Main Menu

SCOTUS cites Vattel: a shot over Obama’s bow?

I really enjoy making up sensational headlines, and then backing down in the article. In this case the Supreme Court is the current one (not Taney’s racist pre Civil War court) and the opinion was issued just yesterday in Arizona v. United States, a case deciding the authority of the states in regulating immigration.

Justice Scalia, “concurring in part and dissenting in part,” cited Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations on state sovereignty. I don’t know if Vattel would have approved Scalia’s conflation of “state of the United States” with  “country,” but that’s beside the point.

What does this have to do with Obama? In practical terms, it will only excite the birthers who will go all hyperbolic about how important Vattel is. In practical terms, Justice Scalia is already on record saying presidential eligibility is jus soli (birth in the country) and so it doesn’t have any bearing on Obama’s eligibility.

Thanks to a commenter for the tip.

Comments are closed on this article due to the large number. If you would like to leave additional comments, place them here:

“SCOTUS cites Vattel: a shot over Obama’s bow? (continued)“.

, ,

858 Responses to SCOTUS cites Vattel: a shot over Obama’s bow?

  1. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    Apuzzo is already hinting on John Woodmans’ blog that Scalia’s citing of Vattel was exactly that, a wink wink nod nod to birthers.

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    realist:
    Apuzzo is already hinting on John Woodmans’ blog that Scalia’s citing of Vattel was exactly that, a wink wink nod nod to birthers.

    Its very telling that its the only thing Aputzo has posted on his website, since getting his butt stomped in court.

  3. avatar
    Xyxox June 26, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    Joy has been restored to Birtherstan.

    Anydaynowanydaynowanydaynowanydaynow.

  4. avatar
    elmo June 26, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    Scalia has tossed aside Commerce Clause precedent he cited as recently as 2005 in the Gonzales case.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/06/24/scalias_scary_thinking/singleton/

    He’s gone off the deep end. I wouldn’t put it past him to go full bore birther, too.

  5. avatar
    bovril June 26, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    On a tangential note, Mad Ole Orly will be on an Ebil Libural Progressive radio show “The Stephanie Miller Show” and they have for the last hour been mocking Birfoons mercilessly.

    MOO should be on at 11:40 ET

    Link to linkies

    http://www.stephaniemiller.com/listen-live/

  6. avatar
    JoZeppy June 26, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    elmo: Scalia has tossed aside Commerce Clause precedent he cited as recently as 2005 in the Gonzales case. http://www.salon.com/2012/06/24/scalias_scary_thinking/singleton/He’s gone off the deep end. I wouldn’t put it past him to go full bore birther, too.

    Not a chance. He’s had plenty of opportunities to at least request a brief from the respondents, and never did so (it only takes one justice to require a response). Justice Scalia isn’t going to throw away the legacy as one of the greatest, most thoughtful, and seriously intellectual conservative minds to ever sit on the bench, to play with off the deep end conspiracy nuts. Not going to happen.

  7. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Contrary to what you say, Scalia did not improperly conflate “’state of the United States’” with “’country.’”

    Evidently, you do not understand what “Free and Independent States” means.

    The new states also relied upon the law of nations and there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so today to the degree that the Constitution allows them within the context of a federal system.

    Under Article IV, Section 4, “The United States” is constitutionally obligated to guarantee every state “a Republican form of Government” and to “protect each of them against Invasion” and “domestic Violence.”

    Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Both Article IV and the Tenth Amendment express principles of self-preservation. State or nation self-preservation is a fundamental precept of the law of nations. Indeed, Scalia was correct in citing and quoting Vattel.

    What this means is that if a certain rogue federal regime is bent on denying a state the protection that it needs in order to survive as a republic, to ward off invasion from without, and domestic violence from within, there is no constitutional impediment for that state to act to protect itself and to join with other states to achieve that same end.

    Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly. You are so concerned about Justice Scalia conflating “’state of the United States’” with “’country,’” but with impunity you conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  8. avatar
    Lupin June 26, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    The key thing here is that Scalia’s Vattel quote (from Book 2 Chapter VII) is correctly translated.

    Whether or not it is relevant to the case, I have no idea, but I checked it against the original French and there is nothing wrong with the way it is used.

    That is most definitely NOT the case with Apuzzo’s misinterpretation.

  9. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    Oh, yes, Mario, by all means, let’s have a bunch of sovereign states in a customs and currency union. What could possibly go wrong?

  10. avatar
    bgansel9 June 26, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Do you know how to read? That statement gives the Federal power the final authority.

  11. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: you conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    … Yes, how very odd that the entire non-birther legal universe stubbornly inisists on that…

  12. avatar
    bgansel9 June 26, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Hey, Mario… let’s get your mind working on something useful.

    If the ACA (Obamacare) mandate is shot down due to interference of commerce concerns (regulation vs. non-regulation), then what say you about states (such as Arizona) forcing drivers to maintain auto insurance and de-registering car registrations when that insurance lapses. Do you believe states can regulate auto insurance but the federal government can’t regulate health insurance, or are you going to scream at states who are punishing uninsured drivers for not maintaining coverage and allowing it to lapse, thereby causing their registrations to be revoked? I’d like your opinion on this, thank you.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Contrary to what you say, Scalia did not improperly conflate “’state of the United States’” with “’country.’”

    I didn’t develop this point, but my remark was not prompted directly by his citation of Vattel but the citation that follows immediately:

    See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) (“It is a received maxim of International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country”).1

    Being a southerner, I am very much aware of resolutions of “nullification” passed by states and localities in, for example, the area of school integration. The notion that a state can do whatever it damned well pleases except secede is a proposition that doesn’t sit well with me. And if a State cannot do as it pleases, then it is not quite sovereign. And if it is not quite sovereign, then citing Vattel is questionable and I might go so far as to say that the citation was begging the question. I know that Justice Scalia made an argument drawing a line between what is permissible and what is not; however, I still have reservations.

    As for the second part of your comment:

    Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly. You are so concerned about Justice Scalia conflating “’state of the United States’” with “’country,’” but with impunity you conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    This is nothing more than a straw man and a complete misrepresentation of what I have said. Since the beginning, all those born citizens of the United States were its natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment just restored the original status of those born in the country, erasing the pro-slavery decision of the Court in Dred Scott.

    As I understand it under present law, there are three classes who are “citizens of the United States”: those born citizens in the United States, those naturalized in the United States (these two comprise 14th Amendment citizens) and those who are born citizens outside the United States according to Statute (first stated in the 1790 Naturalization Act). Of those three classes, citizens born in the States and citizens at birth born outside the United States are eligible for the Presidency. Congress in 1790 explicitly called the latter class “natural born citizens” recognizing that this simply means a citizen at birth.

    So I very definitely do not conflate 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen.” In fact I say that some citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment are not natural born citizens (i.e. those naturalized in the United States), and further there are natural born citizens who are not citizens of the United States according to the 14th Amendment (those born citizens overseas).

    I think you will find that the judges you have and will encounter in your cases have the same view.

  14. avatar
    BillTheCat June 26, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    God Mario you are rediculous. What a wasted “life”.

  15. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You overstate my states’ rights point and thus put forth a straw man argument by injecting into the discussion the Civil War. Of course, that is what you do best, overstate and distort others’ positions (and appeal to race and color) so as to gain some advantage.

    As far as your use of the Fourteenth Amendment to declare that Mr. Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” your argument fails quite easily. You have no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment either expressly or by implication ever repealed or amended the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. In fact, the amendment’s plain language uses the clause “citizen of the United States,” (and even includes into that class naturalized “citizens”) not “natural born Citizen.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 plainly informs that anyone who is a “Citizen of the United States” and who is born after the adoption of the Constitution is not eligible to be President. The only way that Mr. Obama can be eligible to be President is by showing that he is not only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” per United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that he is also a “natural born Citizen” per Minor v. Happersett.

  16. avatar
    donna June 26, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    mario:

    between you and donofrio, i’m becoming embarrassed to admit i’m italian

    do you have dual citizenship?

  17. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly.

    Yeah, that’s how Glenn Beck got away with a rape and murder – conservatives’ selective outrage.

    That’s not hypocrisy – it’s tribalism.

  18. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The only way that Mr. Obama can be eligible to be President is by showing that he is not only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” per United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that he is also a “natural born Citizen” per Minor v. Happersett.

    No. Michelle Obama makes sure he only eats organic food, so he is completely natural.

    I do the same thing: I buy Whole Foods yogurt which states “Antibiotic Free.”

  19. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Donna,

    Get thee to a grammar school.

  20. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The only way that Mr. Obama can be eligible to be President is by showing that he is not only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” per United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that he is also a “natural born Citizen” per Minor v. Happersett.

    He is. Glad that he satisfied you. You see, someone born in the US was always a natural born citizen, whether pre- or post- 14th Amendment. This included the child of Patriick and Mary O’Grady, born on the docks 5 minutes after their arrival from Ireland. If they were not natural born cuitizens, they would have either had to naturalize or they would have been non-citizens. And, while there were millions of children born in the US to one or more non-ciitizen parents, even pre-14th Amendment, there are no records of such children ever naturalizing. And that includes those whose parents never naturalized.

    I challenge you to show me records of naturalization of anyone born in the US (other than a few diplomat’s kids). Come on, show and tell time. And don’t give me “The 14th Amendment naturalized them”-what about those who died before that? Are you saying they weren’t citizens? Then prove it.

  21. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    donna: between you and donofrio, i’m becoming embarrassed to admit i’m italian

    Do not be embarrassed. Castelbuono is the greenest town on Earth:

    Four-Legged Garbage Collectors Hit Sicilian Streets – “I thought about what went on in the historic center of town,” recalled the mayor, “where the tourists come across these trucks spewing diesel fumes and stinking of garbage. They block the traffic, too. So I thought, why can’t we use something traditional, like our donkeys?”

    Read on: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3160105&page=1

    Cuba – Si! Castro – Oops, wrong country.

  22. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    donna: do you have dual citizenship?

    Of course Mario is a US-Italian dual citizen. There is no doubt whatsoever. That is why he wants a customs and currency union of sovereign states-because that is working so well for Italy NOT!!!

  23. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett.

    Oh, I’ve heard this one before! The old joke where you refer someone to a case that specifically avoids defining the term at hand just do you can say , “Haha! Got ya!”

    Might work if we hadn’t already read Minor. Nice try, putz.

  24. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Donna, Get thee to a grammar school.

    “Get thee to a nunn’ry, why woulds’t thou be a breeder of sinners?” – Hamlet

    Get thee to a library, and learn to properly quote Shakespeare.

  25. avatar
    bgansel9 June 26, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    Apparently Mario is afraid to address my post. Hmmm.

  26. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 26, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Donna,

    Get thee to a grammar school.

    Ha, the Polonius in me immediately recognized Hamlet: Act 3, Scene 1, line 121. Yes, this is Apuzzo at his best.

    Misha, the word nunnery in Shakespeare’s time meant brothel. I do not think Apuzzo is misquoting, he really means it.

  27. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Scientist,

    Prior to the Cable Act of 1922, things were quite different in the area of naturalization for women and children.

    “While original U.S. nationality legislation of 1790, 1795, and 1802 limited naturalization eligibility to “free white persons,” it did not limit eligibility by sex. But as early as 1804 the law began to draw distinctions regarding married women in naturalization law. Since that date, and until 1934, when a man filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen but died prior to naturalization, his widow and minor children were “considered as citizens of the United States” if they/she appeared in court and took the oath of allegiance and renunciation.(2) Thus, among naturalization court records, one could find a record of a woman taking the oath, but find no corresponding declaration for her, and perhaps no petition.

    ***

    In innumerable cases under the 1855 law, an immigrant woman instantly became a U.S. citizen at the moment a judge’s order naturalized her immigrant husband. If her husband naturalized prior to September 27, 1906, the woman may or may not be mentioned on the record which actually granted her citizenship. Her only proof of U.S. citizenship would be a combination of the marriage certificate and her husband’s naturalization record. Prior to 1922, this provision applied to women regardless of their place of residence. Thus if a woman’s husband left their home abroad to seek work in America, became a naturalized citizen, then sent for her to join him, that woman might enter the United States for the first time listed as a U.S. citizen.(4)

    In other cases, the immigrant woman suddenly became a citizen when she and her U.S. citizen fiance were declared “man and wife.” In this case her proof of citizenship was a combination of two documents: the marriage certificate and her husband’s birth record or naturalization certificate. If such an alien woman also had minor alien children, they, too, derived U.S. citizenship from the marriage. As minors, they instantly derived citizenship from the “naturalization-by-marriage” of their mother. If the marriage took place abroad, the new wife and her children could enter the United States for the first time as citizens. Again, if these events occurred prior to September 27, 1906, it is doubtful any of the children actually appear in what is, technically, their naturalization record. The lack of any record for those children’s naturalization might cause some of them, after reaching the age of majority, to go to naturalization court and become citizens again.”

    ***

    Happily, Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.(11) Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men. The only difference concerned those women whose husbands had already naturalized. If her husband was a citizen, the wife did not need to file a declaration of intention. She could initiate naturalization proceedings with a petition alone (one-paper naturalization). A woman whose husband remained an alien had to start at the beginning, with a declaration of intention. It is important to note that women who lost citizenship by marriage and regained it under Cable Act naturalization provisions could file in any naturalization court–regardless of her residence.(12).”

    http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

    So as we can see, prior to the Cable Act of 1922, there was no motivation for naturalization petitions or records to exist on women and children. But the lack of such records does not prove that such women and children were not considered to be naturalized “citizens.” In fact, they were under the then-existing Acts of Congress.

  28. avatar
    Joey June 26, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party, Judge Richard E. Gordon Arizona Superior Court for Pima County.

    “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

    There is no court decision pertaining to President Obama that has ever found that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen and there has been no decision favorable to opponents of the president under Article II, Section 1 which relies on Minor v Happersett or Vattel’s Law of Nations as precedent for a ruling of ineligiblity.

  29. avatar
    BillTheCat June 26, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: As far as your use of the Fourteenth Amendment to declare that Mr. Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” your argument fails quite easily.

    …and yet, not a SINGLE Judge or respected, reputable constitutional scholar ANYWHERE agrees with your assertion.

    Oh wait – Maybe Scalia, who showed with his ultra-partisan screed dissenting from the Arizona opinion that he has quite clearly lost his mind and has been on the bench far too long.

  30. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Misha,

    Get thee to a vision center.

  31. avatar
    Bob June 26, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    I hope Apuzzo understands that he sounds just as nutty as Lame Cherry, Sharon Rondeau, Dr. Kate, Orly Taitz, etc.

  32. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Not to mention that Minor’s entire definition isn’t an exclusive definition…

    What Minor said is the following…

    If you are born to citizen parents, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.

    The birthers have taken this, and gone to a classical fallacy of denying the antecedent…

    They have said, Obama isn’t born to 2 citizen parents, therefore he’s not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Here’s another denying the antecedent:

    If Queen Elizabeth is an American, then she is a human being.
    Queen Elizabeth isn’t an American.
    Therefore she’s not a human being.

  33. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Misha, Get thee to a vision center.

    I’m a NYS licensed optician. I’m doing fine, thank you.

  34. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So as we can see, prior to the Cable Act of 1922, there was no motivation for naturalization petitions or records to exist on women and children. But the lack of such records does not prove that such women and children were not considered to be naturalized “citizens.” In fact, they were under the then-existing Acts of Congress.

    Stop the bullcrap!! You know every well that there have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of US-born children whose parents NEVER naturalized. They may have died before the child was born (if the father), returned to their homeland or simply not naturalized for one reason or another. By your lights that child had to naturalize themselves at the age of majority. Yet of all those hundreds of thousands, or likely millions, you can’t show me one. One US-born naturalized citizen is all I’m asking for.

    Yet dual citizen Apuzzo has none.

  35. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    dunstvangeet: If Queen Elizabeth is an American, then she is a human being.
    Queen Elizabeth isn’t an American.
    Therefore she’s not a human being.

    Humans have opposable thumbs.
    Lemurs have opposable thumbs.
    Therefore, you are a lemur.

  36. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    dunstvangeet,

    Can you please tells us how many definitions of a “natural born Citizen” the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution.

  37. avatar
    MattR June 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Scientist: Stop the bullcrap!!You know every well that there have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of US-born children whose parents NEVER naturalized.They may have died before the child was born (if the father), returned to their homeland or simply not naturalized for one reason or another.By your lights that child had to naturalize themselves at the age of majority.Yet of all those hundreds of thousands, or likelymillions, you can’t show me one.One US-born naturalized citizen is all I’m asking for.

    Yet dual citizen Apuzzo has none.

    I particularly enjoyed the way he took your question looking for people born in the United States who had to be naturalized to be considered a citizen and responded with a screed about the naturalization process for immigrant women and children.

  38. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Scientist, words words words word salad

    Lynch v. Clarke sure didn’t find that anyone was naturalized. Overlooking that, and granting your your entire post (Apuzzo is correct that once upon a time, naturalization of a husband covered the dependents, too), Scientist’s questions still stand for all > 1922.

  39. avatar
    bovril June 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    So Mario my dear,

    Do tell, EXACTLY how well did this personal opinion of yours go over in every single one of your cases..?

    I mean, when you get your orutund ass handed to you, by a very young junior associate, it must have stung.

    After all, as you keep telling all and sundry, you are this wunderkind Constitutional lawyer yet you have exactly and precisely a zero successful track record in every one of your sad little Birfer cases.

    Really Mario, it’s time and past for you to go back to DUI cases, at least there you (hopefully) won’t be the complete and well recorded laughing stock you are in the wilds of Birferstan.

  40. avatar
    welsh dragon June 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    dunstvangeet,

    Can you please tells us how many definitions of a “natural born Citizen” the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution.

    Can you Mario, give us just one definition they would have seen by 1787?

    And don’t quote Vattel – you know full well that the term “natural born citizen” appeared in no translation of his work prior to 1797 (and BTW no American edition until 1817)

  41. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly.

    Speaking of hypocrisy, when are you going to come clean about the “Pakistan travel ban?”

  42. avatar
    elmo June 26, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    If Queen Elizabeth is an American, then she is a human being.
    Queen Elizabeth isn’t an American.
    Therefore she’s not a human being.

    Perfect example! Well done.

  43. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    JPotter: (Apuzzo is correct that once upon a time, naturalization of a husband covered the dependents, too), Scientist’s questions still stand for all > 1922.

    There were many, many cases where the husband never naturalized, either because he died soon after, returned to tthe home country or just chose to live in the US as a non-citizen resident (as he had every right to do). According to Apuzzo, those US-born children would not have been citizens. So, they would have had to naturalize on their own as adults. The naturalization records would state “Place of Birth: Anytown. USA”. Yet of all the many, many cases with those facts, not a single naturalization record of someone born in the US exists.

    Did Barack Obama destroy all of those records dating back to 1790? I mean I kknow he is thorough, but that is too much even for him.

  44. avatar
    bgansel9 June 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Wow, the silence from Mario on my post regarding state mandated auto insurance vs federally mandated healthcare insurance (states vs federal rights and which has higher authority) is DEAFENING!

  45. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    Mario, the definition of a Natural Born Citizen is “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” (Black’s law dictionary, 9th edition). Black’s Law Dictionary is the pre-eminent law dictionary of the United States. It’s been cited thousands of times by the Supreme Court to provide definitions on various materials.

    You’re definition is under that category, but it isn’t the only one.

    In fact, anybody who is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, falls under that definition. So does anybody who is born a citizen.

  46. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    MattR,

    Found by internet researcher rxsid and commented upon by Attorney Leo Donofrio, here is what the James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) Administration thought about a child born in the United States to alien parents. Publius stated in October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

    “Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

    Secretary of State, James Monroe, eventually declared James McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802, not a “natural born Citizen.” But that was, as the historical record of the James McClure case clearly shows, only because his father naturalized several months before he was born while his son was dwelling in the United States. And this historical record totally supports my interpretation of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. The James Madison Administration did not even considered that child a “citizen” at the time.

    This historical evidence, from none other than James Madison, completely destroys the thesis that the Founders and Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen” the same meaning as the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.” On the other hand, it completely supports my position that a “natural born Citizen,” under American common law, which had its origins in the law of nations and which became national law, is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

  47. avatar
    donna June 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    mario:

    Donna,

    Get thee to a grammar school.

    so you criticized my grammar but were UNABLE to answer my question?

  48. avatar
    Daniel June 26, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Mario:

    I’ve read your posts today with great interest, and I have to say that I do agree….. those are, most definitely, a lot of words.

    One question for you, if I may….

    Have you won any court cases with that birther crap?

    No?

    Allllllllrighty then.

  49. avatar
    Daniel June 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: and commented upon by Attorney Leo Donofrio

    … who claims to be the actual physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit of God. So obviously we can trust Leo as a source for absolute truth.

  50. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    Scientist: According to Apuzzo, those US-born children would not have been citizens. So, they would have had to naturalize on their own as adults.

    Yes, I have to agree, kicking against the bricks is silly. Especially when done on a topic of such, basic, common knowledge.

    I have been working through some old texts, 1880 – 1950, each of which gives definitions of citizenship, details how citizenship is acquired, and gives an overview of the naturalization process. Since naturalization is relegated to Congress and thus subject to legislation, it changes over time, and the changes from one account at one time to another account from another time are of interest. But I have yet to find any account that says anything about a need for or a process by which a person born here to be naturalized in order to gain citizenship.

    If you’re born in US terriroty, you’re a natural born citizen. No conditions apply. Every text agrees on that.

    Now, if you’re not born here, then teh list of conditions regarding naturalization, and conditions for even entering the country at all, will make your head spin. But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? 😉

  51. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: here is what the James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) Administration thought about a child born in the United States to alien parents

    Thought, hints, blah, blah, blah. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding in “Jerry Maguire”-Show me the naturalization records! There were millions of kids born in the US to non-citiizen fathers and in many cases the father never naturallized. Show me the records!!! Show me the records!!!

    You can’t be cause they don’t exist So you FAIL.

  52. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Donna,

    Get thee to a grammar school.

    Mario, get THEE to a law school whose diplomas aren’t found on the back of a box of fruity pebbles. You birthers have yet to win CASE ONE! Considering that y’all have been trying in several states, and NONE of them are going along with your fantasy, you would think that one of you would go “Gee, maybe it is WE who are wrong!”. Lastly, what kind of self-imporant putz refers to themselves as “esquire”? Only two people I can think of, and both of them are completely incompetent “lawyers”. I use the word “lawyer” extremely loosely with people like you. You are as much a proper lawyer, as Corsi and Farah are proper journalists.

  53. avatar
    linda June 26, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Just one.

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States

    Source: James Madison 22 May 1789 Papers 12:179–82
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/james-madison-on-jus-soli/

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Can you please tells us how many definitions of a “natural born Citizen” the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution.

  54. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Publius stated in October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

    One stray newspaper article? From 1811? Long before citizenship issues had been ruled on by courts? Newspapers are legal precedents?

    I have to agree with Scientist. Find the naturalization of any person born on US soil.

    Or assert that they all lived here as non-citizens … in which case we should have millions of multi-generational non-citizens liveing here as an underclass! There are plenty of people who wishes that were true, but clearly it isn’t.

    It always leads back to a silly birther wish for a definition of NBC as a super secret club, doesn’t it?

    And let’s continue …. if kids born here to non-citizden parents have to be naturalized, do children of naturalized citizens also have to be naturalized? Oh, please do say yes, Apuzzo, please say yes.

  55. avatar
    BillTheCat June 26, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    Andrew Vrba: Mario, get THEE to a law school whose diplomas aren’t found on the back of a box of fruity pebbles. You birthers have yet to win CASE ONE! Considering that y’all have been trying in several states, and NONE of them are going along with your fantasy, you would think that one of you would go “Gee, maybe it is WE who are wrong!”. Lastly, what kind of self-imporant putz refers to themselves as “esquire”? Only two people I can think of, and both of them are completely incompetent “lawyers”. I use the word “lawyer” extremely loosely with people like you.

    Their hate for President Obama will never allow them to stop. Ever. Sick, sick people.

  56. avatar
    JoZeppy June 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: here is what the James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) Administration thought about a child born in the United States to alien parents. Publius stated in October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

    You are one dishonest SOB aren’t you? It is an anonymous op-ed published in a newspaper, that actually directly contracts Madison’s known writings.

    In otherwords, legally meaningless, and quite far from being “what the James Madison…Administration thought.”

  57. avatar
    GLaB June 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Mr. Apuzzo:

    I’d like to try a different tack, here. You are an educated and intelligent man; you cannot have missed the reality that no court sees this matter your way. Even if you assume J. Scalia has gone Vattelist, yesterday’s opinion clearly demonstrates that the Vattelist view holds no sway with the Supreme Court.

    Given the certainty of failure in the courts, why don’t you pursue an Amendment? It should be no trouble at all finding birther/teapartier Reps. to sponsor it; a Senator might be a harder egg to crack, but the ranks of anti-immigration hawks should provide fertile ground to plow.

    Could it be you know this route is equally doomed to certain failure – and you can’t figure out a way to stay in the limelight if you do this?

  58. avatar
    JoZeppy June 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    GLaB: Given the certainty of failure in the courts, why don’t you pursue an Amendment?

    Because that wouldn’t have the desired effect of delegitimizing a properly elected and sworn president. The goal isn’t to change the Constitution. The goal is to undermine President Barack Obama, by any means necessary.

  59. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    If Apuzzo is declaring that news paper articles as fact, then he already has the proof that says Obama was born in Hawaii.
    Mario needs to go back to doing what he does best, looking like a clueless extra from a mob movie.
    I still can’t get over that he made a play from the internet troll’s handbook: “When someone has you dead to rights, point out their grammar/spelling errors.” You know who resorts to that? 14 year olds on Gamefaqs.

  60. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Andrew vrba,

    That is not where I went to law school, fool.

  61. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    linda,

    Sorry, but James Madison’s statement pertains to being a “Citizen of the United States” which applies to being a member of Congress, not being a “natural born Citizen” which applies to being President.

  62. avatar
    BillTheCat June 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    Surprise! Mario refuses to answer any of the questions put to him. And proved Andrew’s point regarding response a la 14 year olds.

    Why? Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. He spews his usual chunks of discredited word-salad, and bolts, secure in the knowledge that he sure showed us!

    Meanwhile, we can enjoy being secure in the knowledge that he will never, ever win an eligibility case. 🙂

  63. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President” -12th Amendment

    Now who was that in 2008?

  64. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    JoZeppy: You are one dishonest SOB aren’t you? It is an anonymous op-ed published in a newspaper, that actually directly contracts Madison’s known writings.

    Birther in a time machine, borrowing the much used and abused pen name of “Publius” 😉

  65. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Andrew vrba,

    That is not where I went to law school, fool.

    Sir, you cut me to the quick, I-
    …Never mind it was just gas. I must have inhaled some of your hot air.

  66. avatar
    Daniel June 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Andrew vrba,

    That is not where I went to law school, fool.

    Well considering your birther success record, wherever you did go to law school, you should consider asking for your money back.

  67. avatar
    JoZeppy June 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: linda, Sorry, but James Madison’s statement pertains to being a “Citizen of the United States” which applies to being a member of Congress, not being a “natural born Citizen” which applies to being President.

    Funny how you or your birther brethern have completely failed to convince a single court of this. Even more amusing is the fact that the courts have been rejecting the notion that there are different types of born citizens even before there were birthers and it was only tax protesters and sovereign citizen nuts making these arguments.

  68. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Minor v. Happesett said:

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

    Id., at 167-68.

    What did the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices) in Minor say about children born in the U.S. to alien parents? “[T]here have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens.” If those children were “citizens” as you all claim, don’t you think the U.S. Supreme Court would have known about it and would not have said that “there have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens?”
    The reality is that not until Wong Kim Ark, replacing “citizen” parents with “domiciled” parents, declared those children “citizens of the United States” was that question finally resolved. But again, that question was whether those children were “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.” And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

  69. avatar
    Daniel June 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    linda,

    Sorry, but James Madison’s statement pertains to being a “Citizen of the United States” which applies to being a member of Congress, not being a “natural born Citizen” which applies to being President.

    In your opinion….

    An opinion which is shared by no one but a handful of conspiracy nutbags.

    And certainly not shared by the courts, by any credentialed and peer reviewed Constitutional expert, by Congress….. need i go on?

  70. avatar
    Daniel June 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Minor v. Happesett said:

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

    Id., at 167-68.

    What did the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices) in Minor say about children born in the U.S. to alien parents?“[T]here have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens.”If those children were “citizens” as you all claim, don’t you think the U.S. Supreme Court would have known about it and would not have said that “there have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens?”
    The reality is that not until Wong Kim Ark, replacing “citizen” parents with “domiciled” parents, declared those children “citizens of the United States” was that question finally resolved.But again, that question was whether those children were “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.”And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    And yet you still can’t convince a court that is what they believe….

    Hmm…..

  71. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    BillTheCat,

    You are a worthless fool and even ashamed to call yourself a lawyer.

  72. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    I love the insistence that there is such a classification. Since Article II did not define “natural born citizen”, how could there be an “Article II natural born citizen”? As opposed to what other kind of “natural born citizen”?

  73. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    President Obama was born in the country of parents who were citizens (parents must pick up their children by 5 PM does not require both parents to show up).. Vattel didn”t say both parents, Minor v Happersett didn’t say both parents. When the law requires both of 2 things to be true, it says so plainly and clearly. The 2 citizen parent nonsense is strictly your imagination.

  74. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    linda,

    Sorry, but James Madison’s statement pertains to being a “Citizen of the United States” which applies to being a member of Congress, not being a “natural born Citizen” which applies to being President.

    Running around the internet on everyone else’s blogs spouting your utter and complete bullshit (and preventing others from posting on yours) which you either know is wrong and are willing to lie about it, or you don’t know, in which case your law school (Temple) would be embarrassed to read it, does not make you correct.

    Courts continue to completely reject your (and all birthers) stupid interpretation of the Constitution and of SCOTUS opinions.

    I suppose we should actually be thanking birthers for continuing to establish precedent that proves them wrong over and over

    I would think an attorney would be embarrassed that his name is more linked with the word “frivolous” than “excellent attorney” or even “good.” Of course if the word “candor” remained in his vocabulary and he remembered his obligation of candor to the courts that would not be the case, now would it?

  75. avatar
    JoZeppy June 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happesett said: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”Id., at 167-68. What did the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices) in Minor say about children born in the U.S. to alien parents? “[T]here have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens.” If those children were “citizens” as you all claim, don’t you think the U.S. Supreme Court would have known about it and would not have said that “there have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens?”The reality is that not until Wong Kim Ark, replacing “citizen” parents with “domiciled” parents, declared those children “citizens of the United States” was that question finally resolved. But again, that question was whether those children were “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.” And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    And yet every court that has recently addressed this very same issue said your argument is utter B.S.? Furthermore, everytime a tax protester/sovereign citizen nut tried to claim that 14th Amendment citizenship is some kind of new catagory of citizenship, it was rejected when they started making these arguments 25 years ago. This isn’t even a new nut bag legal theory. You’re simply recycling rejected nut bag legal theories.

  76. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    BillTheCat,

    You are a worthless fool and even ashamed to call yourself a lawyer.

    Hanging your own failings on others, I see.

  77. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That is not where I went to law school, fool.

    Your clients are the dregs of society. You are not a Constitutional lawyer, and neither is that malcontent refugee, Svetlana Orly Taitz, nor that poker player with a law degree.

    You are the fool, not Andrew.

  78. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    Some reason I’m all of a sudden in moderation, Doc?

  79. avatar
    G June 26, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    Exactly.

    Scientist:
    President Obama was born in the country of parents who were citizens (parents must pick up their children by 5 PM does not require both parents to show up)..Vattel didn”t say both parents, Minor v Happersett didn’t say both parents.When the law requires both of 2 things to be true, it says so plainly and clearly.The 2 citizen parent nonsense is strictly your imagination.

    BINGO!

    JoZeppy: And yet every court that has recently addressed this very same issue said your argument is utter B.S.? Furthermore, everytime a tax protester/sovereign citizen nut tried to claim that 14th Amendment citizenship is some kind of new catagory of citizenship, it was rejected when they started making these arguments 25 years ago. This isn’t even a new nut bag legal theory.You’re simply recycling rejected nut bag legal theories.

    Well said Misha! Agreed.

    misha: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That is not where I went to law school, fool.
    Your clients are the dregs of society. You are not a Constitutional lawyer, and neither is that malcontent refugee, Svetlana Orly Taitz, nor that poker player with a law degree.
    You are the fool, not Andrew.

  80. avatar
    dch June 26, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    The facts are that Mario has been failing all along with his long debunked claims, his cases have all been dismissed like all the rest of the one hundred plus other birther cases. Birthers as a group have amassed what must be the worst record in US court history for losing.
    So Mario please explain WHY all your cases have failed? Simple question.

  81. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Found by internet researcher rxsid and commented upon by Attorney Leo Donofrio, here is what the James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) Administration thought about a child born in the United States to alien parents. Publius stated in October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

    Assuming that the quote is accurate, how do you conclude that “Publius” was James Madison? Are there any examples of Madison using that pseudonym after 1788?

    A search of the James Madison Papers turns up no record of this letter. In fact, if you search the James Madison Papers at the Library of Congress you find no mention whatsoever of James McClure.

    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/

    So you attribute an anonymous letter to Madison with no evidence whatsoever that he wrote it.

    And how about that Pakistan travel ban?

  82. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Scientist,
    Prior to the Cable Act of 1922, things were quite different in the area of naturalization for women and children.

    Complete and utter lie. You do know the Cable Act was repealed in 1936? I called your friend Lenny Daneman on this lie earlier:

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

    A woman’s nationality would not be taken from her for marrying a foreigner. it would take an actual renunciation on her part.

  83. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    Wow he really is grasping at straws, if all he has are obscure, repealed laws.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    Must be something you said starting with “s”.

    realist: Some reason I’m all of a sudden in moderation, Doc?

  85. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Rickey,

    Are you also doing to deny that James Monroe, as Secretary of State, wrote a letter dated November 27, 1811 to “Joel Barlow Esq” who was in Paris regarding the James McClure citizenship case?

  86. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    realist,

    Your BS sounds just like that of the good Professor, Reality Check. You are probably one and the same.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    Super Mario I’m curious as to how you can claim Obama isn’t eligible for not having two citizen parents while at the same time you have claimed Obama Sr wasn’t really his father and that Malcolm X or someone else was. How do you square those two conflicting ideas?

  88. avatar
    Xyxox June 26, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Rickey,

    Are you also doing to deny that James Monroe, as Secretary of State, wrote a letter dated November 27, 1811 to “Joel Barlow Esq” who was in Paris regarding the James McClure citizenship case?

    And yet with this mountain of evidence supporting your legal theory that Barack Obama is some sort of third type of citizen as yet undefined (not truly natural born and yet not truly naturalized) has not been considered anything more than laughable by any court or judge in the land?

    Hmmmmmm

  89. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 26, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Rickey, Are you also doing to deny that James Monroe, as Secretary of State, wrote a letter dated November 27, 1811 to “Joel Barlow Esq” who was in Paris regarding the James McClure citizenship case?

    No proof that Monroe wrote as Publius in this letter.

  90. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    realist,

    Your BS sounds just like that of the good Professor, Reality Check.You are probably one and the same.

    Well someone is spouting BS, but I’m banking that it is from the local “Esq”.
    Sorry Mario, but your princess is in another castle.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Actually, Publius was the pseudonym of Alexander Hamilton who had used the name during the War. Later John Jay joined Hamilton in the Federalist project under the Publius banner. After 5 essays by Hamilton and 4 by Jay, James Madison joined the team. Jay dropped out in early November 1787 when he came down with rheumatoid arthritis.

    Referencing Brookhiser’s biography of Madison, there is no mention of the use of the Publius pseudonym by him outside the Federalist project.

    Because it was Hamilton’s longstanding pseudonym, it hardly seems likely that Madison ever used it independently.

    I think once again the birthers are trying to pull a fast one. This anonymous Publius “letter to the editor” carries no more weight than the ones today by E. Publius Goat.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Found by internet researcher rxsid and commented upon by Attorney Leo Donofrio, here is what the James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) Administration thought about a child born in the United States to alien parents. Publius stated in October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

  92. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    MattR,

    Secretary of State, James Monroe, eventually declared James McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802, not a “natural born Citizen.”But that was, as the historical record of the James McClure case clearly shows, only because his father naturalized several months before he was born while his son was dwelling in the United States.And this historical record totally supports my interpretation of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855.The James Madison Administration did not even considered that child a “citizen” at the time.

    This historical evidence, from none other than James Madison, completely destroys the thesis that the Founders and Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen” the same meaning as the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.”On the other hand, it completely supports my position that a “natural born Citizen,” under American common law, which had its origins in the law of nations and which became national law, is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

    Of course, outside of Mario’s delusional world, Monroe said that McClure’s birth in the United States was sufficient to make him a citizen and of course never said he was naturalized. Such would obviously not be the case with respect to a naturalized citizen. Mario has no evidence to support his silly contention other than he has decided that “citizen” with a big “C” means “naturalized citizen.” Seriously, that is his argument. I really am not kidding.

    Of course, no one in history has ever made such a claim so he is just making stuff up. And the term “citizen of the United States” appears in the Constitution and contempoary statutes in contexts that cannot possibly mean “naturalized citizen.” This has been pointed out to him and he has no reply other to insist he is right. This is the level of desperation of birthers as they now have to re-define terms without any legal support to try to make an arguement. It is any wonder they are laughed out of every court they appear.

  93. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    “Found by internet researcher rxsid”

    bwahahahaha

    rxsid is a previous Phil Bergbot, and deluded freeper, among other things.

    Internet researcher indeed. By that comparison so is my sever-year-old grandson.

    That’s pretty weak Mario, even for you. Though not surprising.

    You should just site Donofrio’s or your own blog for authority. It would be just as accurate.

  94. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    What did the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices) in Minor say about children born in the U.S. to alien parents?“

    It didn’t say they were not citizens and didn’t say the doubts were about a type of citizenship other than natural born citizenship. To say otherwise is simply being dishonest. Do you really want me to point out again how many times Wong Kim Ark said natural born citizen is defined by the English common law, that natural born subject and citizen mean the same thing, that our common law of citizenship was the same as England, that children of aliens have always been native born citizens and that the 14th Amendment and NBC clause mean the same thing. Of course, when I make such citations, you just ignore them and pretend that they don’t exist as what else can you say? Of course, every modern court that has addressed the issue has had no problem understanding what WKA says. Good thing we have judges who can read plain English.

  95. avatar
    Xyxox June 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    realist:
    “Found by internet researcher rxsid”

    bwahahahaha

    rxsid is a previous Phil Bergbot, and deluded freeper, among other things.

    Man, I KNEW I recognized the rxsid moniker but couldn’t remember where. THANKS! I’ve chuckled over many a Freeper Birther thread typed out by rxsid!

  96. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Are you also doing to deny that James Monroe, as Secretary of State, wrote a letter dated November 27, 1811 to “Joel Barlow Esq” who was in Paris regarding the James McClure citizenship case?

    Nice misdirection, but I didn’t say anything about James Monroe, and I fail to see what Monroe has to do with your claim that James Madison wrote the letter which appeared in the Alexandria newspaper.

    Now, about that Pakistan travel ban…

  97. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    realist,

    Your BS sounds just like that of the good Professor, Reality Check.You are probably one and the same.

    Your skills of deduction and reasoning once again shining through… wrong again.
    The only BS being being slung here is by you, and you’re full of it. And you either know you’re full of it and don’t care or you’re completely ignorant.

    Or perhaps it’s just an indication that DUI attorney doesn’t translate well to constitutional attorney.

  98. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Must be something you said starting with “s”.

    i certainly don’t remember doing so, but if so my apologies.

  99. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Here’s the kicker: The great and wonderful case, Minor v. Happersett, that all birthers bow down to, was a turd and is not even valid law anymore. I bet not 1 birther in 50 knows what the RULING in the case was (rather than the few liines the birthers quote)-that women had no right to vote. Yes, that is the great miinor v. Happersett in all its glory. An epicly crappy decision and one with zero validity today. Mario, I believe you were or are married. If your wife eligible to vote? If so, then how can Minor v. Happersett have any weight? Especially since the case wasn’t even about presidential eligibility.

    It was and is bad law and you are a worse lawyer for pretending it’s some kind of touchstone.

  100. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Referencing Brookhiser’s biography of Madison, there is no mention of the use of the Publius pseudonym by him outside the Federalist project.

    I just reviewed my copy of “James Madison: Writings” (Library of America, 1999). There are no examples of Madison writing anything as “Publius” after 1788 and no writings whatsoever about the McClure case.

  101. avatar
    DP June 26, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Why waste time on Apuzzo?

    He’s just a blowhard intoxicated with his fifteen pointless minutes of fame, one who will never admit he’s wrong no matter how much reality refuses to play along. You can find exactly the same type sitting at the end of most bars.

  102. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    JoZeppy: Furthermore, everytime a tax protester/sovereign citizen nut tried to claim that 14th Amendment citizenship is some kind of new catagory of citizenship, it was rejected when they started making these arguments 25 years ago. This isn’t even a new nut bag legal theory. You’re simply recycling rejected nut bag legal theories.

    Oh, it’s older than that! The idea of “federal citizenship” as opposed to state citizenship, in various names and guises has been handed now like an heirloom for nearly 150 years, from one generation of rightwing extremists to the next. Birthers aren’t racists, they just steal the IP of racists. 😉

  103. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 26, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    Knock knock.

    Who’s there?

    Mario.

    Mario who?

    Mff mlgb pzzfx.

    Take your head out of your butt so we can hear you.

  104. avatar
    linda June 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    Actually, in the brief submitted to the Court the attorneys for the US argued exactly that.

    “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being elegible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

    http://tinyurl.com/3d552bj

    And in his dissent, Chief Justice Fuller said “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

    It is obvious that while WKA was not a candidate, the parties involved knew that a ruling saying he was a citizen at birth would mean WKA was eligible to be President.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But again, that question was whether those children were “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.” And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

  105. avatar
    yutube June 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    scotus site Vattel?? LMAO. If any of these fake law degree bloggers would have cited Vattel for the reasons of state sovereignty they would have been ridiculed. But not so much anymore now that a sitting Justice did it. Pathetic morons. I would go as far as saying this. What we can learn from the Arizona decision is the following: listen up juris morons: If Scotus determined that the states have no right to remove an illegal alien from their territory Scotus will eventual incorrectly rule as well that the states should have no right to remove anyone from state ballot on the grounds of presidential elligibility. You can take it to the bank.

  106. avatar
    Jojo June 26, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    @Scientist:

    He won’t be able to find the records you are asking for, because they do not exist.

    My G-Grandfather (along with his wife and two children) came to this country in 1907. My G-Grandfather naturalized in late 1915. My G-Uncle and my G-Aunt were born in the United States prior to my G-Grandfather naturalizing. Two other children (including my Grandfather) were born post-naturalization.

    How do I know this? I have his naturalization paperwork and it clearly shows two children born in the Dolidal, Hungary and two children born in the US on the paperwork.

    According to the US Census Records from 1910 and 1920, along with a state census from 1915, the family was listed as “A” for alien in 1910 and 1915, and NA for naturalized in 1920. With the exception of the children that had been born in the US. There was nothing in the columns 13-15 for them on the 1920 census. Which tells me they were neither alien nor naturalized. Which makes them Natural Born.

    So, he won’t find that type of record, because it does not exist. Everything I was taught in school, both in the US and overseas in DoDDS schools was that if you are born in the US you are a Natural Born Citizen and there are only two types of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized. A person is either one or the other.

  107. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    yutube: LMAO

    So, what are you sitting on?

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Well just search for “s***” and you will find it above.

    realist: i certainly don’t remember doing so, but if so my apologies.

  109. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

    yutube: If Scotus determined that the states have no right to remove an illegal alien from their territory

    Yeah, but what about my cat?

  110. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    yutube: LMAO

    Scientist: So, what are you sitting on?

    A douchebag.

  111. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Jojo: He won’t be able to find the records you are asking for, because they do not exist.

    Jojo, thanks for sharing that family history. 🙂

  112. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well just search for “s***” and you will find it above

    Look under posts by Apuzzo and you will find nothing but.

  113. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    linda,

    That is all nice what the government argued and what the dissent said in a super dicta sentence. But it is the holding of the majority of the Court that becomes binding precedent.

  114. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well just search for “s***” and you will find it above.

    I finally found it, attached to “bull”.
    As I said, my apologies I had no idea the word filter was that sensitive here.

  115. avatar
    jayHG June 26, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Daniel: Mario:I’ve read your posts today with great interest, and I have to say that I do agree….. those are, most definitely, a lot of words.One question for you, if I may….Have you won any court cases with that birther crap? No?Allllllllrighty then.

    I swear if I ever get an honest answer to this question from a birfer, I will faint dead away!!! Or maybe I will celebrate by running naked across the White House lawn.

    Seriously, it takes a real idiot to somehow convince him/herself that losing means winning because I only lost because EVERY SINGLE JUDGE/LAWYER/PERSON WITH POWER TO DO SOMETHING has been bought off, threatened, etc. ad nauseum………sheesh!!

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    I prefer:

    “What fools these birthers be.”

    Paul Pieniezny: Ha, the Polonius in me immediately recognized Hamlet: Act 3, Scene 1, line 121. Yes, this is Apuzzo at his best

  117. avatar
    Reality Check June 26, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Mario is confused again but what else is new. He should quit listening to insane people from Maryland.

    I am glad Ricky and Doc pointed out Mario’s lie that “Publius” was President James Madison. Leo Donofrio made the preposterous claim that Madison was writing editorials under a pseudonym while sitting in the White House and then let his own Secretary of State rule in opposite to his editorial opinion.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    realist,

    Your BS sounds just like that of the good Professor, Reality Check.You are probably one and the same.

  118. avatar
    realist June 26, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    linda,

    That is all nice what the government argued and what the dissent said in a super dicta sentence.But it is the holding of the majority of the Court that becomes binding precedent.

    Indeed.

    You should ferret out hat holding in Minor.

    The dissent clearly shows the what the minority’s understanding was of the majority opinion. non?

    And it certainly is not what you state the holding is. Wonder why that is? Really stupid justices I suppose?

    That must be the case with modern judges as well, including the federal judges who have explicitly held that Obama is a natural born citizen and completely rejected the two citizen parent nonsense. Or were they simply bought of like all the other 140+ were to thwart your brilliance?

  119. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Citing a random “internet researcher”, Mario?
    Huh, nice double standard you have there.

  120. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    Actually, it shows how gullible birthers are and how irresponsible they are repeating tales that are almost certainly false, since the Publius pseudonym belonged to Alexander Hamilton, not James Madison. It is only associated with Madison through his collaboration with Hamilton in the writing of the Federalist essays. It me two minutes to find that out.

    “Historical evidence” my ass. It’s birther bullshit.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This historical evidence, from none other than James Madison, completely destroys the thesis that the Founders and Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen” the same meaning as the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.”

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Unfortunately, the filter cannot distinguish between words and and parts of words. But there is no apology necessary. I don’t prohibit the word; I just want to review the context first. Perhaps I should remove the filter, since I don’t ever recall deleting a comment for an obscene word.

    realist: As I said, my apologies I had no idea the word filter was that sensitive here.

  122. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Publius writes a letter to a Virginia newspaper, The Alexandria Herald, which the newspaper published on October 7, 1811. The content of his letter surely sounds like he knew all the obscure details of what was going on with James McClure, including being well-versed with Congress’s naturalization acts and the citizenship laws of Virginia. He also makes many references in the letter to other historical sources.

    Then Secretary of State, James Monroe, writes a letter dated November 27, 1811 (just 51 days later), to “Joel Barlow Esq.,” who was in Paris, in which he references various historical sources, including the involvement of Representative Landon Cheves, and the opinion of Supreme Court Justice William Johnson. In that letter, Secretary James Monroe states that Justice Johnson concluded, based on “affidavits and certificates,” “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States,” James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” (his exact words as stated in Monroe’s letter, including the capital “C” which clearly refers to “Citizen of the United States” as written in Article I and II). Those “certificates” would have included the naturalization certificate of James McClure’s father. Surely, someone like Justice Johnson would have known whether to say “natural born Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States.” After all, the Constitution in Article I and II and all Congressional Acts made the clear distinction. The Founders were very exacting in the use of their words, especially a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James McClure was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1787, which was after independence and the revolution, to a British subject who naturalized in South Carolina on February 20, 1786. Note, Justice Johnson did not say that James McClure was a “natural born Citizen,” even though under English common law he would have been a “natural born subject.” I have shown on John Woodman’s blog how both Justice Johnson and Representative Cheves followed the citizenship philosophy of Emer de Vattel and not that of William Blackstone’s jus soli English common law.

    The historical record of the James McClure case documents how McClure was considered a naturalized “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802, gaining that citizenship status when his father naturalized in South Carolina on February 20, 1786 which was after his son’s birth and when his son was dwelling in the United States. The James McClure citizenship case proves that the early naturalization acts applied to children born in the United States and that they treated any child born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves until the parents naturalized if done before the child reached the age of majority and was dwelling in the United States at that time. This McClure case also proves that the Lynch v. Clarke New York court erred in how it interpreted the early naturalization acts. This was the James Madison Administration that so applied the Naturalization Act of 1802, which said the same thing as the acts of 1790 and 1795 regarding the treatment of children whose parents naturalized after their birth. Hence, the Founders and Framers could not have considered a child born in the United States to alien parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Birthers are an opportunistic infection.

    Andrew Vrba: Citing a random “internet researcher”, Mario?

  124. avatar
    G June 26, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    Agreed. Although I suspect you can often find him sitting there too…

    DP:
    Why waste time on Apuzzo?

    He’s just a blowhard intoxicated with his fifteen pointless minutes of fame, one who will never admit he’s wrong no matter how much reality refuses to play along. You can find exactly the same type sitting at the end of most bars.

  125. avatar
    BillTheCat June 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: BillTheCat, You are a worthless fool and even ashamed to call yourself a lawyer.

    I am indeed ashamed to call myself a lawyer. Because I’m not.

    One does not need to be a lawyer to plainly see how bad of one you are.

  126. avatar
    jayHG June 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happesett said: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”Id., at 167-68. What did the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices) in Minor say about children born in the U.S. to alien parents? “[T]here have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens.” If those children were “citizens” as you all claim, don’t you think the U.S. Supreme Court would have known about it and would not have said that “there have been doubts” whether those children were “citizens?”The reality is that not until Wong Kim Ark, replacing “citizen” parents with “domiciled” parents, declared those children “citizens of the United States” was that question finally resolved. But again, that question was whether those children were “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.” And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    …but still……..

  127. avatar
    G June 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    For now, just use the shorthand BS. The filter never stops it and everyone knows what it stands for.

    As others have pointed out, BS describes Mario and his screeds to a T.

    realist: I finally found it, attached to “bull”.
    As I said, my apologiesI had no idea the word filter was that sensitive here.

  128. avatar
    G June 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Agreed! Well put.

    BillTheCat: One does not need to be a lawyer to plainly see how bad of one you are.

  129. avatar
    linda June 26, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    No, you said the question was whether those children were citizens, not natural born citizens. Clearly, the question put to the Court by the government was whether they were natural born citizens, eligible for the presidency.

    Of course, a dissent isn’t precedent, but it is evident that the dissenting Justices understood that by the Court ruling WKA was a citizen at birth, it ruled he was a natural born citizen.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But again, that question was whether those children were “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.” And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

  130. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Linda,

    You fail to understand that it does not matter what the dissent understood the majority to mean. After all, the dissent is the dissent. What matters is what the majority said and meant which we can read and glean on our own from its written words.

  131. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Linda,

    You fail to understand that it does not matter what the dissent understood the majority to mean.After all, the dissent is the dissent.What matters is what the majority said and meant which we can read and glean on our own from its written words.

    And you seem to fail at law! You are such a bad lawyer, that the only thing which separates you from Orly Taitz, is that you would look better in bargain bin mascara than she does.
    At some point the courts will tire of you and your ilk, and start slapping the lot of you with sanctions, for wasting their time and energy, when they could be trying cases that actually matter.

  132. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: …James McClure … Naturalization Act of 1802, gaining that citizenship status when his father naturalized in South Carolina on February 20, 1786 … the acts of 1790 and 1795 …. Hence, the Founders and Framers could not have considered a child born in the United States to alien parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Hmmm … child born in 1785, father naturalized in South Carolina in 1786, Constitution ratified 1789, Naturalization Acts passed in 1790, 1795, and 1802 … a Latin phrase comes to mind .. what was it … ah, ex post facto. The putz wants us to believe that this McClure’s citizenship was subject to multiple revisions!

    As the writer of the letter in the Herald noted:

    His father was a citizen of the state of S. Carolina, before any act was passed by the United States “on the subject.”

  133. avatar
    Northland10 June 26, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Surely, someone like Justice Johnson would have known whether to say “natural born Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States.”

    Does a passport state whether you are natural born or not? When you apply for a Passport, does it decide if you are naturalized, natural born or a Citizen? When you fill out an I-9, do you state Natural Born or just Citizen.

    In the cases, all that is requested or stated is Citizen (or National). It does not state Natural Born or not because it is not necessary for the purpose. Justice Johnson was not determining if McClure could run for President so he did not need to state Natural Born. All that they needed to know was that he was a citizen.

    Did Justice Johnson call McClure a Naturalized Citizen? If he was naturalized as you claim, wouldn’t someone like Justice Johnson known whether to say Naturalized or Natural born, or Mario’s “Citizen in Limbo?”

    Sorry, only the Sovereign Citizens get in a twist over their Magical Word Definitions. The rest of us understand the common usage then and now and understand it real use in law.

  134. avatar
    Northland10 June 26, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    JPotter: As the writer of the letter in the Herald noted:

    His father was a citizen of the state of S. Carolina, before any act was passed by the United States “on the subject.”

    Oops.

  135. avatar
    Northland10 June 26, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Linda,

    You fail to understand that it does not matter what the dissent understood the majority to mean.After all, the dissent is the dissent.What matters is what the majority said and meant which we can read and glean on our own from its written words.

    Ok.. would you like to go back to quoting the dissent of Marshall in The Venus, or Scalia’s dissent using Vattel, or maybe David Ramsey who lost the debate?

    BTW, may I quote you when you use the dissent in WKA as support?

  136. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But it is the holding of the majority of the Court that becomes binding precedent

    The holding was that women couldn’t vote. Women vote- therefore no precedent. Minor vs Happersett was a garbage case. And you are a garbage lawyer. Garbage in, garbage out.

  137. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Northland10: Does a passport state whether you are natural born or not? When you apply for a Passport, does it decide if you are naturalized, natural born or a Citizen? When you fill out an I-9, do you state Natural Born or just Citizen.

    According to Mario, if I say my dog is a dog, then he can’t be a Brittany.

    Mario has said some dumb things, but this latest argument may take the cake.

  138. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    Guys, I think he’s starting to realize that none of us are buying it. LOL.

  139. avatar
    linda June 26, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Apparently not. I believe your view of the decision in WKA is skewed, so I pointed to the contemporaneous understanding of parties involved in the case.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand that it does not matter what the dissent understood the majority to mean. After all, the dissent is the dissent. What matters is what the majority said and meant which we can read and glean on our own from its written words.

  140. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Andrew Vrba:
    Guys, I think he’s starting to realize that none of us are buying it. LOL.

    Maybe if we all start over at the beginning? 😉

  141. avatar
    Anti-Scientist :-) June 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    You’re right. That is a bit much even for him. That’s the real reason behind his recent use of executive privilege. It has nothing to do with Fast & Furious actually. That’s all just a smoke screen for covering up these documents from earlier centuries. See how it all comes back to matters of birth?

    Note: irony at work.

    Scientist: Did Barack Obama destroy all of those records dating back to 1790? I mean I kknow he is thorough, but that is too much even for him.

  142. avatar
    Repeat After Me June 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, it seems you have not reflected enough upon what the judges have already told you: your arguments are without merit.

    Get thee to a meritless-ocracy. Then you might have a chance.

  143. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Then Secretary of State, James Monroe, writes a letter dated November 27, 1811 (just 51 days later), to “Joel Barlow Esq.,” who was in Paris, in which he references various historical sources, including the involvement of Representative Landon Cheves, and the opinion of Supreme Court Justice William Johnson.In that letter, Secretary James Monroe states that Justice Johnson concluded, based on “affidavits and certificates,” “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States,” James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” (his exact words as stated in Monroe’s letter, including the capital “C” which clearly refers to “Citizen of the United States” as written in Article I and II).

    Notice Mario never responds to my points. Making up that “citizen” with a big “C” means naturalized citizen when no one in history has ever said such a thing is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.

    Those “certificates” would have included the naturalization certificate of James McClure’s father.Surely, someone like Justice Johnson would have known whether to say “natural born Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States.”After all, the Constitution in Article I and II and all Congressional Acts made the clear distinction.The Founders were very exacting in the use of their words, especially a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

    They said the certificates showed he was born in the US and mentioned nothing about naturalization. Again, he is just making things up. To say the Constituion or any statute said that a “Citizen of the United States” was a naturalized citizen is delusional. Please provide the quote Mario. Of course, he can’t. He knows dozens of statues of the time used such term in a manner that cannot mean naturalized citizen and, of course, the framers would not have said members of Congress needed to be naturalized. DUH. It is hard to imagine why anyone would claim a term meant something when he cannot cite a single authority to support such defintion. I keep wondering. Is it dishonesty or stupidity?

  144. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    linda:
    Apparently not.I believe your view of the decision in WKA is skewed, so I pointed to the contemporaneous understanding of parties involved in the case.

    What Wong Kim Ark said has been pointed out to Mario again and again and again. When you actully quote the case to him, he just claims such quotes don’t count or that Justice Gary is just wrong. He has never made any substantive case about dicta versus holding in such case as he either doesn’t understand what those terms mean or simply refuses to engage in such discussion. Of course, every court that addresses the issues understands that Wong Kim Ark is controlling so it really doesn’t matter what one idiot thinks.

  145. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    ballantine,

    I have heard it all from you. You have nothing new to add. The same old tired responses about how everything is silly and how you can just cite authority all day. Take it somewhere else.

  146. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    ballantine,

    The only pompous idiot is you. Why do you not state in one sentence the holding of Wong Kim Ark case. You cannot do it. All you can do it just throw a lot of BS around about the English common law and that is it.

  147. avatar
    jtmunkus June 26, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    Hey, Mario:

    It’s like Stephanie Miller said to Orly “Snaggletooth” Taitz: maybe birthing just isn’t the right career choice for you. You’re clearly no good at it.

    (PS: I left a message for you in the Apuzzo thread at The Fogbow).

  148. avatar
    Scientist June 26, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not state in one sentence the holding of Wong Kim Ark case.

    I can do that with Minor- Women have no right to vote.

    So, since women do have the right to vote, that case is currently invalid and moreover has nothing whatsoever to do with presidential eligibility

  149. avatar
    jtmunkus June 26, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    Mario:

    Maybe you should give up birthing. You’re clearly no good at it.

    Evidently, you have no other clients besides Purpurpurchner. You must not be any good at regular law, either.

    (PS: I left you a message at the Fogbow).

  150. avatar
    Majority Will June 26, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    “Take it somewhere else.” – Mario Apuzzo

    Wow. Does this losing attorney actually think he’s taken over someone’s blog?

    What’s the word for someone like that?

  151. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 26, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    ballantine: Is it dishonesty or stupidity?

    The Putz is living proof that those are not mutually exclusive.

  152. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    I have heard it all from you.You have nothing new to add.The same old tired responses about how everything is silly and how you can just cite authority all day.Take it somewhere else.

    Another nonsubstantive response. I have cited authority all day and you never respond. You simply pretend it doesn’t exist. We are all waiting for you authority that “”Citizen” iwht a big “C” means naturalized citizens. You don’t respond because you can’t. You are simply making things up because that is all you can do.

  153. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Majority Will: What’s the word for someone like that?

    For Mario, protection racket.

  154. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Take it somewhere else.

    It’s called free speech. Apparently, conservatives do not believe in any sections of the 1st Amendment.

  155. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Scientist: Garbage in, garbage out.

    GIGO

  156. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    The only pompous idiot is you.Why do you not state in one sentence the holding of Wong Kim Ark case.You cannot do it.All you can do it just throw a lot of BS around about the English common law and that is it.

    It is sad you still don’t seem to understand dicta and holding. The holding of course includes the necessary rationale for the disposition of the case. The disposition of WKA was that persons of his status were citizens, never said 14th Amendment citizen. Of course, this was because the court said the English common law was incorporated into the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment merely restated the same rule. This is all part of the holding in case you want to learn anything. I think you have some studying to do. Meanwhile, you can read these clear quotes:

    “[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…[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.”

    “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.”

    “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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    “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.”

    “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . 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.”

    “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

    “it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

    I can go on and on. Please explain how these quotes from the Supreme Court that say over and over that you are wrong don’t count or why they are dicta. Wait, I guess Gray didn’t get the memo of the big “C” and little “c” nonsense. I just can’t understand why every court or scholar that addresses the issue ignores your arguments and says I am right.

  157. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: And Wong, in fact, held those children to be Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States,” not Article II “natural born Citizens.”

    Let us know when you get to the part about bipeds in general. You’ve already thrown in the kitchen sink.

  158. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater June 26, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    Majority Will:
    “Take it somewhere else.” – Mario Apuzzo

    Wow. Does this losing attorney actually think he’s taken over someone’s blog?

    What’s the word for someone like that?

    Give him a day or so he’ll run away like he always does when he is here

  159. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    ballantine: We are all waiting for you authority that “”Citizen” iwht a big “C” means naturalized citizens.

    Seems to me that a capital-“C’ Citizen would be superior to a lower-class—er, -case “c” citizen …. perhaps the super-duper Citizens the birthers are always dreaming up. The direct, inbred descendants of Jamestown and Plymouth settlers. Heh.

    There sure are a whole lot of capitalized nouns in our Founding Documents. I trust they all mean something special? And the putz and his Birther brethren hold The Key which unlocks this most Mundane of Mysteries?

  160. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    donna: so you criticized my grammar but were UNABLE to answer my question?

    He’s a DWI lawyer. What other tactic does he have?

  161. avatar
    JPotter June 26, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Lynch v. Clarke New York court erred in how it interpreted the early naturalization acts

    Eaux? Can you cite where Lynch was overturned on appeal? I sure can’t seem to find it. Lacking that, perhaps a higher court case that referred to it condescendingly, belittlingly, as in ridicule? Any case that question or undermined the decision? Anything at all? No dissents, dicta, editorials, or letters to the editor, please. I’m looking for one court sayin’ that other court was “whack” …. in proper legal terminology, of course.

  162. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 26, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    Take it somewhere else.

    Telling someone to leave, on a blog that isn’t even yours? That’s rich. Whats wrong? Can’t stand that no one is buying your shell game? “Oh! The answer isn’t under THAT obscure 18th century law that I am misinterpreting! It’s under this OTHER one from the 19th century!”

  163. avatar
    donna June 26, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    misha: He’s a DWI lawyer. What other tactic does he have?

    deflection does it i guess – or the 3 Rs: rinse, repeat and regurgitate

  164. avatar
    ballantine June 26, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    JPotter: Eaux? Can you cite where Lynch was overturned on appeal? I sure can’t seem to find it. Lacking that, perhaps a higher court case that referred to it condescendingly, belittlingly, as in ridicule? Any case that question or undermined the decision? Anything at all? No dissents, dicta, editorials, or letters to the editor, please. I’m looking for one court sayin’ that other court was “whack” …. in proper legal terminology, of course.

    Of course, Wong Kim Ark cited Lynch approvingly after re-stating most of what Lynch said. Accordingly, one can cite it as representing the law the Supreme Court approved. Again, that is only for people who can read English. Wait, “Lynch” didn’t get the big “C” little “c” argument either. I guess everyone in the 19th century were idiots.

  165. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 26, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have heard it all from you.

    Yes, essentially the same things you heard from every court and on every appeal – that you’re currently wrong about what exclusively Constitutes a Natural Born Citizen. The meaning of the law is always subject to change, but it has a current meaning settled actively or passively by the lawful processes of our government, principally by the judiciary, but also in this instance by the Congress when they certify the results of the electoral College vote.

    Your contrary definitions of the law are extra-legal speculation. They have lost every test you have subjected them to in court. Whatever feelings of insecurity compel you to legally stalk a sitting President have not, by that grandiose objective, allowed you to avoid the sad-sack pedestrian reality of every losing attorney who ENDLESSLY takes pathetic refuge in the increasingly remote possibility that the Nth time they bring the same frivolous case, they will prevail.

    Like them, mired in incompetence and repeated failure, your legal triumphs against Obama will never quite escape the bounds of prospectivity.

  166. avatar
    SluggoJD June 26, 2012 at 11:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Contrary to what you say, Scalia did not improperly conflate “’state of the United States’” with “’country.’”

    Evidently, you do not understand what “Free and Independent States” means.

    The new states also relied upon the law of nations and there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so today to the degree that the Constitution allows them within the context of a federal system.

    Under Article IV, Section 4, “The United States” is constitutionally obligated to guarantee every state “a Republican form of Government” and to “protect each of them against Invasion” and “domestic Violence.”

    Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment provides:“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Both Article IV and the Tenth Amendment express principles of self-preservation.State or nation self-preservation is a fundamental precept of the law of nations.Indeed, Scalia was correct in citing and quoting Vattel.

    What this means is that if a certain rogue federal regime is bent on denying a state the protection that it needs in order to survive as a republic, to ward off invasion from without, and domestic violence from within, there is no constitutional impediment for that state to act to protect itself and to join with other states to achieve that same end.

    Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly.You are so concerned about Justice Scalia conflating “’state of the United States’” with“’country,’”but with impunity you conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Man, you are one sorry glutton for punishment.

  167. avatar
    SluggoJD June 26, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    Are they giving away free law degrees in specially marked packages of spaghetti these days?

  168. avatar
    misha June 26, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    SluggoJD: Are they giving away free law degrees in specially marked packages of spaghetti these days?

    No, rigatoni.

  169. avatar
    Reality Check June 26, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    After watching Taitz and Apuzzo perform in court I am not sure I can say that Apuzzo is a better attorney than Taitz. Orly stays on message and consistently spouts the same lies. Mario stumbled, bumbled, and forget to bring a copy of the most important case on citizenship to the hearing in NJ. Orly is certainly more entertaining.

  170. avatar
    donna June 26, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    misha: No, rigatoni.

    i think where mario is concerned, it’s more like baccal than spaghetti/rigatoni –

    and taitz? more like gefilte fish – i mean have you ever seen a fish called gefilte?

  171. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 12:09 am #

    Reality Check: Andrew

    Taitz’s meltdowns are way funnier to watch too.
    Funnier still is when you get under her skin the point that she tracks your IP, calls your home phone number in hopes of intimidating you, then sounds all baffled as to why you can’t stop laughing at her, during said phone call.
    And the Jihads she calls for, on anyone who has rubbed her the wrong way? You can’t write that kind of comedy gold. She’s like something out of a cartoon! I love how she claims to stand up for the Constitution, whilst in the same breath will gladly call for incarceration or death to anyone who opposes her.

  172. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    donna: i mean have you ever seen a fish called gefilte?

    No, but I’ve seen a fish called Wanda. [bada-bing]

  173. avatar
    donna June 27, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    lol you win, misha!!!!

  174. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    misha: No, but I’ve seen a fish called Wanda. [bada-bing]

    That movie also had a silly Lawyer type person in it!

  175. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    Ballantine,

    Justice Gray did nothing but give us his personal opinion regarding the application of English common law in the United States to define national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and after the adoption of the Constitution. For example he says: “We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.” And again: “I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.” He is merely giving his personal opinion in these statements. He does not cite any authorities that support that personal opinion. Where are the sources from the Founding era that support what he is saying? He provides none. Moreover, he totally disregards the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which directly contradicted his statements that the English common law continued to apply to define our national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and after the Constitution was adopted.

    Also, I asked you to provide for me the holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court. And what do you give me, but quotes describing the old English common law which is exactly what I told you not to give me. So, as you see, I am right about you. You cannot give me the holding of Wong Kim Ark because you know it does not support your position. Rather, you have to defraud your way through by giving us the Court’s quotes on the old English common law without providing any evidence that that law still had application in the United States to define our national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and after the Constitution was adopted and without giving us the actual holding of the Court.

  176. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:51 am #

    JPotter,

    Maybe you should take your brain out of your pot so you can follow along just briefly.

    Article I and II say “Citizen of the United States.” In the James McClure case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson ruled that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States.” He did not say “natural born Citizen.” Now put your brain back in your pot where you like to keep it.

  177. avatar
    DP June 27, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    Taitz is a comedy classic. She brings a “Three Stooges” madcap style to the whole thing that is actually entertaining.

    Apuzzo is just a blowhard whose only tactic is to simply state that he’s right and everyone else is wrong even as court decisions stating the opposite pile up. He’s a run of the mill scam artist/hack/fool. Orlyis a truly twisted, yet inspired, piece of performance art.

  178. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:57 am #

    ballantine,

    “I guess everyone in the 19th century were idiots.” Let us not forget some in the 21st century.

    Now is that not just silly. How nice.

    Oh, I can just go on and on all day.

  179. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    If that were true, than only naturalized citizens can be representatives and senators.

    From Article I, Section 2:

    “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

    From Article I, Section 3:

    “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Article I and II say “Citizen of the United States.” In the James McClure case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson ruled that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States.”

  180. avatar
    DP June 27, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    Oh, I can just go on and on all day.

    We’ve noticed. But simply repeating the same tired arguments as court cases pile up against them hardly constitutes an accomplishment.

  181. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 1:02 am #

    SluggoJD,

    I bet you’ve got a lot of spaghetti in that tripe of yours hanging over your belt.

  182. avatar
    Lupin June 27, 2012 at 1:04 am #

    Excuse my ignorance of your constitutional law, but why should Arizona (or any other of your States for that matter) be considered a “Sovereign” state as that term was understood by Vattel — and is today?

    It doesn’t have an army, it doesn’t issue passports, it doesn’t strike its own currency (the adoption of the Euro required considerable constitutional modifications for each country); it doesn’t have its own diplomatic service, etc, etc.

    I mean, come to France, get arrested and try to claim you’re from the “Sovereign” state of Arizona and see what happens. You’ll soon be cleared of that misconception.

    So while the Vattel translation/quote is correct, I don’t quite understand why Scalia used it in that context?

  183. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 1:12 am #

    Reality Check,

    I could any school employ you as a professor. You are one boring chap.

  184. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 1:23 am #

    Linda,

    The Framers said that “Citizens of the United States” born after the adoption of the Constitution were no longer eligible to be President. Who were these “Citizens of the United States?”

  185. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 1:31 am #

    Lupin: So while the Vattel translation/quote is correct, I don’t quite understand why Scalia used it in that context?

    Echoes of dual sovereignty …. Civil War flashbacks …. he’s a big states’ rights guy. I see the position he’s advocating as an invitation to chaos. As he eloquently explains, their is a need for uniform naturalization across the states. The same applies to other questions of citizenship. The states are equally sovereign with each other … not with foreign countries. They’re not about to negotiate separate treaties, are they?

  186. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 1:40 am #

    That is not what they said. That is the clause that allowed the Founding Fathers to be “grandfathered in”. Otherwise, how were they natural born citizens? They were only born British citizens.

    Do you contend that US Senators and Representatives have to be naturalized citizens? The Constitution called for them to be Citizens of the United States, too.

    “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.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Framers said that “Citizens of the United States” born after the adoption of the Constitution were no longer eligible to be President. Who were these “Citizens of the United States?”

  187. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: He did not say “natural born Citizen.”

    Soooo … now you choose to omit that Article II mentions “natural born citizen”? So, there’s not a special “Article II natural born citizen” classification? And, as you pointed out, in Article II, it’s “natural born Citizen”; bringing in your other tap routines, that translates to a “natural born naturalized citizen” … which, again according to the readings of the putz, could only be a child of non-citizen parents born on US soil and later naturalized. Such a person is eligible to the Presidency? That’s your theory?

    Gee willikers, a plain reading of the putzisms sure does take a person to surprising conclusions.

  188. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 1:47 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Framers said that “Citizens of the United States” born after the adoption of the Constitution were no longer eligible to be President. Who were these “Citizens of the United States?”

    You know, I’m not having much luck finding this in the US Constitution. Is there some other constitution you’re referring to? Perhaps some other version or translation? I’m pretty much a stickler for the English translation ratified in 1789, along with its associated amendments. Just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here. 😉

  189. avatar
    Dr. Paul Maas RIsenhoover June 27, 2012 at 1:53 am #

    if one checks readily available insular passport or passport records, one easily discovers extensive evidence of proof of naturalization of women and children included in family passports, etc… http://www.archives.gov/research/passport/index.html
    email me at ilovelibby@gmail.com or drpaulmaas@gmail.com if you’d like to see some samples for example insular passports for Guam, Porto Rico, the Philippines, or Hawaii for families… also see

    http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1901&entity=FRUS.FRUS1901.p0564&q1=guam&q2=passport

    http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1900&entity=FRUS.FRUS1900.p0618&q1=hawaii&q2=passport

    http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1902&entity=FRUS.FRUS1902.p0087&q1=guam&q2=passport

    So as we can see, prior to the Cable Act of 1922, there was no motivation for naturalization petitions or records to exist on women and children. But the lack of such records does not prove that such women and children were not considered to be naturalized “citizens.”In fact, they were under the then-existing Acts of Congress.

  190. avatar
    Lupin June 27, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    JPotter: The states are equally sovereign with each other … not with foreign countries.

    I don’t understand this. ”

    A State is either sovereign with other states (countries), or it it isn’t. What you call “State” is (at least today) more like a Province or a Region (French term) or a Lander (Germany). A great deal of independence and autonomy does not make a “state” sovereign.

  191. avatar
    Lupin June 27, 2012 at 2:03 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are one boring chap.

    And you are a proven liar.

    Also, please take this opportunity to deny that your legal battle is being funded by right-wing organization(s) and that you are not doing this pro bono.

  192. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    Linda,

    You avoided answering my question. The Framers grandfathered “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided they had that status at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hence, they had to be born by the time the Constitution was adopted and not after. Of course, there were still “Citizens of the United States” born after the adoption of the Constitution. But they were no longer eligible to be President. My question of you is who are these “Citizens of the United States” who are no longer eligible to be President?

  193. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    JPotter,

    Again, try taking your brain out of your pot and answer my question rather than whining about it.

  194. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    JPotter,

    Too bad that your brain capacity does not allow you to keep up with the rest of us.

  195. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 2:21 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Again, try taking your brain out of your pot and answer my question rather than whining about it.

    You didn’t ask a question. See your own previous and only post to me, below. You haven’t asked me any questions in this thread; rather, you have yet to answer mine.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you should take your brain out of your pot so you can follow along just briefly.

    Article I and II say “Citizen of the United States.” In the James McClure case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson ruled that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States.” He did not say “natural born Citizen.” Now put your brain back in your pot where you like to keep it.

    I am trying to reconcile your body of work. If you don’t like the results, that is, you have no other response that to call the synthesis of your own writings “whining”, then you must hold your own writing in very low regard. How depressing!
    _________________

    ADD: Ah! Another empty insult response! You don’t even bother to assert that you are referring to the same Constitution? Hmmm. Well then, what are you referring to?

  196. avatar
    Dr. Paul Maas RIsenhoover June 27, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    Article I clearly rejects the Convention era argument, because the Constitution permits foreign born citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be President, hence the Congress rejected the exclusivist notion that only domestic born citizens of the US could be President… hence the term of art “natural born citizens” as used in that context is embedded semantically so as to include all American nationals and not merely the citizens of the US… after adoption of the Constitution, all citizens of the US are thus equally deemed to be natural born citizens… that is the proper sense of the construction… the only doubt was whether foreign born citizens were eligible, and the text plainly resolved that doubt in favor of inclusive treatment of such persons as equal Americans… btw the US long thought that taking the oath of our soldiers serves to expatriate persons (see http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS187576v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS187576v01.p0318&q1=chinese&q2=oath&q3=allegiance, disproving the Dragenice Court holdings)… compare the holding in Petition for Naturalization No. 8314 Mahmoud Kassas
    uniset.ca/islamicland/788FSupp993.html … all American nationals have American nationality even if not citizens of the United States… so too, all natural born citizens is a larger category than those merely citizens of the US though foreign born… the Constitution intends to include those about whom there was doubt, by providing the foreign born new citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution would also be eligible as natural born citizens…

  197. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 2:39 am #

    I answered, but I will try to break it down further. In order to be president, one must be a natural born citizen and meet certain age and residency requirements. No one qualified during the writing of the Constitution. Even a child born the day after the Declaration of Independence was adopted would not be old enough until July 5, 1811. So, while the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen, they understood that would not be possible for many years. In order to bridge that gap, they provided that anyone who was a citizen at the adoption Constitution, and met the with the stated age and residency, was eligible to be president.

    Now your turn. You didn’t answer my question. Do you contend that US Senators and Representatives have to be naturalized citizens? The Constitution called for them to be Citizens of the United States.

  198. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 2:41 am #

    Lupin: I don’t understand this. ”

    It gets confusing. Federal / State dual sovereignty … read up on US Constitutional law and plenary power in the US. The states are (in my IANAL understanding) more autonomous than the national subdivisions you noted (landers, cantons, etc.) For instance, they do have their own militaries, courts, state police system, and just about every gov’t function at some level has a state vs. federal angle.

    13 colonies (and later Texas) were, at one time, “sovereign states” on the world stage. If the colonies knew that by ratifying the Constitution, they were in for life (as settled by the Civil War), we’d still be waiting on ratification. Since then, 37 states have been created on equal footing with these once ‘full’ sovereigns. We also have territories, ‘sovereign’ tribes, and a federal district (which is ironically, ‘less’ sovereign than a state).

    As a whole, in terms of division of powers, the US is somewhere between Germany and the EU.

  199. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 2:49 am #

    In addition to Mario’s strangulations, here’s another favorite misreading:

    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;

    The capitalization is archaic, and so is the punctuation ….

    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;

    So that’s why all the Presidents have been old white guys! And no wonder the birfers are convinced Obama is ineligible.

  200. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 3:47 am #

    Notice how Luigi has become much more aggressive with his insults. Yes, I think it is a fine nickname for him, as no one really takes him seriously. And like Luigi, Apuzzo is rightly overshadowed by better, more talented people in his profession.

  201. avatar
    roadburner June 27, 2012 at 5:12 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Linda, You avoided answering my question.

    …..and another irony meter bites the dust (along with every birther case to date).

    c’mon putzo, ready to eat your words on the pakistan travel ban yet?

  202. avatar
    Jim F June 27, 2012 at 5:14 am #

    Mario has evidently carried out an enormous amount of research. The problem lies in what he does with that research and how he interprets it. He (apparently) believes that it is enough to convince himself that he is right and that it is up to him to convince all the readers of ths blog of the “correct” interpretation of all his hard work. He somehow forgets that there is no need to convince the doubters in this blog . All he needs to do is convince the judges. So far, he has been singularly and spectacurarily short in getting any judge to agree with him. So until he gets a favourable ruling in court he should be ignored for the silly irrelevense that he is. Come back with an “I was right all along” when the judges agree with you.

  203. avatar
    Northland10 June 27, 2012 at 5:54 am #

    Lupin: I don’t understand this. ”

    A State is either sovereign with other states (countries), or it it isn’t. What you call “State” is (at least today) more like a Province or a Region (French term) or a Lander (Germany). A great deal of independence and autonomy does not make a “state” sovereign.

    This is where the United States of America is, quite simply, different than much of the world. We live in a compromise instead of a confederation of fully independent states (formerly colonies) or a strict national/federal system. Some of this is reflected in our Congress where the House of Representatives which represent the individuals equally and the Senate which represent the states equally. Actually, the place in the debates where Vattel was quoted (among the various Natural Law writers), dealt with state sovereignty and equal representation. In my opinion, this was far more a concern to the convention than whether the eventual chief executive qualifications. The issue of state sovereignty has been our balancing act for over two hundred years and,yes, been part of the cause of some of worst moments. This same balancing act, however, is one of our ways of creating yet another check and balance against the power of the federal government. We’re funny this way.

    Still, despite the Birthers excitement and Mario’s attempt to conflate the issue, I see nothing in ruling that uses Vattel for anything beyond the same state sovereign discussion we have had running since 1776 It has absolutely nothing to do with the single paragraph that never said Natural Born Citizen.

  204. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Lupin: I don’t understand this. ”A State is either sovereign with other states (countries), or it it isn’t. What you call “State” is (at least today) more like a Province or a Region (French term) or a Lander (Germany). A great deal of independence and autonomy does not make a “state” sovereign.

    I don’t think it’s that black and white. Provinces can exercise some functions of sovereign nations. For example, Quebec screens immigrants to Canada who intend to reside in the province and the federal government only grants entry visas to those approved by the province. Quebec also has a Ministry of International Affaiirs which maintains quasi-diplomatic representation in a number of foreign capitals.

    In sports, Puerto Rico has its own Olympic teams, and, as I’m sure you know, Scotland, Wales and England compete as separate teams in football and rugby, though they compete in the Olympics as the UK.

    “State’s rights” has a bad rap in the US from having been used to justify slavery and segregation. While this is certainly understandable, it is not the whole story. States can use their powers to do good as well as bad. For example, Vermont is using its sovreignity to put in single payer health care.

  205. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    Justice Gray did nothing but give us his personal opinion regarding the application of English common law in the United States to define national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and after the adoption of the Constitution.For example he says:“We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.”And again:“I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.”He is merely giving his personal opinion in these statements.He does not cite any authorities that support that personal opinion.Where are the sources from the Founding era that support what he is saying?He provides none.”

    What a moron. You cite language that is actually a citation to authority. It is a quote from one of the most famous previous citizenship cases by a supreme Court Justice. Gray, of course, spends 21 pages citing every legal giant like Kent, Story, Marshall and every early citizenship case, two attorney generals and a secretary of state. Indeed, his opinion is the opinion of the Court and to pretend that 21 pages of authority is not sufficient is another desperate argument. Justice Waite, of course, did not cite a single authority and Justice Fuller cited no early authority that actually supported him.

    Also, I asked you to provide for me the holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court.And what do you give me, but quotes describing the old English common law which is exactly what I told you not to give me.So, as you see, I am right about you.You cannot give me the holding of Wong Kim Ark because you know it does not support your position.Rather, you have to defraud your way through by giving us the Court’s quotes on the old English common law without providing any evidence that that law still had application in the United States to define our national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and after the Constitution was adopted and without giving us the actual holding of the Court.

    I gave you the holding. If you don’t understand that the rationale is part of the holding and not dicta I can’t help you at this point. If you can’t understand that he said the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of the English common law rule incorporated into the original constitution. I’m sorry that is over your head.

    And the quotes I cited were saying the English common law had application in the United States. They made the point over and over and over. Did you not read them. Do you not understand when it says our common law was the same as in England over and over. I know, it doesn’t count because they didn’t cite enough authority. You arguments become more and more pathetic by the blog post.

  206. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 7:25 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Linda,

    The Framers said that “Citizens of the United States” born after the adoption of the Constitution were no longer eligible to be President.Who were these “Citizens of the United States?”

    Obviously natural born and naturalized citizens born before 1787. Duh. No one has ever said anyone born in a state in 1786 or any earlier was naturalized as no statute ever naturalized such people. Do you really think just making stuff up will convince anyone?

  207. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    If Vattel actually applied to states of the United States, then a state could set up border controls and exclude say Green Card holders, and I guess Georgia could have excluded northern agitators back in the day.

    Anyhow, I’m boycotting Arizona. They can get their tourist dollars from someone else. I don’t feel welcome or safe there.

    Scientist: I don’t think it’s that black and white. Provinces can exercise some functions of sovereign nations. For example, Quebec screens immigrants to Canada who intend to reside in the province and the federal government only grants entry visas to those approved by the province. Quebec also has a Ministry of International Affaiirs which maintains quasi-diplomatic representation in a number of foreign capitals.

  208. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 7:36 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    JPotter,

    Maybe you should take your brain out of your pot so you can follow along just briefly.

    Article I and II say “Citizen of the United States.”In the James McClure case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson ruled that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States.”He did not say “natural born Citizen.”Now put your brain back in your pot where you like to keep it.

    And he did not say “naturalized citizen.” Now all you have to do is show us where Johnson or anyone else in history said “Citizen of the United State” meant naturalized citizen. Obviously you can’t but will still keep insisting your own made up definition is right. Embarrassing. Obviously, both natural born and naturalized citizens are eligible for Congress, But, of course, those tricky framers actually said only naturalized citizens are eligible just to confuse us. Really can’t make this stuff up.

    From 1790 Naturalization Act:

    “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…”

    Yes, clearly only naturalized citizens have such right. Oh, I forgot, it’s not capitalized. Of course, completely changes the meaning because Mario says so.

    Justice Waite:

    “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    Waite just said such persons were natural born citizens as well and he is talking about being a US citizen. Obviously a natural born citizen is a citizen. Wait, it’s not capitalized. So Waite is saying the are themselves US citizens, but not Citizen of the United States. LOL.

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2012 at 7:45 am #

    The Framers said no such thing. You might have said “some Citizens of the United States” (i.e. naturalized citizens) were no longer eligible, but as you phrased it, it is false.

    Are you the best legal mind the birthers have?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Framers said that “Citizens of the United States” born after the adoption of the Constitution were no longer eligible to be President. Who were these “Citizens of the United States?”

  210. avatar
    bovril June 27, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Northland10: BTW, may I quote you when you use the dissent in WKA as support?

    Ooo, oooo, me sir, please sir,

    Now Mario, since you’re such a Krap Konsitutional Kalamity who likes to quote dissent in supporting your arrant nonsense.

    I presume you of course read the dissent in WKA, you remember it, the part where the Chief Justice lays out EXACTLY what the consequences would be for WKA..?

    You remember, but I’ll just remind you, per that chap Fuller

    Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

    So, in the very decision that you and your delusional ilk, attempt to bend to make up magical 3rd, 4th and 5th categories of citizen, the ENTIRE SC were explicitly aware that by this case they ensured that ANYONE (outside of the diplomat/foreign invader classes) born in the US could run for President as an NBC.

    Thoughts…?

  211. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 8:23 am #

    bovril: the ENTIRE SC were explicitly aware that by this case they ensured that ANYONE (outside of the diplomat/foreign invader classes) born in the US could run for President as an NBC.
    Thoughts…?

    It even applies to places that elect a dog as mayor, like Rabbit Hash, Kentucky.

    Put that in your pipe Mario, and smoke it.

  212. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    Linda,

    I asked you who were these Article II “Citizens of the United States,” who were to be born after the adoption of the Constitution and who the Framers prohibited from being President?

    You answered: “No one qualified during the writing of the Constitution. Even a child born the day after the Declaration of Independence was adopted would not be old enough until July 5, 1811. So, while the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen, they understood that would not be possible for many years. In order to bridge that gap, they provided that anyone who was a citizen at the adoption Constitution, and met the with the stated age and residency, was eligible to be president.”

    I see that you are evading answering my clear question. You know darn well that age has nothing to do with distinguishing a “natural born Citizen” from a “Citizen of the United States.” In almost 4 years in this debate, this is the first time that someone has made such a ridiculous distinction between the two phrases. If you want me to answer your question, answer my question first or simply tell me that you refuse to answer it, or you do not have an answer. I will then answer your question.

  213. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 8:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If Vattel actually applied to states of the United States, then a state could set up border controls and exclude say Green Card holders, and I guess Georgia could have excluded northern agitators back in the day.

    I know you didn’t mean that this is what Quebec does, but just to be clear, it isn’t. Any Canadian citizen or resident is free to move to Quebec. The provincial role in immigration has to do with preservation of the French language and culture and their desire to attract immigrants who speak French. I wouldn’t see anything wrong with immigrants to the US who plan to live in Puerto Rico being made aware that Spanish is the principal language there. Nor even with states trying to attract immigrants with necessary skills (I believe North Dakota is looking for oil drillers all over the world).

    Dr. Conspiracy: Anyhow, I’m boycotting Arizona. They can get their tourist dollars from someone else. I don’t feel welcome or safe there.

    The sad thing is that Arizona has several world-class scenic attractions, not just the Grand Canyon. I would have no trouble never going to Alabama, but Arizona has some superb sights.

  214. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 27, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    donna: Pie

    We know what Shakespear meant with “nunnery”. But we do not know what Mario means with “grammar school” and “vision center”. Probably as distant from reality as his idea of NBC.

  215. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    Mario, Orly and the rest of their coterie are trying to incite a lone wolf.

    Their protests to the contrary, are simply disingenuous.

  216. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    Scientist: Arizona has some superb sights.

    Arizona also has produced some superb crackpots.

    Paul Pieniezny: But we do not know what Mario means with…“vision center”.

    He means I can’t see straight. Mario’s father was wrong – Mario did amount to a hill of beans.

  217. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Scientist: The sad thing is that Arizona has several world-class scenic attractions, not just the Grand Canyon. I would have no trouble never going to Alabama, but Arizona has some superb sights.

    Said sights will outlast foolish government. Well, unless foolish gov’t dedicates itself to destroying nature. Not entirely unimaginable, unfortunately.

  218. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 8:54 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If you want me to answer your question, answer my question first

    “I’ll take ‘crank legal theories’ for $200, Alex.”

  219. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    Ballantine,

    So these are your authorities that support your “natural born Citizen” Justice Gray English common law jus soli theory: “Kent, Story, Marshall and every early citizenship case, two attorney generals and a secretary of state?” Do you know how many authorities there are which do not agree with them? Also, you citing to Marshall and Story is ridiculous. You have never provided one statement from Marshall that support your silly theory. Also, Story in Shanks adopted Vattel’s position that children follow the condition of their parents. Kent wrote in 1826 and provides no sources to support his persons opinions.

    Justice Gray’s statement, “I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States,” proves nothing. Provide for me one source that you say Justice Gray provided which links to the Founders and which shows that we continued to apply the English common law to define our national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and the adoption of the Constitution. You will not be able to do so because neither you nor Justice Gray have any.

    You said: “Justice Waite, of course, did not cite a single authority and Justice Fuller cited no early authority that actually supported him.” Even if what you wrote were true, it does not matter because the source exist. You cannot say the same about Justice Gray.

    I see that you refuse to state with simple clarity what the Wong holding is and rather prefer to give us a lot of jumbled double talk about the English common law. This only shows how much of a little weasel of a fraud you are.

  220. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 9:12 am #

    You know, we have discussed the technical details of whether or not Barack Obama would still be a natural born citizen even if he had been born in Kenya. But this topic made me remember something: Barack Obama was never naturalized as a citizen. Oops!

    Even in the fantasy scenario of a Kenyan birth, Obama was born a citizen of the United States. Speculation about foreign birth is at least edifying because it relates to the real world situations of Americans being born abroad. But sniffing vapor fumes (forget penumbras) about three levels of citizenship is something else.

  221. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:16 am #

    Ballantine,

    You are an amateur.

    You think you impress somebody on here with your self-claimed intelligence. Well, let me tell you that you are delusional in your thinking.

    I asked who are the “Citizens of the United States” who in the future were no longer eligible to be President. I did not mention anything about naturalized. You did. What’s the matter ballantine, can’t answer the question?

  222. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Article II provides that all those born after the adoption of the Constitution have to be “natural born Citizens” in order to be eligible to be President. Countless legal authorities and court decisions confirm this. We have always accepted that naturalized “citizens” born after the adoption of the Constitution are not eligible to be President. And you say that “there were no citizens eligible before the Constitution who were ‘no longer eligible’ afterwards.”

    I hope you are feeling ok, Doc.

  223. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I see that you are evading answering my clear question.

    Still floggin’ false dichotomy? A gentleman and a scholar …. would do no such a thing.

    Since you insist on wallowing in them, I have another foolish word game you can play! Ready? Don’t worry, it’s inspired by your own dichotomatic obsession, so it should be easy for you to win!

    The phrase is:

    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;

    You insist on reading it as:

    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;

    Implying that both of these are true:

    … a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    … a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    Whoa! A “Citizen of the United States” or “a natural born Citizen” … the Constitution specifies a “Citizen of the United States“, but not “of [what]” said “natural born Citizens” must be citizens of, only that they be “natural born”.

    So, there are an awful lot of things one can be a natural born citizen (excuse me, Citizen)of in the world. Most of them are not the United States. Can you list them all, Mario?

    [ Once again, with a short indulgence in putzism, I have succeeded in upending the commonly understood intent of the “natural born” Citizen clause. 😉 ]

  224. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    Age is a requirement for the Presidency. In addition to being a natural born citizen, they have to be at least 35 years old and have been been a resident of the US for at least 14 years. The US wasn’t its own country until July 4, 1776. So who could be a natural born citizen, born in the US (and at least 35 years old and have lived in the US for 14 years) at the time the Constitution was ratified? That is why they made the exception for a citizen of the US at time of the adoption of the Constitution. Those citizens were the people who lived in the US during that time, born British citizens but chose to remain in the US rather than go to England, just like the founders.

    If that is not the case, then why was an exception necessary?

    You said that where the Constitution says “Citizen of the United States”, with a capital “C”, it means a naturalized citizen. The Constitution says that senators and representatives must be “Citizens of the United States”, capital “C”. Do you believe the Constitution requires all senators and representatives to be naturalized citizens?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I see that you are evading answering my clear question. You know darn well that age has nothing to do with distinguishing a “natural born Citizen” from a “Citizen of the United States.” In almost 4 years in this debate, this is the first time that someone has made such a ridiculous distinction between the two phrases. If you want me to answer your question, answer my question first or simply tell me that you refuse to answer it, or you do not have an answer. I will then answer your question.

  225. avatar
    donna June 27, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    Paul Pieniezny:

    donna: Pie

    mario criticized my grammar, didn’t answer my dual citizenship question and then wrote this to Reality Check:

    “I could any school employ you as a professor. You are one boring chap.”

    i admit i have not had enough coffee yet, but what does that mean?

    re scalia’s rant: i’m from a blue state, which pays more into the government than it receives ($0.79 on the dollar) – i would like az to return the $0.19 more they receive from the government – i’m sick of red state “socialism”

    in 2010, scalia replied to a letter sent to him regarding secession – he said states had no right to secede:

    I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

    http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_images/Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg

    i saw some opining about scalia’s rant and the impetus – roberts assigned the immigration opinion to kennedy and concurred – it is opined that roberts will write the health care opinion and scalia is pissed because roberts will opt to uphold the law –

    we shall see

  226. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Despite the public persona that you try to paint of yourself, I have never doubted that you are as much of a little fraudulent weasel as ballantine. Article II does not say “some Citizens of the United States” where prohibited in the future from being eligible to be President. It says “Citizens of the United States” were so prohibited. So just answer my question, who were these “Citizens of the United States” who were so prohibited, not who were these “some Citizens of the United States?”

  227. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    I think you are out of line.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Despite the public persona that you try to paint of yourself, I have never doubted that you are as much of a little fraudulent weasel as ballantine.

  228. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    Mario,

    It says naturalized Citizens are prohibited. That’s why Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible and Congress was trying to amend the constitution to make him eligible.

  229. avatar
    The Magic M June 27, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Article II does not say “some Citizens of the United States” where prohibited in the future from being eligible to be President. It says “Citizens of the United States” were so prohibited.

    But since natural born citizens are citizens, that would mean they were/are prohibited, too.

    You keep playing one of the dumbest birther word games, namely to claim that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are mutually exclusive. This wouldn’t give you any more than an F in 3rd class, let alone in any law school that deserves its name.

  230. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Bovril,

    I have one very simple response to your bovril. Too bad for you that the Wong majority did not say what Chief Justice Fuller ascribed to it while he protested the majority’s treatment of children born abroad to United States citizen parents as second rate to children born in the United States to aliens.

  231. avatar
    The Magic M June 27, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This only shows how much of a little weasel of a fraud you are.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: you are as much of a little fraudulent weasel

    Somebody is getting increasingly desperate because his “fine legal analysis” isn’t going anywhere in the real world courts.

    Reminds me of someone I knew in university. The guy told me he had spent some 10 years writing a book that would revolutionize physics, basically would be the “theory of everything” that physicists have been looking for since forever.
    I can only imagine his reaction to the reception of his book in the scientific community. It’s always hard when you come out of the back room and have to face the fact that you wasted years of your life with absolute nonsense.
    Of course the expected reaction is to call everyone else part of a conspiracy and to double up on the language when insisting “but I am right dammit” doesn’t get you anywhere…

  232. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    So these are your authorities that support your “natural born Citizen” Justice Gray English common law jus soli theory:“Kent, Story, Marshall and every earlycitizenship case, two attorney generals and a secretary of state?”Do you know how many authorities there are which do not agree with them?Also, you citing to Marshall and Story is ridiculous.You have never provided one statement from Marshall that support your silly theory.Also, Story in Shanks adopted Vattel’s position that children follow the condition of their parents. Kent wrote in 1826 and provides no sources to support his persons opinions.

    Justice Gray’s statement, “I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States,” proves nothing.Provide for me one source that you say Justice Gray provided which links to the Founders and which shows that we continued to apply the English common law to define our national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and the adoption of the Constitution.You will not be able to do so because neither you nor Justice Gray have any.

    You said:“Justice Waite, of course, did not cite a single authority and Justice Fuller cited no early authority that actually supported him.”Even if what you wrote were true, it does not matter because the source exist.You cannot say the same about Justice Gray.

    I see that you refuse to state with simple clarity what the Wong holding is and rather prefer to give us a lot of jumbled double talk about the English common law.This only shows how much of a little weasel of a fraud you are.

    Now you are making no sense at all. Gray did cite MArshall and Story and there statement support Gray. There is no requirement that he cite founders who, other than MAdison ctiing jus soli, didn’t actually speak on the matter. The majority of hte Supreme court through Gray said that the definition of natural born citizen was incorporated inot the NBC clause and has 21 pages of citations to cupport that. It does not matter if you think such support is sufficient or that you think there are authorities that disagree. The Supreme Court’s opinion counts and yours does not. To say the multitude of sources he cites, the leading legal authorities of the early republic don’t count because they didn’t prove their claims is a new low in argument as citing such authority is how courts prove their claims. You now seem caught between denying what WKA says and pretending it doesn’t count because you says so.

    And, of course, you have no evidence from the framers that actually disagrees with Gray and the multitude of scholars and cases he cites at least if you read such sources honestly.

  233. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    It does not say that. So your question is meaningless.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It says “Citizens of the United States” were so prohibited. So just answer my question, who were these “Citizens of the United States” who were so prohibited, not who were these “some Citizens of the United States?”

  234. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Despite the public persona that you try to paint of yourself, I have never doubted that you are as much of a little fraudulent weasel as ballantine.Article II does not say “some Citizens of the United States”where prohibited in the future from being eligible to be President.It says “Citizens of the United States”were so prohibited.So just answer my question, who were these “Citizens of the United States” who were so prohibited, not who were these “some Citizens of the United States?”

    It says no such thing. It says Citizens of the US at the time of adoption were included. Doesn’t say such were naturalized citizens as you are simply making that up and still cannot cite a single source in history to support. Just keep doubling down on stupidity. Explain how the term citizen of the United STates in all the early statutes meant only naturalized citizens. Duh.

  235. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    JPotter,

    You have not proven anything. The Framers said “natural born Citizen” and they said “Citizen of the United States.” It is that simple.

    Why do you not tell us who the future “Citizens of the United States” were supposed to be? Or will you evade the question like all the rest of your buddies (like Linda, Dr. Conspiracy, ballantine & Co.) have on here?

  236. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 27, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    The Magic M: But since natural born citizens are citizens, that would mean they were/are prohibited, too.

    You keep playing one of the dumbest birther word games, namely to claim that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are mutually exclusive. This wouldn’t give you any more than an F in 3rd class, let alone in any law school that deserves its name.

    Mario may be one of those unfortunates who are so dumb they think everybody else is dumber than they are. Either that or he’s so sleazy he is disingenuously spouting legalistic nonsense he knows to be baseless just to smear the President. So logically he is either stupid or immoral. I don’t care which, but he’s definitely one or the other.

  237. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    If I were documenting the rise and fall of a particular phenomena (like, say, birtherism), I would consider myself fortunate to get so much on the record directly from one of its most vocal proponents. What excellent primary source material! What would any researcher give for a chance to discourse with the Founders, or with Christ, or Lincoln, or any number of historical figures?

    Of course, birtherism falls far short of being a Great Event in World History, but as it goes, Mario is definitely on the short list of key figures. So, as birtherism goes, this is pretty vital stuff. being an idea/argument, the intellectual content of birtherism, particularly as expressed by its founders and most vocal proponents, is its lifeblood, and will be its legacy.

    So, what kind of legacy is it leaving, here and elsewhere? In the words of Mario:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Oh, I can just go on and on all day.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Despite the public persona that you try to paint of yourself, I have never doubted that you are as much of a little fraudulent weasel as …

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are an amateur.
    You think you impress somebody on here with your self-claimed intelligence. Well, let me tell you that you are delusional in your thinking.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This only shows how much of a little weasel of a fraud you are.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Again, try taking your brain out of your pot and answer my question rather than whining about it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I could any school employ you as a professor. You are one boring chap.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you should take your brain out of your pot … Now put your brain back in your pot where you like to keep it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have heard it all from you. You have nothing new to add. The same old tired responses about how everything is silly and how you can just cite authority all day. Take it somewhere else.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Your BS sounds just like that of the good Professor, Reality Check.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a worthless fool and even ashamed to call yourself a lawyer.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That is not where I went to law school, fool.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Get thee to a vision center.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Get thee to a grammar school.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly.

    Whew! Heady stuff. Truly, intellectual marvels for tha ges. Posterity will be impressed.

  238. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    It is simpler. The Framers said “the.” Many times they used that word in the Constitution. Please explain why they used the definite article. If you are going to selectively (mis)quote the Constitution, you might as well do it right!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    The Framers said “natural born Citizen” and they said “Citizen of the United States.” It is that simple.

  239. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    Linda,

    You told me who the original “Citizens of the United States” were. I asked you who the future ones were. You seem to be having a lot of trouble answering my question, just like Dr. Conspiracy, ballantine, and the rest of you on here. Do you want to try again?

    About your comment about the capital “C” in “Citizen of the United States,” thank God that I do not have to tell you to get thee to a vision center. You can read what the framers wrote in Article I and II. Did you also read U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson’s quote contained in Secretary of State James Monroe’s letter of November 27, 1811 in which the Justice said that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States?” Sure is strange that Justice Johnson should capitalize his “C” when he wrote “Citizen” since he was not writing the Constituiton which we know contains all capitals for nouns and even Congress when writing the word “citizen” in its statutes never capitalized it (not even in the Naturalization Act of 1790).

  240. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Mario-Let me simplify things so that even you can understand them. There are NO restrictions on who can be President. None. Zip. Nada. The 12th Amendment is directly pertinent to the original Article II and supercedes the original language. Here is what it says- “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President”. It even capitalizes “Number” just for you.

    I know you hate democracy, but I will allow Winston Churchill to speak in its defense-“Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. The great thing about allowing living people rather than dead guys to choose the leaders is that if living people get it wrong they are able to change their minds, something which dead guys can’t do.

    The voters decide. Not you, Mario. Not the Framers. Not dead judges.

  241. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You told me who the original “Citizens of the United States” were. I asked you who the future ones were.

    Everybody eligible for a US passport.

  242. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Jim,

    You said: “It says naturalized Citizens are prohibited.” So you are saying that when the Founders said that future “Citizens of the United States” were no longer eligible to be President after the adoption of the Constitution they said that future “naturalized Citizens are prohibited” from that position? Is that your position?

  243. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    Who cares? The Constitution says nothing of such future citizens or Citizens. It says: “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…”

    That means that in our current time only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible. No one else is eligible. So, your question is meaningless.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You told me who the original “Citizens of the United States” were. I asked you who the future ones were.

  244. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have not proven anything.

    I sure have; I have proven that I can laugh me arse off at your expense!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Framers said “natural born Citizen” and they said “Citizen of the United States.” It is that simple.

    So you can’t answer the “‘.. natural born Citizens’ of what?” question? Not even going to try? I suppose you could dodge, and go with reading it as “… natural born Citizen … at the time of the adoption …”, but then we’re back to looking for 223-yr old people to run for President.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not tell us who the future “Citizens of the United States” were supposed to be?

    Why do you keep inserting “future” into the Constitution? You wouldn’t put words in the Framers’ mouths, would ya? The phrase plainly states that, in addition to “natural born Citizens” (of what?), persons who were “Citizens of the United States” at the time of the adoption are eligible to the Presidency.

    As for who introduced the word “naturalized”, you did. You explained to the world that, in the US Constitution, “Citizen” with a capital ‘C’ translates to “naturalized citizen.” We’re just taking you at your word. This has lead to the question of why must Senators and Representatives be naturalized citizens, and to confirm what the Framers meant by “natural born naturalized citizen”. It seems odd that our elected representatives must not be natural born, but if you say so. Is this the Framer’s version of “a prophet in his own land…”?

    [ See what happens when you’re too silly to acknowledge that “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption” are subsets of “Citizens of the United States”? Good times, Mario, good times! 😀 ]

  245. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    He is seriously going to keep insisting that a big “C” changes the meaning of the term. Seriously. There is really nothinbg one cqan say. And he is going to keep saying that the Constituion says that Citizens of the US in the future are not eligible when it says no such thing. Allowing “Citizen” i.e., both natural born and naturalized citizens, in 1787 to be eligible and only natural born later does not mean that all “Citizens” were excluded in the future. Plain English again. As is typical Mario re-writes the language to try to support his absurd argument an arugment he cannot a single person to support, as usual.

  246. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    Actually, there were 3 types of citizens in 1787. Natural born, naturalized and those who adhere to the US cause who no one ever called naturalized.

  247. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Well, I am trying, but the question is little like “have you stopped beating your wife”. It doesn’t specifically say who cannot be president. It says who can be, a natural born citizen, at least 35, who has lived in the US for at least 14 years. Any citizen, natural born or not, who fails to meet those requirements would not be eligible.

    If you are trying to say that those citizens were naturalized, I am not buying it. It was a difficult situation, when a Country changes its character. Every citizen was a British citizen, not a US citizen. Those who wanted to go to England would be considered natural born British citizens, those who remained here were considered US citizens. There was no naturalization test, no oath. Do you know of a statute or act which purports to do that?

    I think this is the 4th time I have (attempted) to answer you. You have yet to answer me. You claim that when the Constitution says “Citizen of the United States” that it means naturalized citizen, yet that is how it refers to senators and representatives. De you contend that the Constitution requires senators and representatives to be naturalized citizens?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Linda,

    You told me who the original “Citizens of the United States” were.I asked you who the future ones were. You seem to be having a lot of trouble answering my question, just like Dr. Conspiracy, ballantine, and the rest of you on here.Do you want to try again?

    About your comment about the capital “C” in “Citizen of the United States,”thank God that I do not have to tell you to get thee to a vision center.You can read what the framers wrote in Article I and II. Did you also read U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson’s quote contained in Secretary of State James Monroe’s letter of November 27, 1811 in which the Justice said that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States?” Sure is strange that Justice Johnson should capitalize his “C” when he wrote “Citizen” since he was not writing the Constituiton which we know contains all capitals for nouns and even Congress when writing the word “citizen” in its statutes never capitalized it (not even in the Naturalization Act of 1790).

  248. avatar
    roadburner June 27, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    mario,
    you can rattle on to you’re blue in the face about what the framers meant by using a capital or lower case `c’. it really has no bearing on reality, and is more akin to people looking at the trade mark for proctor and gable and seeing `666′ in it’s beard and claiming it means they’re in league with the antichrist.

    you have not won one birther case, and yet you have the audacity to come here and call people fools for trying to point out the failures in your reasoning, something the courts have also shown with their rejection of your cases. an unbroken record of failure.

    if someone hit’s their thumb with a hammer, they generally don’t do it again believing it won’t hurt next time. you seem to be hammering away at yours and looking supprised at the increased swelling (the downward spiral of your reputation) and increased pain level.

    doesn’t that tell you at least something?

  249. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Jim,

    You said:“It says naturalized Citizens are prohibited.”So you are saying that when the Founders said that future “Citizens of the United States” were no longer eligible to be President after the adoption of the Constitution they said that future “naturalized Citizens are prohibited” from that position?Is that your position?

    BWAHAHAHAHA You’re funny Mario! Can’t even read the Constitution and you’re going to court to try and argue the Constitution!!! No wonder the Judge called your argument “bullcrap”, although he said it much nicer.

  250. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    roadburner: you can rattle on to you’re blue in the face about what the framers meant by using a capital or lower case `c’.

    Ah! That reminds me…..still waiting on the comprehensive key to the Secret Meanings of all the Capitalized Words in the Founding Documents.

  251. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    The Magic M,

    I hope you did not go to law school, which, among various intellectual demands, requires reading comprehension, and pass.

    There are “natural born Citizens.” And there are “Citizens of the United States.” These are words of art. Today, under Article II, only the former are eligible to be President. If one is a “citizen,” one is either one or the other. Hence, they are both “citizens.” The constitutionally critical distinction for presidential eligibility is therefore not between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen,” but rather between a “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States,” for a “citizen” can be either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” A “citizen” is not a “natural born Citizen” unless he or she satisfies the definition of the clause. If he or she does not satisfy that definition, then he or she is a “citizen of the United States.”

    Minor v. Happersett confirmed the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and held that it was a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark provided the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth and held that it includes a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, even if those parents are not legally able to become U.S. citizens, but provided that they are not foreign diplomats or military invaders.

  252. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    The point is the Constitution avoids the whole problem by merely saying “citizens.” They note the existence of natural born citizens saying they are eligible, and then say (any other) citizens *at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution* are also eligible.

    Of course, I will note that there is nothing to stop time travelers from becoming president. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. George Washington: Time Traveler? Or is it: Time Traveller?

    Which category of time travelers, or travellers, are prohibited?

  253. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Which is to say you are elaborate distinction about “Citizens” is meaningless. All that matters is whether or not one is a natural born citizen. Your definition of natural born citizen is “without merit,” as has been pointed out. Your discussion of “Citizen” is just irrelevant.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    There are “natural born Citizens.”And there are “Citizens of the United States.”These are words of art.Today, under Article II, only the former are eligible to be President.If one is a “citizen,” one is either one or the other.Hence, they are both “citizens.”The constitutionally critical distinction for presidential eligibility is therefore not between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen,” but rather between a “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States,” for a “citizen” can be either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”A “citizen” is not a “natural born Citizen” unless he or she satisfies the definition of the clause.If he or she does not satisfy that definition, then he or she is a “citizen of the United States.”

  254. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    The Magic M,

    I hope you did not go to law school, which, among various intellectual demands, requires reading comprehension, and pass.

    It is hard to imagine anyone who went to law school would claim “Citizen of the United States” is a term of art that is different than “citizen of the United States” when, of course, no in in history has said so. Did they teach you to just make stuff up? Reading “Citizen” to mean both natural born and naturalized makes perfect sense and no one has ever said otherwise. Are you not getting tired of having your argument laughed at?

  255. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Paper: Which category of time travelers, or travellers, are prohibited?

    Oh, yes, i was just thinking the archaic spellings must also have significant secret meanings! For instance, who are the “Brittish”? Who knows what the Declarations was really declaring! What did the Constitution really constitute?

    Stay tuned as Mario putzzles it all out for us!

    [ I am picturing Mario starring in his own linguistic . semantic / etymological version of National TreasureNatural Born Treasure Punter ]

  256. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    misha: I’m a NYS licensed optician. I’m doing fine, thank you.

    Most awesome comeback ever. Comment of the week!

  257. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    Mario’s increasing reliance on personal insults is very telling.
    Like all birther lawyers, his “knowledge” of the law is so transparently bad, that we uneducated lay-folk can see huge gaping holes in it. So what does he do? Resort to the sort of internet message board name calling you see on XBLA. I guess if its good enough for kids who have yet to hit puberty, its good enough for a middle aged attorney! Next thing you know, he’ll be calling us all “noobs” and insulting our mothers’ sexuality.

  258. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There are “natural born Citizens.” And there are “Citizens of the United States.” These are words of art. Today, under Article II, only the former are eligible to be President.

    “Eligible” and “be” are two different words, are they not? Article II governs “eligible” but the 12th Amendment governs “be”. One can be eligible for the office of President under Article II, but not be President under the 12th Amendment (that would describe the vast majority of Americans). Similarly, one can be President under the 12th Amendment without being eligible under Article II. So far, no one has done that, but it could happen some day. Either way, it’s no problem, as the Constitutiion is prepared for any eventuality.

  259. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    On my way to work. There is an ambassador from Jesus Christ on my train. Not sure whether or not he capitalizes the “A.” Nor am
    I sure if his children are eligible to be president.

  260. avatar
    realist June 27, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    “The Magic M,

    I hope you did not go to law school, which, among various intellectual demands, requires reading comprehension, and pass”

    Mario… You apparently attended law school, somehow passed the bar (but then apparently so did Orly Taitz) and were admitted to practice.

    It doesn’t seem those attributes stuck with you. And you completely ignore many of he requirements of practicing law, not the least of which is candor with the court, one of which you were admonished in NJ recently. Which makes two such recent admonishments in recent history.

    Perhaps that wasn’t so important in DUI law and you just forgot.

  261. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

    Ballantine,

    You said: “It says no such thing. It says Citizens of the US at the time of adoption were included. Doesn’t say such were naturalized citizens as you are simply making that up and still cannot cite a single source in history to support. Just keep doubling down on stupidity.”

    I did not say they were naturalized. You said that. All I said is that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 uses the clause “Citizen of the United States” and excludes them in the future from being President. Also, your little included and excluded game does not help you, for Article II says “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” That my friend EXCLUDES all those who are not “natural born Citizens.” That, my friend, EXCLUDES those who are “Citizens of the United States,” but not “natural born Citizens.”

    You said: “Explain how the term citizen of the United States in all the early statutes meant only naturalized citizens.”

    Congress has always meant exactly what it has always said, “citizen of the United States.” It did not say that only “citizens of the United States” could enjoy those benefits. Rather, it said that “citizens of the United States” could. Your argument that if we read a “citizen of the United States” for exactly what it is would prevent a “natural born Citizen” from enjoying those same statutory benefits is absurd. Sure, a “natural born Citizen” can be President, but he or she cannot enjoy the rights of a “Citizen of the United States.” This argument is as absurd as your Article I “Citizen of the United States” argument which I will now address.

    Regarding your argument about Article I allowing a “Citizen of the United States” to be a member of Congress which you contend proves that I am wrong in saying that future “Citizens of the United States” are not eligible to be President because “natural born Citizens” would be precluded from being eligible for Congress, that “Citizen of the United States” status, like the status of being 25 or 30 years old, is only a minimum to be satisfied. It would be pretty ridiculous to argue that the Framers required someone to be only 25 or 30 years old to be eligible for the House and Senate, respectively. Like the clause does not say that 50-year-olds are also eligible, it does not say that “natural born Citizens” are also eligible. It does not say it because there was no need to say it. It was self evident from the clause itself. So your point proves nothing.

  262. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    JPotter,

    I see that you brain is back in your pot. Why not quote to what I was answering.

    Maybe you can even add something about spaghetti and macaroni.

    By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

  263. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Paper,

    You said: “That means that in our current time only a ‘natural born Citizen’ is eligible. No one else is eligible. So, your question is meaningless.”

    But the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress say “citizens of the United States.” So who are they?

  264. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That my friend EXCLUDES all those who are not “natural born Citizens.”

    It does NOT!!! No one is excluded, you liar.

  265. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    Gibberish. YOu can spin all you want but it doesn’t say “Citizens of the United States” are excluded. You are once again re-writing the language to give yourself an argument. It says all Citizens are eligible if citizens in 1787 and only natural born citizens afterwards. Such means that “Citizens” who are not natural born are then not eligible. Such reading makes perfect sense no matter how many atimes you say otherwise.

    And the Congressional elgibility provisions, you are again re-writing the provision. One who is a naturalized citizen for 30 years has “been seven Years a Citizen of the United States.” There is no need to infer an “at least” into the language. And even if one did, it doesn’t say one must be at least a naturalized citizen. Such language makes no sense anyway since such provisions were written long before the NBC clause and hence there was no difference between natural born and naturalized at such time. The absurd claim that the framers would state one needed to be naturalized to be in Congress and would leave it for us to infer such also included natural born would be drafting malpractice.

    Again, you can spin your own silly interpreations all you want. You still can’t find a single authority in history that agrees with you. Something cannot be a term of art if no one but you understands its meaning. Come on, cite one person or admit this is your own made up definition that no one has ever agreed with.

  266. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress say “citizens of the United States.”

    The 12th Amendment says, ““The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President”. That is plain English with no wiggle room. You lose, buddy.

  267. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Ballantine,

    I did not say “that a big “C” changes the meaning of the term.” Article II says “Citizen of the United States.” That’s it. I did not write it, the Framers did. Just like they wrote “natural born Citizen.” Both “citizens” have a capital “C.” The Constitution is full of capitals. They mean nothing other than to show that nouns are capitalized. Why you do not understand that I do not know.

  268. avatar
    roadburner June 27, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    y’know, i just had a memory flashback of one of my friends and a set of nunchucks. he took them out and started ineptly spinning them round and hit himself in the back of the head with them, knocking himself to the ground.

    i always thought that was a once in a lifetime chance seeing something like that, but here you are doing exactly the same thing as he did but instead of ineptitutde with a martial arts weapon, you are doing it with your own distorted opinion of law, history, and the constutution.

    and that is exactly how much you are `beating’ the contributors here.

  269. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    Jim,

    Too bad. You cannot escape by your little twist and run.

  270. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    ballantine,

    Your responses are getting worse by the minute. You are now in the hopeless category. You are beat, my friend.

  271. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Jim,

    Too bad.You cannot escape by your little twist and run.

    Mario,

    Too bad. You cannot escape the courts telling you that you’re full of it.

  272. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    Oh, cool! When will the preliminary fooling around conclude and the beating commence? I wouldn’t want to miss it. Is there a tight schedule, or is it catch-as-catch can?

    I’ve never seen Mario ‘beat’ anyone before. This will be a first! 😀

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why not quote to what I was answering.

    Ummm …. Englisch, bitte?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress say “citizens of the United States.” So who are they?

    C/citizens …. of …. the … United …. States.

    _____________________

    What i was getting at in my comment about the intellectual legacy of birtherism (before the editor so rudely cut me off! 🙂 ), was whether a key figure in the development of the delusion being documented should be given an extra measure of grace. Basically, allowed to dig in as deep as he/she wants too, be as offensive as he/she wants to. Tolerated much farther, much longer than a common victim of said delusion would be.

    Unfortunately for common decency, I think the answer is yes. The rants and fits of the common birther troll are easily cast aside, and will be of no use to future study of birtherism (should there be any ….). But the name of Apuzzo will be associated with birtherism as long as birtherism is being chuckled at, wherever and whenever that may be.

  273. avatar
    Majority Will June 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    Ignore the troll.

  274. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

    Mario- No court has ever denied anyone the ability to run for President or to serve as President on the grounds of not being a natural born citizen. There is not a single case. You are simply a liar making up law that doesn’t exist.

  275. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    Sure Mario…keep telling yourself that. Maybe that will take some of the sting away form the knowledge that you haven’t even come remotely close to winning in court with these genuinely silly claims. You can’t even hide behind the claim that the courts don’t address the question, and use dismissal for lack of standing as a shield to protect your genuinely meritless your arguments. The courts have spoken directly on every point you raise, and they’ve laughed you out of the court. The reality is, that nothing anyone writes here in response to your meaningless ranting, compares to what the folks in the black robes have said, afterall, their opinions are the ones that really matter. No matter how hard you try to pass off arrogance as intelligence, there’s no hiding from the fact that the court have declared your arguments frivolous. So again, keep puffing your chest out. Keep claiming you’re right, and we’re all far too unintelligent to grasp your brilliance. But when it comes down to it, everytime you’ve come in here bragging about how right you are, and how solid your arguments are, we just chuckled, said you were wrong, and lo and behold, the court have agreed with us every single time. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

  276. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Mario

    Both Gray in the majority opinion and Fuller in the dissent in Wong Kim Ark knew the majority ruling made WKA a natural born citizen. So did contemporary writers who read about the case. New York Attorney William Dameron Guthrie said this only weeks after the Wong Kim Ark decision in his lectures on the Fourteenth Amendment: http://books.google.com/books?id=4sUlAAAAMAAJ&vq=wong%20kim%20ark&pg=PA57#v=onepage&q=wong%20kim%20ark&f=false (Page 57)

    ““The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in this clause has occasioned considerable difficulty. If the parents of a child born in the United States were citizens the meaning was clear. But what was to be the status of a child born in the United States of Indians or of Chinese or other alien parentage? In the leading case of Elk v Wilkins it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of our Indian tribes still existing and recognized as such even tho he had voluntarily separated himself from his people and taken up his residence among the white citizens but who did not appear to have been naturalized or taxed was not born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction thereof and was not a citizen. He was born subject to the jurisdiction of his tribe. This decision left in uncertainty the legal status of all others born in the United States of alien parentage. Was their citizenship to be determined by the common-law of locality of birth or was the rule of the civil law as to the allegiance of the parents to control? This question was not settled until a few weeks ago thirty years after the amendment adopted thus showing how slowly constitutional law develops the life of a nation. The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chines subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.”

    So the contemporary writers “got it”. It seems that you are incapable of accepting the truth.

  277. avatar
    DP June 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    Your responses are getting worse by the minute.You are now in the hopeless category.You are beat, my friend.

    Are you really so vain and childish?

    When have you actually beaten anyone with these arguments in a court of law, where victors and losers are actually determined?

    Feel free to go back to your schoolyard taunts now.

  278. avatar
    bovril June 27, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Bovril,
    I have one very simple response to your bovril. Too bad for you that the Wong majority did not say what Chief Justice Fuller ascribed to it while he protested the majority’s treatment of children born abroad to United States citizen parents as second rate to children born in the United States to aliens.

    So Marion,

    When the Chief Justice states explicitly and plainly enough even for a buffon like yourself that by this ruling WKA would be able to run for President, it doens’t ACTUALLY nean what he said?

    I mean you quiote with glowing admiastion and outright lies on pretty much every other dissenting opinion when you feel it can be used to supoport your idiotic theses.

    So, to return to the original point, EXACTLY how many courts, cases, real Constitutional lawyers and experts and judicial majorities have supported yiur opinion in the last 100 years?

    Oh and just how did it feel when a junior associate beat your ass black and blue..?

  279. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    There must be an example in the wayback machine of some obscure internet forum somewhere with The Putz declaring his legal genius and glorious victory after getting his DUI client life without parole. 🙂

  280. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Joe Acerbic:
    There must be an example in the wayback machine of some obscure internet forum somewhere with The Putz declaring his legal genius and glorious victory after getting his DUI client life without parole.

    Life without parole for DUI?!?!? What did his client do, take out a school bus full of kids?

  281. avatar
    Rickey June 27, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    It is obvious that you are not here to own up to your lie about the supposed ban on travel to Pakistan.

    You have not won a single birther case and you know full well that you will never win a birther case. But winning has never been the true objective, has it? Someone is paying you to keep alive the lie that President Obama is illegitimate and un-American. Consequently, any theory, no matter how far-fetched, is grist for your rumor mill and requires no fact checking. Consequently, you are spreading the bogus story than an anonymous letter to a newspaper in 1811 was written by James Madison, never mind the fact that 15 minutes of research would have demonstrated that Madison never used the pseudonym “Publius” after 1788. Consequently, you repeatedly spread the bogus story that Obama could not have traveled to Pakistan on a U.S. passport in 1981, and you continued to spread that story long after you were presented with iron-clad proof that no such ban ever existed.

    You are, in fact, an embarrassment to your profession. You are beneath contempt. I would not hire you to handle a traffic ticket.

  282. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 27, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Jim: Life without parole for DUI?!?!?What did his client do, take out a school bus full of kids?

    …the point of the hypothetical being that with those legal skills it could have been somebody sleeping on the back seat of their car in their own driveway with 0.01% BAL.

  283. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    Joe Acerbic: …the point of the hypothetical being that with those legal skills it could have been somebody sleeping on the back seat of their car in their own driveway with 0.01% BAL.

    I gotta get this sarcasm meter fixed…Orly’s broken it again. 😀

  284. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    JPotter,

    You said: “Most awesome comeback ever. Comment of the week!”

    How amazing how such trivialities capture your fancy.

    Says a lot about you.

  285. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    I did not say “that a big “C” changes the meaning of the term.”Article II says “Citizen of the United States.”That’s it.I did not write it, the Framers did.Just like they wrote “natural born Citizen.”Both “citizens” have a capital “C.” The Constitution is full of capitals.They mean nothing other than to show that nouns are capitalized.Why you do not understand that I do not know.

    So what point are you trying to make? It includes the term and it obviously means natural born or naturalized citizen whether or not the “C” is capitalized. And It doesn’t say “Citizens of the United States” cannot be President. It says all CItizens are eligible in 1787 and only natural born later. Simple English. We still see you cannot cite a single authority that says “Citizen” with a capital “C” doesn’t include natural born citizens or means naturalized citizen. I guess you can just keep saying you are right over and over like you always do. I just can’t understand why the courts ignore your arguments.

  286. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    Ah yes, the time tested “Losing is winning” tactic that so many of you birthers employ.

    “I’m bleeding, making me the victor.”, Wimp Lo

  287. avatar
    US Citizen June 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Wow. Close to 300 posts here.

    One question I have is what would happen if Mario actually won the fantasy he’s seeking.
    I know… magical thinking and hopeless (good!), but it would seem he’d be killing the legal status of almost all Presidents, both GOP and Dem, under the same belief none were ever citizens.
    Regardless, I don’t know why he just doesn’t pretend Obama is a white right winger.
    He seems to be able to fool himself that he’s winning.
    Might as well go the full distance and just convince himself he’s won and all is well.
    Did I mention magical thinking? 😉

  288. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Reality Check,

    William Dameron Guthrie correctly stated the holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court as: “The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers.”

    Where Mr. Guthrie errs is in saying what that holding means. That holding does not mean that Wong was eligible to be President, for his citizenship was established by ‘virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment” and no more. The very old rule of constitutional construction provides that every word and clause in the Constitution must be given effect. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks only of a “citizen of the United States.” It makes no mention of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. You still have to show that Wong satisfied the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by both Minor and Wong Kim Ark itself.

    Additionally, so Mr. Guthrie read Justice Fuller’s dissent or maybe yet he was pushing for somebody to run for President. Maybe you are not familiar with the slippery slope argument. Many times dissents (and opposing counsels) will argue that the majority decision is ruling in a way which will lead to great calamity. The majority will usually just ignore what the dissent is complaining about or simply explain how it is not true. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the majority simply ignored Chief Justice Fuller’s one sentence presidential eligibility dicta. Hence, just because the dissent says something about the majority opinion does not make it correct, even in the words of many majority opinions themselves. The majority did not construed Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. Rather, it constued the Fourteenth Amendment and it “citizen of the United States” clause. How can you want to make Fuller’s super dicta some binding precedent?

  289. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Mario, just come out and admit it already. The only problems you birthers actually have with Obama, is that he is a black man with a funny sounding name. If he had lighter skin and went by “Barry Dunham”, you wouldn’t have given him a second look.

  290. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

    The 12th and 20th do that. You lose again…

  291. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    Ballantine,

    You said: “And It doesn’t say “Citizens of the United States” cannot be President. It says all Citizens are eligible in 1787 and only natural born later. Simple English.”

    So let’s see if I can understand what you are saying. Let us apply Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to a hypothetical.

    First, we cannot deny that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says: “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.” The clause expressly states that, except for those who were grandfathered to be eligible to be President as “Citizens of the United States” if they had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution, any person who is not a “natural born Citizen” is excluded from being President.

    Second, let us assume that John Smith was born after the Constitution was adopted. Let us further assume that he is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 40 years, can he be President?

    Third, now let us assume that John Smith is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of an Act of Congress. Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 30 years, can he be President?

  292. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    Mario

    So Judge Sandford “erred” in Lynch v Clarke. William Guthrie “erred” in interpreting Wong Kim Ark. The Indiana court “erred” in the Ankeny case. Every single judge who has heard your arguments has also “erred”. That is a lot of errors isn’t? On the other hand maybe just one person “erred”?

  293. avatar
    BillTheCat June 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    Talk is cheap. GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU WIN A COURT CASE.

    In the end, that’s all that matters in determining who got “beat”, Mario The Charlatan.

  294. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    Third, now let us assume that John Smith is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of an Act of Congress.Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 30 years, can he be President?

    If the act of Congress is to naturalize Mr Smith, then no.

  295. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    Talk is cheap. GET BACK TO US WHEN YOU WIN A COURT CASE.

    In the end, that’s all that matters in determining who got “beat”, Mario The Charlatan.

    If talk is cheap, then why are Lawyers so bloody expensive?
    http://instantrimshot.com/

  296. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    Second, let us assume that John Smith was born after the Constitution was adopted.Let us further assume that he is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 40 years, can he be President?

    Third, now let us assume that John Smith is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of an Act of Congress.Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 30 years, can he be President?

    Per Wong Kim Ark a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment is a natural born citizen as Gray said they both were defined by the English common law rule. I know you never read the quotations I cite. The 14th Amendment was not an Act of Congress, but an Amendment that was declaratory and affirmative of the rule under the original Constitution. I know you ignore that part of WKA as well. Someone a citizen pursuant to a naturalization act is not natural born citizen but you have yet to show any Court that has ever said someone born on US is naturalized. Justice Gray makes clear they are not naturalized but you simply think what he says doesn’t count as has every other court that has addressed the issue. I know you have seen the quotes.

    And no matter how you spin, the rationale of a decision is precedent not dicta and there is no way one can arrive at WKA being a citizen without defining the law under the original Constitution as the 14th Amendment was determined to be declaratory of the same rule. It is sad you don’t understand that.

  297. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Reality Check, William Dameron Guthrie correctly stated the holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court as: “The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers.” Where Mr. Guthrie errs is in saying what that holding means. That holding does not mean that Wong was eligible to be President, for his citizenship was established by ‘virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment” and no more. The very old rule of constitutional construction provides that every word and clause in the Constitution must be given effect. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks only of a “citizen of the United States.” It makes no mention of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. You still have to show that Wong satisfied the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by both Minor and Wong Kim Ark itself. Additionally, so Mr. Guthrie read Justice Fuller’s dissent or maybe yet he was pushing for somebody to run for President. Maybe you are not familiar with the slippery slope argument. Many times dissents (and opposing counsels) will argue that the majority decision is ruling in a way which will lead to great calamity. The majority will usually just ignore what the dissent is complaining about or simply explain how it is not true. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the majority simply ignored Chief Justice Fuller’s one sentence presidential eligibility dicta. Hence, just because the dissent says something about the majority opinion does not make it correct, even in the words of many majority opinions themselves. The majority did not construed Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. Rather, it constued the Fourteenth Amendment and it “citizen of the United States” clause. How can you want to make Fuller’s super dicta some binding precedent?

    Absolute balderdash. You ignore page after page of the Court’s opinion establishing the definition of “natural born” as being jus soli (why exactly would they bother to do this if it had nothing to do with how we define NBC?). Then you try to create some new and bizzaro separate catagory of 14th Amendment citizen, when the Court quite clearly stated, “the 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen…is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law.” “The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth…. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Quite simply, the 14th Amendment was intended to rid us of Dred Scott.

    Your twisted contortions would actually have the effect of making the 14th Amendment alter the NBC cluase to either eliminate it, or simply require that you have to be born outside the borders of the US to be President. Amendments change the Constitution (something your “rule” of Constitutional construction seems to ignore. Or at least you ignore the fact that you don’t give effect to those parts that have been altered by Amendment). Where the original Constitution conflicts with an Amendment, the Amendment wins (i.e. Amend XVII altered Art I Sec. 3 by giving the people direct power to elect the Senate). Amend XIV states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” So by your logic, no person born on US soil can be a Natural Born Citizen. There are no exceptions to the clause. It says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.” I suppose that would make John McCain the only person actually eligible to run for office since 1868.

    I suppose it shouldn’t be a big surprise that no court has given any weight to your moon bat arguments.

  298. avatar
    linda June 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    Yes to the first example. Unknown as to the second. If the act of Congress was to declare children of those serving in the US military, born overseas, are citizens at birth (natural born citizens), then yes. If the act of Congress was to confer naturalization, no.

    The Courts have repeatedly ruled that there are only two ways to obtain citizenship in the US, by birth (natural born citizens) or by naturalization (naturalized citizens).

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Second, let us assume that John Smith was born after the Constitution was adopted. Let us further assume that he is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 40 years, can he be President?

    Third, now let us assume that John Smith is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of an Act of Congress. Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 30 years, can he be President?

  299. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Second, let us assume that John Smith was born after the Constitution was adopted. Let us further assume that he is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 40 years, can he be President?

    Since the 14th Amend. was merely declarative of the law as it always has been, then provide he falls under the “born in” part of the 14th Amendment, yes, he is a Natural Born Citizen, and eligible to be President.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Third, now let us assume that John Smith is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of an Act of Congress. Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 30 years, can he be President?

    That depends. If the act of congress merely states him as a citizen, then argueably, we are dealing with Congress’ power to pass laws regarding naturalization. That would make him a naturalized citizen, and ineligible. However, John McCain is purportedly a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of an act of Congress passed 2 or 3 years after his birth, declaring those born to parents stationed in the Canal Zone were NBC. And the Senate, as well as several real Constitutional scholars argue that he does qualify. That however, continues to be the subject of scholarly debate.

  300. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How amazing how such trivialities capture your fancy.

    Catching on that you’re not being taken seriously? The infantile inability to note how hysterical you stepped in it re: Misha is all frosting. Pure, cane-sugar sweet.

    Gettin’ much legal-type stuff done today? I’m sure not seeing any here. And did I miss the beating(s)?

  301. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Mario

    Why don’t you come back when you find each of the following:

    1. Contemporary articles that said that Minor v Happersett defined explicitly the definition of natural born citizen and who could serve a president.

    2. Contemporary articles that said that Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen but was not eligible to be president even if he met the age and residency requirements.

    You would still be wrong based on recent decisions but you wouldn’t look like quite the idiot that you do now.

  302. avatar
    bovril June 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    I believe the appropriate phrase is that like a dog you continue to return to your own vomit.

  303. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    😆 Good one!

    bovril: I believe the appropriate phrase is that like a dog you continue to return to your own vomit.

  304. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am here on this filthy blog

    bovril: I believe the appropriate phrase is that like a dog you continue to return to your own vomit.

    And like a dog, Mario licks his scrotum.

  305. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Reality Check,

    1. You ask me: “So Judge Sandford “erred” in Lynch v Clarke.” Yes, a state court engaged in policy making over national citizenship which is the providence of Congress. First, the court did not correctly interpret the early naturalization acts, saying that Congress did not mean to also include in their scope children born in the United States to alien parents when the text of the acts does not support such a limited view of the acts. Second, the court was also only involved in a state property inheritance issue and turned its decision into one concerning national citizenship (rather than state citizenship which was all that was necessary to decide the dispute before it) and even who was eligible to run for president. That has go to be one of the most blatant cases of judicial overreaching that I have ever read.

    2. You ask me: “William Guthrie “erred” in interpreting Wong Kim Ark.” Yes, in confirming that the Court held Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and no more and then saying, without arguing that the Court also found Wong to be a “natural born Citizen,” that he was eligible to be President.

    3. You ask me: “The Indiana court “erred” in the Ankeny case.” Yes. The court said that Wong “held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.” In footnote 14 to this statement, it then said:

    “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

    So Ankeny condeded that the Court held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But then without any explanation conflates and confounds that Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.” In other words, it treated the Fourteenth Amendment as though it subsumbed, incorporated, or included within it Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. But there is no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment ever repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen” clause and Ankeny simply assumes without explaining that it did.

  306. avatar
    bovril June 27, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    My pleasure, although the full quote is probably even more apposite

    Proverbs 26:11

    As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly

  307. avatar
    Majority Will June 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    misha:
    And like a dog, Mario licks his scrotum.

    Shouldn’t that be scrota?

    He has quite a dog pound.

  308. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    bovril: I believe the appropriate phrase is that like a dog you continue to return to your own vomit.

    Very appropriate, but I haven’t seen a dog that was proud of his vomit. Boastful, even. “Hey, have you guys tried this stuff? It’s my best yet!”
    _________

    Oh, Bovril just went all Biblical on him, beat me to it!
    _________

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: erred … erred … erred …

    Sir, would you like an extra shovel? Some assistance with the excavation of that hole you’re working on?

  309. avatar
    Majority Will June 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    JPotter: Very appropriate, but I haven’t seen a dog that was proud of his vomit. Boastful, even. “Hey, have you guys tried this stuff? It’s my best yet!”
    _________

    Oh, Bovril just went all Biblical on him, beat me to it!
    _________

    Sir, would you like an extra shovel? Some assistance with the excavation of that hole you’re working on?

    Apparently, birther bigots just can’t stop while they’re losing. That part of the birther bigot brain must be missing or damaged.

  310. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    JoeZeppy,

    What on earth are you talking about. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country.

  311. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: JoeZeppy, What on earth are you talking about. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country.

    Thank you for clarifying which bogus NBC definition you were going by, since you birthers have multiple.

    Still doesn’t change the fact that by your logic, one is required to be born outside the territorial limits of the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen.

  312. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    bovril,

    Talking about vomit, now I know why you call yourself bovril.

  313. avatar
    Scientist June 27, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What on earth are you talking about. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country.

    Like Obama…..

  314. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    Misha,

    I guess your next going to tell me about my panties like Reality Check did.

    See, I was right about this filthy blog.

  315. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    bovril,

    You are so stupid that you even concede that this blog is vomit.

  316. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    JoeZeppy,

    Maybe some medication will help you.

  317. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: JoeZeppy, Maybe some medication will help you.

    Sadly, it appears that there is no amount of medication that can cure what ails you…There’s just no fixing stupid.

    But at least the rest of us will enjoy your next judicial smack down. Just keep telling yourself everyone else erred. You’re the only one that knows the truth. Perhaps someday you’ll even convince yourself it’s true.

  318. avatar
    BillTheCat June 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Misha, I guess your next going to tell me about my panties like Reality Check did. See, I was right about this filthy blog.

    What a mental case you are. Get help.

  319. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    BillTheCat:

    What a mental case you are. Get help.

    Looks like Mario is hitting the bottle early today….I suppose if my legal career ended up like his, I might be prone to alcoholism as well.

  320. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    Mario –

    So basically, your argument really comes down to YOU claiming that the prior court decisions were all wrong, due to what you perceive to be “overreach” anytime they decided to reference Citizenship in a way that you personally don’t agree.

    That’s really all this amounts to. You personally don’t agree nor accept the courts accepted positions. Nor do you accept what the 14th Amendment actually is and does…but I’ll address that particular issue in a follow-up post.

    In other words, what you desire is to replace existing accepted law with your own novel interpretation. Yet you seem to back down and weasel around when you are actually writing your motions or arguing in front of an actual judge and just sort of dance around coming out and telling the courts that is what you wish to do.

    The laws and the courts don’t care whether you personally accept or disagree with them. If you are incapable of WINNING your argument in court for replacing the existing established maxims with your own novel interpretations, then you have FAILED.

    Which is where you are today. You’ve LOST in court EVERY time you’ve tried to push your “arguments”.

    There seems to be three main reasons for that: One, your arguments are weak and full of a lot of disingenuous and specious bloviating that doesn’t help your case at all.

    Second, you so far have come across quite inadequate and out of your league whenever you are actually in front of a courtroom and not just pretending to be a tough guy, hiding behind a keyboard.

    Third and most importantly, the existing established body of law and rulings have consistently said otherwise. Therefore, this isn’t really some “uncharted territory” like you pretend it to be. No, this merely comes down to you failing to make any sufficient argument to the courts as to why the established conclusions were wrong. All you have is a whiney little yelp of “No fair – overreach!!!”, with very little to back it up.

    Sorry, but neither the courts nor any rational person is going to feel empathy towards an impertinent and self-absorbed minnow who throws a tantrum demanding that the mighty river should stop flowing, just because he wishes he could swim upstream. There is simply no trout nor salmon to your arguments, only a furious thrashing of your little minnow tail.

    So stop wasting everyone’s time pretending you are somebody that anyone should take seriously or pay attention to. You had your chance in court several times to plead your case. You’ve LOST and FAILED every time. Therefore, the courts have proven you WRONG every time.

    So its been game over for you for awhile. You are just in denial and pretending, behind the quaint cozy protection of your keyboard, to be a somebody that you are not. You have merely proven to be just another random insecure blowhard with a blog and a scattering of desperate gullible idiot followers who are foolish enough to pay attention to your quixotic and long winded drama queen antics.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Reality Check,

    1.You ask me:“So Judge Sandford “erred” in Lynch v Clarke.”Yes, a state court engaged in policy making over national citizenship which is the providence of Congress.First, the court did not correctly interpret the early naturalization acts, saying that Congress did not mean to also include in their scope children born in the United States to alien parents when the text of the acts does not support such a limited view of the acts.Second, the court was also only involved in a state property inheritance issue and turned its decision into one concerning national citizenship (rather than state citizenship which was all that was necessary to decide the dispute before it) and even who was eligible to run for president.That has go to be one of the most blatant cases of judicial overreaching that I have ever read.

    2.You ask me:“William Guthrie “erred” in interpreting Wong Kim Ark.” Yes, inconfirming that the Court held Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and no more and then saying, without arguing that the Court also found Wong to be a “natural born Citizen,” that he was eligible to be President.

    3.You ask me:“The Indiana court “erred” in the Ankeny case.”Yes. The court said that Wong “held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.” In footnote 14 to this statement, it then said:

    “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

    So Ankeny condeded that the Court held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.But then without any explanation conflates and confounds that Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.” In other words, it treated the Fourteenth Amendment as though it subsumbed, incorporated, or included within it Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.But there is no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment ever repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen” clause and Ankeny simply assumes without explaining that it did.

  321. avatar
    roadburner June 27, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    bovril,

    You are so stupid that you even concede that this blog is vomit.

    translation – i’ve had my arse handed to me so many times here that i’ll now throw a hissy fit and stomp off claiming victory even though i was soundly trounced.

    hey mario, you going to answer the folks asking about the pakistan travel ban, seeing as you are ALWAYS honest and reply with rapier sharp wit to any questions

  322. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Jim: What did his client do, take out a school bus full of kids?

    It happened: The 1976 Chowchilla kidnapping occurred in Chowchilla, California, on July 15, 1976, when kidnappers abducted 26 children and their adult driver from their school bus and imprisoned them in a buried truck. The driver, Frank Edward “Ed” Ray, was able to free the children, and the kidnappers were caught and convicted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Chowchilla_kidnapping
    and
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/chowchilla_kidnap/index.html

  323. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    Whether William Guthrie made an error depends upon what one calls the holding. Some people call the disposition of the case the dispostion and rationale and the dispostion together the “holding.” Some people call the dispostiion the “holding” and the rationale the Ratio decidendi. Really doesn’t matter as they are both precedent, not dicta. You apparently slept through that class. So unless you can point out that this person said the natural born citizenship dicsussion was dicta, your cite is meaningless. And, as others have said, an opinion of some unknown authority means very little when Court after Court and shcolar after scholar have cited WKA as dispositive. You have made no case that the natural born citizenship discussion in WKA is dicta as you seem to have no understanding what such term means. No court spends 21 pages discussing something that is dicta and unless you can show such discussion to be unnecessary it is as a matter of law precednet, not dicta. I hope you are taking notes on some of this free legal education.

    And Ankeny is right. It doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court declared WKA to be natural born. What matters is whether it defined who was natural born and whether it was dicta. Take note that Justice Waite never declared Virgina Minor a natural born citizen. Such point is irrelevant as to whether such discussion is dicta or not. I know this is a waste of time as you will just keep repeating you are right over and over and think you are winning the debate. Of course, everyone else on the thread is laughing at you but we know you really don’t pay attention to any posts debunking you and just repeat your made-up law over and over and over. Do you or your fringe followers ever feel silly saying court after court and scholar after scholar are all wrong and you are right. Starting to look like other fringe groups like the sovereign citizen or tax protestor movements which say the same things.

  324. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    G,

    Next time you write such a long comment, try saying something.

  325. avatar
    bovril June 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Poor Marion, complete falure to grasp basic gramamr and vocabulary, no wonder your legal “career” is such a failure.

    Now I know they may be big words for you but I wrote that YOU (that’s Marion) returns to YOUR (Marion’s) own personal vomit of cack.

    The sentence structure (that means how it’s put together) denotes (that means…means) the named entity (that’s you) after vomiting ridiculous, fact free nonsense, is compelled (that means forced) to return to said vomit due to your (Marion’s) crass idiocy.

    There, hope that helps you grasp what was written down.

  326. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    roadburner

    Old hat.

  327. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    *sigh*

    Your problem is your willful blinders and tunnel vision in insisting upon limited options that differ from the reality of what the 14th Amendment actually *is* and *does* in regards to Citizenship.

    It does NOT repeal nor amend the NBC clause. It merely clarifies that the superset of Citizenship only comes in two basic flavors:

    EITHER:

    Born (which Natural Born equates to)

    OR

    Naturalized.

    That is essentially it, with respect to general definitions in regards to Citizenship. It is not creating *new* types of citizenship at all. Merely spelling out the two overall types that ALREADY exist and clarifying that either of those two types apply to ALL PERSONS subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    Yes, it really is that simple. Which is why even most young school children have very little difficulty in grasping that concept.

    *sheesh*

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So Ankeny condeded that the Court held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But then without any explanation conflates and confounds that Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.” In other words, it treated the Fourteenth Amendment as though it subsumbed, incorporated, or included within it Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. But there is no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment ever repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen” clause and Ankeny simply assumes without explaining that it did.

  328. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Next time you write such a long comment, try saying something.

    *POP* goes the irony meter.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “ERROR ERROR! CANNOT COMPUTE! ERROR ERROR!”

    Ah! The translator kicked in. Excellent.

  329. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Why…

    You never do.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    Next time you write such a long comment, try saying something.

  330. avatar
    Majority Will June 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    “I guess your next going to tell me about my panties like Reality Check did,” says the arrogant twit who admonishes the incorrect grammar of others.

    JoZeppy may be right about the putz hitting the bottle.

  331. avatar
    bgansel9 June 27, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Majority Will: Apparently, birther bigots just can’t stop while they’re losing. That part of the birther bigot brain must be missing or damaged.

    Actually, it’s considered by them to be a steadfast commitment and they highly favor that “stand up against all the facts they throw at you” approach.

  332. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    So far, this is the ONLY paragraph I’ve seen from you that holds up and is correct.

    Yes, that is how that sentence reads. It applies two optional quantified CONDITIONS (or subsets) of Citizens that qualify for the office of President. In simple terms, it is saying that not *every* Citizen is eligible – only those that meet EITHER of those conditional options:

    “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.”

    So it simply does two things to narrow the eligibility field within this dimension of Citizenship:

    First – it clarifies that Citizenship is a general requirement for a Person applying to this position.

    Second – it specifies that Citizenship alone is not enough UNLESS that Citizenship ALSO meets EITHER of those two conditions.

    As Citizenship is acquired in essentially one of two basic ways – you are either BORN a citizen or you are NATURALIZED to become one at some point AFTER you are born – the sentence is telling you that all BORN citizens ARE eligible, but the *only* NATURALIZED ones that are ALSO eligible are those that meet the TIMING qualifier of obtaining their Citizenship by the time the Constitution was adopted.

    Simple as that.

    There really is no supportable meaningful arguments out there that hold up in which “natural born” and “born” are not legally interpreted as synonymous terms. Sometimes the English language gets redundant and two words are used, when only one is necessary. That is the only area in which there was some reasonable research at one point…but the findings essentially support that the expressions “natural born” and “born” are applied synonymously.

    Therefore ANY US Citizen that was “born” a Citizen meets that specific eligibility requirement under the first condition. Further, as there is no longer anyone alive today who meets the TIMING qualifier under the second condition, ONLY the first condition is still relevant to current and future eligibility for the office.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    So let’s see if I can understand what you are saying. Let us apply Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to a hypothetical.

    First, we cannot deny that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says: “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.” The clause expressly states that, except for those who were grandfathered to be eligible to be President as “Citizens of the United States” if they had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution, any person who is not a “natural born Citizen” is excluded from being President.

    Your scenario lacks sufficient meaningful data to draw a conclusion. You have NOT clearly stated whether John Smith was BORN a US Citizen or became one via NATURALIZATION. So, you haven’t really addressed the only quantified conditions of Citizenship to which the Constitutional requirement of Presidential eligibility refers.

    So there is simply two possibilities here – either John Smith, the 40-year old who has resided for 40 years in the US was BORN a US Citizen (i.e. NBC) – in which the answer is YES he *IS* eligible…

    OR

    John Smith, the 40-year old who has resided for 40 years in the US was NOT A US CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH (several scenarios for this are possible –such as came to US a week after his birth to foreign parents and was then adopted by US parents, born originally to foreign diplomats, etc.) and therefore, obtained his US Citizenship via some form of NATURALIZATION process – in which the answer is NO he *IS NOT* eligible…

    The Citizenship they had AT BIRTH is what matters. If they weren’t originally BORN a US Citizen, then Adoption by US Parents and US residency only confer Naturalization.

    http://www.hooyou.com/adoption/citizenship.html

    Therefore, the aspect of adoption is IRRELEVANT to the conditions of the NBC clause in the Constitution in regards to Presidential eligibility. TIMING (i.e. you are either BORN qualified or you are NOT) is the ONLY CONDITION that matters.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Second, let us assume that John Smith was born after the Constitution was adopted. Let us further assume that he is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 40 years, can he be President?

    Again, you are trotting out a meaningless alternate scenario here that doesn’t provide information sufficient to make any meaningful determination.

    You have failed to CLARIFY exactly what this specific “Act of Congress” declared (and when) in terms of his Citizenship and have not specified the original conditions under which John Smith was born (where & to whom) in order to make that determination. Further, the timing assumption of WHEN and HOW his total 30-years US residency intersect within the span of his 40 years of life is unclear.

    …So there is simply insufficient PROPERLY RELEVANT data to draw a clear conclusion in your scenario.

    ONLY if all those conditions of his birth would make him a Statutory NBC via that Act of Congress, would he meet eligibility.

    OTHERWISE, if his circumstances translate into that Act of Congress NATURALIZING him instead of making him NBC, then NO, not eligible.

    But again, you are going off the rails wasting time on meaningless and insufficiently quantified hypothetical scenarios that have ZERO relevance or bearing on Obama’s circumstances and eligibility. You are merely wasting time trying to distract from the only relevant and pertinent conditions by shifting to meaningless and irrelevant tangents.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Third, now let us assume that John Smith is a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of an Act of Congress.Assuming that he is 40 years old and a resident of the United States for 30 years, can he be President?

  333. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    Ballantine,

    Another snow job in the summer time. You just haughtily pontificate that Wong spent all these pages defining a “natural born Citizen.” It did not do any such thing. The Court construed the Fourteenth Amendment and not Article II. As an aid in that construction, the Court spent many pages telling us how the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” It then said, in referring to the English common law jus soli rule of citizenship: “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 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460. It made such a statement without proving any sources that support the assertion.

    In any event, here is the question asked by the Court:

    “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
    Id. at 653.”

    And here is the holding:

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    Id. at 705. So, we can see that the Court returned to the Fourteenth Amendment which was its task to construe. Now, ballantine, who did not fall asleep in law school when they talked about holdings but who did fall asleep when mother nature was doling out common sense to those who were not asleep, where do you see anything in either in the question presented or in the holding about a “natural born Citizen?” You don’t and all you can do is just keep begging the question and engaging in your circular reasoning.

  334. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    G,

    Why not try begging the question? Oh, actually you did.

  335. avatar
    sfjeff June 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That holding does not mean that Wong was eligible to be President, for his citizenship was established by ‘virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment” and no more. The very old rule of constitutional construction provides that every word and clause in the Constitution must be given effect. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks only of a “citizen of the United States.” It makes no mention of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”

    Clearly then we have not had any natural born citizens since the 14th Amendment was enacted. The Constitution does not define natural born citizen anywhere in its text. The 14th Amendment spells out who is a citizen of the United States- those born in the U.S. and those naturalized.

    I think what you are really arguing is that Natural born citizens are not U.S. citizens, which creates many problems- what passports do Natural Born Citizens travel on, since passports are not issued to Natural born citizens?

    I just realized- my license requries that I be a U.S. citizen….but I am a natural born citizen….oops….

    What idiocy.

    My child learned about sets and super sets in elementary school.

    U.S. citizens consist of all citizens of the United States- of which the Constitution mentions only two types- naturalized and natural born.

    Oh well keep arguing……on the plus side….you are actually doing better here than you have done in court and you can’t get sanctioned here.

  336. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Majority Will,

    Learn to read. It’s your next, not your are next.

  337. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Mario, how is your homework assignment coming? Better get to Googling. 😆

  338. avatar
    JoZeppy June 27, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Court construed the Fourteenth Amendment and not Article II.

    Why would the Court be construing Article II? Article II does not provide any definition of citizenship. The 14th Amendment provides the articulation of citizenship as it has always existed, removing any doubt created by Scott v. Sanford. There is no separate 14th Amendment Citizenship. You are either natural born or naturalized. The 14th Amendment merely articulates that. If you’re going to throw junk law around, at least be creative. Don’t drag b.s. that has been discredited for at least 30 years….but then again, you’re not even original enough to think up new junk law. Even your two parent b.s. is scraps from Donofrio’s table. Must really suck to be the only real lawyer in the birther clown car, and have to play second fiddle everyone else. Heck even the Orly train wreck gets more attention than you do.

  339. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    Another snow job in the summer time.You just haughtily pontificate that Wong spent all these pages defining a “natural born Citizen.”It did not do any such thing.The Court construed the Fourteenth Amendment and not Article II.As an aid in that construction, the Court spent many pages telling us how the English common law defined a “natural born subject.”It then said, in referring to the English common law jus soli rule of citizenship:“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 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.It made such a statement without proving any sources that support the assertion.

    Well, I just feel sorry for you that you cannot understand basic case law. To say Gray made the assertion that the definition of “natural born subject” prevailed under our Constituion without proving any sources is delusional as Gray spent the next 20 or so pages citing authority after authority after authority to support such position. He, in fact, cited every leading scholar and citizenship case in th early republic but, of course, you say such authority does not count. Of course, in a real courts, it counts. You simply claim that citing authority such as Kent, the most influential scholar of the 19th Century, doesn’t count as he didn’t prove his opinion was correct. Of course, the Court cites authority to point out its conclusion is supported by previous scholarship and never tries to prove such opinion is correct. Show me the citation from the Supreme Court on citizenship that not only cites Vattel as correct, but proves Vattel is correct. There is no case in category 1, much less category 2. Again, you simply don’t understand case law.

    So Waite cites no authority at all and his unsupported assertions are binding. Gray cites 20 pages of authority to support his conculsion and it doesn’t count. Can’t understnd why courts ignore your arguments. LOL. At this point I am convinced you are just stupid.

    And, as you point out, the disposition of WKA says persons of his status were citizens, not citizens under the 14th Amendment. This is after he spent 21 pages telling us that WKA would be a citizen under the original Constitution since it incorporated the English common law defintion of natural born subject and then spending he next 20 pages saying that he was also a citizen under the 14th Amendment since it reaffirmed the same English rule. Again, it seems you cannot read English. To say that the holding is based solely on the 14ht Amendment is dishonest and to deny that the rationale with respect to citizrenship both before and after the 14th Amendment is based upon the adoption of the English common law is again dishonest as that is what the Court says. Do you want me to quote you the relevant provisions yet again since the case is too difficult for you to read? You will simply say they don’t count.

    With each post you look dumber and dumber, but I guess you can still tell yourself you are winning.

  340. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    Mario, why not try making an actual valid argument, because so far you have failed to do so…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    Why not try begging the question?Oh, actually you did.

  341. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    Yes, that seems to be the entire idiocy of Mario’s string of failed premises here… hence why he’s getting nowhere (neither here nor in the courts) and can only huff and puff a bunch of meaningless smoke…

    sfjeff: I think what you are really arguing is that Natural born citizens are not U.S. citizens , which creates many problems- what passports do Natural Born Citizens travel on, since passports are not issued to Natural born citizens?
    I just realized- my license requries that I be a U.S. citizen….but I am a natural born citizen….oops….
    What idiocy.

    Exactly! Same as I told him and others have endlessly done so as well…

    sfjeff: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”
    Clearly then we have not had any natural born citizens since the 14th Amendment was enacted. The Constitution does not define natural born citizen anywhere in its text. The 14th Amendment spells out who is a citizen of the United States- those born in the U.S. and those naturalized.

  342. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Mario’s one-trick pony act in a nutshell.

    Both pathological and pathetic at the same time…

    ballantine: With each post you look dumber and dumber, but I guess you can still tell yourself you are winning.

  343. avatar
    Majority Will June 27, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Majority Will,

    Learn to read.It’s your next, not your are next.

    Your next? Seriously, are you high?

    “I guess your next going to tell me about my panties like Reality Check did.”

    The possessive form of you possesses what exactly? My “next going”?

    I guess you are going to tell us next that you’re not actually impaired.

  344. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    …a walking punchline in a cheap suit.

  345. avatar
    sfjeff June 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    Permanent Residents of the United States may petition for their husband or wife and for their unmarried children no matter what age. They may not petition for their parents or for their married children. Only citizens of the United States may petition for their parents and married children.

    Unfortunately apparently Natural Born Citizens are not allowed to pettiton for their parents and married children to the INS- only ‘citizens of the United States”

    Oops- same problem with the Olympics- only citizens of the United States may compete on behalf of the United States in the Olympics. Jim Thorpe already had to give up his medals- how many more of our athletes will suffer because of Mario exposing the truth?

    Oh man- and apparently I – as a natural born citizen- am not eligible for publicly funded healthcare in California- only those darn ‘citizens of the United States’ are eligible.

    But my biggest concern is when the Fed’s will show up to pull my license once they realize that I am eligible to be President, but not eligible for the license I hold…..

  346. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 27, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    I guess he got fed up with no one buying his lies, and overall poor understanding of the laws he keeps trying to quote.

    -(Punchmaster General)

  347. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    I say this in all seriousness. Mr. Apuzzo has been hanging out on his own blog for several years now, where pretty much anything he says is fawned over by the birthers non-critically. Consistent praise for doing a poor job cannot help but contribute to both intellectual atrophy and ethical decline.

    ballantine: With each post you look dumber and dumber, but I guess you can still tell yourself you are winning

  348. avatar
    US Citizen June 27, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Mario,

    Assuming your “two parent” theory is true, what is your definition of an anchor baby?

  349. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    To clarify Mario’s homework:

    Mario

    Why don’t you come back when you find each of the following:

    1. Contemporary articles that said that Minor v Happersett defined explicitly the definition of natural born citizen and who could serve a president.

    2. Contemporary articles that said that Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a citizen but was not eligible to be president even if he met the age and residency requirements.

    You would still be wrong based on recent decisions but you wouldn’t look like quite the idiot that you do now.

    Can we define contemporary as the first 10 years? So 1875 – 1885 is a good number for Minor and 1898-1908 for Wong Kim Ark.

  350. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Indeed. Well said!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I say this in all seriousness. Mr. Apuzzo has been hanging out on his own blog for several years now, where pretty much anything he says is fawned over by the birthers non-critically. Consistent praise for doing a poor job cannot help but contribute to both intellectual atrophy and ethical decline.

  351. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

    sfjeff,

    All members of the United States are “citizens.” There are two types of “citizens,” “natural born Citizen” and “citizens of the United States.”

  352. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Professor Reality Check,

    I see you just cannot unlock that homework mentality

  353. avatar
    misha June 27, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    US Citizen: what is your definition of an anchor baby?

    Anchor baby: Piyush Howdy Doody Bobby Jindal. Also, Michelle Malkin, who is married to a neocon.

  354. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    ballantine,

    You keep repeating the same thing over and over about all those pages in Wong Kim Ark. Why not just produce the sources that Justice Gray relied upon to prove that jus soli continued to prevail for national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and the adoption of the Constitution. But then you can’t handle such simple tasks because your are just so confused in all this.

  355. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    Thomas Brown,

    Do you know how cheap you are saying someone is wearing a “cheap suit?’

  356. avatar
    MN-Skeptic June 27, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    When presented with a legal issue, there are two approaches.

    One can research with an open mind to find the answer to a question. All options are considered and the conclusion is reached by weighing all the information available. You will find posters at The Fogbow who don’t support Obama’s policies, but, because they are intellectually honest, they have concluded that Obama is eligible for the Presidency.

    The second approach is to first form a conclusion, then research to find support for your position. The birthers have concluded that Obama is not eligible to be President and based their research on that conclusion. That is intellectually dishonest. All research is colored by their preconceptions. Whether they cite a source depends not on its relevance and reliability, but on whether it supports their conclusion.

    There is a major disconnect when persons in the first group try to argue with persons in the second group. It’s like they’re speaking different languages. It’s apparent every time Apuzzo spouts his nonsense. He is so invested in his approach that he is incapable of understanding the honest research of the non-birthers. Of course, he could be intelligent enough to see the idiocy of his arguments, but he is so invested in his published conclusions that he can’t change his position without looking more foolish than he already does.

  357. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    Incorrect: Citizens and “Citizens of the United States” are the EXACT SAME THING.

    All Natural Born Citizens *ARE* “Citizens of the United States”

    Thus, NBC is merely a SUBSET of “Citizens of the United States”.

    *duh*

    The correct two types (i.e. subsets) of US Citizens are: Natural Born & Naturalized.

    *duh*

    I mean seriously, how can you be so dense to not figure this out yet… *sheesh*

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    sfjeff,

    All members of the United States are “citizens.”There are two types of “citizens,” “natural born Citizen” and “citizens of the United States.”

  358. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    sfjeff,

    I see you have been busy.

    Your point is absurd. And you would not expect that those benefits be limited only to “natural born Citizens,” would you? Also, how could a “citizen of the United States” qualify for something and a “natural born Citizen” not? They are both “citizens.”

  359. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    The same is true here. I would suspect that such is fairly common amongst rational boards where reality-based thinkers congregate.

    MN-Skeptic: One can research with an open mind to find the answer to a question. All options are considered and the conclusion is reached by weighing all the information available. You will find posters at The Fogbow who don’t support Obama’s policies, but, because they are intellectually honest, they have concluded that Obama is eligible for the Presidency.

  360. avatar
    G June 27, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    I disagree and would say that is merely a fool’s argument.

    Doubling down on being a fool only serves to make one appear even more foolish.

    The fool is a fool because he doesn’t grasp that everyone else sees through his foolishness right off the bat. For awhile, they might feel sympathetic and attribute the foolishness to naivity or lazy thinking and give the fool a little bit of time to re-think through his argument and own up to the nonsense parts of it.

    However, doubling down fools none. It only further reveals the fool for who he is and only serves to convince others that he’s incapable of being anything but a fool… The fool only loses what remaining credibility he had and empathy/sympathy for such a person dwindles quickly to zero.

    Forgiveness is easy and exists for those who are man enough to admit their mistakes. Only the craven fool will desperately clutch onto his own BS when called onto the carpet for it.

    MN-Skeptic: Of course, he could be intelligent enough to see the idiocy of his arguments, but he is so invested in his published conclusions that he can’t change his position without looking more foolish than he already does.

  361. avatar
    MN-Skeptic June 27, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

    G: The same is true here. I would suspect that such is fairly common amongst rational boards where reality-based thinkers congregate.

    I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that that isn’t true here. I just happened to see someone bristle at Fogbow today because he wasn’t an Obama supporter but had strong views about the absurdity of birthers. I enjoy reading comments both here and at Fogbow. There are great posters at both sites.

  362. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    sfjeff,

    All members of the United States are “citizens.”There are two types of “citizens,” “natural born Citizen” and “citizens of the United States.”

    Uh, again, you cannot cite a single authority to support that. Everyone else in history says there are two types; i.e., natural born and naturalized. We are waiting for your citations.

  363. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    G,

    I see that you have been studying hard to prove me wrong. But your study is not enough.

    You have recognized that membership in the United States is called “citizen” and that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Pretty good so far but then you run into trouble.

    You said: “As Citizenship is acquired in essentially one of two basic ways – you are either BORN a citizen or you are NATURALIZED to become one at some point AFTER you are born – the sentence is telling you that all BORN citizens ARE eligible, but the *only* NATURALIZED ones that are ALSO eligible are those that meet the TIMING qualifier of obtaining their Citizenship by the time the Constitution was adopted.” Hence, you maintain that a “Citizen of the United States” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is only a naturalized citizen AFTER birth who is given a time limit to qualify after which he or she can no longer qualify to be President.

    The Founders and Framers used the specific clause “Citizen of the United States” and disqualified that class of citizens in the future from being eligible to be President. That is the problem that you attempt to overcome. The only reason that you have defined your grandfather “Citizen of the United States” as those who acquired their citizenship after birth and who were to be heard from only within a small window of time which has since expired is so that you can just make these “Citizens of the United States” disappear from the map and then just deal with “natural born Citizens” by putting forth the argument that all “citizens” are either born or naturalized, with all born citizens being “natural born Citizens” and all the rest being naturalized. You make this argument because you need to avoid having to deal with what is a “citizen of the United States” under Congressional Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment vis--vis a “natural born Citizen.”

    But you cannot escape so easily the disqualifying force of the Founders’ and Framers’ “citizen of the United States” and make that status disappear so easily by giving that status a limited life and then deal with the “natural born Citizen” issue through your “born citizen” versus “naturalized citizen” dichotomy. Your definition of an Article II “Citizen of the United States,” which limits that status only to those who became naturalized after birth before the Constitution was adopted does not account for the fact that our laws continued to make “citizens of the United States” who came into being after the adoption of the Constitution and that the Founders and Framers specifically planned for this. They gave Congress the power to naturalize which meant they gave Congress the power to make more “citizens.” Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress exercised this power and declared a child born out of the United States to “citizen” parents to be “considered as a natural born citizen” and those who naturalized after birth as “citizens of the United States.” In the Naturalization Act of 1795 and all that followed, Congress called both “at birth” and after birth “citizens” “citizens of the United States.” So, Congress created more “citizens of the United States.” Moreover, Congress used the clause “citizen of the United States,” not only to describe children who became “citizens of the United States” after birth, but also to describe children who become “citizens of the United States” “at birth.” Regarding those children who were made “citizens of the United States” “at birth,” Congress acted through a naturalization act which it passed by exercising its naturalization powers. Hence, those children were naturalized “at birth.” So, we have naturalized citizens who were naturalized not only after birth but also “at birth.” Even Wong Kim Ark and Bellei confirmed that Congress has this power to create this type of citizenship and indeed does create naturalized citizens “at birth.” Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, another one of Congress’s naturalization acts, made more ‘citizens at birth” and even “citizens of the United States” “at birth” of children born in the United States. Again Congress produced naturalized citizens who were not only naturalized after birth. Finally, Congress again used the clause “citizens of the United States” when it wrote the Fourteenth Amendment in which it recognized such citizens to be both “at birth” and after birth. It is telling that Congress did not use in any of these laws “natural born Citizen.”

    So you do not confront the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” which clause has been used since the Founding and down to the presents in all our laws. Rather you opt to reduce the “natural born Citizen” analysis to the question of whether someone is “natural born” or naturalized after birth. But I have shown that a “citizen of the United States” has a life all of its own, starting during the Founding and continuing to through all the Congressional Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot just simply sweep a “citizen of the United States” under the rug by relegating him to a limited time during the Founding which as you contend has long expired and put in its place a naturalized citizen after birth. Again, as I have shown, all our laws also include within “citizen of the United States” naturalization at birth.

    You also have no evidence that when the Founders and Framers wrote “natural born Citizen,” they meant “born Citizen” and nothing more. Article II’s text says “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen.” You try to avoid this textual problem by simply proclaiming:

    “There really is no supportable meaningful arguments out there that hold up in which “natural born” and “born” are not legally interpreted as synonymous terms. Sometimes the English language gets redundant and two words are used, when only one is necessary. That is the only area in which there was some reasonable research at one point…but the findings essentially support that the expressions “natural born” and “born” are applied synonymously.”

    This is just all made up stuff that is nothing more than your self-serving personal opinion. Such a statement violates one of the cardinal tenets of constitutional construction, i.e., that every clause and word in the constitution must be given effect. “Verba a liquid operari debent; debent intellegi ut aliquid operantur.” This is translated to mean: “Words ought to have some operation; they ought to be interpreted in such a way as to have some operation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979). “Verba a liquid operari debent; verba cum effectu sunt accipienda.” Words are to be taken so as to have effect.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979). See also, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which Chief Justice Marshall said: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…” Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall told us that we have to give meaning and effect to every word the framers wrote in the Constitution.

    By your own argument, you have Congress making “born citizens” and then you holding them out as “natural born Citizens.” If simply being born a “citizen” produced a “natural born Citizen,” there is no reason why Congress would not have written “natural born Citizen” rather than “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment and its naturalization acts and then dealt separately with those who are naturalized after birth. Your ‘born citizen” argument is the very reason the Founders and Framers wrote “natural born Citizen” and not just “born Citizen.” The Founders did not give Congress the power to make any “natural born Citizen.” And they surely would not expect that Congress would make such citizens through its naturalization powers simply by calling them “born citizens.” If Congress with its positive law makes one a “born Citizen,” then a fortiori one is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Finally, Congress had the opportunity to get into the business of making “natural born Citizens” when it passed the Fourteenth Amendment. But Congress refused to get involved, keeping the amendment’s text to “citizen of the United States.”

    So we are back to a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” Each is a word of art. Each has its own meaning. The two cannot be conflated and confounded. A “natural born Citizen” needs to be compared to a “citizen of the United States” because this latter citizen is what the Framers wrote into the Constitution, the framers wrote into the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congress wrote into its naturalization laws. Both framers and Congress did not write naturalized citizen as a class of citizen into those constitutional provisions and laws. They wrote “citizen of the United States.” And Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. Anybody that is born after the adoption of the Constitution who is a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen,” is not eligible to be President. So is Mr. Obama just a “citizen of the United States,” or is he also a “natural born Citizen?”

  364. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Every living citizen of the United States are either individuals who were born citizens or were naturalized after birth. Natural born citizens are not naturalized. Any other questions I can help you with?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Paper,

    You said:“That means that in our current time only a ‘natural born Citizen’ is eligible.No one else is eligible.So, your question is meaningless.”

    But the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress say “citizens of the United States.”So who are they?

  365. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    You keep repeating the same thing over and over about all those pages in Wong Kim Ark.Why not just produce the sources that Justice Gray relied upon to prove that jus soli continued to prevail for national citizenship after July 4, 1776 and the adoption of the Constitution.But then you can’t handle such simple tasks because your are just so confused in all this.

    Why would I have to produce them when Gray clearly cites them and they clearly state that after 1776, the English common law controlled our citizenship law and that natural born subject meant the same thing as natural born citizen. If the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark cited no authority, it woulo still be precedent. But the fact is it cites authority after authority which have been cited here over and over. Your simply saying such authority doesn’t count is simply desperation. What is funnier is that Justice Waite cites no authority at all and you claim such opionion is dispositive. Now why don’t you try being an honest person and go read where Justice Gray state that natural born citizen defined by the common law and that the definition of “natural born citizen” previaled under our Constitution followed by 20 pages of citations supporting such common law definition. are you unable to read these pages? Do you pretned authority that says you are wrong just doesn’t count. Has any case you have cited proven the founders agreed with you? Of course, the cases you cite generally don’t even address citizenship. But since you can’t read, explain how these provisions don’t say you are worng:

    “[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…[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.”

    “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.”

    “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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    “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.”

    “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . 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.”

    “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

    “it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

    “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . ”

    “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.”

    “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.”

    “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of 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.”

    “So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.”

    “citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every 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.”

    Hence, the Court says over and over and over that you are wrong. No real court has any trouble understanding this and your desparate rantings on the internet is simply sad for a member of the bar. Statements such as these, either made by the court or adopted into the decision, means the majority of the Court agreed with them. If fringe groups refuse to accept the Courts’ opinion it is of no consequence in the real world as there is always some fringe group with their own fringe theory.

  366. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 27, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    ballantine,

    I guess you cannot follow simple instructions or is it like I said, you are just so confused in all this?

  367. avatar
    Jim June 27, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    sfjeff,

    All members of the United States are “citizens.”There are two types of “citizens,” “natural born Citizen” and “citizens of the United States.”

    Mario, Mario, Mario. See what happens when you don’t read the complete opinion of the court and only cherry pick…it makes you look totally stupid and not as an attorney, but as an ambulance chaser. As you’ve been shown before, from Minor V Happersett:

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

  368. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    I guess you cannot follow simple instructions or is it like I said, you are just so confused in all this?

    You are the confused one. You wanted the sources Gray cited and I cited them. Your saying they don’t count is simple desperation. The law cited and approved by the majority of the Suprme Court that say you are wrong over and over must be pretty devastating.

  369. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: members

    “members” now? Another new term. So, citizens have “memberships”? Doe the management ever run any specials? Do we get any sweet discounts with our memberships?

    So what’s gone wrong in your cases, Mario? How are the courts in NJ “erring”?

    And all this general, theoretical talk …. is there a specific case that prompted all this discussion?

  370. avatar
    Paper June 27, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo,

    Parsing in my head the errors you make in your response to G is one thing; typing them out is too much after a long day of actual work. You can keep thinking you are right. Good for you. Let us know when you win a court case with those arguments. In the meantime, don’t mind us for thinking you are posting foolish nonsense. We are mere blog commenters. Win a case and show us our errors.

  371. avatar
    sfjeff June 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: sfjeff, All members of the United States are “citizens.” There are two types of “citizens,” “natural born Citizen” and “citizens of the United States.”

    Oh I understand this is what you believe.

    Which is a real problem because as a Natural Born Citizen, I am clearly not eligible for any of the licenses or programs reserved for ‘citizens of the United States”.

    I mean if what you are saying had any basis in reality.

  372. avatar
    ballantine June 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    So we are back to a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.”Each is a word of art.Each has its own meaning.The two cannot be conflated and confounded.

    Duh. A term of art means someone other than you defined “Citizen of the United States” like you have. No one ever has. To state, as you have, that capitalization makes a difference is the most patheitc argument I have ever seen a lawyer make.

    So you do not confront the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” which clause has been used since the Founding and down to the presents in all our laws.

    And which no one in history has ever said meant anything other than natural born and naturalized citizens. I know, you think you can make up you own definition.

    Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, another one of Congress’s naturalization acts, made more ‘citizens at birth” and even “citizens of the United States” “at birth” of children born in the United States.

    Really sad that you are so ignorantnot ot know that the members of the Congress who passed such act clearly stated it was not a naturalization act since Congress had no power to naturalize persons born in the US. There was much discussion on this subject with Senators such as Reverdy Johnson pointing out that such was the position of the Supreme Court. Indeed, the only judicial opinions of such act are US v. Rhodes and Wong Kim Ark which both made clear such was not a naturalization act. Sad that Mario has done no research on these issues.

    We are still waiting for the court citation that anyone born on US soil is a naturalized citizen. Dred Scott, Us. v. Rhodes, Lynch v. Clarke, Attorney Genral Bates, Wong Kim Ark and every legal dictionary of the 19th century says you are wrong. You provide no response. I asked you to show me the definition of “alien” that included children of aliens. Surely you can provide one citation if such was the law. Where is it? Wilson, Kent, Tucker, Bouvier, Swift, White, Townshend, Burrell and on and on don’t agree with you. Where are the authorities that say you are right. Of course, they don’t exist.

    A “natural born Citizen” needs to be compared to a “citizen of the United States” because this latter citizen is what the Framers wrote into the Constitution, the framers wrote into the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congress wrote into its naturalization laws.Both framers and Congress did not write naturalized citizen as a class of citizen into those constitutional provisions and laws.They wrote “citizen of the United States.”And Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President.Anybody that is born after the adoption of the Constitution who is a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen,” is not eligible to be President.So is Mr. Obama just a “citizen of the United States,” or is he also a “natural born Citizen?”

  373. avatar
    JPotter June 27, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    sfjeff: Which is a real problem because as a Natural Born Citizen, I am clearly not eligible for any of the licenses or programs reserved for ‘citizens of the United States”.

    If only there could be “natural born Citizens of the United States”, then we could all get along and live happily ever after. But, goshdarnit, those mean ole Founders split us right down the middle. No wonder partisanship never ends!

    Instead, we’re all just natural born Citizens [of what?!?]. ‘What’ a bummer. At least those “Citizens of the United States” know what country they belong to. Us poor NBCs can’t even get assigned to a planet, much less a species. Having something so specific as a country to call home … ! What a blessed existence that would be!

    ( 😛 )

  374. avatar
    SluggoJD June 27, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: SluggoJD

    Hey Loser, seriously, is that all you got?

    Anytime you’d like a video of me leg pressing over 1100 lbs, let me know. You prob get into that kind of thing since it’s certainly not all too exciting to Lose all the time, right?

    Ego aside, dude, seriously, get a life. We all get it – you don’t like the scary black man in the White House. But you can’t win because truth is not on your side, and because you can’t get away with false truths. Not this time.

    So get a life. I mean, doesn’t it look really bad to have the word Loser listed next to all your court cases?

  375. avatar
    Whatever4 June 28, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    MN-Skeptic: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that that isn’t true here. I just happened to see someone bristle at Fogbow today because he wasn’t an Obama supporter but had strong views about the absurdity of birthers. I enjoy reading comments both here and at Fogbow. There are great posters at both sites.

    There’s some overlap of posters between the two sites, some with different handles. Doc and Fogbow serve different purposes, but both are extremely valuable to the anti-birther community.

    — Ms. Whatever4

  376. avatar
    US Citizen June 28, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    Since Mario ignored my simple one sentence question regarding the definition of anchor baby, I will assume that he has no answer.
    Further, he seems to be saying that one cannot become naturalized until they’re 35 or older… which is no descriptive of a baby.

    My take?
    Mario comes here because he’s a masochist.
    I think he *likes* to be beaten any way he can.
    That’s my truth and to date he’s never denied it.
    In fact, time after time he has gone to court fully knowing he *will* be beaten.
    Court records have backed this up.

  377. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    Jim,

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    Minor v. Happersett.

    Jim, Jim, Jim. See what happens when you do not understand what you are reading which has been your problem here all along.

    You do not understand the difference between born a “citizen” by virtue of birth alone and created a “citizen” by virtue of positive law.

    Minor said that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment or any other law to make her a “natural-born citizen” and thus a “citizen.” It relied on the “common-law” which was based on natural law and the law of nations to find her to be a “natural-born citizen.”

    Wong Kim Ark did not say that Wong did not need the Fourteenth Amendment or any other law to make him a “citizen of the United States” and thus a “citizen.” It relied on the Fourteenth Amendment and the English common law to construe its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to find him to be a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    Virginia Minor was born a “natural-born citizen” and therefore a “citizen’ by virtue of her birth alone and not by any positive law.

    Wong was not born a “citizen” by virtue of his birth alone, but rather created a “citizen of the United States” and therefore a “citizen” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  378. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wong was not born a “citizen” by virtue of his birth alone, but rather created a “citizen of the United States” and therefore a “citizen” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Continuing on in Minor

    “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States and that the children of such persons so naturalized, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens …

    From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”

    Mario, using only the text of Minor, please explain my Wong was, in the terms of Minor, as “alien minor” as opposed to a “native minor”. Was he, despite being born in the US, still an “alien minor”? How is that determined in Minor? If he was already a “citizen by birth”, was that a natural born citizen, or not?

    Having gone through a stack of tomes ranging from 1885 – 1920 … they all say the same things regarding Minor … which should be obvious by reading Minor … the case did not define any form of citizenship, but rather determined that Minor was already a citizen, was not made a citizen by the 14th amendment, and that voting was a privilege. That privilege is under the control of the states insofar as they do not arbitrarily discriminate in its control on the basis of race, gender, etc.

  379. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    Ballantine,

    Delusional, as all your other rants, that you believe that St. George Tucker supports your theory that the English common law defined an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Not even close my friend.

    Let us examine what Tucker said:

    3. Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.

    These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.

    ***

    Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.
    http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm

    So there you have it. Any child who was a “citizen” and who was not born to “citizen” “parents” was a “naturalized” “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen.” As a “naturalized” “citizen,” he or she was “forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.” Hence, only if one was born to “citizen” “parents” could one possess the “civil right” to be elected President.

  380. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 12:53 am #

    SluggoJD,

    You must have eaten a lot of spaghetti or was it rigatoni to get those legs so strong.

  381. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    Whatever 4,

    You’re so nice.

  382. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 12:57 am #

    U.S. Citizen,

    You call yourself U.S. Citizen, but you can’t fight your own battles. I don’t think you are a U.S. Citizen.

  383. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    Sorry Mario, no studying required to reach the very elementary and almost self-evident conclusions that I reached.

    Really Mario, this is grade school level concepts that you seem utterly incapable of grasping correctly. I come back from my evening and find this bizarre and insane diatribe from you… *facepalm* You know, there has been quite a debate about whether you believe your own nonsense or are only a dishonest bloviating hack. Really, when your arguments become as absurd and dumb as what you wrote, it no longer matters. There has to be some level of mental malfunction going on in your head to even think you could get away with uttering such inane crockery.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,
    I see that you have been studying hard to prove me wrong. But your study is not enough.

    NO. Wrong. That is NOT what I’ve said at all. I said:

    G:
    Incorrect: Citizens and “Citizens of the United States” are the EXACT SAME THING.
    All Natural Born Citizens *ARE* “Citizens of the United States”
    Thus, NBC is merely a SUBSET of “Citizens of the United States”.
    *duh*
    The correct two types (i.e. subsets) of US Citizens are: Natural Born *and* Naturalized.
    *duh*
    I mean seriously, how can you be so dense to not figure this out yet… *sheesh*

    That is NOT at all the same as the nonsense that you keep repeating. Obviously, you have a very large reading comprehension problem. *facepalm* I have not run into any trouble. You on the other hand come across clueless and incapable of grasping basic concepts.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You have recognized that membership in the United States is called “citizen” and that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Pretty good so far but then you run into trouble.

    Yes, that is correct.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You said:“As Citizenship is acquired in essentially one of two basic ways – you are eitherBORN a citizenoryou are NATURALIZED to become one at some point AFTER you are born – the sentence is telling you that all BORN citizens ARE eligible, but the *only* NATURALIZED ones that are ALSO eligible are those that meet the TIMING qualifier of obtaining their Citizenship by the time the Constitution was adopted.”

    NO! *facepalm* I have a hard time believing that even *you* are really this dense. That is NOT at all what I said:

    G:
    Yes, that is how that sentence reads. It applies two optional quantified CONDITIONS (or subsets) of Citizens that qualify for the office of President. In simple terms, it is saying that not *every* Citizen is eligible – only those that meet EITHER of those conditional options:

    “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.”

    So it simply does two things to narrow the eligibility field within this dimension of Citizenship: First – it clarifies that Citizenship is a general requirement for a Person applying to this position. Second – it specifies that Citizenship alone is not enough UNLESS that Citizenship ALSO meets EITHER of those two conditions.

    As Citizenship is acquired in essentially one of two basic ways – you are either BORN a citizen or you are NATURALIZED to become one at some point AFTER you are born – the sentence is telling you that all BORN citizens ARE eligible, but the *only* NATURALIZED ones that are ALSO eligible are those that meet the TIMING qualifier of obtaining their Citizenship by the time the Constitution was adopted. Simple as that.

    Again, *BOTH* Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens are “Citizens of the United States.” The Constitution merely specifies a time limit to qualify under the Naturalized option (by the time of the Adoption of the Constitution).

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Hence, you maintain that a “Citizen of the United States” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is only a naturalized citizen AFTER birth who is given a time limit to qualify after which he or she can no longer qualify to be President.

  384. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 1:37 am #

    Incorrect – they ONLY disqualified a SUBSET OF A SUBSET of that class of “Citizen of the United 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.”

    You seem to not grasp how basic English grammar works. The “, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” is an adjective phrase quantifying a specific SUBSET of those non-Natural Born Citizens. (i.e. Naturalized Citizens).

    This is really elementary stuff…that you lack such basic comprehension skills is nearly unbelievable!

    So, to break it down in simple terms:

    SUPERSET – Citizen of the United States (comprised of Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens).

    SUBSET 1: Natural Born Citizen = ALL in this subset *are* ELIGIBLE to the Office of President.

    SUBSET 2: All Citizens who are OTHER than “Natural Born Citizens” (i.e. “naturalized”, as that is the ONLY other type)

    Within SUBSET 2, the respective Clause in the Constitution gives a further quantifier, based on timeframe, to exclude those citizens within this particular subset 2 who have not achieved their Citizenship by the time the Constitution becomes adopted. Think of it like a filing deadline. Pretty much the same simple concept.

    Therefore, SUBSET 2 is parsed to break down further, in terms of the specific argument of Presidential eligibility:

    SUBSET 2 : Sub-subset 1: Those who Naturalized (i.e. became Citizens of the US) *by the time* that the Constitution becomes adopted = All these *are* ELIGIBLE.

    SUBSET 2 : Sub-subset 2: Those who Naturalized (i.e. became Citizens of the US) *AFTER* the timethat the Constitution becomes adopted = All these are *NOT* eligible.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    The Founders and Framers used the specific clause “Citizen of the United States” and disqualified that class of citizens in the future from being eligible to be President.

  385. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    There is NO problem that I have to overcome at all. It is quite a simple and basic concept and logical construct and does not have any holes. The only hole here is in your head, which can’t grasp such simple basic set theory concepts and fails to properly comprehend basic English grammar rules. Your nonsensical interpretation is the only thing full of problems.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    That is the problem that you attempt to overcome.

    Nobody has “disappeared” you farcical drama queen. The second clause no longer applies today (hint: the year is 2012 Mario) is because EVERYONE who satisfied the conditions within SECOND OPTION is now DEAD!!!

    Every non-Natural Born Citizen (in other words Naturalized Citizens) of the United States, who is ALIVE today, BECAME Naturalized AFTER the Adoption of the Constitution. Hence, they fall under SUBSET 2 : Sub-subset 2: that I already explained above and the Constitution gives us a CLEAR answer for them, within the context of that specific clause – NOT eligible.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    The only reason that you have defined your grandfather “Citizen of the United States” as those who acquired their citizenship after birth and who were to be heard from only within a small window of time which has since expired is so that you can just make these “Citizens of the United States” disappear from the map and then just deal with “natural born Citizens” by putting forth the argument that all “citizens” are either born or naturalized, with all born citizens being “natural born Citizens” and all the rest being naturalized.

    Not at all. Such argument (HINT: *your* “argument”) is completely unnecessary BECAUSE it is irrelevant on its face.

    As has been stated endlessly to you, the 14th Amendment did NOT create any *new* types of citizenship that didn’t already exist. It simply added further clarification that there has always been ONLY TWO – Born and Naturalized and more importantly, that those two options are available to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the US. This simply makes it clear that NO discriminatory forms of bigotry (whether race, sex, religion, etc.) could remove that right to either be born with or pursue obtaining (again, Naturalization if not Natural Born) citizenship for those subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    There is no REAL issue of “Congressional Acts” in this general sense of the argument. Nor is there within ANY RELEVANT context that applies to the specific scenario at hand – Barack Obama’s citizenship. He was born on US soil and therefore, NO “Congressional Act” is applicable.

    So again, you are wasting your time picking at nits that have nothing to do with any reality based scenario in front of you or the courts. There is ZERO value or need of even going down those paths, because they simply have ZERO present relevance to the actual issue at hand at all.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You make this argument because you need to avoid having to deal with what is a “citizen of the United States” under Congressional Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment vis--vis a “natural born Citizen.”

  386. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 1:53 am #

    Yes I can. I already easily did. Because your entire rationale for argument here is based on a completely faulty premise and both INCORRECT reading of what I said and more importantly, what the Constitution says.

    The problem doesn’t exist except within your wrongheaded imagination. Simple as that.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    But you cannot escape so easily the disqualifying force of the Founders’ and Framers’ “citizen of the United States” and make that status disappear so easily by giving that status a limited life and then deal with the “natural born Citizen” issue through your “born citizen” versus “naturalized citizen” dichotomy.

    Nope. I *never* defined “Citizen of the United States” as you just did. See above, where I’ve repeatedly been clear that “Citizen of the United States” = SUPERSET (Natural Born Citizens + Naturalized Citizens).

    That is vastly different that the bogus nonsense you are claiming here, so your entire argument is without merit and unworthy of further comment, as it is fallacious to begin with.

    Furthermore, the rest of your frothing screed is simply NOT COMPARITIVE to Obama’s birth situation, as Obama was BORN ON US SOIL. No PERSON born on US soil had to obtain their US Citizenship from any act of Congress or Statute. They are natural born citizens here by the very definition of being born within the boundaries of our lands. No paperwork or laws necessary to grant that. Sorry. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

    So absolutely NO forms of Statutory NBC (which only applies to the sub-sub set of NBC, who are born OUTSIDE of US soil) apply to Obama’s situation at all. Therefore, you are merely wasting time rambling down an irrelevant rabbit hole.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Your definition of an Article II “Citizen of the United States,” which limits that status only to those who became naturalized after birth before the Constitution was adopted does not account for the fact that our laws continued to make “citizens of the United States” who came into being after the adoption of the Constitution and that the Founders and Framers specifically planned for this. They gave Congress the power to naturalize which meant they gave Congress the power to make more “citizens.”Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress exercised this power and declared a child born out of the United States to “citizen” parents to be “considered as a natural born citizen”and those who naturalized after birth as “citizens of the United States.”In the Naturalization Act of 1795 and all that followed, Congress called both “at birth” and after birth “citizens” “citizens of the United States.”So, Congress created more “citizens of the United States.”Moreover, Congress used the clause “citizen of the United States,” not only to describe children who became “citizens of the United States” after birth, but also to describe children who become “citizens of the United States” “at birth.” Regarding those children who were made “citizens of the United States” “at birth,” Congress acted through a naturalization act which it passed by exercising its naturalization powers.Hence, those children werenaturalized “at birth.”So, we have naturalized citizens who were naturalized not only after birth but also “at birth.”Even Wong Kim Ark and Bellei confirmed that Congress has this power to create this type of citizenship and indeed does create naturalized citizens “at birth.”Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, another one of Congress’s naturalization acts, made more ‘citizens at birth” and even “citizens of the United States” “at birth” of children born in the United States.Again Congress produced naturalized citizens who were not only naturalized after birth.Finally, Congress again used the clause “citizens of the United States” when it wrote the Fourteenth Amendment in which it recognized such citizens to be both “at birth” and after birth.It is telling that Congress did not use in any of these laws “natural born Citizen.”

  387. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 1:55 am #

    Really G, this is grade school level concepts that you seem utterly incapable of grasping correctly. I come back from my evening and find this bizarre and insane diatribe from you… *facepalm* You know, there has been quite a debate about whether you believe your own nonsense or are only a dishonest bloviating hack. Really, when your arguments become as absurd and dumb as what you wrote, it no longer matters. There has to be some level of mental malfunction going on in your head to even think you could get away with uttering such inane crockery.

    There were “Citizens of the United States” before there were any “natural born Citizens.” Then “Citizens of the United States” were no longer eligible to be President, but “natural born Citizens” were. If these two classes of “citizens” started their existence separately from each other, and then when one died off and another continued to provide presidential eligibility, how can a “natural born Citizen” then end up being a subset of a “Citizen of the United States?”

    I mean seriously, how can you be so dense to not figure this out yet… *sheesh*

    That is NOT at all the same as the nonsense that you keep repeating. Obviously, you have a very large reading comprehension problem. *facepalm* I have not run into any trouble. You on the other hand come across clueless and incapable of grasping basic concepts.

  388. avatar
    US Citizen June 28, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    The purpose of us asking these questions is to observe you having no answers.
    Your true name is recorded, not ours.
    We’re just anonymous pseudonyms and bots.
    We don’t feel any insults.
    Feel free to make more statements as you can.
    Thank you.

  389. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 2:22 am #

    Because that *is* the basic meaning of “citizen of the United States”… It *does* reduce to *exactly* that.
    *duh*

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    So you do not confront the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” which clause has been used since the Founding and down to the presents in all our laws. Rather you opt to reduce the “natural born Citizen” analysis to the question of whether someone is “natural born” or naturalized after birth.

    *snore*. No you haven’t. Only in your wild and very inaccurate imagination. As your entire premise is faulty and based on an incorrect grasp of simple concepts, the rest of your “argument” is not even an “argument” at all. It is simply a bunch of incoherent hot air based on fictional scenarios that either don’t exist as you described them or are simply not relevant to the case…and often both.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    But I have shown that a “citizen of the United States” has a life all of its own, starting during the Founding and continuing to through all the Congressional Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment.You cannot just simply sweep a “citizen of the United States” under the rug by relegating him to a limited time during the Founding which as you contend has long expired and put in its place a naturalized citizen after birth.Again, as I have shown, all our laws also include within “citizen of the United States” naturalization at birth.

    This site is FULL of that evidence – a number of articles over the years hear have researched and addressed that very topic and the archives contain all of that info and the commentary upon it. I’d advise you to read up and do your own research:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/citizenship/

    …but since you’ve repeatedly demonstrated an utter lack of basic reading comprehension and a willful and disingenuous intent to own up to your mistakes and grasp concepts that disagree with your silly preconceived and wrongheaded notions, I have zero faith that you have the convictions to do so.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    You also have no evidence that when the Founders and Framers wrote “natural born Citizen,” they meant “born Citizen” and nothing more. Article II’s text says “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen.”You try to avoid this textual problem by simply proclaiming:

    “There really is no supportable meaningful arguments out there that hold up in which “natural born” and “born” are not legally interpreted as synonymous terms. Sometimes the English language gets redundant and two words are used, when only one is necessary.That is the only area in which there was some reasonable research at one point…but the findings essentially support that the expressions “natural born” and “born” are applied synonymously.”

    Nope. See above. Sorry, but you are merely stomping your feet and throwing an obstinate and futile tantrum again. HINT: Synonyms still have “meaning” as words. They just happen to mean the same thing as other words. Buy a thesaurus and realize how large it is. The English language is simply rife with synonyms and oddly phrased colloquialisms. So no “cardinal tenets” have been violated here at all…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    This is just all made up stuff that is nothing more than your self-serving personal opinion. Such a statement violates one of the cardinal tenets of constitutional construction, i.e., that every clause and word in the constitution must be given effect.“Verba a liquid operari debent; debent intellegi ut aliquid operantur.” This is translated to mean: “Words ought to have some operation; they ought to be interpreted in such a way as to have some operation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979). “Verba a liquid operari debent; verba cum effectu sunt accipienda.” Words are to be taken so as to have effect.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979).See also, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which Chief Justice Marshall said: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…” Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall told us that we have to give meaning and effect to every word the framers wrote in the Constitution.

    Nope. My argument NEVER said or did any such thing. In both the general and most common context of “natural born” citizenship and more importantly – the specific type of NBC to which Obama applies – being BORN WITHIN THE US, Congress doesn’t “make” anything. If you are BORN here, you are automatically NBC. Simple as that. Parentage is irrelevant.

    Yes, there are ALSO other ways to obtain NBC status (i.e. for those born outside of US soil to one or more parents that are US Citizens), but those are EXCEPTIONS to the main and most common method and more importantly are completely INAPPLICABLE to Obama’s birth circumstances, and therefore completely irrelevant scenarios to address.

    So again, the bulk of your screed here is simply off the rails and wasting time running down an irrelevant rabbit hole.

    No wonder you are doing so poorly in the courts. You seem to do nothing but bloviate and meander on meaningless tangents which have no direct attachment to the actual case at hand. There is a phrase for that: “Stuck on Stupid”…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    By your own argument, you have Congress making “born citizens” and then you holding them out as “natural born Citizens.”

    If simply being born a “citizen” produced a “natural born Citizen,” there is no reason why Congress would not have written “natural born Citizen” rather than “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment and its naturalization acts and then dealt separately with those who are naturalized after birth.Your ‘born citizen” argument is the very reason the Founders and Framers wrote “natural born Citizen” and not just “born Citizen.”The Founders did not give Congress the power to make any “natural born Citizen.”And they surely would not expect that Congress would make such citizens through its naturalization powers simply by calling them “born citizens.”If Congress with its positive law makes one a “born Citizen,” then a fortiori one is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”Finally, Congress had the opportunity to get into the business of making “natural born Citizens” when it passed the Fourteenth Amendment.But Congress refused to get involved, keeping the amendment’s text to “citizen of the United States.”

    So we are back to a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.”Each is a word of art.Each has its own meaning.The two cannot be conflated and confounded.A “natural born Citizen” needs to be compared to a “citizen of the United States” because this latter citizen is what the Framers wrote into the Constitution, the framers wrote into the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congress wrote into its naturalization laws.Both framers and Congress did not write naturalized citizen as a class of citizen into those constitutional provisions and laws.They wrote “citizen of the United States.”And Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President.Anybody that is born after the adoption of the Constitution who is a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen,” is not eligible to be President.So is Mr. Obama just a “citizen of the United States,” or is he also a “natural born Citizen?”

  390. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:29 am #

    U.S. Citizen,

    See, I was right. You are not a U.S. citizen. Not only are you not capable of fighting your own battles, but you are also brain dead.

  391. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:33 am #

    G,

    You said that “Citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that “Citizens of the United States” who are born after the adoption of the Constitution are no longer eligible to be President, but “natural born Citizens” are. Also, Minor said and Wong Kim Ark confirmed that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “natural born Citizen.” No court has ever made the statement that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “citizen of the United States.” Given these two factors, how can a “natural born Citizen” be a subset of a “citizen of the United States?”

    You said that the only other “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens” are naturalized. What are these naturalized citizens called? What about “citizens of the United States” who are not “natural born Citizens,” what do you call them?

  392. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 2:40 am #

    LMAO! Ah, poor sad hack Mario. Alas, you can’t even make up your own rebuttal and are reduced to merely plagiarizing the same words I said about you in a failed and futile attempt to use them against me.

    Then again…the pattern fits. Most of your windsock silliness is nothing but cribbed arguments from that clown, Leo D’Onofrio and other deranged lunatics in the Birther community. Yes, here and there you cobble together some of your own “special” gobbledygook reasoning that is even more detached from reality then they original sources. So, yes, your “originality” in your own writing basically amounts to nothing more than using a lot of words to tell tall tales and finding new ways to string together existing whoppers.

    Yet you can’t seem to hold up and defend such banal idiocy whenever you are faced with a REAL courtroom… much less at any non-Birther cult site. Too bad for you.

    But hey, keep demonstrated that you’re nothing but a small and petty juvenile, thin-skinned hack who can’t present a proper and well-thought out rebuttal to save his life. It has become your modus operandi, after all…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Really G, this is grade school level concepts that you seem utterly incapable of grasping correctly.I come back from my evening and find this bizarre and insane diatribe from you… *facepalm*You know, there has been quite a debate about whether you believe your own nonsense or are only a dishonest bloviating hack.Really, when your arguments become as absurd and dumb as what you wrote, it no longer matters.There has to be some level of mental malfunction going on in your head to even think you could get away with uttering such inane crockery.

    This bizarre word salad of misconstrued Citizenship nonsense is all YOU Mario. You own this twisted tale of fiction as it has ZERO connection to either reality OR to any commentary on Citizenship that I made, whatsoever at all…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    There were “Citizens of the United States” before there were any “natural born Citizens.”Then “Citizens of the United States” were no longer eligible to be President, but “natural born Citizens” were.If these two classes of “citizens” started their existence separately from each other, and then when one died off and another continued to provide presidential eligibility, how can a “natural born Citizen” then end up being a subset of a “Citizen of the United States?”

    Ah Mario, I’d tell you to take a deep look in the mirror, but then again, I’ve really already told you that. Obviously, your actions clearly indicate that my own words must be better than yours, because you are so eager to simply try and steal them and use them for yourself….

    Just another demonstration by you that you’ve got nothing and can’t hack it here.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    I mean seriously, how can you be so dense to not figure this out yet… *sheesh* That is NOT at all the same as the nonsense that you keep repeating. Obviously, you have a very large reading comprehension problem.*facepalm*I have not run into any trouble.You on the other hand come across clueless and incapable of grasping basic concepts.

  393. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:45 am #

    G,

    It really is a waste of time arguing with you. You are so full of yourself. You think you impress people with all those stupid little symbols and punctuations. You cannot reply to anything, just whining that you did not say any of it and that you have been misunderstood. You have not been misunderstood. You just cannot make any argument that stands up to close scrutiny. Then at the end when you have nothing left to say, you just say that the whole matter has already been researched. You and I have nothing else to say to each other.

    *facepalm* *sheesh*

  394. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2012 at 2:51 am #

    JPotter: It gets confusing. Federal / State dual sovereignty … read up on US Constitutional law and plenary power in the US. The states are (in my IANAL understanding) more autonomous than the national subdivisions you noted (landers, cantons, etc.) For instance, they do have their own militaries, courts, state police system, and just about every gov’t function at some level has a state vs. federal angle.

    13 colonies (and later Texas) were, at one time, “sovereign states” on the world stage. If the colonies knew that by ratifying the Constitution, they were in for life (as settled by the Civil War), we’d still be waiting on ratification. Since then, 37 states have been created on equal footing with these once ‘full’ sovereigns. We also have territories, ‘sovereign’ tribes, and a federal district (which is ironically, ‘less’ sovereign than a state).

    As a whole, in terms of division of powers, the US is somewhere between Germany and the EU.

    Thank you for the useful & informative explanation; I’ll admit we have difficulties in thinking of your “States” as “real” States (ie: countries). Is it the same with Canadian “Provinces”?

  395. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: By the way, I am here on this filthy blog just to show all of you how much I enjoy beating you.

    This seems like a good time to once again state that:

    1) in re Vattel you are a liar (& other matters as well) and

    2) you still refuse to deny that you are funded by a KKK-like organization to propagandize their theories.

  396. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2012 at 3:18 am #

    After reading everything Mario wrote here, who can doubt my theory that he is a paid propagandist?

    (And too thin-skinned for his own good, but that’s another matter.)

    I concede he might be a delusional zealot blinded by his own ideology, but reading his tripe, I see it more as a self-serving and stubborn promotion of an ideological point of view he’s been paid to advance; no matter how many facts you guys bring to the table, you’ll never trump his ideology.

    Either way, it is fascinating.

  397. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 3:29 am #

    Yes.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,
    You said that “Citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens.

    That is correct and is consistent with what I’ve repeatedly said. See my post at June 28, 2012 at 1:37 am, which explicitly breaks each piece of that down and explains it, along with its follow-up at 1:38am, which reiterates this point in even further detail.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that “Citizens of the United States” who are born after the adoption of the Constitution are no longer eligible to be President, but “natural born Citizens” are.

    Of course they are.

    There is ZERO contradiction here, Mario. Simply put, that is NOT the ONLY scenario under which someone IS a NBC. Just the most common permutation of NBC and one that is more than essentially sufficient.

    Most importantly, neither of those cases REQUIRE that ALL of those conditions MUST be met in order to render someone NBC. They simply pointed out the very true and very basic point that someone under that specific scenario is most assuredly NBC.

    Those cases simply did NOT address other possible and acceptable permutations of NBC, as such scenarios were NOT before the court and therefore had zero relevance to the cases at hand. That doesn’t in any way imply or mean that those other acceptable permutations do not exist.

    There are simply several pathways to being BORN a Citizen (i.e. within the scope of NBC), NONE of which require NATURALIZATION, which is within the overall superset bounds of Citizenship, but outside the bounds of NBC, by its very definition.

    In terms of jus soli, ALL that is required is mere BIRTH here on US soil. Parentage doesn’t even need to factor in, when that condition has been satisfied. In other words, once that “box has been checked” = “good to go” = NBC. US parentage is merely an inconsequential “bonus” in the matter.

    Only IF that condition hasn’t been satisfied does the issue of parentage become a requirement (i.e. children born of one or more US citizen parents somewhere other than US soil).

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Also, Minor said and Wong Kim Ark confirmed that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “natural born Citizen.”

  398. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 3:43 am #

    Your argument here has a flawed premise.

    First of all, US LAW is already fairly clear on most of those possible jus sanguinis scenarios, in terms of how they apply to citizenship and whether it is BORN citizenship or would require Naturalization. Yes, there is valid argument that jus sanguinis NBC is a Statutory conveyance, but so what, that is both beside the point and most importantly, utterly IRRELEVANT to Obama’s birth scenario.

    Once you get into those various less common jus sanguinis permutations of NBC, then the issue of parentage DOES become quite relevant – BECAUSE that becomes a necessary qualifier, since the conditional pathway via birth on US soil was not met.

    These laws are quite detailed on the various parentage scenarios for foreign birth and explained clearly here:

    http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

    As you can see from them, obviously the best condition in a jus sanguinis scenario for US citizenship does take parentage into account. Here, the best scenario would obviously be two married US parents who had a residence in the US. But as the various permutations of the law explain, that is NOT the ONLY jus sanguinis permutation that grants US Citizenship at Birth and therefore, doesn’t require Naturalization of the child. Not all of the permutations of foreign birth to a US Citizen will result in US Citizenship at Birth for the child, but some do:

    A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth….

    A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:…

    A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    I seriously doubt the accuracy of your statement that “No court has ever made the statement that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “citizen of the United States.””

    However, that particular argument is completely IRRELEVANT. For one thing, the ONLY difference in rights of a US Citizen at Birth and a Naturalized US Citizen is in terms of eligibility to run for President of the US. Therefore, addressing *any* of those particular Jus sanguinis permutations of the law for that purpose will remain completely UNRIPE (i.e. “untimely”, until the courts are actually confronted with such a scenario taking place. As Obama was BORN IN THE US, this whole speculative tangent has ZERO RELVELANCE, as that is NOT the NBC eligibility permutation and birth circumstance that applies to him or anyone else who ever got elected to the office of US President.

    That particular tangent *did* hold relevance in terms of McCain, but other than a few cranks and Birthers and a few purely academic discussions, there was NO serious challenge or doubt that he too met the NBC criteria.

    Only *IF* we are faced with a serious plausible scenario of presidential eligibility in the future, of someone without a jus soli birth circumstance, will there ever been any credible need for the courts to even broach the matter. Until then, it really is merely an academic exercise of speculative futility and a waste of time.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    No court has ever made the statement that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “citizen of the United States.” Given these two factors, how can a “natural born Citizen” be a subset of a “citizen of the United States?”

  399. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 3:53 am #

    Correct.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You said that the only other “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens” are naturalized.

    Citizens.

    Or if you want to be more wordy, “Citizens of the United States” or “US Citizens” or “Naturalized Citizens” or “Naturalized US Citizens” or any verbiage meaning basically that.

    Under those circumstances, ALL of those terms are completely synonymous.

    Remember, Naturalized citizens are merely a SUBSET of Citizen. Therefore, EVERY Naturalized Citizen *is* by definition, a Citizen.

    Likewise, every Natural Born Citizen is also merely a SUBSET of Citizen. Therefore, EVERY Natural Born Citizen *is also* by definition, a Citizen. The ONLY unique right or privilege that sets those two subsets of US Citizenship apart is the eligibility to run for President of the US. That is it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    What are these naturalized citizens called?

    See above. You’ve just asked the exact same thing.

    If you are not NBC (i.e. not BORN with US Citizenship), then you have to go through the Naturalization process in order to obtain US Citizenship. Simple as that.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    What about “citizens of the United States” who are not “natural born Citizens,” what do you call them?

  400. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    That’s it, cut and run away when you can’t hack it, Mario. Don’t worry, we’re used to your little hyper-sensitive prima donna tantrums and transparently hollow retorts. It is just a sign of your inability to face up to facts and always a clear illustration of your craveness, when faced with truths that you can’t handle or BS your way out of…

    Trust me, you are not missed when you are not here…as you sure don’t add value when you are.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    It really is a waste of time arguing with you.You are so full of yourself.You think you impress people with all those stupid little symbols and punctuations.You cannot reply to anything, just whining that you did not say any of it and that you have been misunderstood.You have not been misunderstood.You just cannot make any argument that stands up to close scrutiny.Then at the end when you have nothing left to say, you just say that the whole matter has already been researched.You and I have nothing else to say to each other.

    *facepalm**sheesh*

  401. avatar
    Paper June 28, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    Because you are wrong. There is no separate class of U.S. citizenship called “citizens of the United States.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    There were “Citizens of the United States” before there were any “natural born Citizens.”Then “Citizens of the United States” were no longer eligible to be President, but “natural born Citizens” were.If these two classes of “citizens” started their existence separately from each other, and then when one died off and another continued to provide presidential eligibility, how can a “natural born Citizen” then end up being a subset of a “Citizen of the United States?”

  402. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 4:03 am #

    That’s it, cut and run away when you can’t hack it, Mario. Don’t worry, we’re used to your little hyper-sensitive prima donna tantrums and transparently hollow retorts. It is just a sign of your inability to face up to facts and always a clear illustration of your craveness, when faced with truths that you can’t handle or BS your way out of…

    Trust me, you are not missed when you are not here…as you sure don’t add value when you are.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    It really is a waste of time arguing with you.You are so full of yourself.You think you impress people with all those stupid little symbols and punctuations.You cannot reply to anything, just whining that you did not say any of it and that you have been misunderstood.You have not been misunderstood.You just cannot make any argument that stands up to close scrutiny.Then at the end when you have nothing left to say, you just say that the whole matter has already been researched.You and I have nothing else to say to each other.

    *facepalm**sheesh*

  403. avatar
    The Magic M June 28, 2012 at 4:08 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: All I said is that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 uses the clause “Citizen of the United States” and excludes them in the future from being President.

    “No animal except a cat, or a four-legged animal, at the time of the Adoption of this Catstitution, shall be eligible to the Office of Meowsident”

    By your logic, that “excludes four-legged animals in the future from being Meowsident”.
    Since cats are four-legged animals, they are excluded, too. Therefore, no-one can ever be Meowsident in the future.

    I wonder why birther legal “analysis” always ends up with “no-one is eligible for President anymore”. Reminds me of those birthers who claim any foreign state can effectively bar anyone from being President by declaring everyone on Earth their citizen, thus making all future US children dual citizens, thus disqualifying them according to the Vattelists.

    The conspiracist part of me thinks this sounds like some devious foreign plan to effectively render the US leaderless.

    Now your crank “analysis” comes up with the same result. I wonder why that is.

  404. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 4:16 am #

    Well, you SHOULD have difficulty thinking of our states as “countries” because they are NOT independent entities at all. The USofA *is* only ONE nation.

    There *is* only one country here – one that happens to contain 50 official subdivisions known as states as well as a number of territories under our jurisdiction.

    The individual states do NOT have a right to exceed their authority NOR to nullify or leave the Union. Our Civil War settled that particular set of issues a long time ago.
    Although our state structure has some inherent properties that have some analogous correlations to the powers and duties of actual “nations”, most of that is really borne out of originally coming together from 13 different separate colonies and offering an appealing way for expansionist territories to want to join the Union.

    In all practical modern day purposes however, they effectively operate more and more as merely interconnected geographical subdivisions of a single nation, more along the lines of what you originally seemed to assume.

    Many of the serious internal battles and true arguments of federalist powers vs. “states rights” powers have been fairly settled for a long time now…and strong central government pretty much has won out. In a modern, 21st century data-driven world, I don’t see any healthy practical scenario that would reverse that trend…

    Lupin: Thank you for the useful & informative explanation;

    I’ll admit we have difficulties in thinking of your “States” as “real” States (ie: countries). Is it the same with Canadian “Provinces”?

  405. avatar
    bovril June 28, 2012 at 6:22 am #

    To return to the orignal issue at hand

    So Mario my dear,

    Do tell, EXACTLY how well did this personal opinion of yours go over in every single one of your cases..?

    I mean, when you get your orutund ass handed to you, by a very young junior associate, it must have stung.

    After all, as you keep telling all and sundry, you are this wunderkind Constitutional lawyer yet you have exactly and precisely a zero successful track record in every one of your sad little Birfer cases.

  406. avatar
    Northland10 June 28, 2012 at 6:49 am #

    Lupin: Thank you for the useful & informative explanation; I’ll admit we have difficulties in thinking of your “States” as “real” States (ie: countries). Is it the same with Canadian “Provinces”?

    Not so much on “states rights” issues, but to get some sense of the oddity that can be the US, you might find interesting, Walter Mead’s book, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World.

    The start of one Amazon review may help give some thinking on the book:

    On first glance God and Gold might seem to be a typical triumphalist school of history production about the glorious rise of the Anglo-Americans and their victories over lesser peoples. However, the reader who takes a second look will recognize that Walter Russell Mead has created a wide-ranging and fascinating examination of world history over the last three hundred years or so that, while it does praise the strengths of the Anglophones or Wasps, is not blind to their short comings or to the achievements of other peoples.

  407. avatar
    ballantine June 28, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    Delusional, as all your other rants, that you believe that St. George Tucker supports your theory that the English common law defined an Article II “natural born Citizen.”Not even close my friend.

    SoTucker counts and all the authority Gray cites doesn’t? People lkie Kent, Story and Marshall are much more influnetial than Tucker. Adn you of course leave out the parts of Tucker talking about natural born citizenship. When Tucker approvingly cites a just soli definnition, it doesn’t count. When Tukcer defines it by native birth and uses native and alien throughout his treatise by place of birth such doesn’t count. Is there one authoity you actually get right. No matter, there is a multitude of authority on the subject that is much clearer that Tucker. Much is cited by gray. However, he could have cited dozens more including Madison, Dane, Swift, White, Bouvier, Burrell, Townsend and dozens of early cases. No court will pay attention to the authorities you cite as they are either insignificant or don’t actually support you. Sadly, you still cite Marshall quoting Vattel on the subjecxt of domicle of a citizen in the time of war. You still have not learned a citation that has nothing to do with citizenship cannot be authority on citizenship, something any 1st year law student would know. A quotation of a point of tax law means the part of the quote on such point is relevant. Any part of the quote relating to bankruptcy or other law is extraneous material. I hop you are taking notes on this so you don’t continue to embarrass yourself.

  408. avatar
    ballantine June 28, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    You said that “Citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens.Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that “Citizens of the United States” who are born after the adoption of the Constitution are no longer eligible to be President, but “natural born Citizens” are.Also, Minor said and Wong Kim Ark confirmed that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “natural born Citizen.”No court has ever made the statement that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “citizen of the United States.” Given these two factors, how can a “natural born Citizen” be a subset of a “citizen of the United States?”

    You said that the only other “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens” are naturalized.What are these naturalized citizens called?What about “citizens of the United States” who are not “natural born Citizens,” what do you call them?

    There must be something wrong with you. It has been pointed out again and again here that the Constitution does not say that “Citizen of hte United states” cannot be president. Why do you keep misrepresenting what the Constitution says? Of course, that is the only way you can make your silly argument.

    On ‘citizen of the United states,” you never explained how such phase doesn’t include natural born citizens yet is in statute after statute in contexts that of course include natural born citizens. Are natural born citizesns not covered under the judiciary act or naturalization acts? Of course no. You still cannot cite a single authority that agrees with you as nothing in Minor or Wong Kim Ark says “citizen of the united states” does not include natural born citizens. I have never seen anyone just make up things out of the blue and claim they are right when no one in history has ever said such is right.

    And for people who can read, Wong Kim Ark makde clear that native born children of aliens are natural born. It clearly states that borht natural born subject and natural born citizen are defined by being born in the allegiance with the court goes to great lengths to tell us includes children of aliens. I know, such doesn’t count. However, modern courts and scholars have no trouble understanding what it said. For example:

    “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…”

    Clear as can be And, of course, the Court clearly defined natural born subject to include childern of aliens. And what is “born in the allegaince” mean?

    “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

    “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.”

    It really isn’t that hard to understand what the Court has said. Wong Kim Ark is the only time the Court has addressed the question of childern of aliens and it is the law whether you are capable of understanding that or not.

  409. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    Lupin: Thank you for the useful & informative explanation; I’ll admit we have difficulties in thinking of your “States” as “real” States (ie: countries). Is it the same with Canadian “Provinces”?

    Canadian provinces generally have more powers than US states. As I mentioned above, Quebec screens immigrants who wish to live in the province and maintains a Ministry of International Afffairs with diplomatic outposts in major world capitals. They also run their health care systems (though a part of the funding comes from the federal government). Quebec runs its own pension plan (the equivalent of US Social Security), while the other provinces let the feds do it. Much of this has to do with Quebec’s unique role as the guardian of the French language and culture. Interestingly, one area where the provinces have less power than the US states is criminal law, which is enacted by the federal government (though the provinces administer the courts). This is unlike the US where states and the federal government maintain separate criminal justice systems.

  410. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 7:31 am #

    The Magic M: “No animal except a cat, or a four-legged animal, at the time of the Adoption of this Catstitution, shall be eligible to the Office of Meowsident”

    Listen up, The Constitution says “No Person except blah, blah, blah shall be eligible for the office of President”. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that forbids a cat, dog, space alien or any other non-person from being President. Not only that, such critters would be exempt from NBC, 35, 14 years residence and all that other b.s.

    In fact, all any candidate needs to do is declare themselves not to be a person and the path to the White House is free of all impediments.

  411. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    Lupin: Thank you for the useful & informative explanation; I’ll admit we have difficulties in thinking of your “States” as “real” States (ie: countries). Is it the same with Canadian “Provinces”?

    Lupin, hope it was helpful, I’ll defer to Scientist re: Canada. The two countries have radically different histories and development arcs. Scientist is literally much closer to that issue. I have some Canadian correspondents …. unfortunately they are as detached from politics and current events as typical Americans are. Quebec is an interesting case. So is Texas. Texas likes to pretend that it’s doing the US a favor by hanging around, and that it’s ready to walk at a moment’s notice. Even has its own power grid.

  412. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Also, Minor said and Wong Kim Ark confirmed that a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country is a “natural born Citizen.”

    Arnold Schwarzenegger is thus a natural born ciizen, since he was born in the country of parents who were citizens of that country. Jennifer Granholm is also a natural born citizen by the same criteria. Schwarzenegger/Granholm Granhom/Schwarzenegger 2016.

    If you wish to play this silly game your goose is cooked, because the US Constitution most defiinitely does not specify any particular country that you must be a natural born citizen of.

  413. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    JPotter: Quebec is an interesting case. So is Texas. Texas likes to pretend that it’s doing the US a favor by hanging around, and that it’s ready to walk at a moment’s notice. Even has its own power grid.

    Alberta is the Texas of Canada-lots of oil, right wing (at least by Canadian standards) and home of the largest rodeo in the world-the Calgary Stampede. They occasionally make noises about separating if they don’t get their way on oil matters.

  414. avatar
    ballantine June 28, 2012 at 7:58 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Given these two factors, how can a “natural born Citizen” be a subset of a “citizen of the United States?”

    Please explain how these acts and treaties don’t include natural born citizens. Seems no one got the memo.

    “And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court in all actions at law against citizens of the United States shall be by jury.” Judiciary Act of 1789.

    “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Naturalization Act of 1790.

    “And the Creek nation do hereby relinquish all claims to any part of the territory inhabited or claimed by the citizens of the United States, in conformity with the said treaties.” Creek Treaty of 1790

    “If any citizen of the united states shall, within the territory or jurisdiltion of the same, accept and exercise a commission to serve a foreign prince or state in war, by land or sea, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor…” Act of 1794

    “That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent any trade or intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of the citizens of the United States, and being within the ordinary jurisdiction of any of the individual states.” Indian Act of 1796

    “And in consequence of the stipulation’s contained in the fourth article, his Catholic Majesty will permit the citizens of the United States for the space of three years from this time, to deposit their merchant dises and effects in the port of New-Orleans,” Treaty with Spain of 1795

    “and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Naturalization Act of 1795

    “Should the cruiser of Algiers capture any vessel, having citizens of the United States of North-America on board, they having papers ta prove they are really so, they and their property shall be immediately discharged.” Treaty with Algiers of 1796

    “In like manner the citizens of the United States of America may frequent all the coasts and countries of his Majesty the King of Prussia, and reside and trade there, in all sorts of produce, manufactures and merchandise…” Treaty with Prussia of 1799.

    “It shall be free for the citizens of the United States to carry on what commerce they please in the kingdom of Tunis, without any opposition.” Treaty with Tunis of 1799.

    “The Cherokee nation agree, that the Kentucky road, running between the Cumberland mountain and the Cumberland river, where the same shall pass through the Indian land, shall bean open and free road for the use of the citizens of the United States in the like manner as the road from Southwest point to Cumberland river.” Cherokee Treaty of 1799.

    ” That if any citizen or citizens of the United States shall, without the limits of the same, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly aid or be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming any private ship or vessel of war, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any prince or state with whom the United States are at peace, or upon the citizens of the United States, or their property, or shall take the command, or enter on board of any such ship or vessel for the intent aforesaid, or shall purchase an interest in any vessel so fitted out and armed, with a view to share in the profits thereof, such person or persons so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding ten years.” Privateering Act of 1797.

    “If any citizen or citizens of the united states shall, without the limits of the same, arm, or attempt to fit out and are, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly aid ..” Act of 1796

    “If any person, being a citizen of the united states, whether he be actually resident, or abiding within the united states, or in any foreign country, shall, without the permission or authority of the government of the united states, directly or indirectly, commence, or carry on, any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government….’ Act of 1799

    “That from and after the termination of the war in which the United States are now engaged with Great Britain, it shall not be lawful to employ, on board of any public or private vessels of the United States, any person or persons except citizens of the United States, or persons of color, natives of the United States.” Act of 1813

    “That if any citizen or citizens of the United States shall contrary to the true intent and meaning or this act, take on board, receive or transport any such persons, as above described in this act…” Slave Trade Act of 1794.

  415. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: that you believe that St. George Tucker supports your theory that the English common law defined an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Not even close my friend.

    Where did that come from? Gosh, the only mention of Tucker in the thread is from …. Mario. Cherrypicking an argument to use as a projected strawman, an argument shot down in an attempt to cover a getaway. Congrats on shooting your clay pigeon…on the ground. Try to miss your foot next time.

    Tucker’s note regarding eligibility for selection as a privy counselor is of interest:

    As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of king William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement,l that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.

    http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm

    Sounds familiar. 😉

  416. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2012 at 8:16 am #

    There is, however, a major article attacking Apuzzo’s use of Tucker at Woodman’s site.

    JPotter: Where did that come from? Gosh, the only mention of Tucker in the thread is from …. Mario

  417. avatar
    The Magic M June 28, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    ballantine: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Naturalization Act of 1790.

    If I were to argue this doesn’t clearly say whether “may be born beyond Sea…” refers to the children or the parents, I would have a 10,000 times better case than Mario and his Jedi Paulyesque musings about “citizen with a capital C” or “natural born citizens aren’t citizens”.

  418. avatar
    roadburner June 28, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: roadburnerOld hat.

    what does an old hat have to do with the pakistan travel ban?

    we’ll give you a chance – try again.

  419. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    G

    “LMAO! Ah, poor sad hack G. Alas, you can’t even make up your own rebuttal and are reduced to merely plagiarizing the same words from [your Obot think tank].

    Then again…the pattern fits. Most of your windsock silliness is nothing but cribbed arguments from [that Obot think tank and Obot sites] and other deranged lunatics in the [Obot community]. Yes, here and there you cobble together some of your own “special” gobbledygook reasoning that is even more detached from reality then they original sources. So, yes, your “originality” in your own writing basically amounts to nothing more than using a lot of words to tell tall tales and finding new ways to string together existing whoppers.

    Yet you can’t seem to hold up and defend such banal idiocy whenever you are faced with a REAL adversary… much less at any [Birther] site. Too bad for you.

    But hey, keep demonstrating that you’re nothing but a small and petty juvenile, thin-skinned hack who can’t present a proper and well-thought out rebuttal to save his life. It has become your modus operandi, after all.”G.

  420. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is, however, a major article attacking Apuzzo’s use of Tucker at Woodman’s site.

    Thanks for the tip! Pretty thorough burn-down by Woodman, and I see Mario has been kicking the bricks over there at the same time he test his foot on the bricks over here. The rule holds true, birthers lie about everything they read.

  421. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    G,

    You said: “Those cases simply did NOT address other possible and acceptable permutations of NBC, as such scenarios were NOT before the court and therefore had zero relevance to the cases at hand. That doesn’t in any way imply or mean that those other acceptable permutations do not exist. There are simply several pathways to being BORN a Citizen (i.e. within the scope of NBC), NONE of which require NATURALIZATION, which is within the overall superset bounds of Citizenship, but outside the bounds of NBC, by its very definition.

    In terms of jus soli, ALL that is required is mere BIRTH here on US soil. Parentage doesn’t even need to factor in, when that condition has been satisfied. In other words, once that “box has been checked” = “good to go” = NBC. US parentage is merely an inconsequential “bonus” in the matter.

    Only IF that condition hasn’t been satisfied does the issue of parentage become a requirement (i.e. children born of one or more US citizen parents somewhere other than US soil).”
    **************

    Only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not so eligible.

    You are conflating a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.”

    Hence, all your talk about how to make a “citizen of the United States” with all his or her “permutations” and “scenarios” goes to making a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.”

    It is constitutional error to mistake a “citizen of the United States” and it definition for a “natural born Citizen.”

  422. avatar
    Reality Check June 28, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Mario gets another “F”. He cannot find a single article written after Wong Kim Ark in 1898 that said “They found the Chinese fellow was a citizen but he cannot run for president because he is only a ‘Citizen of the Untied States'”

    He can’t find even one? How embarrassing. So no one figured out Wong Kim Ark for 214 years until Mario the DUI attorney came along? No one. How astonishingly stupid would you have to be to believe that?

    Guess what folks? Even Mario didn’t say that in his complaint in the Kerchner v Obama case. As a matter of fact he never even cited Minor v Happersett, you know the case that Mario said defined the term natural-born citizen?. Nope not once in 87 pages. But you say “of course he explained Wong Kim Ark because that would be important wouldn’t it” ? Nope he never cited it once. ,He barely mentioned the fictional two parent citizen theory in his complaint in New Jersey Federal Court. It was an afterthought buried towards the end of the complaint.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Professor Reality Check,

    I see you just cannot unlock that homework mentality

  423. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Again: thank you all for the very enlightening insight into the peculiarities of your “States”. It only makes Scalias’s opinion even more shocking.

  424. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    G,

    You said: “Yes, there is valid argument that jus sanguinis NBC is a Statutory conveyance, but so what, that is both beside the point and most importantly, utterly IRRELEVANT to Obama’s birth scenario.”

    It is not irrelevant. On the contrary, it is highly relevant. It shows that your “born Citizen” definition of a “natural born Citizen” is constitutionally flawed. Indeed, we can have “born Citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens.”

  425. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President.

    Where is there a court decision to that effect? It is an incontrovertible FACT that the person who wins the election is the President. You cannot cite me an example where that was not the case.

  426. avatar
    mimi June 28, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    How many times does Mario’s argument have to lose in court before he accepts it?

  427. avatar
    Paper June 28, 2012 at 9:55 am #

    No, you are just wrong. There is no separate class called “citizen of the United States.” The confusion you make is to confuse a category with its parts. No court is going to agree with you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    It is constitutional error to mistake a “citizen of the United States” and it definition for a “natural born Citizen.”

  428. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    G,

    Your position is that all members of the United States are “citizens,” and that those “citizens” are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized citizens.”

    What does the Constitution and Acts of Congress call those “naturalized citizens?”

  429. avatar
    y_p_w June 28, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Lupin:
    Again: thank you all for the very enlightening insight into the peculiarities of your “States”. It only makes Scalias’s opinion even more shocking.

    The US Constitution does explain that new states can be added, but doesn’t really say that much about the disposition of territory owned by the United States but not yet admitted as a state.

    I remember hearing about how most French overseas territories such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Tahiti were considered full parts of France with all citizens of territory having full rights as if they were born on the mainland. That was very different than what we know, where some overseas territories have limited rights. Someone living in Puerto Rico can’t even vote in the general election for US President. There are questions as to whether someone born in an overseas US territory such as Puerto Rico, Guam, or the US Virgin Islands, although the Congressional Research Service article often cited here claims that they most likely would be.

    The US Virgin Islands is an interesting place. There are some famous Americans born there. If they ever had political aspirations to be President, they might even stand a chance of getting some traction. The actor Kelsey Grammer was born there, as was the basketball player Tim Duncan. I could see Grammer thinking of running for office in the US, and perhaps even President.

  430. avatar
    Jim June 28, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    Your position is that all members of the United States are “citizens,” and that those “citizens” are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized citizens.”

    What does the Constitution and Acts of Congress call those “naturalized citizens?”

    Come on Mario…now you’re just getting plain boring.

  431. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    A couple of years ago I managed to locate on the net a copy of Confederate Brig. General George Gordon’s PRESCRIPT which is in effect the Klan dogma.

    Some of it deals with the issue of citizenship; if I recall correctly the notion of “native born” citizenship being equated with being born of TWO white christian parents finds its root there.

  432. avatar
    ballantine June 28, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    Your position is that all members of the United States are “citizens,” and that those “citizens” are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized citizens.”

    What does the Constitution and Acts of Congress call those “naturalized citizens?”

    We are still waiting for you to cite a single authority saying “citizen of the United States” doesn’t include natural born citizens. You should be embarrassed that you can’t. I notice how you can’t explain all the statutes that use “citizen of the United States” as there is no rationale answer you can provide. But you will simply never admit you are wrong.

    And from Wong Kim Ark:

    “In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

    Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.”

    Gee, I guess he didn’t get the memo on what a “citizen of the United States” was.

  433. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    The Magic M,

    The first fallacy in your argument is your failure to understand that the Founders and Framers created two separate and distinct classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.” So “natural born Citizens” (your cats) are not subsumed into “Citizens of the United States” (your four-legged creatures). So, when I say that the Founders and Framers said in the future no more “Citizens of the United States” for the Office of President, my position does not produce the result that you allege it produces which you say is that they would have also simultaneously prohibited the “natural born Citizens” from presidential eligibility.

    The second fallacy in your argument is that it denies the simple fact that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that “Citizens of the United States” shall be eligible for President only if they had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So clearly, anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution who has the status of a “citizen of the United States” and does not have the status of a “natural born Citizen” is excluded by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 from being eligible to be President.

  434. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Mario, you can keep ignoring it, but no court has ever prevented the winner of the election from taking and holding office. Not ever. This sticks in your craw, I know. And your client Purpura not only lost his stupid birther case, but his challenge to the ACA is officially dead on any grounds, since the law was upheld with Roberts voting to do so.

    This is a very, very, very bad day for you..

  435. avatar
    Sam the Centipede June 28, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    All members of the United States are “citizens.”There are two types of “citizens,” “natural born Citizen” and “citizens of the United States.”

    We have Mario’s stupidity summarised very neatly by himself. Let’s ignore the fact that the members of the United States are actually the states, not individual people. We can’t expect Mario to understand that sort of gross distinction.

    Addressing the substantive point, no Mario, no, no, no, no, no.

    Every person in the world is either a citizen of the United States or he/she is not. Most are not. There are not two types of citizen, only an ignorant moron thinks that. Oh, you do?

    A person can become a citizen in several ways. The most obvious and common way is simply by being born in the territory of the USA. Less commonly babies born outside the USA to parents who are citizens can be citizens, subject to certain additional criteria.

    Those people who met the criteria for citizenship when they drew their first breath are natural born citizens.

    Those who are not citizens at birth, but acquire it later through applying for and being granted naturalization, are also citizens, but not natural born, native born or born citizens.

    But they are exactly the same type of citizen. There are no types of citizen.

    The only possible complication is when rules of citizenship are revised with retrospective effect during a person’s lifetime, so they were born in a territory that was not part of the USA, but which later became a part. Whether such a person would be deemed “natural born” or not is not a question that I know the answer to, nor do I care about such logic-chopping.

    Scream all you want, act childish, stupid and petulant, but listen to the judges Mario: they all agree with this version, the correct version. Not one, not a single one, no judge agrees with your ridiculous perverted mis-readings. It’s only idiot birthers and the other clowns.

    If judges repeatedly agree amongst themselves, then their interpretation of the law is de facto the definition of the law. It does not matter that you come up with silly arguments that say otherwise, the law is not what you say it is.

    So much wrong. Error on mistake on blunder on failure on catechresis on solipsism… topped off with a heady sauce of delusion.

  436. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Again Mario,

    You are reduced to merely stealing what I already said about you and replacing a few words, because you don’t have any REAL rebuttal and are nothing but a child throwing a tantrum.

    Sorry, while projection may be the only “weapon” that pathetic little men with tunnelvision worldviews like you are capable of using, it simply amounts to nothing but more endless failure for you when you attempt such.

    As with all your hollow words and BS, none of what you say holds up to the light of day when you try to spew it…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G

    “LMAO!Ah, poor sad hack G.Alas, you can’t even make up your own rebuttal and are reduced to merely plagiarizing the same words from [your Obot think tank].

    Then again…the pattern fits.Most of your windsock silliness is nothing but cribbed arguments from [that Obot think tank and Obot sites]and other deranged lunatics in the [Obot community].Yes, here and there you cobble together some of your own “special” gobbledygook reasoning that is even more detached from reality then they original sources.So, yes, your “originality” in your own writing basically amounts to nothing more than using a lot of words to tell tall tales and finding new ways to string together existing whoppers.

    Yet you can’t seem to hold up and defend such banal idiocy whenever you are faced with a REAL adversary… much less at any [Birther] site.Too bad for you.

    But hey, keep demonstrating that you’re nothing but a small and petty juvenile, thin-skinned hack who can’t present a proper and well-thought out rebuttal to save his life.It has become your modus operandi, after all.”G.

  437. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    Sam the Centipide,

    We have Sam the Centipede’s stupidity summarised very neatly by himself. Let’s ignore the fact that Article II distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” We can’t expect Sammy to understand that sort of gross distinction.

    Addressing the substantive point, no Sammy, no, no, no, no, no.

    Every person in the world is either a U.S. citizen or he/she is not. Most are not. There are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States,” only an ignorant moron thinks otherwise. Oh, you do?

    A person can become a “citizen” in several ways. The most obvious and common way is simply by being born in the territory of the USA. Less commonly babies born outside the USA to parents who are “citizens” can be “citizens,” subject to certain additional criteria.

    Those people who met the criteria for citizenship when they drew their first breath are either “natural born Citizen” or “citizens of the United States.”

    Those who are not “citizens” at birth, but acquire it later through applying for and being granted naturalization, are also “citizens of the United States,” but not natural born, native born or born citizens.

    Scream all you want, act childish, stupid and petulant, but listen to the reason and logic, Sammy. It points to this version, the correct version. Not one, not a single one, no reasonale person agrees with your ridiculous perverted mis-readings. It’s only Obots.

    If reasonable people repeatedly agree amongst themselves, then their interpretation of the law is de facto the definition of the law. It does not matter that you come up with silly arguments that say otherwise, the law is not what you say it is.

    So much wrong. Error on mistake on blunder on failure on catechresis on solipsism… topped off with a heady sauce of delusion.

    The words of Sam the Centipide as appropriately edited.

  438. avatar
    MN-Skeptic June 28, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    The trouble with reading The Putz on his blog, Woodman’s blog, and here, is that I can’t remember exactly where I read the silliest mis-reading that Mario made. Does anyone else remember this one? Mario cited a reference which said something like “the citizen or citizens of the United States shall…” and Mario declared that they were talking about two sets of people. There was “the citizen” and there were “citizens of the United States.” According to him, two mutually exclusive sets of people. With that level of reading comprehension, how can we expect The Putz to understand *anything* he reads?

  439. avatar
    JoZeppy June 28, 2012 at 11:29 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Every person in the world is either a U.S. citizen or he/she is not. Most are not. There are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States,” only an ignorant moron thinks otherwise. Oh, you do?

    I guess that makes all those judges that laugh you out of the court ignornat morons as well. So our options are a third rate DUI attorney is right, or every judge and constitutional scholar is right…..hmmmmm….I wonder which it is.

    Please, Mario, by all means….keep making a bigger @ss of yourself. It really is quite amusing. Perhaps next time you have the opportunity to present your deep thoughts to a judge you should just cut to the chase and clamp your hands over your ears and stamp your feet while shouting, “I’m right and everyone else is wrong!” It would probably be as equally effective as you dumping your 100 page missives on the court, and certainly far more entertaining.

  440. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    Correct. As applicable to eligibility today, that *is* the only pathway that remains valid within that Constitutional Clause. I have said exactly that all along.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President.

    How stuck on stupid can you be?

    As repeatedly told to you, “natural born citizens” are merely a SUBSET of “citizen of the United States”.

    Therefore, your statement is inherently FALSE and doesn’t make any sense.

    Do you really have no basic grasp of set theory and how groupings and subgroupings work???

    Or are you simply just that poor at being both a lawyer and a pathological liar, that your false arguments of weak convoluted BS would easily be picked apart by a room of first graders…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    A “citizen of the United States” is not so eligible.

    NO. Unless “conflating” is another basic English term that you don’t know how to use right or understand what it means. Because I have never “conflated” the two.

    Let’s type real slow for you since you are so dense:

    As I’ve said repeatedly, BOTH “natural born Citizens” and “naturalized Citizens” ARE “citizens of the United States”. They are the two SUBSETS of “citizens of the United States”

    Therefore:

    ALL “naturalized Citizens” ARE “citizens“of the United States” = TRUE.
    ALL “natural born Citizens” ARE “citizens of the United States” = TRUE.

    When something is merely SUBSET of a larger SET, the reverse cannot hold true, therefore:

    ALL “citizens of the United States” ARE “naturalized Citizens” = FALSE.
    ALL “citizens of the United States” ARE “natural born Citizens” = FALSE.

    The reason those last two statements are FALSE is because ALL “citizens of the United States” requires the combination of BOTH of those two options in order to be TRUE.

    As alone, each of those two options only represent a PORTION of the WHOLE, the other way to make those last two statements TRUE is to replace ALL with SOME:

    SOME “citizens of the United States” ARE “naturalized Citizens” = TRUE.
    SOME “citizens of the United States” ARE “natural born Citizens” = TRUE.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You are conflating a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.”

    As usual, you are wrong again. Because you can’t grasp the basic concepts at play here, you’re reduced to drawing false conclusions.

    Every statement I’ve said on the topic holds true and holds up. You are just too inept and/or dishonest to comprehend it. You only make yourself look like a fool here.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Hence, all your talk about how to make a “citizen of the United States” with all his or her “permutations” and “scenarios” goes to making a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.”

    The only one making the “constitutional errors” here is you. Everyone else here is capable of reading basic English grammar properly and applying basic logic and set theory to understand the principles at play.

    Only you are continuing to spin in a circle of stupidity…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    It is constitutional error to mistake a “citizen of the United States” and it definition for a “natural born Citizen.”

  441. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The first fallacy in your argument is your failure to understand that the Founders and Framers created two separate and distinct classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.”

    Speaking as an outsider, this — purely as an intellectual construction — strikes me as the epitome of ludicrousness. What would that “super-class” of NBC be comprised of? Where were they throughout history? Where are they today? Do they identify each other with a secret handshake?

    I can see why a KKK mouthpiece like Mario might want to lobby to create such a new super-class of citizens to prevent the riffraff from becoming too uppity, but to argue that that super-class has been with you since the start???

  442. avatar
    misha June 28, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wong was not born a “citizen” by virtue of his birth alone, but rather created a “citizen of the United States” and therefore a “citizen” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Are you clinically insane, drunk, or both?

  443. avatar
    misha June 28, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What are these naturalized citizens called?

    They are called people who have switched to a totally organic diet.

  444. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    misha: They are called people who have switched to a totally organic diet.

    I thought they had been converted to fertilizer. Soylent Green … immigrants as a food source. Regressives would say they weren’t fit to eat.

  445. avatar
    misha June 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    @Sam the Centipede – My favorite is “Sam the Sham and The Pharaohs.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_the_Sham

  446. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The words of Sam the Centipide as appropriately edited.

    Hmm …. appropriating content w/o making the alterations plain ….. very poor form, very dishonest.

    I spoke of an extra measure of grace …. but really Mario, look over this thread. Is this the best representation you can make for your ideas?

  447. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Lupin: It only makes Scalias’s opinion even more shocking.

    Well, he would have been a better fit on the 1870-era SCOTUS. He’s made plenty of enemies. Progressives call for his impeachment from time to time. But even here, referencing Vattel, he fits in with a long-running theme in our history, of limiting the federal government in every way possible.

    Why don’t the Reds just come out and demand a return to the Articles of Confederation? That’s essentially what our far right is advocating.

    … and then they would advocate a return to the colonial charters …

  448. avatar
    misha June 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have Sam the Centipede’s stupidity summarised very neatly by himself…We can’t expect Sammy to understand that sort of gross distinction.

    Mario, I want you to know that I have defended you in conversations, while sitting on a bar stool.

    The other night, someone said, “That Mario Apuzzo is not fit to live with pigs.”

    I stuck up for you. I said you were.

  449. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    JPotter: Hmm …. appropriating content w/o making the alterations plain ….. very poor form, very dishonest.

    I spoke of an extra measure of grace …. but really Mario, look over this thread. Is this the best representation you can make for your ideas?

    The semiliterate, lying douche nozzle and his bigoted sycophants deserve nothing more than ridicule and eventual obscurity.

  450. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    No it isn’t. It does no such thing. The only problem here is that you are incapable of grasping basic logic and can’t seem to comprehend or restate what anyone has said to you properly. Therefore, the only thing that is flawed is your understanding of these things and the conversation at hand. Thus, you come to such illogical and nonsensical conclusions, which fail to stand up under any scrutiny.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,
    You said: “Yes, there is valid argument that jus sanguinis NBC is a Statutory conveyance, but so what, that is both beside the point and most importantly, utterly IRRELEVANT to Obama’s birth scenario.”

    It is not irrelevant. On the contrary, it is highly relevant. It shows that your “born Citizen” definition of a “natural born Citizen” is constitutionally flawed.

    NO, you can’t. Not in how those terms are applied within the SCOPE of the relevant issue at hand.

    There is ZERO legal evidence within US law, that any statutory “born Citizen” classification would be treated as anything other than being a “natural born Citizen”. In fact, to do so would run contrary to the 14th Amendment, which clearly tells us that there are TWO AND ONLY TWO pathways to US Citizenship: Born *and* Naturalized.

    Therefore, “born” and “natural born” are EQUAL in the eyes of US law, regardless of whether one has qualified as a “born citizen” by virtue of birth here on US soil (jus soli), or by virtue of being born to a US citizen abroad and meeting the aforementioned jus sanguinis “born citizen” criteria already available under existing US law. They are *ALL* NBC, as their US Citizenship is granted to them by mere virtue of them being born. NO naturalization process required.

    However, as I correctly pointed out, you are wasting time going down that whole path of argument as it simply has ZERO relevance to the issue of contesting Barack Obama’s eligibility for President. He was BORN on US SOIL. Therefore, his birth scenario is crystal clear.

    There is NO statute issue at play in that case at all, so talking about fictional “what if” scenarios in regards to foreign birth is just an irrelevant side tangent that has no applicability to the matter before the courts and would NOT be ripe to bring before them at all UNTIL you are actually faced with a serious presidential candidate whose birth circumstances fall under such a jus sanguinis scenario.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Indeed, we can have “born Citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens.”

  451. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    Agreed. Well said. Thank you for stating it so succinctly.

    Which is why no court has agreed with him and never will…

    Paper:
    No, you are just wrong.There is no separate class called “citizen of the United States.” The confusion you make is to confuse a category with its parts. No court is going to agree with you.

  452. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    Citizens. *duh*

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    Your position is that all members of the United States are “citizens,” and that those “citizens” are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized citizens.”

    What does the Constitution and Acts of Congress call those “naturalized citizens?”

  453. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Lupin: I can see why a KKK mouthpiece like Mario might want to lobby to create such a new super-class of citizens to prevent the riffraff from becoming too uppity, but to argue that that super-class has been with you since the start???

    When you decide you’re superior, you have to find your superiority somewhere … even if that means making it up. Calling yourselve “Aryan” or some other such silly nonsense.

    As for me, I’ll “sieg heil” right in der Fuehrer’s face. 😉

  454. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    Majority Will: The semiliterate, lying douche nozzle and his bigoted sycophants deserve nothing more than ridicule and eventual obscurity.

    I was referring back to my comment above …. but even from the perspective of getting all of him on the record he’s willing to give away, he is awfully tedious, tiresome, and dull.

  455. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    WRONG again Mario. There is NO fallacy in his argument.

    You’ve left out the quantifying clause that they stated in regards to said “Citizens of the United States”:

    “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

    NOTHING in the Constitution states NOR implies that “natural born Citizens” are not “Citizens of the United States”.

    So give it up, Mario. Your terminal case of being “stuck on stupid” doesn’t fly here NOR in our legal system. You are merely adrift repeating the same disproven fallacy over and over again to no avail…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    The Magic M,

    The first fallacy in your argument is your failure to understand that the Founders and Framers created two separate and distinct classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.”

  456. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    Excellent post. Well stated and correct. All of it! KUDOS.

    Sam the Centipede: We have Mario’s stupidity summarised very neatly by himself. Let’s ignore the fact that the members of the United States are actually the states, not individual people. We can’t expect Mario to understand that sort of gross distinction.

    Addressing the substantive point, no Mario, no, no, no, no, no.

    Every person in the world is either a citizen of the United States or he/she is not. Most are not. There are not two types of citizen, only an ignorant moron thinks that. Oh, you do?

    A person can become a citizen in several ways. The most obvious and common way is simply by being born in the territory of the USA. Less commonly babies born outside the USA to parents who are citizens can be citizens, subject to certain additional criteria.

    Those people who met the criteria for citizenship when they drew their first breath are natural born citizens.

    Those who are not citizens at birth, but acquire it later through applying for and being granted naturalization, are also citizens, but not natural born, native born or born citizens.

    But they are exactly the same type of citizen. There are no types of citizen.

    The only possible complication is when rules of citizenship are revised with retrospective effect during a person’s lifetime, so they were born in a territory that was not part of the USA, but which later became a part. Whether such a person would be deemed “natural born” or not is not a question that I know the answer to, nor do I care about such logic-chopping.

    Scream all you want, act childish, stupid and petulant, but listen to the judges Mario: they all agree with this version, the correct version. Not one, not a single one, no judge agrees with your ridiculous perverted mis-readings. It’s only idiot birthers and the other clowns.

    If judges repeatedly agree amongst themselves, then their interpretation of the law is de facto the definition of the law. It does not matter that you come up with silly arguments that say otherwise, the law is not what you say it is.

    So much wrong. Error on mistake on blunder on failure on catechresis on solipsism… topped off with a heady sauce of delusion.

  457. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    JPotter: I was referring back to my comment above …. but even from the perspective of getting all of him on the record he’s willing to give away, he is awfully tedious, tiresome, and dull.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot to see his comments here and at Woodman’s blog entered into the next court record for the judge to enjoy?

    His sycophant’s comments about the corruption of judges and the punishment these judges deserve would also be enlightening for the court.

  458. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 28, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    There are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States,” only an ignorant moron thinks otherwise.Oh, you do?

    I can see how The Putz got his DUI client life without parole:

    “Your Honor, there’s alcohol and there’s ethanol. My client drank a beverage containing ethanol, therefore he didn’t drink alcohol and so he wasn’t under the influence of alcohol, only an ignorant moron thinks otherwise. Oh, you do?”

  459. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    G,

    Maybe you can use some of that stupid punctuation and symbols to answer this:

    “3. Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights. These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.

    ***

    Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.”

    St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803) http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm .

    Tucker explains that civil rights belonged only to a “citizen.” The right of being elected to public office was one of the most important of these rights. The right to be elected President was included in these civil rights. Anyone who was naturalized was forever incapable of being chosen to the office of President.

    Civil rights were either acquired or inherited. That means that there were only two ways that a person could come to possess such rights. They were acquired by a foreigner upon being naturalized or inherited by all those who were born to “citizen” parents. This means that Tucker divided “citizens” into those who were born to “citizen” parents and those who were not. The former would be “natural born” and the latter naturalized. If we apply what Tucker said to the civil right to be elected president, we can see that one could not acquire such a right by naturalization, for a naturalized citizen was forever barred from being President. So, the only other way one could obtain the civil right to be elected President was through the only other way to obtain such a civil right. That was by inheriting the right by being born to “citizen” parents.

    We know from the Constitution that, for those born after its adoption, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. Hence, if follows a fortiori from Tucker’s explanation that, since the Constitution informs that a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be elected President, a “natural born Citizen” can only be a child born to “citizen” parents. Tucker explains that the only exception to this rule was for those who were naturalized before the adoption of the Constitution. These would have been children who were not born to “citizen” parents, but who were nevertheless allowed to be chosen to be President. We know that these persons were who Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 calls “Citizens of the United States,” and who it grandfathered to be eligible to be President, but who Tucker explains, given that they were born after the adoption of the Constitution and were not born to “citizen” parents, were forever barred from being chosen to the office of President.

    Obama was not born to “citizen” parents. He therefore at birth could not have inherited the civil right to be elected President. He may be a “citizen of the United States,” if born in Hawaii, which allowed him to acquire his civil rights just as any other naturalized citizen, but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” who inherits his civil rights by being born to “citizen” parents.

  460. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    G,

    You have no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause.

    Give it up, G.

  461. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    Misha,

    You said: “Mario, I want you to know that I have defended you in conversations, while sitting on a bar stool.

    The other night, someone said, “That Mario Apuzzo is not fit to live with pigs.”

    I stuck up for you. I said you were.”

    Thanks for doing that. I knew you would come through. After all, you should know.

  462. avatar
    The Magic M June 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The first fallacy in your argument is your failure to understand that the Founders and Framers created two separate and distinct classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.”

    Call me when you’ve convinced any real lawperson (a judge, a Yale professor or likewise) of your outlandish reinterpretation of US citizenship.

    It’s one thing to make a claim; it’s a whole different story to back it up.
    And it never ceases to amaze me to what lenghts some people will go to make “A is B” instead mean “A is not B” despite the clear meaning of basic English.
    You might just as well claim that “the Age of thirty-five Years” isn’t talking about 35 years of age but something like “the Age of Aquarius”.

    Let’s try an exercise: Let’s assume your interpretation is correct. Assume further you were a Founder and wanted to create a wording in the Constitution that reflects my standpoint of A2S1C5 (that NBC’s are a subset of “citizens of the United States”).
    How would they have written it in your opinion?
    Note that it’s not allowed to state the obvious (such as “the class of natural born citizens is a subset of…”) because the Founders didn’t state “your obvious” here either (i.e. they didn’t write “natural born citizens and citizens of the US are mutually exclusive”).

    If I’m correct, you will have to come up with a very contrived formulation for such a simple thing…

  463. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Sorry Mario, but your little selective quote from Tucker doesn’t really help you at all.

    You are simply stuck on stupid and too focused on your myopic and idiotic ideas to grasp what he actually said and what he *didn’t* say in that quote.

    Tucker’s overall point is CONSISTENT with what all of us have been telling you all along – two pathways to US Citizenship – Naturalization (aquired) or being born with it (inherited).

    The US of course recognizes inherited citizenship for its citizens. Hence, why there are ALSO jus sanguinis NBCs, who are not born here, but are US NBC by virtue of parentage. Those citizens did NOT acquire their citizenship via Naturalization – they are born with it via that inheritence.

    As your selective quote mining in NO way addresses the circumstances of jus soli, which is the most COMMON method of obtaining citizenship at birth, you’ve failed to provide anything that actually contradicts any points I or others here have made.

    So as usual, you wasted a bunch of time coming up with nothing of value to you.

    You have cited NOTHING that precludes NBC via jus soli in the US. Those very common and typical scenarios happen here every single day and those folks are NOT naturalized. Therefore, as there are ONLY two types of citizens (which Tucker confirms), they are Born Citizens (NBC).

    Therefore you have NOT made any case at all which supports that ONLY “2 citizen parents” can provide NBC status at all…

    But hey, keep flailing away in your failings…

    As usual, you are missing the forest for the trees, because you lack basic reading comprehension.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.

  464. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Courts work on precedent. 2 of 44 Presidents have had non-citizen fathers. One is a precedent; 2 is an overwhelming, insurmountable precedent. It is therefore indisputable fact that Presidents don’t need a citizen father. Now, this may mean 1 of 2 things: 1. Those with 1 citizen parent born in the US are natural born citiizens. or 2. You don’t have to be a natural born citizen to be President (the 12th Amendment overrides Article II or Article II is not and never was enforcable law). Eiither way, the result is clear-you don’t need 2 citizen parents.

  465. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    G,

    Regarding Tucker, you just continue to beg the question.

    You do not address Tucker’s quote.

    You do not even attempt to address Tucker’s statement that the right to be elected president belonged only to children born to “citizens.”

    You just make up your own rationale that supports your position without citing any authority.

    What I say is “quote mining” and what you say is the word of God.

    Simply stated, you are a complete fail. May I also add that you fail with pomposity just like the rest of your coterie.

  466. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Wow, you really are a broken record of stuck on stupid, aren’t you Mario?

    Again, YOU are the one making this stupid argument, not me. I already explicitly told you that the 14th Amendment did NOT do either of those things that only YOU keep claiming:

    G: *sigh*
    Your problem is your willful blinders and tunnel vision in insisting upon limited options that differ from the reality of what the 14th Amendment actually *is* and *does* in regards to Citizenship.

    It does NOT repeal nor amend the NBC clause. It merely clarifies that the superset of Citizenship only comes in two basic flavors:
    EITHER:
    Born (which Natural Born equates to)
    OR
    Naturalized.

    That is essentially it, with respect to general definitions in regards to Citizenship. It is not creating *new* types of citizenship at all. Merely spelling out the two overall types that ALREADY exist and clarifying that either of those two types apply to ALL PERSONS subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    Yes, it really is that simple. Which is why even most young school children have very little difficulty in grasping that concept.
    *sheesh*

    So what is YOUR explanation for repeating this same error you were already corrected on yesterday, Mario?

    Is your puny pea-brain simply too small to grasp or retain being told this for even a single day? Or are you just drunk and in meltdown mode again?? Or are you having entirely separate conversations with the voices in your head and unable to distinguish between them and what myself or anyone else here has ACTUALLY already clearly stated on a topic???

    Seriously, your tired retread of utterly inept responses leave me with few other viable speculative options to explain your behavior…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    You have no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause.

    Give it up, G.

  467. avatar
    BillTheCat June 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Mario is really ratcheting up his competition with Orly at being the worst lawyer in the world.

  468. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Regarding Tucker, you just continue to beg the question.

    What authority is Tucker?

  469. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not even attempt to address Tucker’s statement that the right to be elected president belonged only to children born to “citizens.”

    I’ll adress it. Tucker didn’t say that. And if you want to say he did, then he was wrong. He was not the Pope and was not infallible.

    2 Presidents have had non-citizen parents. That proves it is hardly impossible. You’re like a guy claiming Everest can’t be climbed when hundreds of people have done it.

  470. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    So, let me ask you this question…

    You keep on stating that “Citizen of the United States” and “Natural Born Citizen” are seperate and distinct classes, and there is no overlap.

    Article I of the Constitution clearly states this: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

    It also states this: “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    So, does this mean that a Natural Born Citizen is not eligible to be elected to the House, or the Senate, since it is a “seperate and distinct class”. The Senate also requires people to be “a Citizen of the United States”.

    The following Presidents who were born after the constitution served in Congress: Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Harry Truman, Warren Harding, Benjamin Harrison, James Garfield, Rutherford Hayes, Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, James Polk, and John Tyler.

    So, by serving in Congress, they were required to be “Citizen of the United States” and by serving as President they were required to be “natural born Citizen”. It’s obvious that people can be both a natural born Citizen, and a Citizen of the United States. I therefore submit to you that these are not “distinct” classes.

  471. avatar
    misha June 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Thanks for doing that. I knew you would come through. After all, you should know.

    Do you engage in this repartee in court?

  472. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    To His Haughty Excellency,

    Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, you said:

    “It does NOT repeal nor amend the NBC clause. It merely clarifies that the superset of Citizenship only comes in two basic flavors:
    EITHER:
    Born (which Natural Born equates to)
    OR
    Naturalized.”

    Correct almost. And what it defines is a “citizen of the United States” (what you incorrectly call a “superset of Citizenship” which under Article II is not even eligible to be president today), not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After all you did concede that the Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend the NBC clause.

    I am still waiting for you to really address what Tucker said.

    Give it up, G.

  473. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Dunstvangeet,

    Regarding your argument about Article I allowing a “Citizen of the United States” to be a member of Congress which you contend proves that I am wrong in saying that future “Citizens of the United States” are not eligible to be President because “natural born Citizens” would be precluded from being eligible for Congress, that “Citizen of the United States” status, like the status of being 25 or 30 years old, is only a minimum to be satisfied. It would be pretty ridiculous to argue that the Framers required someone to be only 25 or 30 years old to be eligible for the House and Senate, respectively. Like the clause does not say that 50-year-olds are also eligible, it does not say that “natural born Citizens” are also eligible. It does not say it because there was no need to say it. It was self evident from the clause itself.

  474. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    No Mario, the only one “begging questions” here is you. We are simply wasting our time responding to your repetitive inanity. Cheap entertainment for us, sure.

    In as much as you actually presented a question, I gave you a response, citing his quote and my thoughts on it. You simply don’t like my answer, so you are merely throwing another one of your typical tantrums.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    G,

    Regarding Tucker, you just continue to beg the question.
    You do not address Tucker’s quote.

    Now that is absurd. Why would I address something that Tucker did NOT say? What you just said is a statement YOU have just made up right now and is NOT the wording from anything of Tucker that you cited.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You do not even attempt to address Tucker’s statement that the right to be elected president belonged only to the children of “citizens.”

    Well, now you’ve crumbled back down to mere invective projection yet again. I guess that’s all you’ve really got in your sham bag of tricks anyways…

    No one here has invoked “God” except YOU right now… but hey, keep having those “imagined” conversations with the voices in your head and pretending they are us.

    YOU are the one who is coming here and wasting your time endlessly repeating the same nonsense that NO ONE else here buys from you. THAT is the definition of failing. There have been no other voices here disagreeing with anything I’ve stated, except you. And EVERYONE here disagrees with you.

    More importantly, and in the ONLY arena that actually matters, the COURTS have CONSISTENTLY disagreed with YOU and your “coterie”. As has the Electoral College, every Secretary of State, and Congress – ALL of which had ZERO problem with making Obama the CURRENT President of the US. So there is NO “fail” on OUR side here. ALL actual authorities in the matter have consistently ruled in agreement with us and in our favor. And the best part about it is that NONE of us have to lift a finger or utter a word for that to remain true day after day after day! Every day, Obama is STILL President and is STILL up for re-election. So every day that starts is another day where FAIL is staring YOU in the face.

    So keep wasting your time, Mario. With every passing day and every word you utter, you simply prove to the world what an utter joke and failure you are.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    You just make up your own rationale that supports your position without citing any authority.
    What I say is “quote mining” and what you say is the word of God.
    Simply stated, you are a complete fail.May I also add that you fail with pomposity just like the rest of your coterie.

  475. avatar
    Jim June 28, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dunstvangeet,

    It does not say it because there was no need to say it.It was self evident from the clause itself.So your point proves nothing.

    Well thanks Mario, you continue doing a wonderful job continuing to prove the President is eligible. They did not say natural-born citizen is born citizen because it was self-evident to them that it was precisely what they meant. Isn’t that wonderful that through all your long-winded writings and court appearances you continue to be a wonderful advocate for the President! 😀

  476. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 28, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    G,

    You cannot mask from me your inability to make a legal argument. You simply do not have the depth of knowleged or training. You just throw a lot of BS talk around and make it sound fancy, especially with those silly symbols.

  477. avatar
    JoZeppy June 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: G, You cannot mask from me you inability to make a legal argument. You simply do not have the depth of knowleged or training. You just throw a lot of BS talk around and make it sound fancy, especially with those silly symbols.

    So says the man who has won exactly how many cases making these arguments?

  478. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: G, You cannot mask from me your inability to make a legal argument. You simply do not have the depth of knowleged or training. You just throw a lot of BS talk around and make it sound fancy, especially with those silly symbols.

    Never, never, never underestimate de birf. Just when you think the irony can get no thicker, the stupid can get no deeper, *BOOM*

    Here the birther troll, who makes a career of rambling on at length as if length imparted legitimacy, criticizing, of all thing, formatting. As if clarity and organization were the twin arch enemies of efficient communication! LOL!

    As a typographer, I must be Mario’s idea of the Great Satan.

    Mario, your spiels could benefit greatly from some “silly symbols”. It wouldn’t improve straighten out the flaws, lies, or distortions, but at least they’d be easier to read.

    Well … maybe. You could use an editor in addition to the typesetter.

  479. avatar
    G June 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    Hey, you’ve *finally* quoted what I actually said! You’re making progress..

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    To His Haughty Excellency,
    Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, you said:
    “It does NOT repeal nor amend the NBC clause. It merely clarifies that the superset of Citizenship only comes in two basic flavors:
    EITHER:
    Born (which Natural Born equates to)
    OR
    Naturalized.”
    Correct almost.

    Yes. Of course it does. Why would it define a citizen of any o