function, which was research. By not doing a 5 minute Google search on “Pakistan trave ban in 1981” you filed a document with incorrect information. Where you lose the respect of your peers is that instead of acknowledging that error and correcting it, you attempt to perform “literary fellatio” on everyone by attempting to change the subject or shift the question and burden of proof away from you and on to the person questioning the veracity of your misinformation. However you fail to realize that only works on bad lawyer shows on TV. The fact remains that there was no travel ban against americans to Pakistan in 1981 and there is no proof that Obama traveled on any passport other than his US one.
Good point…He looks even worse. By not correcting an obvious error it makes Mario look incompetent…And I am pretty sure that is not the look Mario was going for…
Earlier this year, a poster at Politijab gave us a summary of some of the articles written in the NY Times about Pakistan in 1980 and 1981. Some of the interesting ones:
Pope John Paul II went there in February 1981.
I’m sure that the Consul’s letter has been published here, but it bears repeating. This is what the State Department was telling potential American tourists in the Paper of Record:
To the Editor:
One of the pleasures of the Foreign Service is being able to serve in cities like Lahore, and I would welcome an influx of Americans who might have been inspired to come by Barbara Crossette’s piece, “Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History” (Travel Section, June 14).
But please caution them.
While tourists can obtain a free, 30-day, non-extendable visa to Pakistan at the Wagah border crossing (on the rail route from New Delhi to Lahore), tourists cannot make the reverse journey from Pakistan to India through the same crossing unless they already have an Indian visa. The Indians only offer this service, so far as I know, to tourists debarking at airports. We have had a number of Americans stranded in Lahore who did not know this, and they tend to be too discouraged to enjoy the city.
JOHN S. BRIMS, United States Consul General, Lahore, Pakistan
Americans went to Pakistan. Some even lived there. The Reagan Administration’s policy was to not isolate Pakistan. The American State Department was encouraging tourists to go to the country, but cautioning them to make sure their visa’s were in order.
There is simply no evidence that traveling to Pakistan suggests a non-US passport.
We’re left with only Mario’s desire to see the passport, to put his mind at ease.
I desire to see Scarlett Johansson in the flesh (and nothing else) so that I can put my mind to rest that there is any woman more beautiful.
Neither of us have any reason to believe that a court should be involved in putting our minds to rest.
Greg says:
I’ll second that!
Oh & also Greg, wonderful post again re: pointing out the evidence that there was no travel ban to Pakistan.
Agreed with Greg regarding Scarlett….And again Greg comes through with the proof to eviserate the very weak and tepid Mario defense of his obviously incorrect statement regarding a “TRAVEL BAN” in Pakistan for Americans…
Mario- why do you keep lying about the travel ban?
“We want to know if Obama is a U.S. citizen. Obama travelled. Therefore we want to see his what passport he used.”
Liar. If you only wanted to see if President Obama had and travelled using a U.S. passport, then you would have asked that generic question.
But you asked what passport he used to travel to Pakistan. Because of the travel ban you lie about supposedly prevented people with U.S. passports travelling to Pakistan.
Really you just lie.
Seems that you must have turned into a vegetarian recently…
When faced with overwhelming facts exposing Mario’s lack of a historical and legal foundation for his musings, all Mario can do is attack the messenger…
Funny guy this Mario…
“Everyone is wrong but me”. What cases said that someone born on US Soil but not to citizen parents were not natural born citizens or Citizens at birth. Which cases do you have that say that Mario? Did you read the appellate briefs? There are no 3 different classes of citizens Mario. Even Minor v happersett stated that there are only two types of citizens those that are native born and those who are naturalized. If Wong Kim Ark wasn’t naturalized and couldn’t be what was he then?
There is no class of just plain “citizen” neither naturalized nor natural born. Grey’s opinion stated he became at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
Citizen at birth is the very definition of being Native Born, which the justices had used interchangeably with Natural born for decades. If you want to split hairs though Mario the constitution states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
With the wording above and the way the commas are placed it does not say that the person has to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Rather it says one has to be a natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states at the inception of the constitution.
Those two statements are separate. That’s if you want to split hairs with your conspiracy theory Mario and say Justice Grey didn’t say what he said.
Even more Greg in response to no court taking up Fuller’s opinion since then. You’re right. But even more so there have been lower court decisions that stated that children of foreigners are considered native born/natural born citizens of the United States and they cite Wong Kim Ark. None of those decisions were appealed higher. Which is what Mario fails to understand. I may not be a lawyer but I sure as hell seem to understand the law better than Mario at this juncture. Maybe I should go to law school.
“It is people like you that are destroying this country.”
Yeah, because trying to depose a sitting President based on flimsy evidence, overblown hearsay, and guesses with rancid deduction dressing on top is SOOOOOOO healthy for our national political discourse.
How about getting a hobby, Mario? I hear curling’s making a comeback.
the fact of the matter Mario is not a single scholar, judge, or congressman believes the ‘2 parent’ theory you propose exists anywhere but in your mind and in the ramblings of a 18th century Swiss philosopher….not ONE single adjucicated case backs up your position…you are an attention whore and clearly not nearly as smart as you think you are when everyone here can see through your transparent ruse and stagnant, superficial argument
…and Mario…the Hawaii dept. of Health, as well as the Republican Governor of Hawaii have endlessly told everyone that Obama’s birth records are in order, and he was born in Hawaii……ever heard of the Full Faith and Credit Clause dipshit……look it up…it means if Hawaiian officials tell us all is well, legally, all is well…..ugh.
Greg,
I know how you and ballantine like to go off on your long dissertations only to miss the entire point. Maybe I can help your mind grasp the simple concept. Forget Pakistan. Obama traveled to India. What passport did he use?
See my reply….
Mario, there are two questions. The first question doesn’t have anything to do with any country.
Why doubt he traveled on a US passport?
Have you never heard the words BURDEN OF PROOF!??
You haven’t given a case why we should doubt that he traveled on a US passport.
Therefore you haven’t met your BURDEN OF PROOF!
The SECOND QUESTION is why you felt entitled to LIE to a court of law! Ever heard of the DUTY OF CANDOR? You signed a verified complaint that attested to facts that were demonstrably untrue on five minutes of research.
Let’s review:
1. What facts allow you to ask a court to compel Obama to produce his passport?
2. Why did you LIE to the court?
Mario,
Do you remember you filed a complaint? That you alleged certain facts in that complaint? That you alleged certain facts in order to support certain conclusions? Let me remind you what you wrote about Pakistan in your first amended complaint:
A legitimate question.
In your second amended complaint, you write this about Pakistan:
Shall we rewrite it with India substituted:
Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to India in the 1980s. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into India.
So, Mario, simply traveling abroad raises a legitimate question as to what type of passport a person has used? If he’d gone to Mexico, that would have raised a legitimate question about what citizenship Obama used?
So, if you traveled to India, then ran for President, I could sue you and demand to see your passport records? If you traveled to Mexico or Canada, I could call your citizenship into question?
Clinton traveled to Russia while a student at Oxford. No one sued to see what passport he was traveling with. In fact, people were fired for snooping in his passport record.
I could be flip and say that I don’t understand how your mind works that any travel could raise suspicion about a person’s citizenship, but that would be wrong. I have a pretty good idea of how your mind is working on this issue, Mario.
You were caught with your hand in the cookie jar. You were caught lying in a verified complaint. And you cannot back down from the lie because it’s a live document within the judicial system, which, as we know, frowns on being lied to. Additionally, if you admit how clueless you are about these issues, if you admit you didn’t do the five minutes of internet research (Hell, a minute and a half calling the Pakistani consulate might have yielded the same result) you admit violating Rule 11 which requires you to actually do some minimal research before you file a claim. That creates legal jeopardy. It puts your malpractice insurance at risk.
If this is what is motivating your futile and embarrassing defense of this, I have some helpful legal advice. Stop. The first rule is to stop digging. So, stop digging, Mario.
If your argument had a fly’s breath of weight when it was “traveling to a country with a travel ban raises a suspicion that he wasn’t using a US passport” it becomes obviously frivolous to even the most jaded of skeptics when it is lowered to “traveling to any country raises a suspicion that he wasn’t using a US passport.”
“Obama traveled to India. What passport did he use?”
Galactic Federation.
And why does Mario continue to avoid the issue he raised in his VERIFIED complaint?
His “argument” was that since travel to Pakistan was prohibited to US passport holders, it is reasonable to inquire as to what passport Obama used.
Since it was shown that no such ban existed, the question is hardly that reasonable.
Surely even you must understand this?
So why do you continue to avoid the issues?
That’s not a reply…
Greg,
I think that you have over extended yourself. You are now old hat. Time for you to get another job.
You just have not looked in the right place.
Oh the irony Mario, the irony. Greg has once again shown your claims without merit.
It’s time to take your own advice…
Mario- why did you lie about the Pakistan travel ban?
And why do you keep refusing to answer the question?
Why is Mario afraid to answer such a simple question? What is he covering up?
If this is the real issue then why did you misrepresent the travel advisory to Pakistan as if it were a travel ban? After all, the ban would have provided you with some reasonable doubt as to what passport President Obama had used. Now you have… Nothing… Once again you are left empty handed.
Mario Apuzzo says:
We want to know if Obama is a U.S. citizen..
Okay, Mario. As a private investigator with 35 years of experience, I will give you an example of a deduction.
1. Here is a photograph of Obama holding his ballot receipt after voting in Chicago on Election Day 2008. Many members of the press observed him sign in and go into the voting booth.
http://blog.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/2008/11/large_obama-casting-ballot.jpg
2. U.S. law stipulates that only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in U.S. elections.
3. Deduction (not a guess): Obama is a U.S. citizen.
Case closed.
Well damn, so that means any candidate, cannot have traveled to a foreign country , ever? Wow, when we want someone in office who can handle foreign affairs, wouldn’t we want someone , you know, who traveled to some foreign country?
I’ve gone to Japan and Canada, I was born in Hawaii — well damn, that means I can never hold the office of the President huh…
I looked unside your head, but I didn’t find anything.
Well, at least insults are not malpractice, so I guess that’s a step up from your “verified” complaint.
Greg wrote:
And you, Mario, are bringing disrepute upon our profession. You are advancing a frivolous claim for obviously inappropriate reasons. It is lawyers like you who make the public think that those in the legal profession will advance any legal theory, no matter how intellectually bankrupt, no matter how completely ahistorical.
Worse, you reinforce the view that lawyers will use any made-up misinterpretation of the law to interpose their will on the electoral system to try to overturn entirely proper elections.
You are deluding your followers, Mario, baldly misstating the state of the law. Those who take a moment to read the law and find it 180 degrees from what you say it is must look at you and conclude one of two things – that you have put the love of money ahead of your duty to your profession and have mistaken zealous advocacy for lying to the public and to the court (best case) or that you truly believe the swill you are spouting and that the legal system has utterly failed in policing out the incompetents.
—
An utterly brilliant summary of everything that’s wrong with Mario — Meretricious Mario indeed.
But he provides copious entertainment, and his antics keep this blog going.
Mario, he used a US Passport. UNless you now want to claim that India had a Travel Ban against Americans in 1981 also? Anyway prove that he did not use a US Passport. As Greg said the burden of proof is on you.
Greg,
I suggest that you stay out of the factual battle and stick to your preposterous theory that the English Kings and Queens decided who would be President in the United States.
Black Lion,
If I may beg for your indulgence, I offer to you the same advice that I gave to Greg.
Mario-Preposterous? Many of us here think that the VOTERS should decide who the President should be. YOU are the one that is working (unsuccessfully) against that.
In the end, that is why many here detest you. More than the fact that you are a sleezy, lying shyster.
Mario Apuzzo says:
I suggest that you stay out of the factual battle and stick to your preposterous theory that the English Kings and Queens decided who would be President in the United States.
The last time I looked, it was 69,456,897 American voters who decided that Barack Obama would be President of the United States – the largest number of popular votes any presidential candidate has ever received.
Mario, Mario, Mario
Poor soul loses the thread yet again…..
Lets see, has any individual here stated in any way, means or form that English royalty selects the POTUS…..that would be NO….
Based on some of the incumbents over the years they probably would have done a better job but that is for another discussion.
The ONLY even vaguely related item is the factual statement that English common law, as it was at the time of the Revolution, was and remained in use at the time of seperation. Over time this has evolved into the body of law we use.
There are some very minimal elements of Dutch, French and Spanish law from the colonial period embedded therein but the body evolved from said British Common Law OF THE TIME.
The ONLY cotemperaneous (to use your favorite birth certificate word de jour) change was to remove the allegiance to the home country and monarchy.
The Founding Fathers built the Constitution and BoR around these very elements and the Supreme Court still uses those very common law elements OF THE TIME in their interpretations and deliberations today.
I would heartily recommend in your copious free time that you actually READ the various documents of the day, I particularly enjoy the Federalist Papers. Once you have botherd to look to the source material please feel free to return and chat in a more coherent and informed manner.
Lupin,
I am surprised with you. You consider the trash put out by Greg to be “utterly brilliant.” Since when does one lawyer have the right to censure another lawyer simply because he does not agree with that other lawyer’s legal position taken in an active legal case? My law professors taught me that there are always at least two sides to a legal issue. Following Greg’s brilliance, I guess in every case that is argued in court, simply because the other side has a different legal position from the opposing side, the one side has a right to accuse the other side of bringing “direpute” to the legal profession. Also, just because my adversary has a different legal position than me does not mean that he is advocating that position for “inappropriate reasons.” I would like Greg to tell me what is the standard in the Obama eligibility dispute as to what is appropriate or not in the parties’ presentation of their case.
Greg has accused me of deluding the public. If anything, he is accusing the public of not having the intelligence to read history and case law on its own and come away with an understanding of what it says. This is typical of lawyers who believe that ordinary people do not have the intelligence to understand the law. People can read for themselves what our Founders and Supreme Court said. They can make up their own mind. I have not deluded anyone.
Greg is a downright liar when he says that I have put the love of money ahead of my duty to my profession. He makes such a statement not knowing anything about the subject.
Greg, alleges that he is a lawyer. He is advocating Obama’s position. Has he also put love of money ahead of his duty to his profession. What gives him the right to proclaim that it is fine for him to be an advocate for Obama because he is doing it for the “right” reasons but it is not alright for me to be an advocate against Obama because my reasons are “wrong?”
The only one that is incompetent is Greg for taking such frivilous, unreasonable, and outlandish positions.
Greg needs to understand that people have a right to their opinions and that the world does not revolve around him.
Scientist,
May I offer to you that you go dissect a cat somewhere.
Bovril,
I would appreciate it if you could make some intelligent comment about the issue we are discussing, i.e., who is eligible to be President of the United States. Do not bore me with your flowery prose.
Rickey,
I see you are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. May I be so bold to ask you whatever happened to the rule of law in your little dissertation?
Statements of fact are flowey prose?
Only alas in Mario World
Come on, you can do better than that, at least in your own mind.
Care to actually answer any points?
So, are you prepared, now, to explain how, factually it is correct to say there was a travel ban when the Consul General of Pakistan was encouraging Americans to travel there in the New York Times in 1981?
Probably not. That would be digging. Better to stick to insults.
“Preposterous?” Mario, is English your first language?
I can find dozens of examples of scholars, judges, columnists, lawyers, etc. endorsing the view that born here = eligible for the presidency.
William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829), p. 85.
Charles Gordon, “Who can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 1 (1968)
James C. Ho, “Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents,” 13 Const. Comment. 575, 576 (2000).
Jill A. Pryor, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty,” 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988)
Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)
McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967)
Ditto the concept that the US adopted British Common Law as the definition of natural born.
“Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Presidents,” 35 Cornell L.Q. 357, 358-59 (1950)
You, on the other hand, cannot find a single commenter in the past 110 years who thinks that the children of aliens cannot become President. You cannot find a single source in the entire history of the nation who thinks that the children of aliens become citizens but still aren’t eligible for the Presidency.
Who is being preposterous?
I guess the whole world is preposterous and only Mario gets it.
An intelligent comment would be to explain how any travel abroad, to India, for example, creates a legitimate question about the traveler’s citizenship.
Mario, you never cease to amaze me with the audacity of your accusations.
You said: “This is typical of lawyers who believe that ordinary people do not have the intelligence to understand the law”
And yet you argue that 69 million people didn’t understand that President Obama wasn’t eligible. Greg and the rest of us are arguing that ordinary voters do understand the law- and that our common understanding has always been that a Natural Born citizen means someone born in the United States.
We are the ones arguing that the voters decided that they had enough information to decide that Obama was eligible to be elected President- you are the lawyer arguing that the voters just aren’t as ‘educated’ as you are.
And you are the lawyer arguing that there was a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981 when American citizens travelled there freely.
Why do you keep lieing about the Pakistan travel ban Mario?
“May I offer to you that you go dissect a cat somewhere.”
Seems we touched a nerve. Mario is acting like a cornered wild animal.
Note to Mario: your suggestion has only frightened my cat, and you owe Max an apology. Thanks to you, he is now cowering under the sofa.
I’ve a good mind to report you to the SPCA.
Mario Apuzzo says:
I see you are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel.
Discussing this with you has become as productive as discussing health care reform with my cats.
Perhaps one day you will display some integrity and simply admit that there was no ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. No official ban, no unofficial ban, no de facto ban. After all, it’s no crime to make a mistake, even in a Verified Complaint. But your inability to acknowledge that you were wrong about this tells us volumes about your character. I would submit that you have more familiarity with the “bottom of the barrel” than anyone else on this site.
We work in a self-policing profession, Mario.
I’m not censuring you because I disagree with you.
You have an obligation to do due diligence before you sign papers you file with the court.
I think you have been lucky in not being sanctioned. You have gotten lenient judges who are okay with entertaining your nonsense.
That doesn’t make it right, or ethical.
This first assumes a legal issue. You have brought a FRIVOLOUS CASE. In such an instance, there are no sides!
If I sued you, Mario, for kicking my dog last Friday, that would be a frivolous case, because there is no way a reasonable reader could conclude that your legs are long enough to kick my dog. Plus, I have no dog. The facts just don’t support my allegations, and a reasonable inquiry would reveal that.
If I sued you for being an idiot, that, too, would be frivolous, because while the facts are less demonstrably untrue (a reasonable inquiry would clearly lead to some doubt) there is no legal theory under which your idiocy is something for the courts to adjudicate.
In these cases, there are two sides, but it is still not proper to bring them to the courts!
Frivolous positions are not allowed in court, Mario.
I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that on several issues you are frivolously wrong! There’s a difference.
But, you’re right, any side has the right to accuse the other of ethical breaches. In your case, those accusations happen to be true.
Are you not familiar with Rule 11? Perhaps you should read what can be sanctioned by Rule 11. For example, see this:
Pierce v. Commercial Warehouse, 142 F.R.D. 687 (M.D.Fla. 1992) establishes the attorney’s duty under Rule 11 to support a lawsuit with existing law. The court held that an attorney cannot mislead the court by contending that his or her argument is supported by existing law, in the sense that the issue has been decided, when that is not true. An attorney must be clear in presenting the argument for what it is. If acceptance of the argument would require extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, Rule 11 requires disclosure and precludes presentation of the argument as though it rested on existing law.
You have repeatedly and consistently asserted that Minor decided the issue of NBC. That is obviously and demonstrably untrue.
Is it your understanding of the ethical requirements of our profession that you are allowed to misrepresent cases with the hope that the public will correct you in their reading? That you can lie about the contents of a court case, as long as the case can be read by the public?
That’s not my understanding of the ethical requirements.
No, Mario, I can guarantee that I am making no money in this endeavor.
Mario, pay close attention.
THIS IS A BLOG!
You did not file your “verified” complaint in a blog.
You filed it in a COURT OF LAW!
You are welcome to advocate in any manner you like here on the blog.
Your advocacy in court is limited!
Blog / Court of Law
Do you at least acknowledge that they are different entities and one is governed by rules of court and the Federal Civil Procedure?
Mario, when you signed a “verified” complaint and filed it with the Court, you agreed to certain things:
That’s why it’s not “alright” for you to advocate in court for improper purposes!
Rule of law? Let’s pretend there were a candidate that everyone agreed was ineligible-a naturalized citizen born overseas to 2 non-citizen parents. What does the law say you should do?:
1. Before the election you should recruit a client with actual standing-a candidate, not some “retired naval officer” who wouldn’t be recalled if the US were invaded simultaneously by the Chinese, the Russians and the Martoams. You would have a full opportunity to argue for the removal of the ineligible person from the ballot.
2. Assuming you slept through that slam-dunk opportunity and the ineligible person somehow was on the ballot, you could appeal to the voters.
3. If the voters disregarded you, and the ineligible person got elected, you could appeal to the Electoral College.
4. If that failed, you could appeal to Congress not to certify said ineligible person.
5. If that failed and the ineligible person took office you could lobby for impeachment.
What you could NOT do, even with an absolutely, positively, unquestionably ineligible person is go to court and ask them to overturn the election and the decision of the voters and the Congress. THAT would be against the rule of law.
I think something in my recent post needs to be amplified:
Mario,
THIS IS A BLOG
Your Complaint was filed IN COURT!
You can argue all you want here that there was a travel ban to Pakistan. It just makes you look stupid. You can argue all you want here that any travel anywhere in the world means that we should doubt Obama’s citizenship.
Because this is NOT COURT!
Wow Mario…Impressive. After your entire legal argument was eviserated that is all you can come up with? However after thinking about it in more detail that is not a surprise. Advice from someone that at best did shoddy research in regards to a legal filing to the court is worth as much as a NYC token, which is nothing. I think more people are amazed that you would continue to advance a factually incorrect point rather than admit that you made a mistake.
And to top it off you make a silly comment regarding English Kings and Queens? Yet you want us to ignore English Kings and Queens and listen to a second rate Swiss philospher and have that person dictate US citizenship law. What a joke. And you wonder why your case is a joke and you are becoming the laughingstock of the legal profession. No wonder why you try and attack the legal skills of Greg. Without trying he seems to be twice the legal expert that you could ever hope to be.
Fortunately for us you are not trying a case where somebody’s life is in the balance. Mario, Mark Twain said it best when he said “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.” Mario, you have opened your mouth.
Bovril, be careful It seems like Mario is attempting to perform his usual “literary felattio” on you….That is where he true skills lie….
We used a term that was commonly used by Colonial lawyers which they knew because of their study of British law.
That’s as far from saying that English Kings and Queens decided who would be President as it would be to say that you are claiming that Vattel got to decide who would be President.
However, you have stated on several occasions that Obama’s dual citizenship is why he cannot be considered a natural born citizen. I assume this is a sloppy statement of your theory, but it’s one that other birthers have adopted.
This would give other countries a veto power over who would be eligible for our Presidency. According to international law, a nation may define its citizenship any way it wants, either jus soli or jus sanguinis or some combination of the two. Thus, Americans born here to citizen parents could still have a dual citizenship even if born to citizen parents.
Sigh… Greg’s arguments and his uncanny ability to find material that continues to show you to be wrong must be somewhat of a concern to you.
I understand… If someone like Greg can dismantle them, imagine how little chance your client would stand to win his lawsuit, assuming that you manage to convince the Court that he has somehow standing.
By ridiculing a strawman you have shown yourself to be unable to address Greg’s excellent arguments.
I praise Greg the way a visiting French lawyer listening to a moot court argument between two US lawyers would inevitably conclude that Greg is not only correct, but a learned scholar, whereas you’re the kind of lawyer who twists the law, misquotes, quotes out of context, avoids prior answers and, more generally, behaves in an appalling fashion, more suited to traffic court than constitutional matters.
I may not know your law, but after 31 years in practice, for the most part in banking and in Hollywood, I know sleazy and incompetent lawyers, and you are both. (Although in this specific instance, I can’t help feel you are deliberately incompetent.)
Greg has clearly won the day, has reduced every of your arguments to rubble. It is blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of legal experience.
And Mario is not amused…
But yes Lupin, you are correct, to anyone it with even modicum of legal experience, it is clear that Greg hit the ball out of court.
Black Lion described Vattel as “a second-rate Swiss philosopher.”
I understand the point, of course, which is the total irrelevancy of Vattel (which subsidiarily never claimed what Mario & others made him say), but it is unfair to poor Vattel.
Leaving aside the impressive achievement that is The Law of Nations, Vattel wrote several other pamphlets and novellas, including one in which a man is miniaturized to ant-size and explores the world of insects, which may well be the first ever literary work on that novel theme.
Mario wrote:
“May I offer to you that you go dissect a cat somewhere.”
Considering that Mario has time and again accused his opponents of the very same sins that he himself commits, I find this comment rather scary.
What is it about right-wing lunatics and animal torture?
Very funny… Mario is way in over his head here. And this is just a blog…
As to his fantasy that in order to be natural born, one has to be born to two US citizens, well Greg and others have done an excellent job showing that history has been rather unkind to such a preposition.
Oooooh be still my fluttering heart I completely failed to see the foreplay element…..>8-)
So many jokes so little time…”That’s what she said”…..”Leaves a bad taste in the mouth”….”Look…it’s like a pXXXs…only smaller”…
etc etc etc
SFJeff,
I said the people can make an intelligent decision after studying history and case law. May I have the pleasure of your anwer to the question of what history and case law did your 69 million voters refer to?
Common JFJeff, you are not getting this.
Mario: It takes years to make a constitutional scholar (not mentioning the right university and teachers) and you started this when? Two years ago?
You are quite delusional.
Dear Mario,
It’s a pity we’ll never see you given the opportunity to attempt these in-artfully unresponsive dodges in court.
In Greg we have a competent attorney able to authoritatively and dismissively analogize Mario’s extra-legal contrivances, all the while mixing in sparkling spot-on references to Relativity Theory, God’s Evolution, and the Uncertainty Principle; in Mario, we have a dismissal-bound historically incompetent devolving “would-be Orly Taitz”, synthesizing novel legal theories cobbled together from his own relatively unprincipled certainty!
How dare you insult the Framers by trying to turn the Constitution into a noose! With ALL due respect, they would spit on you.
Benji Franklin
It seems that the alternative is not true, that people who have ‘studied’ case law and history can always make intelligent decisions.
May we ask you to what case law and history you are refering to when making your ‘claims’?
As Greg and others have shown there is none other than the excellent ruling in Wong Kim Ark which captured that which courts in our Country had already come to realize. A ruling which was cited approvingly over 150 times and which can be found in prior cases, as well as historical and scholarly documents.
Anything in history that shows that only children born to two US citizens can be President?
I mean… real history… I notice you have failed so far to address Greg’s question here…
The history they relied on was the entire history of the nation. You know they teach that in schools these days.
What case law does the citizenry look to every morning to determine that the sun rises in the East?
What case are you relying on that says:
A. Obama is a citizen; BUT,
B. Not eligible for the Presidency?
You can cite no case.
You can cite no article.
You can cite no lawyer, other than yourself.
You can cite no history.
There is absolutely no intellectual, philosophical, legal or historical reason to believe that such a thing is possible.
This category of citizen is a Mario invention.
Either Obama isn’t a citizen – and you should be arguing to overturn Wong, or he’s a citizen and he is eligible and you should be making the argument for a totally new interpretation of the Constitution that has never been seen before.
It is universally understood (okay, universally minus 3), Mario, that born here = eligible.
It was universally understood when the Judge said as much in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844. It is still universally understood (except by you).
“What is it about right-wing lunatics and animal torture?”
The two go together. See bull fighting.
“This category of citizen is a Mario invention.”
No, it was invented by Leo Donofrio, and amplified by Orly and Mario. You know, they turned it up to 11.
Greg,
Who do you think you are fooling with your long-winded, empty, unresponsive answers? You say a lot of nothing.
“Discussing this with you has become as productive as discussing health care reform with my cats.”
Please. Lay off Max. He’s stessed out as it is.
Black Lion,
I suggest you study some of our history regarding who that Swiss philosopher was.
From your comment, it appears that you are quite ignorant of the history and who Emer de Vattel was.
There we have that irony again Mario… Do you have any idea how funny to hear this coming from you?…
Do you? I somehow have my doubts
But Greg has you on the run with every response he provides, and there is nothing you can do about it other than dodge, distract and insult.
Well done.
“You say a lot of nothing.”
As do you.
Quote me one source, in the entire history of man that says Obama is:
A. A citizen because he was born here; BUT
B. Ineligible for the Presidency!
Is that short enough?
By the way? How long was your appeal, Mario? Your second amended complaint?
Mario Apuzzo: From [Black Lion’s] comment, it appears that you are quite ignorant of the history and who Emer de Vattel was.
Was de Vattel ever mentioned during your law school classes?
He was one of several scholars who influenced the Founders on the Law of Nations, mostly regarding neutrality.
Of course, the fallacy is to translate this into something that logic, reason and history clearly contradict: Namely that Vattel was in any form relevant to the Founders when it came to determining who were and were not citizens…
History clearly does not support such a position, as Greg and others have shown so wonderfully and carefully.
You should be thankful for their help.
Rule 11 requires “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.”
What research did you do before you claimed that there was a travel ban to Pakistan in your verified complaint?
If Obama traveled to India, is that a reason to doubt his citizenship?
Short enough?
Dog fighting and cock fighting are more apropos around here.
Has Mario ever cited Vattel in his DWI cases? Has Mario ever even argued the Constitutional concept of Standing before the Kerchner case?
Surprise me.
“From your comment, it appears that you are quite ignorant of the history and who Emer de Vattel was.”
Until Leo started his nonsense, you NEVER read one page of deVattel. Until Leo started, you never heard of deVattel. You never read his complete book. All you did was parrot what others had culled selectively.
In my defense, I played Mattel’s Lie Detector as a child.
Vattel, Mattel, who cares.
nbc,
Wong Kim Ark is no precedent on the definition of “natural born Citizen.” The court was only concerned with deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” There are earlier U.S. Supreme Court cases that do define a “natural born Citizen,” although in dicta. I have already cited these cases many times. Those cases are more authoritative than Wong Kim Ark.
Short and to the point. I’d say that it’s lucky for Mario that his case will be dismissed based on lack of Standing.
“Was de Vattel ever mentioned during your law school classes?”
Vattel was never mentioned in my paralegal classes. As I noted here before, I have a paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University in Norfolk.
misha,
Your statements are absurd. I see you commenting a lot here on what Vattel said and did not say. I guess you know about Vattel before Leo mentioned his name. Would you be so kind a answer me on this with a simple yes and no rather than your gibberish?
Cite me ANYTHING in WKA that makes him Wong a citizen OTHER than NBC being the exact same as NBS?
In what universe?
If this were true in our universe, you could show that those other cases were cited more than WKA on the issue of citizenship.
They aren’t.
Mario Apuzzo: May I have the pleasure of your anwer [sic] to the question of what history and case law did your 69 million voters refer to?
Obviously we don’t have 69 million voters looking up history and case law (although some might remember their civics classes). No, they rely on real lawyers, like magna cum laude Harvard Law School graduate, author and senior legal analyst for CNN, Jeffrey Toobin who said on CNN:
Or Thomas Goldstein, founding partner of Goldstein and Howe, a Washington, D.C. firm specializing in Supreme Court litigation, and CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst who said on CNN:
In the interest of full disclosure, the particular quotes above came after the election, but are representative of what legal experts were saying.
No. Not once.
Of course, I never took an international law class. Perhaps he comes into play there.
Mario, find me one single reference to Vattel in any modern Constitutional law treatise.
Tribe, Chemerinsky, Rotunda, you name it.
As the Government argued, the case was about the lower Court’s finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.
Wong Kim Ark’s reasoning which led the Court to conclude that it was English Common Law which defined the term “natural born citizen” inescapably leads to but one possible conclusion.
That Minor refused to address the issue is hardly helpful to your case.
Wong Kim Ark is the only relevant case here. Surely you do understand this.
The government in WKA understood this, and the dissenting Justice Fuller understood the impact of Wong Kim Ark’s majority opinion.
Let me remind you:
And that’s why it helps actually reading these cases and the pleadings.
Even the lower Court understood
and
Oh yes, and this one
Which is why WKA was cited in over 185 cases, most recently in Ankeny v Gov of Indiana, upholding that President Obama is a natural born citizen.
“I said the people can make an intelligent decision after studying history and case law. May I have the pleasure of your anwer to the question of what history and case law did your 69 million voters refer to?”
Actually what you said was this Mario:
“This is typical of lawyers who believe that ordinary people do not have the intelligence to understand the law.”
“People can read for themselves what our Founders and Supreme Court said. They can make up their own mind.”
See I assume that voters have read enough to understand what NBC means, and that they did make up their own mind.
You are painting Greg as scornful of ordinary people, yet you are the one saying that ordinary people didn’t use the diligence that you have to discover the ‘true’ meaning of NBC.
But we voters do know. We all learned it in our civics classes in school. What did you learn in your civics classes Mario?
Thats what I thought.
Mario- why do you keep lieing about Americans being forbidden to travel to Pakistan?
“I guess you know about Vattel before Leo mentioned his name. Would you be so kind a answer me on this with a simple yes and no rather than your gibberish?”
I am not the one writing gibberish.
Until the erstwhile attorney, Leo Donofrio, dug him up from his grave, I only heard of Mattel. So no, I never heard of Vattel, and neither did you or Orly.
So stop with the righteous indignation. You’re not fooling anyone here. You may impress the fools on WND, but here it only earns you derision.
So let go of it. Obama is here to stay, just like we had to put up with 8 interminable years of Shrub.
And you better get used to Cory Booker as prez – ‘cuz it’s coming.
Mario Apuzzo, You lost the argument! You weren’t able to refute anything thrown back at you. I don’t wander why you can’t win your cases in court if you can’t even win an argument in a blog. Try playing Orly…you might win LOL!
“let me finish…leeet me finish! Your Honor they are badgering me…I objeeeect! LOL!
I had never heard of Vattel before people started looking for reasons that Obama had to be ineligible.
I am no lawyer, but I enjoy reading biographies of founding fathers, I have read several books about the Constitutions, the Supreme Court, and I do not recall ever reading a mention of Vattel.
Mario is simply absurb when he says that the average person would understand the law if they just read about the Constitution, and then he references a Swiss philosopher that is so obscure that no average person would have encountered him.
Mario- how come you keep lieing about Americans being forbidden to travel to Pakistan?
Mario, I am not ignorant of who vattel was. I just know that he was not even close to being influential to the founders like Blackstone was. De vattel’ so called theories weren’t even his own original thoughts. And a lot of his beliefs would be illegal now. So if you expect me to believe that the founders would use the musings of a Swiss philospher who did not write in English over more established experts regarding an issue that was not even regarding international law, then you are seriously delusional. The De Vattel theory was tried in 1898 by George Collins and lost. What makes you think that 100 years later it would all of a sudden work? Give me a break. Mario = epic fail.
Jeff, Mario lies about Pakistan because he is not man enough to admit that he made a mistake. So to save face he continually perpetuates the lie. And in doing so loses the respect of everyone here, not that he cares. The point is if you are going to lie about something as simple as the Pakistan travel ban, what else is a lie in your so called filing with the court?
Wong was a citizen of the United States AT BIRTH! Mario!
Let me reiterate, try playing Orly…you have more chances at winning your cases!
“Let meee finish, leeet me finish! I objeect! Your Honor they are badgering meeee!” ha ha ha ha ha
Mario, it’s hypocritical for you to righteously drape with the Constitution, your speculative, Constitutionally uncited Obama assulting inferences about what Vattel’s writings MUST have compelled the Framers to mean by “Natural Born Citizen”, as though your inferences ARE the Law, while at the same time ignoring Vattel’s unmistakably clear messages to you and your unholy quest.
Vattel’s Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 3
Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of the Nation in this respect.
§32. It may reform the government.If any nation is dissatisfied with the public administration, it may apply the necessary remedies, and reform the government. But observe that I say “the nation”; for I am very far from meaning to authorise a few malcontents or incendiaries to give disturbance to their governors by exciting murmurs and seditions. None but the body of a nation have a right to check those at the helm when they abuse their power. ….. it is not the business of a small number of citizens to put the state in danger, under the pretence of reforming it.
§36. It is the judge of all disputes relating to the government.”if any disputes arise in a state respecting the fundamental laws, …(constitution) … it belongs to the nation alone to judge and determine them conformably to its political constitution.
Because the Framers never cited him on Citizenship, you must attribute great wisdom to Vattel so that you can make the misapplication of Vattel’s opinions appear to significantly vomit on Obama’s Presidency. But when Vattel accurately labels you a danger to the state, you flush his authority away with that undigested belly full of legal ethics, you’ve “had it” with.
Benji Franklin
Mario’s latest…
Seems that Mario is slowly dropping his guard.
Fascinating how poorly Mario seems to understand the legal precedent of Standing.
Thanks Mario for ‘coming out the closet’…
Greg: THIS IS A BLOG: [Mario Apuzzo’s] Complaint was filed IN COURT!
As prosecutor, judge and jury on this blog, I sentence Mario Apuzzo to write on the blackboard 500: “I will not tell lies in my verified complaints.”
Source: WND
The bottom line is if your life depended on it who would you rather have defending you, a lawyer like Mario that was at best lazy and made statements to a court that were easily refuted, or someone like Greg, who’s answers were clearly researched and coherent. I think Greg wins 10 out of 10 times….
Speaking of Mario I noted his most recent article over at the other thread. I think it shows the lack of a legal argument that Mario really has…I don’t think he could even make is as one of those “mob lawyers”. If he was Gotti’s lawyer Mario would be buried under the new Giants Stadium in Jersey…
Mario Apuzzo: Greg has accused me of deluding the public. If anything, he is accusing the public of not having the intelligence to read history and case law on its own and come away with an understanding of what it says. This is typical of lawyers who believe that ordinary people do not have the intelligence to understand the law. People can read for themselves what our Founders and Supreme Court said.
I did read it for myself and that’s how I know your legal theories are unsupported by history and case law. I also see the formal fallacies in your arguments, and the propaganda techniques you use to avoid the facts and to divert attention from your falsehoods. You would do better to argue that the general public CANNOT understand the law, and no one but the Supreme Court is qualified to judge the merits of the dispute between you and Greg. That way you could answer any objection with “are YOU on the Supreme Court?”
For the hell of it, I decided to see just how huge an impact Vattel had, so I dug out my books from law school. I’ll admit, before all this hoopla, I had never heard of Vattel, and that’s with a BA in political science, and a JD. Much to my surpise, Vattel was not cited once in either of my Con law books. I figured he must be heavily cited in my International Law book….nope…not even once. Comparative Constitutional Law…zip. Finally, dug out my undergrad international law book. Yes! Finally!…one single reference. A half page bio. This little bio contained a few wonderful jewels like “His major work, ‘International Law: Or, Principles of Natural Law Applied to the conduct and Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns’ (1758), designed as a practical manual for statesmen, became the standard European refernce work in international law and is cited on rare occasions even today….Vattel’s writings, almost forgotten now except in France, have been criticized severly by mordern legal historians.” And of course the one book I could find that mentions Vattel has another fun quote, “[T]he United States and most Latin American states follow the law of the soil (jus soli), according to which mere birth on the soil of a state is sufficient to create the bond of nationality, irrepsective to the partents’ allegiance.” And what do you know, they even excerpted Wong Kim Ark…No mention of multiple types of citizens, no mention of a hybrid requiring both parents and birth on the soil, and no mention of Vattel.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Groucho Marx also said something apropos Mario: Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.
The better question is where does Mario get his nonsense? From his blog…
“Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child. Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born “Citizen of the United States” and the other being a “natural born Citizen.” Under current law, a born “Citizen of the United States” is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born “Citizen of the United States.” Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “natural born Citizen,” we have a different story.
To understand what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we have to revert to the Founding era to determine what the Founders and Framers intended that clause to mean. In analyzing what meaning the Framer’s gave to the “natural born Citizen” clause, we must remember that they wrote the Constitution in the historical context of having won a Revolution and in having to constitute a new society. They were inspired by and found justification in the political philosophy of natural law and the law of nations and not that of the English common law in going forward with that Revolution and they relied on that same law when defining national citizenship. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution grandfathered all persons to be eligible to be President who were “Citizens of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted. These persons would have been adults who were born in the colonies, children born in the new states, or adults inhabiting or naturalized under the naturalization laws in either place, at the time that the Constitution was adopted, provided they all adhered to the American Revolution. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) explained that under English common law that prevailed in the colonies these original citizens included persons who were born in the colonies or new states to alien parents. These original citizens, whether born in the country or out of it, were all naturalized to be “citizens of the United States” by simply adhering to the American Revolution. The Founders in Article II grandfathered these “citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided that they were such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which we know occurred on September 17, 1787. The grandfather clause is obsolete today.”
Mario can cut and parse with the best of them. I especially like how is completely misinterprets the ruling in Wong…
Mario about Greg: “Who do you think you are fooling with your long-winded, empty, unresponsive answers? You say a lot of nothing.”
Yeah that Greg- he keeps reciting case law, and explaining court decisions in plain language, and explaining how you violate attorney ethics and the courts time.
Wait- I think long-winded, empty, unresponsive means something different than what you think.
I think what you meant was:
“Who do you think you are, explaining to people how I am trying to fool everyone with my long-winded, empty, unresponsive answers? People will I say a lot of nothing, when really I am just trying to get them to stop asking me about my Pakistan lies”
According to Mario Apuzzo, there are four types of US citizenships
1. Naturalized citizen = not a citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen e.g., Orly Taitz
2. Citizen at birth = not a natural born citizen e.g., Barack Obama
3. Natural born citizen = not a citizen at birth e.g., John McCain
4. Natural born citizen at birth = citizen at birth and a natural born citizen e.g. Mario Apuzzo
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Greg,
You just don’t get it that a “citizen of the United States” is not the same thing as a “natural born Citizen.” Try reading Article II and the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 again.
nbc,
Now you get it. Yes, on a non-U.S. passport. Wow, you are a genius.
“As the Government argued, the case was about the lower Court’s finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.”
This is a lie. The lower court never found Wong to be a “natural born citizen.” It only had to answer the question whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Article II “natural born citizen” was not invloved in the case. Provide the exact quote and page in the District Court opinion if you can to show that you are not a liar.
Cheers
Mario,
You really are a sad sad little muppet
Wow, and yet there is NO evidence… Pathetic Mario, truly pathetic. At least with your flawed claim that there existed a travel ban for US citizens to Pakistan, you had a reasonable case. Without it, you have…
Nothing…
Par for the course.
Are you now calling the Government a liar too? I quoted their reply brief:
Not really a lie now is it…
Pathetic Mario… Can you not even read and to the simple research? I provided you all the necessary data.
Oh Mario, please do not stop entertaining us…
Of course not, a citizen of the United States includes naturalized citizens.
None of your references really help your case.
Bummer
nbc,
Justice Gray in Wong quoted from Mr. Binney:
“‘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.'”
Yes, indeed, the child of an alien if born in the country is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen except he cannot be President.
Cheers
Thanks for this!!
That conclusion is once again evidence of a poor reading skills.
Justice Grey clearly dismisses this novel but somewhat desperate interpretation.
Let me provide you with the full context
Another one bites the dust… Do you never tire Mario?
Binney also informed us that
Sigh
Not only can they, but one is President right now. It’s good that he didn’t listen to you. Many people throughout history have accomplished all kinds of great things that someone told them they couldn’t.
nbc,
The issue is the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” not a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States.”
Mario is still desperately looking for some quotes to support this interpretation… Even Binney, in proper context, did not seem to believe this.
“Provide the exact quote and page in the District Court opinion if you can to show that you are not a liar.”
Oh the irony- you have been shown clear evidence that Americans were not forbidden to travel to Pakistan and you continue to lie about it.
I understand… Your point?
That there exists somehow a 14th Amendment Citizen who is born in the US but is not a natural born citizen? That of course is an interesting hypothesis, since long rejected by the courts and historians.
Born on US soil makes one a natural born US citizen, the 14th Amendment merely formalizes the common law principle.
Interesting point
nbc,
“That conclusion is once again evidence of a poor reading skills.”
From you response it seems that you cut and pasted the wrong information, for it surely does not address what I said.
Try again. I’ll give you a do-over.
Scientist,
Thanks for giving me such encouragement.
As I expected, you’re suffering from some inability to read.
Poor reading skills, I feel generous…
You’ll need it because standing is going to be the end of your case.
Never hurts trying though, especially if you are so concerned about the President’s policies…
Of course, this is why there exists the Constitutional issue of Standing, to prevent frivolous suits.
I appreciate your ability to dig a hole and manage to continue to deepen it.
“Of course not, a citizen of the United States includes naturalized citizens.”
Yes, and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark told us that before the Constitution was adopted it also included the children born in the country to alien parents.
Cheers again.
Something the Founders continued when they failed to provide for a definition of the term natural born, whose meaning was thus to be found in the law that existed before the Constitution was adopted.
I am glad we agree.
Mario says Obama can’t be President. But Obama IS President. Proof that once again, Mario lies (not that we needed any more).
Mario Apuzzo:
Mario, ever suffering from a persistent reading disability, calls NBC a liar and challenges him to support his contention from the district court ruling. But of course, NBC said that the government made this argument. And the citation proving this is here (thanks Rickey, via NBC) on page 2 (at the end of the second paragraph). The government understood that the district found him to be a natural born citizen, and this implies the equivalence of whatever language the district court used and natural born citizen. In the district court decision, the statement of the case says:
The district court then cites approvingly Lynch v. Clarke:
The Court does use the term natural born but the issue was whether or not Wong Kim Ark should be admitted by virtue of being a native born citizen.
The Government clearly must have understood the meaning of native born citizen to be equivalent to natural born, as the rulings so clearly suggest.
The full text of the lower court ruling can be read here
The Court even accepts the equivalent nature of terms
It was me who Mario called a liar. Of course, Mario failed to properly read what I had written… Sad really
“Yes, indeed, the child of an alien if born in the country is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen except he cannot be President.”
OK. So tell me this, Mr. Smart Pants:
What happens if the child born on US soil has one parent born in, say Hawaii, and one parent born, hypothetically of course, on Krypton?
Because that is EXACTLY what happened to our current president!! Ha, ha – joke’s on you.
We know from the Constitution that a Congressman must be a “citizen of the United States,” right, Mario?
So, only people whose parents are non-citizens can be Congressmen, right?
Oh, “citizen of the United States” isn’t its own category?
Yeah, Mario, I get it. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All women are humans, not all humans are women.
But, that doesn’t mean that there is a third type of human. It doesn’t mean there is a third type of non-rectangular square.
There is no evidence that anyone other than you, Leo and Orly have ever imagined a person who was:
A. Born here and a citizen because of that birth;
B. But NOT eligible for the Presidency.
Find me a single case, a single source, a single anything to support your case.
Or don’t. It doesn’t matter. You’re the guy in the back of the room that argues that there wasn’t really a moon landing.
Well, let’s see, the court quoted more than just that one line, didn’t they, Mario:
You know, Gray used that part of the quote to argue that there was simply no support for ANY bit of jus sanguinis. I note you never quote that part, do you?
Oh, and Mario, he quotes Binney in another part of the case:
The same principle? Yeah, the same principle as NBS.
NBC = NBS, which is how Wong gets to be a citizen at all.
Break that part of the equation and Wong doesn’t become some quasi-citizen, he’s not a citizen.
Why don’t you read more of the case than just what was cut and pasted by Leo?
Since only “citizens of the United States” can be Congressmen and they must be such for a certain period of time, it must include:
1. Naturalized citizens; and,
2. Citizens by birth
Since you cannot be arguing that natural born citizens are ineligible for Congress, we know for a fact that number 2 includes NBCs.
There’s nothing in any case to suggest that number 2 can be divided any further.
Lots of people have tried to split the citizenry into 14th Amendment citizens and the rest. They have failed, and failed repeatedly, Mario.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to actually read legal opinions?… Let alone understand them…
Puleez, let’s not hold Mario to standards like that..
Mario! Here’s a shout out from Vattel for you specifically! He condemns your lawsuit!
Vattel’s Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 3
Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of the Nation in this respect.
§32….. for I am very far from meaning to authorise a few malcontents or incendiaries to give disturbance to their governors by exciting murmurs and seditions. None but the body of a nation have a right to check those at the helm when they abuse their power. ….. it is not the business of a small number of citizens to put the state in danger, under the pretence of reforming it.”
AND
§36. ….”if any disputes arise in a state respecting the fundamental laws, …(constitution) … it belongs to the nation alone to judge and determine them conformably to its political constitution.”
Vattel is a silver bullet aimed at you; only a Natural Born intellectual coward would claim that such a bullet bounced off of him and inferentially hit Obama.
You may find the prospect of dumping Obama intoxicating, but remember, Mario, as a lawyer, you’re only as good as the last drunk you placed back behind the wheel.
Appreciatively,
Benji Franklin
Things are very unnatural in Hawaii.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/hawaii-law-makers-contemplating.html
It’s about time they stem the tide of these silly inquiries and get back to business.
“Natural born citizen at birth = citizen at birth and a natural born citizen e.g. Mario Apuzzo”
What an amazing coincidence.
An even better analogy would be, we’re attending a conference on the shape of the Earth.
Greg comes in with NASA photos and other up-to-date scientific data, while Mario comes in Simon Tyssot de Patot’s 1720 narrative, La Vie, les Aventures et le Voyage de Groenland du Révérend Père Cordelier Pierre de Mésange which postulated the Earth was hollow.
“…Vattel’s writings, almost forgotten now except in France…”
And we know how duplicitous the French are. Can’t be trusted.
Mario:
“Yes, indeed, the child of an alien if born in the country is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen except he cannot be President.”
You know, Mario, if you had limited your pleadings (or complaint) to just that single, rather novel, angle, you might have earned some respect.
But I’ve read your complaint: it is a bloated, rambling, turgid, badly written document, full of unsupported allegations, possibly outright lies, most of which are utterly irrelevant.
It echoes the incoherent ramblings of bad faith plaintiffs or defendants before Judge Wapner on the PEOPLE’S COURT in the 1980s.
Since I cannot believe any professional attorney, even you, could write such a piece of crap with sincerity, I have to assume that you’re not playing to the Court but to the peanut gallery out there filling your coffers, by giving us the panto performance they expect.
Further, you might possibly be trying to push forth a well-known racist agenda aiming to disenfranchise children born of latinos or asians in this country. That, I don’t know for sure, but it certainly seems to be your clients’ tack.
In any event, you are a poor pathetic excuse for an attorney. I can only hope that you will be sanctioned harshly for dragging the profession into the gutter.
One of the things which irritates me so much about this ongoing debate is the fundamental misunderstanding of common law, particularly by those arguing a difference between so-called “article 2 citizens” and “14th Amendment citizens”.
Common law is a body of judicial decisions, common practice, tradition and common knowledge which has the force of statute in the absence of statute. For example, AFAIK, there is no law in England declaring murder illegal per se – there are laws defining what constitutes murder in certain circumstances, sentencing and so on, but murder is in itself an offence at common law. Most contract law (in post-colonial states also) is based on common law.
All of this is well and good – however, if Parliament decided that the offence of murder should be put into statute, the common law principle becomes inactive because of the doctrine of legislative supremacy; while differences apply to the US, the same principle applies, that common law governs in the absence of statutes to the contrary. Consequently, even if Article 2 did apply some kind of mythical common law regarding citizenship of the kind Mario is proposing, the presence of the 14th Amendment nullifies that.
It’s not that there is a palpable difference between “Article 2” citizens and “14th Amendment” citizens – even if Mario’s idiotic ideas had held sway, the statute (in this case, Amendment) is controlling. IOW, everyone [born (Added Doc C)]in the US is a 14th Amendment citizen.
Sorry for the long rant, but, well…
Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
Here in the real world, a real court wrote:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Ankeny v. Daniels, Court of Appeals of Indiana
I hope they pass it. I dont want my past tax money wasted on answering frivolous requests, when the 3 person office has to field 1000 marriage licenses a month, on top of birth records request (by legitimate requests), death certificates and health information.
Whilst my tolerance for willful idiots is pretty damn low, this is a sledgehammer approach IMHO.
As opposed to “barring” folks simply list them and send a stock letter saying “You’ve already been answered, that’s all folks”.
Same result and less opportunity for a lawsuit……
One notes that the list of items in favor of Obama’s being born in Hawaii are factual, and the ones against him being born in Hawaii are lies, innuendo and misleading statements. At least we don’t see the travel ban to Pakistan on the list!
For example, he lists the Sarah Obama tape and says it is available for listening. However, the tape doesn’t say what Apuzzo claims. This blog has a link to the audio and transcript; Apuzzo provides none. Telling the reader “the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening” is a bold bluff.
Then there is the Kenyan ambassador statement, paraphrased and mischaracterized. The Ambassador issued a statement saying he was misinterpreted.
It goes on…
Greg: (Common Law in the above quote refers to the tax-evaders/white supremacists and their Common Law philosophy.)
By the way, we have a new class of evaders led by, among others, Cort Wrotnowski: Census evaders. Our buddy Cort in an email campaign is urging folks to resist providing any information to the Census except the name and number of people in the household. He says Congress has no power to pry into our private lives asking personal questions like our phone number or race.
Dear Lupin,
I appreciate your insightful comments from the continent.
You typed: “Since I cannot believe any professional attorney, even you, could write such a piece of crap with sincerity, I have to assume that you’re not playing to the Court but to the peanut gallery out there filling your coffers, by giving us the panto performance they expect.”
How right you are! He’s here to play to his base base, because he knows no court will ever let him insult their intelligence and shame the legal profession in person, with this political sheep-dip dressed in wolves’ whole cloth. Mario’s legal triumphs are necessarily all anticipatory and prospective; President toppling is the platinum period he wistfully imagines might redeem the sentence of his actual career – an endless comma separated listing of drunken drivers.
Benji Franklin
Doc – I appreciate your clarification, but it does bear mentioning that aside from the Presidential qualification aspect, there is no qualitative difference.
This “the Census is an evil Obama plot, so don’t fill it out” meme has really been increasing in right-wing circles since last year. Even Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and some others of her ilk have been ranting more and more about it as of late.
Not surprised at all to see the Birthers start to pick up on it. I’m sure a lot of the Tea Party folks will do the same.
This will probably continue to become a bigger story as the year plays out, so keep a close eye on it.
I’m sure it will soon become worthy of its own blog post entry on this site.
Interesting that Mario is now citing Binney. He should actually read Binney’s famous paper that says the English common law defined citizenship by birth in America after the founding. If he actually read the paper he would know it is comical to think that Binney would think there were multiple classes of citizens at birth under the English common law. There were only two classes of people at birth under such common law, the natural born and aliens. Writers like Binney didn’t always call citizens at birth natural born as it wasn’t relevant unless talking about the presidency. Here he is not defining natural born citizen, but citizen, and “by operation of the same principle” means the English rule of Calvin’s case, which by definition made someone natural born. Duh. He would also find that Binney does tell us in his paper that by the law of England and America, people born within the limits and jurisdiction of England or America were natural born subject or citizens absolutely.
Justice Gray was also talking about the English common law in the paragraph where this cite was and in the same sentence wasy Wong would be a natural born subject. Of course, for anyone who can read english had already told us multiple that natural born citizen meant the same thing as natural born subject. No point in pointing out the language to Mario, just like the travel ban, he will never admit he is wrong.
Yes, he has no idea what standing is. He actually makes a great case as to why this is not a judicial issue as he is airing the widely held political positions of the party that lost the election, not any actual, concrete and particularized personal injury. Time to go back to traffic court.
It is pretty shocking. More evidence that Mario slept through the standing discussion of his Conlaw classes (from his blog):
“In all my 27 years of law practice, I do not believe that I have come across a more absurd, ridiculous, and frivolous legal argument. The United States Department of Justice has told the United States and the world that in America if all Americans are injured, which necessarily means that my clients are injured, no one can sue to vindicate their injuries. It is unbelievable to what extent some people will go to protect their politicians.”
Mario must have a love of irony. If all Americans are injured, there is no particularized personal injury. It is neither abusurd, ridiculous, or frivolous . It’s the law. But I suppose the issue of standing doesn’t come up in DWI defense very often. Perhaps he just intended to say, the issue never came up in my 27 years of practice, and I need to brush up on the subject?
Binney explains on the first page of his pamphlet that his purpose is to “call the attention of the public to this state of the laws of the United States,” so that Congress could address the oddity that the children born abroad of citizens were aliens. He begins explaining the problem, page 2:
And comes back to it on page 20:
So, the law of the US has always been the law of allegiance. “Whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born within the allegiance of the King, constituted a natural-born subject.” The exceptions are on page 16-17 of the pamphlet:
Having explained that the common law of the US was exactly the same as Britain, and that the common law of Britain did not make citizens of the children born abroad to citizens, Binney speaks of the 1790 act. And it’s in the discussion of the proviso in that act (forbidding “descent” of citizenship for citizens who had never lived in the US)
I think the only reasonable reading of that footnote is that citizenship never descends, so the children of aliens are citizens by incident of their birth in the country and are the same sort of citizen as if their parents were not aliens.
The child of a citizen is not a citizen because his parents were citizens – remember, 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.
Reading the footnote further, it is clear that “natural born” doesn’t imply only those born to citizens:
So, his first impression was that the Proviso applied to:
A. the Children of Natural-Born
B. Those naturalized under this act.
So, according to Mario’s reading, the children of aliens are outside of Binney’s first reading of the Proviso?
The divisions Binney makes, throughout the pamphlet are between citizens by birth and naturalized. He never makes a distinction between natural-born and citizens by birth. He uses “natural born” throughout interchangeably with citizen by birth comparing them to naturalized citizens, or saying that laws apply to “natural born” and naturalized equally.
Finally, I think he’s pretty clear on page 26 of the pamphlet:
But the law of France rejects the principle of English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely, and provides only for the acquisition of that character by the child so born, on his complying with certain formalities in the course of the year that ensures his arrival at the epoch of his majority.
He then quotes the French Law, which, remember, rejects the law of England AND the United States. I’ll let Lupin check my rough translation (and I apologize for the lack of accents):
So, the law of France, which rejects the law of the US, is that the child of an alien must attain majority, fix his domicile in France and only then is he a citizen.
So, by simple logic, when Binney says “birth within the limits of [the US] makes a natural-born citizen of [America] absolutely,” he’s talking, specifically, about the children of aliens. He goes on to discuss the effect of the French law (which rejects US law) on the children born in France of US Citizens! They’re apparently citizens of no country.
Well, there could be a particularized, personal injury. If Obama gave every American a paper-cut, each would have a particularized, concrete personal injury.
But, the standing doctrine basically says that as the number of injured increases, the injury must become more concrete.
Mario wants to allow standing based on the least concrete injury one could conceive of (Obama disturbs my peace of mind) and the most general population possible (every American).
Funnily enough, Bachmann has quietened down about it. Interestingly enough, Minnesota is one of the States on the cusp of losing a House seat if it doesn’t give enough census replies. Oddly enough, in an epic bout of coincidence, the seat most likely to fall to the census-taker’s knife? The 6th Congressional District. Guess who it belongs to…
Mario,
I have a question to ask of you. What do you think the legal remedy would be if you were proven right? Who would become president under your conspiracy theory?
Also, please discuss the impact of the “de facto officer” doctrine on your case.
Does the fact that none of the actions of President Obama can be overturned since he’s acting as a de facto officer impact your standing?
Finally, since this is clearly a new interpretation of the Constitution, what is the Constitutional support for applying it retroactively as opposed to prospectively?
And the most important aspect of Binney’s paper was that Congress agreed with him and cited his paper as a reason to amend the naturalization laws to make clear that foreign born children of citizens would be citizens. Unfortunately for Mario and his ilk who must have never read the legislative history of any naturalization debates, Congress didn’t question that the English common law defined citizenship, rather it was trying to determine what was the proper interpretation of the English common law.
A few years later the court of appeals of New York in Ludlam v. Ludlam presented the opposing view that the English common law included both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship. While such court’s intrepretation of English common law was different than Binney, again, even in 1863, the court did not hesistate to define American citizenship solely with respect to English common law, just like Binney, the Congress in 1855 and pretty much every other early court decision had done. The notion that the english common law did not define citizenship prior to the 14th amendment is contradicted by such a mountain of contrary authority it is hard to believe any honest jurist could have ever maintained such a position. Of course, Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong is pretty weak as it is clear he had no direct authority to support his assertions.
Benji Franklin,
Are you hallucinating?
Lupin,
You so last year.
Well done, spamming with non responses…
ballantine,
“Of course, Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong is pretty weak as it is clear he had no direct authority to support his assertions.”
Justice Fuller cited his authorities and he could have cited even more. Justice Gray is the one who made up all the English common law stuff with no support from any United States Supreme Court decision.
Good luck arguing that. Overturning WKA given its popularity in being cited, would require quite a bit of convincing arguments. Arguments you have failed to present.
Good luck Mario.. Of course you will never get beyond Standing.
Hahaha…
Greg,
Binney is correct that a “citizen,” who is a child born in the country to alien parents, is as much a “citizen” as a “natural-born citizen,” who is the child born in the country to citizen parents.
Of course, under Article II, we know that only a “natural born Citizen” can be President.
Yes and a child born to an alien on US soil is as much a natural born and has the same rights. Reading Binney’s quote out of context may have led you down your ill supported conclusion.
Are you sure you have read the relevant works? Or is this just cut and paste? Like the Pakistan travel ban certified claim?
It generally helps to actually research the foundations on which your conclusions rest.
GIGO
nbc,
The only cut and pasting that goes on is at this web site. When one of your scholars attempts to actually argue something, it rarely makes any sense.
I understand your confusion. Legal issues beyond those typically found in DWI can be quite tricky.
However, when quoting, especially conclusions, you need to understand the level of validity of the presumptions.
So when you stated that there was a travel ban to Pakistan and thus the President could not have visited the country on a US passport, your conclusion was based on a flawed premise.
When people ‘cut and paste’ here, they do it to further their argument by showing actual quotes and understanding the context in which these statements were made.
Quoting a phrase without understanding the context invariably leads to flawed conclusions. Binney is just one of the many examples of where you have failed to do sufficient research.
Consider this website as a service to you, helping you better your legal argument. Of course, it does not really matter, as standing will preclude you from having the matter being heard.
PS: You seem to be somewhat confused about the concept of Standing. People here are more than willing and able to give you some advice to help you understand how to correctly interpret the Supreme Court Precedents for this Constitutional requirement.
Mario-Your attempts to twist the law don’t matter. No one gives a damn for your archaic arguments, which even if they were ever true (highly debatable) are simply not in line with the last 200 years of history. You are a dinosaur, a relic, a man passed by and forgotten by history.
While you are pissing into Hurricane Katrina, health care reform is at 83% likelihood of passing on InTrade. Finally the US is entering the ranks of civilized nations where everyone has access to health care. That sir is history in the making-which passport Obama’s father held doesn’t even rate a footnote. Nor will you.
“No one gives a damn for your archaic arguments”
Not true: his amen chorus, consisting of 15 malcontents in a Hoboken basement.
Binney is correct when he says that children of aliens are natural born citizens.
Oops. Back to the drawing board Mario.
Again…
And the Indiana KKK
If Fuller is right, then neither Wong, nor Obama were ever citizens, right?
There is nothing in Fuller, or any other legal source, that suggests someone could be born a citizen but not be eligible for the Presidency.
Mario Apuzzo: Binney is correct that a “citizen,” who is a child born in the country to alien parents, is as much a “citizen” as a “natural-born citizen,” who is the child born in the country to citizen parents.
Yes Binney is right, but that is not what Binney wrote. Binney did not use the words “natural-born citizen” but “natural-born child of a citizen.” I do not think your Mr. Vattel defined “natural-born child of a citizen” but it would seem intuitive to me that “natural-born citizen” and “natural-born child of a citizen” are clearly different concepts.
If a child born to alien parents is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen then if one is a “natural born citizen” then so must the other.
You add words to confuse the citation. Let me add some words to clarify it:
And that, as evidenced by the context, is what Binney meant by what he said.
“The Authority of Vattel,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Aug., 1913), 395, 397:
And, where does the “natural born” section come from? Book I. The least important [section] of all.”
Greg,
Please explain what reason the Framers could have had for providing in Article II that a “Citizen of the United States” could be eligible to be President if he were so at the time the Constitution was adopted and that only a “natural born Citizen” could be eligible to be President after its adoption.
Please explain who the Framers included in the category of “citizens of the United States” in this clause.
Natural born and naturalized.
Duh.
If a person was born within one of the colonies, they were a natural born citizen of the colony, then of the United States.
If they were born abroad, then moved here, they were naturalized, like Alexander Hamilton! He was born on the island of Nevis, so was not a natural born citizen of any colony.
Lawrence Friedman, “An Idea whose time has come,” 2008, p. 142-143.
Now, answer me this, Mario, here are the qualifications for Congress:
What does “Citizen of the United States” mean in this phrase?
Are natural-born citizens not eligible to serve in the House?
To exclude people who gained citizenship through naturalization, rather than through being born on US.
And the former requirement was to grandfather in the people involved in the Revolutionary War but who were not born on US Soil.
Simple really
Of course, but Mario, having read the quote mostly out of context, jumped on an interpretation not really supportable.
There seems to be a trend here, a somewhat troubling one..
Another technical knockout by Greg…
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Still, as I explained to Mario, he can learn a lot about law and history on this blog and people are more than willing to help him understand the facts.
I looked at your blog to try to figure out how there could be a question about this.
You REALLY think that the grandfather clause was put there to allow ALL the colonists to be eligible? Those born there and those naturalized?
Of course, there’s not a single source that supports this notion. In fact, you cite Story and in true Mario fashion, you stop quoting him right before he completely contradicts you:
The italics are what you quote.
Not only is there not a single source that supports your view that EVERYONE was covered by the proviso, every court case that looked at it ruled the same way – if you were a natural born subject of England by birth in the colony, and you kept your allegiance to the US, you were converted into a natural born citizen! See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont:
The Founders did not universally consider themselves naturalized citizens of the United States, those that were born here considered themselves natural born citizens of the United States!
Table of contents page detailing the various types of acquisition of French citizenship:
http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/N111.xhtml
Children born in France of non-French parents:
http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/F295.xhtml
The child automatically becomes a French citizen if at age 18 he/she resides in France and has resided in France for 5 years (continuously or not) since age 11. He/she can also refuse said citizenship.
“Justice Fuller cited his authorities and he could have cited even more. Justice Gray is the one who made up all the English common law stuff with no support from any United States Supreme Court decision.”
Fuller did not cite one authority who defined natural born citizen according to Vattel and pretty much no early authority stating a native child of aliens wasn’t a citizen by birth. Neither have you and just repeatedly claiming cases that have nothing to do with citizenship and don’t contain the term natural born support your definition is just embarrassing. Gray, of course, cited authority after authority including Justices Story, Marshall, Curtis and Swayne as well as the most well known early scholar and citizenship court cases. No reasonable person could look at all that authority and think the English common law did not define citizenship in america. I should say no honest person.
“Binney is correct that a “citizen,” who is a child born in the country to alien parents, is as much a “citizen” as a “natural-born citizen,” who is the child born in the country to citizen parents.”
So you are agreeing with Binney that the American common law was the English common law and it made children of aliens citizens at birth. Finally some progress. Of course, as Greg points out, Binney did define natural born citizen in his paper in accordance with the English common law.
“Please explain what reason the Framers could have had for providing in Article II that a “Citizen of the United States” could be eligible to be President if he were so at the time the Constitution was adopted and that only a “natural born Citizen” could be eligible to be President after its adoption.”
Really not much of a mystery if you do a little research:
“It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president ; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1884)
“The necessity of citizenship by birth, precludes this, by rendering it impossible for any foreigner ever to be a candidate. The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
“Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States pg. 170, 1885
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)
Greg and Ballantine,
“The Founders did not universally consider themselves naturalized citizens of the United States, those that were born here considered themselves natural born citizens of the United States!”
I see that you want to make “citizens of the United States” apply only to naturalized citizens and you want to expand the definition of “natural born Citizen” to include anyone who was born in the colonies. How convenient but there is no legal support for your theory.
Also, how could the Founders be “natural born Citizens” if they were mostly born or naturalized British subjects?
nbc,
You make absolutely no sense. Greg included as “citizens of the United States” only naturalized citizens, even to the point that he maintains the Founders themselves were “natural born citizens of the United States.”
About me allegedly learning a lot of law and history from this blog, that is a fantastic statement (as most of your bombastic pronouncements and juvenile snippets) since we do not agree on one thing.
I am sorry to hear that you are not learning from the excellent contributions of this blog. Perhaps that explains why your arguments remain so poorly founded in fact and history.
Well, at least the people on this blog tried to educate you.
Nbc,
I see you only answered the second part of what I wrote. I note you only like to answer the simple things.
Talking about simple things, you never did answer me on why you quoted in your blog the Jefferson citizenship law of 1779 to read “infants whensoever born” when the correct quote is “infants wheresoever born.” I have asked you at least twice but you have ignored my question. You probably have that Pakistan travel ban on your mind.
Gee, where is your authority that there was some third catagory of citizen. Of course, as usual, you provide none. I, as usual, just cited multiple early scholars on the issue. Justice Story is, of course, saying that the president was required to be a native citizen and the exception to that rule was for the foreign born who helped our revolution. Gee, who should we believe, the traffic court lawyer or Joseph Story, who lived through the founding, knew many founders and was one of the most influential scholars and justices in our history.
Why don’t we ask another of the most inflential scholars who know many of the founders:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
Whoops. Of course, the term “natural born citizen” was used in the Continental Congress and pre-1879 legislature such as Jefferson’s proposal in, I believe 1783, to limit current US ambassadors to “natural born citizens.” Of course, only an idiot would think he meant infants born after 1776.
Finally, we know you have never read the debates from the convention, but the framers born in the states clearly considered themselves to be natives as it was proposed to limit office holders to natives and it was pointed out that some of the framers born outside america would not be allowed to hold office under such provision. Howewver, at one point someone proposed to make an exception such non-natives who were citizens at the adoption. You have admitted that the framers conflated native and natural born, just like Blackstone did. Unfortunately for you, one delegate defined native by place of birth and no one objected.
Mario Apuzzo: … [NBC] never did answer me on why you quoted in your blog the Jefferson citizenship law of 1779 to read “infants whensoever born” when the correct quote is “infants wheresoever born.”
The citation on NBC’s blog is described as a “myth doing its rounds on the internet.” It is a true and accurate copy of that myth, as best I can tell originating from P. A. Madison on his blog, The Federalist Blog. I wrote about the misquotation here in May of 2009. Madison has since corrected his article, but copies of it remain on other sites.
What is misleading is citing this law (in either form) out of context, omitting the important part preceding which demonstrates that this parentage by birth is an ADDITIONAL source of citizenship, not the only source. Following is the larger citation with the omitted part restored in italics:
If you want to learn some more, if you actually looked at early authority you would see that, without exception, it was understodd that there were only two types of citizens; those born in the United States, or those who are naturalized. Gee, should we believe Marshall, Kent, Bouvier or Apuzzo.
“whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country…” Chief Justice Marshall, MURRAY V. THE CHARMING BETSEY, 6 U. S. 64 (1804)
“Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)
“Citizens, under our constitutions and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the United States, or naturalized, under the laws of Congress.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1836)
“They were either native citizens, or those born within the states, or naturalized citizens, or persons born elsewhere, but who, upon assuming the allegiance, became entitled to the privileges of native citizens.” Wiiliam Duer, A course of lectures on the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, pg. 231, (1845).
“Citizen”- A person born within the United States, or who has become naturalized under their laws.” Elisha P. Hurlbut, Civil office and political ethics: with an appendix, containing familiar law, pg. 204 (1840)
“Citizens are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, or duly naturalized.” John Frederick Archbold, John Jervis, William Newland Welsby, Thomas Whitney Waterman, A complete practical treatise on criminal procedure, pleading, and …, Volume 1, pg. 8 (1853)
“Citizens are either natives or naturalized aliens. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. ” John Duer, Benjamin Franklin Butler, John Canfield Spencer, The law of real property of the state of New York, pg. 22 (1855)
“Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.” Theordore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)
“Citizens may be divided into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those bora of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.” John Clark Ridpath, The standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, Volume 8, pg 3058 (1897).
Some more citations from the leading scholars of the early republic on the issue of persons born prior to the revolution, if you want to learn some more.
“If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth. It was admitted, that this claim of the state to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories prior to our revolution, might subject those persons who adhere to their former sovereign, to great inconveniences in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns might claim their allegiance…” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1836)
“At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Citizens of each State, collectively, constituted the Citizens of the United States ; and were either Native Citizens, or those born within the United States, or naturalized Citizens, or persons born elsewhere, but who, upon assuming the allegiance, had become entitled to the privileges, of native Citizens.” Wiiliam Duer, A course of lectures on the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, pg. 231, (1845).
“Native citizens again are, first, all persons who have been born within the jurisdiction of the United States since the declaration of American Independence, on the 4th of July, 1776 ; and secondly, every person who was a native of the territory of the United States previous to that date, provided he remained in the country afterwards.” John Ramsay McCulloch, Vethake, Henry, dictionary, practical, theoretical, and historical, of commerce , Volume 1, pg.27 (1852).”
Dear Mario
My mistake was correct on my blog.
You claim was part of a certified complaint filed in Civil Court.
You do understand the differences now do you?
Or am I presuming too much?
As to answering only the simple things: I adapt to my intended audience Mario.
Mario, let’s go through some things:
“Citizen of the United States” is not used only in the Presidential qualifications. It is also used in qualifying congressmen. Can we agree on that?
Can you agree that if the same phrase is used in the Constitution more than once it should mean the same thing each time?
To be qualified for the house you have to be a “citizen of the united states” for a certain period of time.
Therefore, it CANNOT mean just citizens by birth, since the period of time is less than the minimum age required to qualify.
Do you follow?
It also CANNOT mean just naturalized citizens. That would be retarded! Only naturalized citizens qualify for the legislature?
Right?
Therefore, citizen of the United States MUST mean BOTH citizens from birth AND naturalized citizens.
As to how the founders could be natural born citizens of the US when born natural born subjects I’ll point you AGAIN to Lord Coke’s Calvin’s Case.
That case was extremely well known in the colonies – the founders, in fact, used its definition of allegiance and the dual-obligations arising from citizenship to justify the Revolution.
It explained how natural born citizenship could be transferred upon the complete change of government.
You are engaging in pure projection when you claim there’s no historical support for the notion that the grandfather-clause in the presidential eligibility was intended to allow naturalized citizens to serve as President. Ballantine has listed dozens of examples of historical support.
You, on the other hand, cannot cite a single person other than yourself who claims the proviso was to required for ALL colonists, whether born here or abroad.
Go ahead, Mario, prove me wrong. Quote one source, just one source, in the entire history of our nation who agrees with you about your interpretation of the grandfather-clause!
Pretty big difference between making a mistake in a blog post and continuing to misrepresent facts and law in briefs to a court. Of course, your claim that Jefferson’s statutes required native born children of aliens to be naturalized was a blatant misrepresentation of law that you have still failed to correct, as well as all your other blatent misrepresentations of law we have pointed out.
The Rules of Professional Conduct of New Jersey provide:
RPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
Thanks Doc, now I understand Mario’s confusion… Silly boy…
Why didn’t the Founding Fathers use the term “native citizen” instead of natural-born citizen to describe the qualifications for being POTUS?
Dan,
Because at the time “Native” denoted North American Indian….duuuuh
Ballantine,
My reading of Jeffersons’s law is correct. You and your people here are the ones who cannot read or read to suit your political purpose which in the end will fail.
nbc,
You have not really helped yourself at all. Now when I picture nbc I see a gnat.
On that Jefferson quote, sloppy, sloppy, to just cut and past someone else’s work, even when it contains errors. Did you not think that I would not check your sources and writings.
Mario: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Just curious.
What is your reading of Virginia’s law, Mario? Here’s how the court read the law:
Custis v. Lane, 3 Munf. 579 (Va. 1813)
Add Virginia Supreme Court to the list of people Mario knows he’s smarter than. (The list includes: You, me, Horace Gray, the other 5 Supreme Court Justices in the majority, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan who said the majority was making Wong eligible for the Presidency, every Supreme Court Justice that has served since WKA was decided, Tucker, Rawle, Kent, Story, Hurd, Paschal, Ed Meese, and everyone who has ever written about the clause in the past 112 years.)
African, or European?
I don’t know…aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee….
That must be why you don’t use sources.
I asked you earlier to provide a single source agreeing with your interpretation of the grandfather clause.
Still waiting.
Now, Mario, you are one to talk about checking citations. Let’s just recap for a second:
1. Pakistan.
2. Alien Tort Statute. You wrote:
Of course, Lee, writing about international law also said this, which you conveniently forgot to quote:
3. Vattel. You think it’s two parents, but a sentence later Vattel says citizenship follows dad.
4. John S. Wise, A Treatise on American Citizenship (1906). You cite Wise:
Actually reading Wise’s treatise we find that it doesn’t support any of the claims you make for it. It doesn’t say we adopted more from the Dutch than from the English. It says we adopted a few specific things – public education, transfer of property by deeds. In its 30 page discussion of the development of American citizenship, it doesn’t mention Holland or Dutch influence.
5. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 547 et seq., passim (1909).
You cite him as the source for the notion that Vattel was the “backbone of the American Revolution.”
Of course, one need only read the title to understand that Reeves was talking about international law. But actually reading him we find that Vattel is but one of a great number of philosophers that influenced international law, including Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, Montesqiue, Burlemaqui, Barbeyrac, Locke and Harrington. (p. 551)
Those are just a handful of the times that looking at the source you cited reveals it is at odds with how you’ve used it.
You’re either quoting these obscure and dated sources with the hopes that no one will check up on them, or you’re quote-mining them without reading anything more than the few sentences that you think support your case. Neither option says good things about a lawyer, Mario.
More on Reeves. It really could not be more obvious that you hadn’t read Reeves when one gets to page 560 of the article and finds this:
Dear Mario,
Dan Draper up a few posts asked,”Why didn’t the Founding Fathers use the term “native citizen” instead of natural-born citizen to describe the qualifications for being POTUS?”
and bovril1 immediately wrote back:
“Because at the time “Native” denoted North American Indian……”
Since you are too cowardly to admit that Vattel condemns your efforts to unseat our legally elected President, I suppose you will also fail to accept Vattel’s confirmation of bovrill’s response above.
For of course, by your parsing rules, Vattel defines “Natives” on the North American Continent, only as the savage Indians.
Vattel Law of Nations Book 2 “Of a Nation in its relation to others”
§ 97. Independent families in a country.
“…..The savages of North America had no right to appropriate all that vast continent to themselves; and since they were unable to inhabit the whole of those regions, other nations might, without injustice, settle in some parts of them, provided they left the natives a sufficiency of land.”
Mario, you must have already been a laughingstock within the legitimate legal community you infest before you embarked on this ludicrous quest. Imagine how your wincing colleagues giggle when Greg or Ballantine spanks you repeatedly and you flee to another of your self-created imaginary courtrooms on this blog where Judge Mario never makes you explain the lies and crank legal theories, that embolden you to espouse such historically vacuous drivel!
President Obama has a command of the significant facts and figures of current events, including a mind-boggling extent of minutia, that would make our collective head spin. But he probably doesn’t even know your name. Because as much as he appreciates jokes, he doesn’t see anything funny about mental illness.
Benji Franklin
Well, you should not really hold Mario accountable for the accuracy of his claims…
Come on Greg… That’s putting to much of a burden on our pal.
Honestly Mario, why do you have a higher standard on someone else’s work than on your own?
Weird.
It has been a pleasure in seeing you come around to the side of the facts. Even if that means that not much of a foundation for your case remains.
Poor Mario, he has been caught more than once in being somewhat innovative in his citations when submitted to Court and now he believes that an incidental reference to a quotation, which contained an error but was not even used by me as a foundation of an argument, other than as an example of an introduction, on a blog is somehow a problem.
Mario, if you consider my minor error to be that big of an issue, I must but conclude that you consider your own to be enormous?
Am I right?
Hilarious. Poor Mario, time after time Greg shows him to be wrong.
Thanks Greg for helping to educate my dear pal. Knowing his interest in correcting errors, I am sure we will see him make the appropriate amends anytime soon.
And the list will continue to keep growing….
Mario is an almost eternal source of goodies… Entertaining and educational at the same time.
Let’s hope Mario learns something from this as well.
You are a great educator Greg.
Greg,
Your points are frivolous. You simply disagree with my arguments. So what. You do not decide what is right and what is wrong even though you might think so highly of yourself.
nbc,
Now it’s “pal.” I’m still right about you.
nbc,
Boy, I don’t know how you do it carrying that bucket around all day.
Greg,
You are so wrong my friend.
Benji Franklin,
It sound like you are really stressed out. I hate to break your bubble but you make very little sense in what you say. Try saying something of more substance next time. And please leave the cowboys and Indians alone.
Oh the irony! Mario says:
Really? LOL! So how’s that birther lawsuit record going for you or any other birther lawyer so far? 0 and how many is it now?
I think it is overwhelmingly clear where failure lies…and you are steeped in it.
Of course you are my dear, you are of course never wrong… Except of course…
Well, that’s just Greg…
Of course Mario.. We all know that in spite of the facts, you are always ‘right’.
No worries, we won’t tell
You flatter me Mario, after all, it’s nothing compared to the weight of your lawsuit. That’s physical rather than informational weight 😉
But still quite a load of…
That’s ironic to hear from the lawyer who filed a certified complaint claiming that there was a travel ban to Pakistan…
But enough about frivolous points… Of course Greg does not decide what is right, he actually presents a case with real legal references, historical references rather than ‘quotes’ which on closer scrutiny fail to support the argument.
Mario, Greg is providing you with a rough outline as to how one does real research. Instead of making assertions, you make a claim and support it with actual, accurate and in context quotes to legal proceedings, historical proceedings and the works of scholars.
Maybe I am a bit presumptuous here but have you considered to follow Greg’s example?
What a difference that could make. And all because of your friends at OC.
Well another great late night with Mario not presenting any relevant evidence and calling everyone wrong but himself.
Fascinating… He may be lucky enough though that the 3rd Court of Appeals will likely reject his request for a 25 minute oral argument… Nothing much that could save the suit from the lack of standing.
Mario: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? It’s really important. I have to know, so I’m not thrown off a bridge.
Mario telling Greg, “Your points are frivolous,” is reaching a new Everest in irony.
Simple really
Strouhal to the rescue
The “native” in native citizen is used as an adjective or a descriptor of the noun citizen. The Founding Fathers could have used an any adjective to describe the citizen eligible to be POTUS; for example, “drunken citizen” or “male citizen”.
In any case, a non-citizen is not eligible. A native citizen is the base requirement for eligibility to be POTUS. And a natural-born citizen is the complete requirement for eligibility.
Since native citizen is base requirement and not the complete requirement, then we can conclude all natural born citizens are eligible and most, but not all, native citizens are eligible.
DanDraper (Sven): The Founding Fathers could have used an any adjective to describe the citizen eligible to be POTUS; for example, “drunken citizen” or “male citizen”.
But the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing. It is clear from numerous historical citations that “native born” and “natural born” were used as interchangeably . I am not arguing that concepts are identical in all cases, but that our ancestors used them without making distinctions between them.
Well, technically, I disagree with your arguments and I’ve shown how you are incorrect and the legal community has almost universally rejected your arguments.
I’ve asked some pretty simple, straight-forward questions, Mario. And, I’ve tried to answer your questions.
I think this non-answer speaks volumes about the strength of our positions, Mario.
So… You accuse others of not making sense, and then end with a non sequitur? Bravo, Mario – at least you’ve got chutzpah.
We know you have trouble comprehending english sometimes, but here is the statute in place when the constitution was adopted. A nearly identical statute was adopted in 1791. Merely declares that anyone born in the commonwealth is a citizen and says nothing about them needing to be naturalized.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act entitled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned;….LAWS OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 1783, Henings Statutes at Large, pg. 323
http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol11-16.htm
Of course, Virginia had adopted the english common law in 1776.
“When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.” Patrick Henry, Virginia debates on ratification of constitution, reported in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. pg. 446 By Jonathan Elliot, James Madison, United States Constitutional Convention, Published by J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1861
Accordingly, early Viginia case law followed the english common law rules regarding citizenship.
Interesting question that the founding fathers never answered. We can speculate however. In the constitutional convention, I am not aware that the term “natural born” was ever brought up in debate. However, there was a good deal of debate as to whether the legislature and consuls of America should be limited to natives and, if not, what should be the restrictions on the foreign born.
We do know that the terms “native” and “natural born” were used interchangeably by Blackstone and common law lawyers in England . The terms were conflated by the most prominent scholars in early America including Tucker, Kent and Story. However, I believe the term “natural born” was the more technical and formal term as that what was in acts of Parliament as well as the early constitutions and statutes in America. It is true that native birth generally defined “natural born” under the common law, however there were a few exceptions. Hence, it appears that when the framers were debating the issue in the convention they used the more informal term “native” but when incorporating into a legal document they used the more form “natural born.” Of course, we will never know for sure.
And as a student of logic, you understand when two objects are interchangeable, but not identical in all cases, one object is a subset of the other.
“Add Virginia Supreme Court to the list of people Mario knows he’s smarter than. (The list includes: You, me, Horace Gray, the other 5 Supreme Court Justices in the majority, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan who said the majority was making Wong eligible for the Presidency, every Supreme Court Justice that has served since WKA was decided, Tucker, Rawle, Kent, Story, Hurd, Paschal, Ed Meese, and everyone who has ever written about the clause in the past 112 years.)”
Yes, it is a very long list indeed. Off the top of my hear, here is a list of people and courts that one has to believe somehow didn’t get the memo that birthright citizenship from the English common law wasn’t the law in America after the revolution.
James Madison, father of the Constitution.
The following Supreme Court Justices and cases: Chief Justice Marshall in Murray v. The Chraming Betsey, Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, McCreery v. Somerville and Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, Justice Curtis in Dred Scott v. Sanford, Justice Swayne in US v. Rhodes and, of course, Justice Gray and the majority of the Court in Wong Kim Ark.
The most influential legal scholars of the 19th century including James Kent, St.George Tucker, William Rawle, John Bouvier, William Duer, Alexander Mansfield Burrill, Attorney General Bates, George Washington Paschal, Zephaniah Swift, Horace Binney, Nathan Dane, John Norton Pomeroy, George Bancroft, Francis Hilliard, Willima Charles Jarvis, Lysander Spooner, Elisha Hurlbut, Andrew White Young, John Codman Hurd, William Story, Albert Orville Wright, Henry Wheaton, Calvin Townsend, Furman Sheppard, Edward McPherson, William Cox Cochran, John Joseph Lalor, John Clark Ridpath
The following early court cases: Leake v. Gilchrist, Lynch v. Clark, Kilham v. Ward, State v. Manuel, Ainslie v. Martin, Amy v. Smith, Barzizas v. Hopkins, Trezevant v. Estate of Henry Osborn, West v. West , Garder v. Ward, Palmer v. Downer, Jacksons v. Sanders, State v. Foreman, Kilham v. Ward, Ludlam v. Ludlam, Custis v. Lane, Commonwealth v. Alger and Hutchinson, State v. Claiborne, Tobin v. Walkinshaw, McKay v. Campbell, Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan
A multitude of 19th century Congressmen including Senators Lymon Trumbull, Benjamin Wade, Justin Morrill, James Henderson, John Conness, Representatives John Quincy Adams, Francis Cutting, James Wilson, John Broomall, James Garfield, Michael Kerr, George Boutwell.
Of course, if we go into the 20th century, the list would go into the hundreds.
“And as a student of logic, you understand when two objects are interchangeable, but not identical in all cases, one object is a subset of the other.”
Actually, I think many legal authorities at the time defined the terms exactly the same. However, if one was a subset of the other, it would be that “native” was a subset of “natural born” as “natural born” included chilren of ambassodors born oversees, chilren born in territory occupied by the Kings’ army and, according to some authorities, children of subjects born oversees.
Yes, Custis v. Lane was talking about the 1792 Virginia law which was nearly idential to the 1783 law. And here is the poor deluded Virginia Supreme court a few years later calling children of aliens “natural born citizens.” Seems no one got the memo.
“John, Eve, Chary and Raper, children of the alien John Raper, and natural born citizens ; and Mary and Jane Raper, children of the alien William Raper, and natural born citizens of the U. States…The question was, Whether the whole estate descended to John Jackson, the naturalized brother of the intestate or whether the natural born citizens, descendants of his alien sister, Ann Walton, who was yet living, were entitled by descent to one equal Leigh, for the appellants.” Jackson v. Sanders, 2 Leigh’s Hep. 109. (1830)
http://books.google.com/books?id=mTcTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA120&dq=Jackson+Sanders+natural+baorn&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1776&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1860&num=100&as_brr=0&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Dear Mario,
Me stressed out? You’re the professional laughing stock of New Jersey, Mario. You’re the lying dullard who is cornered by every turn of History! Now Vattel scares you into silence!
Thanks for your yet another ineptitude-confirming, cowardly and sophomoric non-response – exactly what we expect from a weak-ending (sic), week-ending (sic), self-imagined King-breaker.
Benji Franklin
Draw two equal sized circles that overlap for most, but not all of their area. Which is the subset of the other?
There you go again, bursting poor Mario’s bubble.
Nice research…
Logic? or algebraic expression?
A is a subset of B if every member of A is also a member of B. Every set is a subset of itself. The empty set is a subset of every set. The number of subsets of a given set is 2n where n is the number of elements in the set.
Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
You seem close to understanding, Mario, but you won’t take your own lesson. You don’t decide the matter either. You took your case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where Judge Jerome B. Simandle decided it.
Mario, when you tell World Net Daily that standing is a “no-brainer”, does it dawn on you that you attest to your own incompetence? You *lost* on the no-brainer.
You are right that Greg, like others here, simply disagrees with your arguments. We prefer legal arguments that *win* in court, which is to say, not yours.
Here are a couple of resources about what the founders were reading.
An Essay
Top 40 Sources by number of citations.
St. Paul tops the list, Blackstone is number 3, Lord Coke is number 11, Vattel is number 29. At least two international law scholars are ranked ahead of Vattel – Grotius and Pufendorf.
African, or European?
A King should know these things.
There you go again Greg… Facts… we need no facts…
😉
Hehehe…
Bravely bold Sir Mario rode forth from Camelot…
Saint James: The number of subsets of a given set is 2n where n is the number of elements in the set.
You mean 2n?
Is Mario “Don Quixote” or “Elmer Gantry”
Discuss
“Discuss”
Who do you think you are, Linda Richmann?
brygenon,
I guess you are still in shock. When you saw it in print and it said “no-brainer” your probably said, “yes, it is a no brainer.” And you have been sick ever since.
Oh my, another classic example of ‘projection’. It’s a way of coping… Let’s all be helpful in Mario finds the way to the facts, however long it may take.
PS: The ruling in Hollister v Obama has been confirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Another one bites the dust Mario…
Mike the Dullard,
It’s a non sequitur for those of low IQ like you.
nbc,
It is really incredible what turns you on. You really have been deprived in life.
There is that projection thing again… Oh and I got to read you ‘reply’ brief in Kerchner. Just when I thought, we had seen it all…
You should have used that argument in your Kerchner reply brief and it would have improved it quite a bit…
😉
Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
Well I laughed of course, but not enough to make myself sick. I mean come on, Mario, it’s funny: what you call a ‘no-brainer’ is the issue on which you *failed*.
Ballantine,
“’But the appellant, in this case, was born in Virginia. The laws of the state declare, that every free person born within it, shall be considered a citizen of it, and shall enjoy all the privileges of a citizen, until he relinquishes that character in the manner prescribed by law.” Custis v. Lane, 3 Munf. 579 (Va. 1813).”
Even if the court in 1813 was referring to the statutes of 1779 or 1783 which are the ones that I cited, the quote does not prove me wrong. The part of the statute that the court quoted applied to adults in being such as the appellant in that case. You conveniently omit the part of the 1779 and 1783 statutes that applied to infants which did not include the appellant Custis case. Hence, there would not have been any reason for the court to even refer to the language concerning infants.
Of course, we know that for infants “wheresoever born,” (that surely sounds like it included the United States) Jefferson required jus sanguinis unless they were foundlings. Hence, your example proves absolutely nothing and surely does not prove me wrong.
You will have to try again.
The court said what it said, Mario.
But the appellant, in this case, was born in Virginia. The laws of the state declare, that every free person born within it, shall be considered a citizen of it, and shall enjoy all the privileges of a citizen, until he relinquishes that character in the manner prescribed by law. That the appellant has never expatriated himself, is averred in the declaration, and admitted by the demurrer.
The court didn’t look at Custis’ parents’ citizenship, since he was born in Virginia. every free person born within it, shall be considered a citizen of it. That sounds like JUS SOLI to me.
He was born inside Virginia, so they applied the Free person born part of the statute and never had to get to the “infant born wheresoever” part.
Clearly Jus Soli…
Greg,
That was rather dishonest. You know what the statute says. Why don’t you try to address that. The Custis case dealt with an adult in being who was grandfathered under jus soli. You cannot reasonably make the argument that you make without explaining how Jefferson intended to apply that part of his statute to infants. You also need to reconcile the Custis decision with Jefferson’s language that covered infants.
Try again.
Mario, I think you’re the one who is being dishonest. Here’s the statute, with what I think is the appropriate part bolded:
All white persons born here = citizens = jus soli
Infants born elsewhere to citizens = citizens = jus sanguinis.
What I don’t get is how a lawyer with your claimed experience can make such reading errors, Mario.
Oh, and you can call me dishonest when you admit there was absolutely no travel ban to Pakistan, in fact, our Consul General was inviting Americans to travel there in 1981 in the New York Times! Until then, Mario, you have no credibility.
See, that proves Mario’s argument. Obama is not white, therefore he is not a citizen. Score one for Mario.