Main Menu

13 Responses to Chan v. DeMaio

  1. avatar
    mheuss February 28, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    Just as a rule of thumb, I am making a note to never argue with a person named Nolu Chan.

  2. avatar
    Foggy February 28, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    Nolu Chan has been writing about the birthers since the start. He writes at The People’s Forum, and he has made quite a number of original contributions. He’s a scholar, like Doc and nbc and ballantine and so many great contributors.

  3. avatar
    mimi February 28, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Hi Doc! If somebody didn’t already give you a link, Appuzo filed this:

    Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama Petition Objection – Brief on Behalf of Objectors – Filed 28Feb2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Petition-Objection-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012

  4. avatar
    John February 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Wow! That is some brief. It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

  5. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    John: Wow! That is some brief. It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

    Wow, he better hope the court doesn’t read past the first few pages. Am I reading right that his his whole case is based on his claim that it is self-evident that Obama has to prove his eligibility even though PA law doesn’t require it. The same loser argument he made before that was laughed out of court as no real lawyer would simply claim something he cannot support with authority is self-evidenct. Such is soveriegn citizen jargon. And to say Wong Kim Ark says natural born citizenship require citizen parents is so bizarre that it would not surpirse me if he had to face sanctions if the court ever read that far. Fortunately, the court will most likely toss his garbage after the reading the first page. It is hard to believe such morons ever passed the bar exam.

  6. avatar
    Rickey February 28, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    John:
    Wow! That is some brief.It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

    Mario obviously doesn’t know the meaning of the word “brief.” 199 pages of drivel.

  7. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    And still it ignores the simple facts… Fascinating

  8. avatar
    G February 28, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Only the ignorant and uneducated can look at the pompous pontificating of Mario and consider it to be ?scholarly” by any stretch of the word. …Or a total blind syncophant. Of course, all of those labels apply to Toady John…. or as I like to think of him, Grima Wormtongue.

    John: Wow! That is some brief. It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

  9. avatar
    JoZeppy February 28, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    John:
    Wow! That is some brief.It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

    One way to make sure a court doesn’t read what you have to say is to write a 200 page single space “brief.” (who the hell files a single spaced brief anyway??? or for that matter any brief numbering in the hundreds of pages).

    And if his reseach is so scholarly, why hasn’t he ever published it in a law journal? Very amatuerish work here. Just an attempt to throw everything you’ve got on the wall and see if anything sticks.

  10. avatar
    Northland10 February 28, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    John:
    Wow! That is some brief.It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

    I would suspect that John never read the actual article referred to in Doc’s post (or the CRS report either).

  11. avatar
    gorefan February 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    JoZeppy: And if his reseach is so scholarly

    Mario begins by saying that natural born is not the same as native born. He then cites St. George Tucker,

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen

    Nothing like contradicting yourself. That’s the problem with 200 pages of nonsense. It’s easy to forget what already said.

  12. avatar
    Lupin February 29, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    John: Wow! That is some brief. It is over 3 years of scholarly research by Mario Apuzzo put into one brief.

    I am going to limit myself to one thing, which I know well: Vattel.

    Mario is unambiguously and incontrovertibly wrong in his translation of Vattel.

    It could have been a honest mistake, easily corrected.

    However, when the correct translation was pointed out to him, he refused to change his message accordingly, and continues to knowingly spread false information.

    Mario is not a scholar; he is a hack paid to lie.

  13. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 29, 2012 at 3:00 am #

    “The law of nations should not be confused with a book entitled the The Law of Nations,
    written by Emerich de Vattel.”

    And that is something to be stressed every time (de/von/van) V/Wa(t)tel gets mentioned in the citizenship debate.

    1) the only international law that influences, or should influence a country’s decision on who are its citizens is the Human Rights convention, which makes statelessness at birth illegal. International Law in no way RESTRICTS the rights of a country to grant its citizenship to anybody in the world (restrict vs enhance here). The Law of Nations is ab ovo irrelevant.

    2) Vattel’s book is NOT the Law of Nations, it is a book about the accepted 18th century German version of it. In no way would the woman-unfriendly interpretations of Vattel be allowable in international law today, whatever Islamic countries may think about it. Do the birfers know that only in Islamic countries Vattel would still be acceptable?

    3) the translation of Vattel as made in 1797 uses a number of idiosyncrasies that make it unsuitable for use today, except with a lot of annotation. Vattel’s use of the word “parens” with the meaning “relatives, family” is a vital point here. But so is the fact that the translator translated “naturels” as “natural born citizen” because in 1790 “naturels” in French had become a term of art with the same meaning. And that meaning, surprise, surprise, was based on ius soli. (in the Code Napoleon enacted a few years later, this meaning was discarded, and French Canadian uses the expression “citoyen de naissance”)

    4) there is no way a translation made in 1797 could have influenced the framers of the constitution. If they were so good at the French language as is being claimed, they would of course have known, that because of the elementary rules of French grammar, “parens”may actually refer to one person (ie relative) only.