My notes follow the video below.
1. The judges seemed to notice that Apuzzo is trying to use a primary election statute to gain standing to challenge the general election.
2. Apuzzo clearly misstates the law of the United States regarding the citizenship of immigrant children prior to US v. Wong.
3. It was obvious that the judges were aware of the confusion resulting from 50 states making possibly conflicting decisions on a candidate. Apuzzo countered that it was simple and quick, one zip to the Supreme Court and everybody is satisfied, but having to admit that the present birther litigation is anything but simple and quick.
4. Apuzzo argues that “The Law of Nations” was adopted as the common law of the United States. Vattel codified a “universal principle of mankind”. He says that when the nation was founded “there was no other law,” a facially false statement which the judges couldn’t help but notice.
5. Apuzzo concedes that under English common law, parentage is not a requirement.
6. He concedes that the Electors and the Congress ultimately vet the candidates The judge notes that they already did this in the 2008 election. Apuzzo says that he doesn’t know what issues Congress looked at. The clause in the Constitution about presidential qualifications is like one sentence long. How could they have overlooked it?
7. The KGB?
8. Apuzzo admits that the Constitution makes provision for an unqualified president-elect, but then says that’s inconceivable. Well, whoever wrote that amendment conceived of it.
And here is the decision of the court, lower court decision affirmed. Apuzzo lost.