Main Menu

169 Responses to SCOTUS cites Vattel: a shot over Obama’s bow? (continued)

  1. avatar
    John Reilly July 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo:

    You have yet to respond. The American people decided that Pres. Obama is eligible, knowing his Father was Kenyan, knowing the President is Black, etc. They rejected your theory in 2008, as has every court since that time.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    I believe that in order to qualify as a “sore loser” one must first lose. I don’t see that RC has lost. It’s not his lawsuits that are dismissed and described as without merit by a judge.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Reality Check,

    In your book, anybody who does not fit into your political agenda is a “sore loser.” That, my friend, makes you a “sore loser.’

  3. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Ballantine & Co.

    Minor v. Happersett, confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, gave us the last word on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” You have failed to show that such meaning has been somehow amended.

    Your and your pals’ petty insults and contempt regarding the revolution, Founders and Framers, the Constitution, and our nation proves absolutely nothing.

  4. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    You are wrong of course. Ramsey was by definition a “sore loser”. He lost to William Smith so he therefore had a personal ax to grind. He lost again when the House voted 36-1 to reject Ramsey’s arguments and seat Smith.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Reality Check,

    In your book, anybody who does not fit into your political agenda is a “sore loser.” That, my friend, makes you a “sore loser.’

  5. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    “Scientist and Paper,

    What you both fail to understand is that “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” are words of art.

    The people of the Founding generation knew what they meant.”

    You don’t get to speak for people who are dead. Anyway, we get to forge our own understanding based on the needs of our time. , “One generation cannot bind another”-Thomas Jefferson.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett

    An invalid case, overturned case like Scott, Plessy, etc. Not a valid citation. Reject, reject…

  6. avatar
    John Reilly July 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    Ah, Mr. Apuzzo. Still ducking the question.

    You want to hang your hat on a case from two centuries ago which came to the remarkable conclusion that the right to vote was not secured by the Constitution. That case was reversed by the 19th Amendment.

    The American people, using the wisdom imparted to them in civics classes, determined that Pres. Obama is eligible, despite being Black, having the middle name of Hussein, and having a Kenyan Father. Since that remarkable event in 2008, over 100 judges have rejected every challenge to the President’s eligibility. Not a single judge has ruled your way.

  7. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    ballantine,

    You are a real joke. You say about me: “And, we are waiting for you to show a single statement from a framer that supports you. There are none.”

    Like you have provided one iota of such evidence.

  8. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    John Reilly,

    Take your demagoguery somewhere else.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Any competent reading of the case is that Minor did not speak to the citizenship status of children born in the United States to alien parents. I don’t know how to respond to someone who persistently misreads his sources, except to simply dismiss the misreading and internally note that the person is not debatable.

    Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon wrote in the dismissal of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party on March 7:

    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.

    Unless someone finds it “fun” (like playing Whac-A-Mole™), there’s no purpose in debating you on this point.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett, confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, gave us the last word on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” You have failed to show that such meaning has been somehow amended.

  10. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    You are a real joke.You say about me:“And, we are waiting for you to show a single statement from a framer that supports you.There are none.”

    Like you have provided one iota of such evidence.

    Uh, you are the claim desperately claiming that Supreme court opinions don’t count if they don’t prove the framers agreed with them. That is your desperate attempts to deny that Wong Kim Ark repeatedly said natural born subject and natural born citizen mean the same thing. I can understand your desperation.

    Of course, we have provided you with much evidence. The facts are that the term “natural born” only existed under the common law in 1787 and the framers would not used it if they meant the Vattel definition. We pointed out that the framers only discussed place of birth in the Convention when discussing eligibility. We pointed out the multitude of evidence that natural born subject and citizen were conflated for many decades particularly in Massachusetts where the legislature even said the Constitution required persons to be natural born subjects to be eligible. We have pointed that Madison and every significant early scholar and citizenship case agreed with jus soli including Kent, Story, Swift, Dane, Bouvier, White, Townsend, Rawle and even Tucker, when he was talking about who was natural born. All you can do is make claims you can’t support and cite cases that say nothing about who was natural born.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    John Reilly,

    Take your demagoguery somewhere else.

    I thought you were a guest here and not the owner of this blog.

    Is discerning reality from fantasy becoming more and more of a challenge?

  12. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine & Co.

    Minor v. Happersett, confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, gave us the last word on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” You have failed to show that such meaning has been somehow amended.

    Your and your pals’ petty insults and contempt regarding the revolution, Founders and Framers, the Constitution, and our nation proves absolutely nothing.

    It really is sad that you keep claiming Wong Kim Ark affirmed Minor when it only cited it show that Minor was not committed to a view of the status of children of aliens. Is there nothing you won’t say? Is there any level you will not stoop to?

    Will you finally admit that Gray said natural born subject and citizen meant the same thing or not? Come on, let’s see you be a man. It’s ok, everyone here knows what the case said but we are just amused you can’t admit it.

  13. avatar
    Thinker July 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    We may hear from the Supreme Court on this issue soon. Irion has submitted his Georgia case to the Supreme Court. I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts will do…lol
    See the submission here http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Welden-Petition-for-Writ-of-Cert.pdf

  14. avatar
    John Reilly July 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    So here we have a fellow, me, who voted for John McCain, and is working for the election of Mitt Romney, accused of being a demagogue by Mr. Apuzzo, simply because I think Pres. Obama is a natural born citizen, as do a majority of voters in this country, and every judge confronted with the issue.

    Perhaps this sort of rudeness serves Mr. Apuzzo well in some field, but it does not seem to carry the day here or, more importantly, in the court cases he has brought seeking to oust the President.

  15. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    John Reilly:
    So here we have a fellow, me, who voted for John McCain, and is working for the election of Mitt Romney, accused of being a demagogue by Mr. Apuzzo, simply because I think Pres. Obama is a natural born citizen, as do a majority of voters in this country, and every judge confronted with the issue.

    Perhaps this sort of rudeness serves Mr. Apuzzo well in some field, but it does not seem to carry the day here or, more importantly, in the court cases he has brought seeking to oust the President.

    If you disagree with Apuzzo for any reason, you’re immediately and permanently designated an “Obot”.

    That’s what many birther bigots do.

  16. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Since the court has adjourned for the summer the only cases that will be heard are emergency motions for stay. The Weldon case will go into the heap of cases set for the first conference of the new term in October. It will get the one line cert denial that it deserves.

    Thinker:
    We may hear from the Supreme Court on this issue soon. Irion has submitted his Georgia case to the Supreme Court. I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts will do…lol
    See the submission here http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Welden-Petition-for-Writ-of-Cert.pdf

  17. avatar
    linda July 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    Thank you.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Any competent reading of the case is that Minor did not speak to the citizenship status of children born in the United States to alien parents. I don’t know how to respond to someone who persistently misreads his sources, except to simply dismiss the misreading and internally note that the person is not debatable.

    Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon wrote in the dismissal of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party on March 7:

    Unless someone finds it “fun” (like playing Whac-A-Mole™), there’s no purpose in debating you on this point.

  18. avatar
    gorefan July 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    Thinker: I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts will do…lol

    Here is a possible clue from a Los Angleles Times article about why Chief Justice Roberts may have voted for the Health Care Act:

    “Those who were surprised might have taken note of the man Roberts describes as one of his heroes — Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes, a progressive Republican who was chief justice in the 1930s when PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt and the court clashed over the New Deal.”

    “When the high court and the Roosevelt administration seemed headed for a constitutional showdown, Hughes persuaded one wavering justice to switch sides and vote to uphold a minimum-wage law and a collective bargaining measure. The “switch in time that saved the nine” defused FDR’s plan to load up the Supreme Court with additional justices appointed by him. The court-packing plan died in the Senate. The deft leadership by Hughes preserved the court as an independent institution.”

    Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes ran for President in 1916 against Woodrow Wilson and nearly won. Chief Justice Hughes’ father was a British national when Hughes was born. Breckinridge Long wrote an article on why Hughes was not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen.

    Chief Justice Roberts’ hero came very close to being a usurper.

  19. avatar
    bovril July 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    Mario,

    Said gentlemen, having seen typical Birther activity with regard to personal data and noting your personal “style” on this blog as well as yours are understandably extraordinarily uncomfortable with sharing.

    All they require is a location and a date

    You do HAVE a location and a date…don’t you..?

  20. avatar
    linda July 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    Good to hear. The birf crowd seems to think those things are mutually exclusive, that a conservative who believes Obama is NBC is oxymoronic. It is not about his politics, not should he be president, but is he eligible.

    John Reilly: So here we have a fellow, me, who voted for John McCain, and is working for the election of Mitt Romney, accused of being a demagogue by Mr. Apuzzo, simply because I think Pres. Obama is a natural born citizen, as do a majority of voters in this country, and every judge confronted with the issue.

  21. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Those state law cases that you cite are not controlling.

  22. avatar
    Sam the Centipede July 1, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett, confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, gave us the last word on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” You have failed to show that such meaning has been somehow amended.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

    You don’t understand those cases, you don’t listen to the arguments and evidence refuting your insane nonsense and you ignore the judges who rule time and time again that you and your fellow bigots are wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Can you not understand that if so many senior judges rule on the law, then that is the law? You argue (as does your fellow idiot David Farrar), as though you have a divinely inspired interpretation of the law which you can impose by fiat on the rest of the country, over-ruling the real law of the country.

    Understand this, Mr Obama is a natural born citizen. This has been asserted and ruled on by many competent authorities and your idiocy does not over-rule them.

    And, more to the point, Mr Obama was democratically elected president by the electorate of the United States. You are attempting to subvert the lawfully elected government. That is sedition. Why do you hate America?

  23. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Those state law cases that you cite are not controlling.

    Under International Law, or The Law of Nations the US Supreme Court isn’t either. Everything has to be reviewed in the Hague by foreign philosophers. But you already knew that.

    I enjoyed watching your real countrymen get massacred by Spain, Mario. 4-0, a historic rout…

  24. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    Ballantine,

    You said: “Of course, we have provided you with much evidence.”

    So this is your evidence that you say shows that I am wrong in maintaining that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Let’s take very brief look at your evidence:

    (1) You said: “The facts are that the term ‘natural born’ only existed under the common law in 1787 and the framers would not used it if they meant the Vattel definition.” The Constitution says “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born.” “ Natural born Citizen” did not exist in the English common law. But it did exist in the law of nations and in early writings where the exact clause, a “natural born citizen of Rome” was found. Also, the French “naturels” was also translated into “natural born.” In a 1781 treaty between France and the United States, “naturels” was translated into “natural born.” So we have solid evidence that the Founders translated Vattel’s “naturels” to “natural born.”

    (2) You said: “We pointed out that the framers only discussed place of birth in the Convention when discussing eligibility.” You do not know that. The convention operated in secrecy. In any event, delegates at the Constitutional Convention originally proposed that the President be a “citizen of the United States.” The committee that was drafting the presidential qualifications so reported on August 22, 1787. It was again referred to committee which then proposed that the qualification read “natural born citizen.” That committee so reported to the Convention on September 4, 1787. The Convention eventually adopted the latter clause which read “natural born Citizen.” No records exist which show that there was any debate on this clause. Here we can see how the Founders and Framers distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States” and how they accepted the former because it better served the needs of the new republic.

    (3) You said: “We pointed out the multitude of evidence that natural born subject and citizen were conflated for many decades particularly in Massachusetts where the legislature even said the Constitution required persons to be natural born subjects to be eligible.” You fail to tell us eligible for what? Also, you have not provided one case from the U.S. Supreme Court, including Wong Kim Ark, that said that a “natural born Citizen” is the same thing as a “natural born subject.” On the contrary, among much other evidence, we have direct evidence from a very influential Founder and Framers that the two clauses were not the same.

    “Supreme Court Justice James Wilson signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1791 he made the following statement:

    “English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems…
    I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”

    A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen…
    You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.”
    Also, state citizenship was not national citizenship. Clearly, those states that continued to use “natural born subject” were not applying the national standard which was “natural born Citizen.”

    (4) You said: “We have pointed that Madison and every significant early scholar and citizenship case agreed with jus soli including Kent, Story, Swift, Dane, Bouvier, White, Townsend, Rawle and even Tucker, when he was talking about who was natural born.”

    (a) James Madison-In the 1789 Ramsay-Smith debate, Madison only defined a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years. Also, his administration in the James McClure case found a child born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 to a British father who naturalized on February 20, 1786, when his son was dwelling in the United States, to be a “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802 and not a “natural born Citizen.”

    (b) Regarding James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826), William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829), and the other sources you cite, they are far from conclusive.

    First, your sources are not very convincing. The major problem that you have in relying upon such sources is that none of these sources are very close to the Founding like St. George Tucker, for example. So they are not a Founding source within their own right. Not themselves being founding source, they have to provide links to the Founding for their opinion to be convincing. But those sources fail to provide any link to the Founders or Founding era which supports what they wrote. All these commentators or courts simply give us their personal opinion without any evidence from the Founding era or shortly thereafter which supports their definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Second, so you have “some authorities” that suggest that birth in the country alone, without reference to the citizenship of the parents, is enough to make a “citizen.” How do you overcome what a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (9 Supreme Court justices) said in Minor v. Happersett, after saying that:

    “[a]t 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,” it then added:

    “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.”

    Minor told us that despite what these “other authorities” advocated, “there have been doubts” whether they were correct. Minor confirmed what a “natural-born citizen” was, born in a country to “citizen” parents. So anything that these “other authorities” said did not go to establishing what a “natural-born citizen” was. If anything, according to Minor, these “other authorities” opinions only went to establishing whether a child born in the country to alien parents could be a “citizen.” And we know that under Wong Kim Ark, that question was answered in the affirmative with the Court holding that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike Minor which did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to find Virginia Minor to be not only a “citizen” but also a “natural-born citizen,” Wong had to resort to that amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause which provides a relaxed standard for Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship (Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship whose member is called “citizen of the United States,” which is not to be conflated and confounded with Article II birthright citizenship whose member is called “natural born Citizen”). As you see, Wong never reached the “natural born Citizen” question because Minor had confirmed that children born in the country to alien parents could not hold that “perfect citizenship” (St. George Tucker) status. The only hope for citizenship for those children was the Fourteenth Amendment and it “citizen of the United States” status.

    (c) St. George Tucker-I cannot believe that you have the face to cite Tucker as supporting your position that a “natural born Citizen” was defined the same as an English common law “natural born subject.” Here is 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.”

    St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803) http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm .

    Notice Tucker said that the civil right to be elected President belonged only to the children born to “citizens.” I guess that puts an end to your jus soli theory.

    So what else do you have, Ballantine, that proves that I am wrong that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898.

  25. avatar
    linda July 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    It is representative of what every court that has ruled on this issue has said. It must sound familiar by now:

    No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obamais not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 inAnkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of theposition taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. …

    This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of hisfather.
    http://tinyurl.com/7bn5ub7

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Those state law cases that you cite are not controlling.

  26. avatar
    linda July 1, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    It has been posted here, in response to you, many times. If you missed it, here it is again, from WKA:

    In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
    “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 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.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: (3)…You fail to tell us eligible for what? Also, you have not provided one case from the U.S. Supreme Court, including Wong Kim Ark, that said that a “natural born Citizen” is the same thing as a “natural born subject.”

  27. avatar
    linda July 1, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    Start here:
    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20STRING%20CITE.pdf

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So what else do you have, Ballantine, that proves that I am wrong that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898.

  28. avatar
    ellen July 1, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    Mario said: “Minor v. Happersett, confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, gave us the last word on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” You have failed to show that such meaning has been somehow amended. ”

    But in fact Minor v. Happersett did not say any such thing, much less being a ruling on the matter. It is dicta.

    When Waite said: “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also…” That is simply not the same thing as saying that both citizen parents and birth in the country are required.

    An example would be if I said: “It was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up,” that would be true. Both will indeed hold your pants up. But both are not required to do so, and the statement does not say that both are required. It only says that if you have both of the two methods of holding your pants up, it cannot be doubted that you will hold your pants up.

    That does not mean that both are required, nor does it mean that the statement says that both are required. It doesn’t.

    Under libertarian principles it has always been held that unless the Constitution or a law says “it is not allowed,” it is allowed. And the US Constitution does not say that both US parents and birth in the country are required, hence they are not required. The same holds for strict construction.

    Finally, if Minor vs Happersett really were a ruling, and not dicta saying that if you have both of the things needed to be a NBC then you were of course an NBC, then it would have been overturned by Wong Kim Ark, which followed it, and which ruled that the meaning of NBC came from the common law and includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.

    But the Minor ruling ITSELF never said that two citizen parents are required.

  29. avatar
    Hairy Jenna July 1, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Mario,

    Thank you for your participation. I have learned a lot. But there is still something I do not understand.

    The Supreme Court knew that Obama’s father was foreign. That was well known at the time from both of his books. So knowing that, and knowing the law, what did they do?

    They swore him in. All 9 of them were there. In public, in front of the whole world. How do you account for this? Why would they change their mind now?

  30. avatar
    ellen July 1, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    Re: “Also, the French “naturels” was also translated into “natural born.”

    The US Constitution has been translated into French many times, and not one of them uses the world “indigines” to translate Natural Born Citizen.

  31. avatar
    ellen July 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Re: ““Supreme Court Justice James Wilson signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1791 he made the following statement: ”

    A search of the writings of James Wilson shows that he used Natural Born to refer to the place of birth several times and never used it to refer to parents.

  32. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine,

    You said:“Of course, we have provided you with much evidence.”

    So this is your evidence that you say shows that I am wrong in maintaining that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.Let’s take very brief look at your evidence:

    Yes, and it is compelling and all real legal authority including the Supreme Court, all modern legal scholars, the CRS and all modern treatises agrees with me.

    In 1787, there is no evidence anyone defined natural born citizen with Vattel’s defintition. We have pointed out that natural born subject and natual born citizen were conflated througout the United States. Sorry, history is history and no one in such period defined such term by Vattel as term did not exist in Vattel and all legal authority agrees with me.

    Again, we are sorry that when the convention discusssed eligilbity, they only discussed place of birth and no one mentioned Vattel or parentage. To say the framers agreed with you is delusional. Please provide a single quote.

    With Wilson, again I have pointed out that he never said parentage was relevant and he was simply citing the Pennsylvania Constitution that relieved children of citizens form the tax requirement for voting for 1 year. He went through every state stating who is a citizen and no state said parentage was relevant. Do you really not read any posts. Since Wilson is clear as can be on this, are you being purposely dishonest or just incapable of reading english. Seriously, I have quoted the proviisons and you have no response other than to re-state you are tight even though the quotes say you are wrong. What kind of person does that? Is there really something seriously wrong with you?

    To claim Madison agreed with your definition of “ciitizen of the United States’ is either delusional or evidence you are the dumbest person on the planet. First Madions made clear we followed jus soli in the Us. We have also noted you can provide no evidence to support your interpretation that his adminsration said McClure was naturalized. What kind of perosn keeps saying his inerpretation is right whehn he cannot provide a single perswon in Us history to support it. I think the rest of us know what kind of person.It is still astounding anyone would make such claims.

    The rest of us can read what Tucker said when he was talking about when he was talking about who was a natural born citizen or who was eligible for President. We also see how he defined “alien” an who he said was native born. You can keep saying we should ignore what he said on these points, but no one is going to listen to you. Is it possible for you to be honest about any authority?

    And we know you will keep spinning Mjnir to pretend the court opined on the status of children of aliens when the court expressly declined to address such point. We also know you simply ignore the entire natual born citizneshp discussion in Wong Kim Ark and are not man enough to admit the court said it was defined by the English common law. You simply pretend such discussion doesn’t exist. Every court that has addressed this issue rightly ignores your moronic arguments and simply follows Wong Kim Ark. AT this point you are similar to the soveriegn citizens and tax protestors who lose every case and can only sadly claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong. We have comfort that no real court will listne to you or these morons.

  33. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    ballantine,

    I just found this quote from you: “Of course, citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ don’t mean the same thing, Wong makes clear the ‘born in the united states and subejct to its jurisdiction means the same thing as ‘natural born.’”

    So you do concede that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” do not mean the same thing.

  34. avatar
    Jim July 1, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Hairy Jenna at ATKHairy.Com:
    Mario,

    Thank you for your participation.I have learned a lot.But there is still something I do not understand.

    Jenna,

    You understand a lot more than Mario…

    Natural born citizens
    First – President Obama
    Second – Governor Jindal
    Third – Senator Rubio

    But no matter how many times we explain it to Mario, he just doesn’t get it. Sorta like this guy…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aehzwwD2II

    😀

  35. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Linda,

    (1) I see, when you cannot address the existing historical sources you have to resort to some post-Obama election state administrative law cases which did not analyze any historcial sources and simply missaplied Wong Kim Ark.

    (2) You provide the following quote from Wong Kim Ark:

    “In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
    ‘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 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.”

    But there are two U.S. Suprme Court cases that followed Rhodes. In The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873), this Court noted that the jurisdiction clause was “intended to exclude from its operation . . . citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

    The orbiter dicta in The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872) was stated by the majority in that case. But more important, in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Court adopted in its holding the statement made by the majority in The Slaughter-House Cases when it held that Indians, while born on an Indian reservation on the territory of the United States, where still considered to be born to “alien nations, distinct political communities” and as such were not born “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Id. at 102. The Court than added the critical language:

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

    Id. at 102.

    So again we can see that the Supreme Court carved out various prohibitions to birthright citizenship as the Court had done in The Slaughter-House Cases. The Court explained which children, even though born in the United States, would still not qualify for United States citizenship. The Court listed the children that were disqualified as: (1) children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government; (2) children born within the United States of ambassadors of foreign nations; and (3) children born within the United States of public ministers of foreign nations. Again the Court made clear that these are three separate categories and that the children of aliens contained in (1) are not to be conflated into categories (2) and (3). Category (1) would necessarily contain children born to any alien parent or parents, these parents (whether one or both) being “subjects of any foreign government.” “Domain” is defined as “[s]phere of influence. Range of control or rule; realm.” Black’s Law Dictionary 434 (5th ed. 1979). An alien that is present on United States territory is surely still within the sphere of influence, control, and rule of the government to which he or she owes allegiance even thought he or she may be out its territory. Just by way of example, there are allegiance, military, tax, and voting obligations (with some nations) that a citizen owes to his or her nation regardless of where he or she may be currently physically located. Hence, we can see that aliens located on the territory of the United States are also still “within the domain of that [foreign] government.” We can see that the Elk court did not apply the English common law on the question of whether Elk was a citizen. If the Court had applied the English common law it would have only excluded from born citizenship children born to ambassadors, ministers, and invading armies and not also as a separate category those born to “subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government.” Hence, it follows that the Elk court said that children born in the United States to such alien parent or parents are not “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance” and cannot therefore be “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Cases such as The Slaughter-House Cases and Elk show what the mindset of the Supreme Court was when it came to defining citizenship in the post-Fourteenth Amendment period. We can see that our Supreme Court did not apply simply a jus soli concept of citizenship. Hence, we can reasonably conclude that neither did the Framers when they drafted the “natural born Citizen” clause, for this understanding of our Court necessarily takes its basis form the Founding period and can be used to explain what the Framers were thinking when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause.

    Second, Justice Gray was interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment which says born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, not “born in the allegiance of the United States.” Also, Justice Gray never did tell us how Justice Swayne defined “born in the allegiance of the United States.” Maybe you can can do it for him. So do tell us, how did Justice Swayne define “born in the allegiance of the United States?”

    By the way, I do not expect to get an answer from you. You will probably cite to tesibria as an escape.

  36. avatar
    DP July 1, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Any competent reading of the case is that Minor did not speak to the citizenship status of children born in the United States to alien parents. I don’t know how to respond to someone who persistently misreads his sources, except to simply dismiss the misreading and internally note that the person is not debatable.

    Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon wrote in the dismissal of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party on March 7:

    Unless someone finds it “fun” (like playing Whac-A-Mole™), there’s no purpose in debating you on this point.

    This is correct. Mario is wrong. His interpretation is wrong from a casual examination of the case law, and it has been rejected as meritless by every court that considered it.

    He is a pitiful figure lacking in basic integrity who simply wants attention, money from rubes, or both. He should not be treated as someone worthy of a serious response.

  37. avatar
    Jim July 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Mario,

    Just for the heck of it…I looked up one of your cites: “But there are two U.S. Suprme Court cases that followed Rhodes. In The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873), this Court noted that the jurisdiction clause was “intended to exclude from its operation . . . citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.””

    The complete paragraph you cite: “The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

    Which totally means something different than what you present. Again, another example of you putting out proof that when looked at completely, totally backs that President Obama is eligible. Good job Mario.

  38. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Mario just loves falling into those pits, huh?

  39. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I see, when you cannot address the existing historical sources you have to resort to some post-Obama election state administrative law cases which did not analyze any historcial sources and simply missaplied Wong Kim Ark.

    The Indiana Court of Appeals is not “an adminstrative court”, it is the second highest court in the state. Moreover, the case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court and review was denied. A supposed lawyer who doesn’t even know what courts are. You could have offered your services to appeal to the US Supremes, but you didn’t. whatever you might imagine the law was in 1875, Ankeny is the law in 2012. Too bad for you.

    What about your NJ case? Are you going to appeal? If not then, you have no grounds for complaint. And if you do and lose then you have no grounds for complaint either. When you bring a court case, you are implicitly agreeing to respect the decision. If you are unwilling to do so, then you ought to stay out of court.

  40. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    Andrew Vrba-May I ask what PmG is?

  41. avatar
    JRC July 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    Mario…yes Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are different in the sense that Citizen is a general class that includes Naturalized Citizens and Natural Born Citizen. A Citizen of the United States as required to be Senator or Representative is of that nature. Natural Born Citizen is more specific requiring birth on U.S. soil to parents that aren’t Foreign Diplomats, or at war with our country, etc.

    Anyway….it’s like saying only dogs (general) are permitted to file birther suits, but only a German Shepherd (specific) is allowed to get their case heard by the Supreme Court. Now that does not exclude German Shepherds from filing a birther suit since they are dogs.

  42. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    May I further point out that the NBC thing is a silly, foolish rule, unworthy of being defended by anyone (even Mario, and very little is unworthy of him). It should be sent to the ashbin of history, preferably by an amendment, but failing that should be allowed to die by neglect and non-enforcement as is done with other stupid, antiquated laws, like the following:

    “It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.”
    “Citizens may not enter Wisconsin with a chicken on their head.”
    “It is considered an offense to throw pickle juice on a trolley.”
    And many more
    http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states

    IMO, forbidding a naturalized citizen from being President makes the same amount of sense as those. Forbidding a US-born person from being President would make even less.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo is not a guest. He is an exhibit.

    Majority Will: I thought you were a guest here and not the owner of this blog.

  44. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    JRC

    There are several problems with your statements.

    I never disputed the fact that “citizens” includes naturalized citizens and “natural born citizens.”

    You do not explain what you mean by “that nature” when referring to “citizens of the United States.”

    Your logical analogy with dogs and german shepards fails because neither a “citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States” is a “natural born Citizen.”

  45. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Yes, you are so correct. I am Exhibit A, you are Exhibit B, and the esteemed members of your gallery are Exhibit C, D, etc.

  46. avatar
    JRC July 1, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Mario….I’m a citizen of the United States and I’m a natural born citizen. Once again you fail at the most basic logic. Probably why you fail in court.

    Even above you state that you never said that citizen didn’t include naturalized and natural born.

    So as I stated general and specific just as my analogy tried to help you comprehend.

  47. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I note that you are not too deft at Whack-a-Mole.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

    They weren’t meant to be controlling, they were meant to show that you misrepresent your sources by citing authority: superior court and appeals court judges (and I could have added a law professor and a federal judge if I wanted to pile on).

    Perhaps you would prefer a fellow birther. Leo Donofrio, writing in December 2008, said:

    And so, as is so very clearly established by the supreme court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark1, there are now, and have always been, doubts about whether people born in the US to foreign parents are “natural born citizens”, or, as the Court in Minor discussed, whether such persons are even “citizens”.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Those state law cases that you cite are not controlling.

  49. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Mr. Apuzzo is not a guest. He is an exhibit.

    That makes more sense. It reminds me of The Twilight Zone.

  50. avatar
    JRC July 1, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    Mario….I didn’t think that it needed explaining, but here goes. To be a Senator or Representative one requirement is to be a Citizen of the United States. (That would include naturalized and natural born citizens) I doubt that the Founders wanted to exclude natural born citizens from holding those positions.

  51. avatar
    JRC July 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    To go farther with the analogy….if I said look at that dog over there….are you saying that it cannot be a German Shepherd? lol Seems you are saying that I cannot be a citizen if I’m a natural born citizen? lol

  52. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    I just found this quote from you:“Of course, citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ don’t mean the same thing, Wong makes clear the ‘born in the united states and subejct to its jurisdiction means the same thing as ‘natural born.’”

    So you do concede that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” do not mean the same thing.

    We know you cannot read very well. “Citizen” obviously includes either a natural born or naturalized citizen. Then, Wong Kim Ark tells us that the first phrase of the 14th Amendment means the same thing as a natural born citizen so “born in the United States and subject to its jurisidiction” means the same thing as natural born and the 14th Amendment, like the original Constitution, divides the word into two classes of citizens. Really not that hard.

    You can keep repeating that “citizen of the United states” does not include natural born citizen when you have yet to cite a single authority in history to support such nonsense. It is amazing that you are not embarrassed to keep asserting the same point when you cannot cite any authority to support it. It actually appears that something is really wrong with you. And we note that you still cannot address how such definition is impossible under all our early statute and treaties. You are simply living in your own world and being laughed at by any actual court.

  53. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Scientist:
    Andrew Vrba-May I ask what PmG is?

    Punchmaster General. I figure if Mario can have an empty suffix after his name, I am equally qualified.

  54. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    But there are two U.S. Suprme Court cases that followed Rhodes.In The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873), this Court noted that the jurisdiction clause was “intended to exclude from its operation . . . citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

    The unsupported orbiter dicta in Slaughterhouse about the 14th Amendment was rejected by Wong Kim Ark. The Majority of the Court agreed with Swayne and reject Miller’s unsupported assertion about the 14th Amendment. Thus, Swayne, opinion became part of the opinion of the majority of the Court. Sad yo don’t understand these things.

    And Elk, writtne by Gray himself, did not say a word about children of aliens born on US soil other than to compare them to aliens born on foreign soil since indian tribes were treated as foreign nations.Of course, Mario will trry to twist the language:

    The Court listed the children that were disqualified as:(1) children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government; (2) children born within the United States of ambassadors of foreign nations; and (3) children born within the United States ofpublic ministers of foreign nations. Again the Court made clear that these are three separate categories and that the children of aliens contained in (1) are not to be conflated into categories (2) and (3).Category (1) would necessarily contain children born to any alien parent or parents, these parents (whether one or both)being “subjects of any foreign government.” “Domain” is defined as “[s]phere of influence. Range of control or rule; realm.”Black’s Law Dictionary 434 (5th ed. 1979).

    So, he is acutally trying to argue that someone born on US soil is born in the domain of a foreign country. There is no limit to the dishonesty of this person. Here is Bouvier from 1854 defining “domain”

    “DOMAIN. It signifies sometimes, dominion, territory governed – sometimes, possession, estate – and sometimes, land about the mansion house of a lord. By domain is also understood the right to dispose at our pleasure of what belongs to us.”

    Seriosuly, the level of dishonesty here is simply astounding. Of course, if one want to see what Gray said about children of aliens, there is an entire opinion on it for honest people who can read.

  55. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    And I am so glad that Mario now recognizes the authority of Black’s Law dictionary:

    “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).

    “Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eighth edition (1999)

    It is amazing that with each post he makes a bigger ass out of himself.

  56. avatar
    Keith July 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you do concede that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” do not mean the same thing.

    Do you concede that “telephone” and “wireless telephone” do not mean the same thing? That is exactly the difference between the two. No more and no less. One is a subset of the other. Period. There are “wireless telephones” and there are “wired telephones”. The sum of those two sets make up the exact set “telephones”.

    The sum of the two sets, “natural born citizen” and “naturalized citizen”, is exactly the set “citizen”. That is all there is to the difference.

  57. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    Keith: Do you concede that “telephone” and “wireless telephone” do not mean the same thing?

    For those under 25, all telephones are wireless.

  58. avatar
    ballantine July 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    I don’t have a current Black’s in from of me, but the earliest edition much closer in time to Elk defined Domain as “a complete and absolute ownership of land, a paramount and individual right of propery in land.” It goes on to explain that “national domain” is all property directly owned by a nation. It is really sad that Mario cannot get a single thing right.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=R2c8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=black's+law+dictionary&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a-jwT7GPO4Gg6QG-g8HHDw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=domain&f=false

  59. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    ballantine,

    The only laughing stock is you. Why would Justice Gray be talking about children born to alien parents in foreign countries? Like somebody really thought that they could somehow be U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. We really needed the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us that they are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. And why did Gray use the word “domain?” He could have easily said born out of the United States like Congress always did. What little game was Justice Gray playing?

  60. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    JRC,

    “Citizens” of the United States includes both “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States” (Article I and II), “citizens of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment), and “citizens of the United States” (Congressional Acts and treaties).

    Hence, you can be a “citizen” of the United States and a “natural born citizen,” a “citizen” of the United States and a “Citizen of the United States,” and a “citizen” of the United States and a “citizen of the United States.”

    You cannot be a “Citizen of the United States” (Article I and II), meaning a naturalized “citizen” after birth, and a “natural born Citizen.”

    You cannot be a “citizen of the United States” (Congressional Acts or treaties), meaning a naturalized “citizen” “at birth” or after birth, and a “natural born Citizen.”

    Not all “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth (Fourteenth Amendment) are “natural born Citizens.”

    You can be a “citizen of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment) and a “natural born Citizen.” Satisfying the definition of a “natural born Citizen” necessarily satisfies the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

  61. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    Ballantine,

    Your comment that I concede that Black’s Law Dictionary is authoritative (I cited it to define “dominion”) and therefore its definition of a “natural born Citizen” is also conceded is as absurd as me arguing that you concede that opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court are authoritative (you cite to Wong Kim Ark) so therefore you also concede Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

  62. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    ballantine,

    And would you care to tell me what you got right so far.

  63. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Punchmaster General. I figure if Mario can have an empty suffix after his name, I am equally qualified.

    Excellent.

  64. avatar
    Jim July 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    JRC,

    “Citizens” of the United States includes both “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States” (Article I and II), “citizens of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment), and “citizens of the United States” (Congressional Acts and treaties).

    Not according to the opinion in Minor, Mario. You know, the one you always miscite.

    “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.”

    Citizenship of the United States
    Born – Eligible
    Naturalized – not eligible

    So Mario, is Minor correct or incorrect?

  65. avatar
    James M July 1, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    John Reilly,

    Take your demagoguery somewhere else.

    You are not the arbiter of terms of service on this forum. You have no authority to tell any other user to leave the forum. It is abusive and totally inappropriate.

  66. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    The only laughing stock is you.

    No, I’m afraid that would be you.

  67. avatar
    James M July 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Mr. Apuzzo is not a guest. He is an exhibit.

    Understood, but allowing him to abuse the forum is doing harm to the forum and to your own reputation. If he is a reasonable person, he can be asked and expected to refrain from abusing individuals on the forum.

  68. avatar
    JRC July 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm #

    Mario is hilarious…he now is claiming that capital C and lower case c have some different meaning. I wonder why no court has specified such difference. Wow what would the founders or the courts do if the word citizen(s) was at the beginning of the sentence since capitalizing that word would completely change the meaning of what they were saying. ROFLMAO. Where is my secret Supreme Court decoder ring…apparently the court over 100 years after our founding had this so they didn’t capitalize that C.

  69. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    James M.

    Who do you think you are kidding with your piety. After all, have you noticed the way Dr. Conspiracy’s gallery behaves on here? It is so typical of types like you, they find the Constitution when it is convenient.

  70. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    JRC,

    I quoted “citizen” they way Article I and II, the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, and treaties includes the term. I did not say that the capital “C” or the lower case “c” changes the meaning of the term. I think you are drinking tonight.

  71. avatar
    Ramjomi July 1, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    In reading Mr. Apuzzo’s responses on here, for some reason I am reminded of the movie Billy Madison.

    “Mr. Apuzzo, what you have just said is some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this comment section is now dumber for having read them. I award you no court wins, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

  72. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Jim,

    Minor was not willing to say and did not have to say that a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.” Of course, it was referring to the Fourteenth Amendment which uses the phrase “citizen of the United States.”

    Wong settled that question and held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident parents (and not diplomats or military invaders) is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. Wong did not hold that such a child is an Article II “natural born Citizen” as Minor confirmed that clause to mean.

  73. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    Ramjomi,

    Do you really think that your biased opinion really matters? And I must assume that it is biased since I do not know who you are and that you are most likely a part of Dr. Conspiracy’s most esteemed and revered gallery.

  74. avatar
    G July 1, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    He’s gotten EVERYTHING right so far. Which is why all the courts and all of us agree with him.

    Shame that you get everything WRONG all the time…and only a few hate-deranged lunatics are gullible enough to buy into your stupid ravings…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    And would you care to tell me what you got right so far.

  75. avatar
    Ramjomi July 1, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    I admit, I am fully biased. Biased against the legal quackery, you are trying to promote on this site.

  76. avatar
    JRC July 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Mario, you must be the one drinking tonight. “They way” lol Anyway, you are making a big deal out of Capital letters. You can claim otherwise, but that is basically what you are trying to do, and you have morons that believe your crap. I’m still waiting for Nicolas Cage to find that damn decoder ring. (as fantastic as your claims, and nothing to do with reality, so fitting)

  77. avatar
    William P. Tate July 1, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    A poster on the previous page did raise an interesting question that goes to the motivation of the Judges. If the court swore the uperser into office, there will be nesessarily a high burden to pursude them to completely reverse because it would make them look like fools.

    The only way to change the opinion would be:

    1. The Supreme Court did not know the Law of Nations, and now they must admitt they did not know.
    2. The Supreme Court did not know the fact that the Upersers Father was Foreign, and they must addmit they did not read the papers or listen to the news because it was common knowlege all over.
    3. There is some new fact that was not knowed to any of the time but the Upwerser and his criminal conspiracies.
    4. Something else entirely.

    I wander if Conselor Apuzzo could address that.

  78. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Mario: What would happen if someone you said was not a natural born Citizen became President? I’m just curious, in case that would happen someday. I’m trying to figure out why anyone should care, so maybe you could help me out. Thanks…

  79. avatar
    Jim July 1, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Jim,

    Minor was not willing to say and did not have to say that a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.”Of course, it was referring to the Fourteenth Amendment which uses the phrase “citizen of the United States.”

    Wong settled that question and held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident parents (and not diplomats or military invaders) is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.Wong did not hold that such a child is an Article II “natural born Citizen” as Minor confirmed that clause to mean.

    Wrong again Mario:

    “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.”

    Mario, how do you do it? Every time you post some other nonsense, you are EASILY proven wrong. No wonder they only sent an associate fresh out of law school against you…they knew it was an open and shut case.

  80. avatar
    G July 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    He’s completely delusional to continue to insist on such a retarded proposition. His ilk and their silly make-believe additional levels of Citizenship are nothing more than the fantasy of desperate bigots who need to cling to a false sense of “entitlement” to feel “special” … simply because they are “white”. Whether he believes his own nonsense or is merely a paid propagandist for white nationalism is immaterial at this point.

    He choses to publicly publish such vapid rubbish and continues to pursue proving he’s a loser in every court and open forum he can. I can’t imagine any amount of money that would be worth throwing all integrity and reputation away like that… at least not in any sane person nor anyone with an ounce of self-respect.

    So he sure doesn’t deserve to be treated with any more dignity nor crediblity than he choses to put on display… which is none, whatsoever at all. His stupidity is both choice and the consequences are his as well…

    JRC:
    Mario is hilarious…he now is claiming that capital C and lower case c have some different meaning.I wonder why no court has specified such difference.Wow what would the founders or the courts do if the word citizen(s) was at the beginning of the sentence since capitalizing that word would completely change the meaning of what they were saying.ROFLMAO.Where is my secret Supreme Court decoder ring…apparently the court over 100 years after our founding had this so they didn’t capitalize that C.

  81. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    William P. Tate: uperser

    What is a uperser? Is it common knowledge?

  82. avatar
    Arthur July 1, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    It was probably 4.) Something else entirely. I believe Obama threatened the jugges with misprison setneces. Also, too, he was Jugge scalia’s lover. And he had Juddge Thomas ina hynosization state. Of course, you prolly alread know about Jugde Roberts Vatticann bank account of 3 billion dollars, don’t you?

    William P. Tate: A poster on the previous page did raise an interesting question that goes to the motivation of the Judges. If the court swore the uperser into office, there will be nesessarily a high burden to pursude them to completely reverse because it would make them look like fools.The only way to change the opinion would be:1. The Supreme Court did not know the Law of Nations, and now they must admitt they did not know.2. The Supreme Court did not know the fact that the Upersers Father was Foreign, and they must addmit they did not read the papers or listen to the news because it was common knowlege all over.3. There is some new fact that was not knowed to any of the time but the Upwerser and his criminal conspiracies.4. Something else entirely.I wander if Conselor Apuzzo could address that.

  83. avatar
    William P. Tate July 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    Majority Will:

    Mind your grammer. It is “an uperser”. NOT “a uperser”.

  84. avatar
    Arthur July 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Keep on wandering. Conselor Apuzzo don’t take requests, so you best be stepping Tatter.

    William P. Tate: I wander if Conselor Apuzzo could address that.

  85. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

    G:
    He’s completely delusional to continue to insist on such a retarded proposition.His ilk and their silly make-believe additional levels of Citizenship are nothing more than the fantasy of desperate bigots who need to cling to a false sense of “entitlement” to feel “special” … simply because they are “white”.Whether he believes his own nonsense or is merely a paid propagandist for white nationalism is immaterial at this point.

    He choses to publicly publish such vapid rubbish and continues to pursue proving he’s a loser in every court and open forum he can.I can’t imagine any amount of money that would be worth throwing all integrity and reputation away like that… at least not in any sane person nor anyone with an ounce of self-respect.

    So he sure doesn’t deserve to be treated with any more dignity nor crediblity than he choses to put on display… which is none, whatsoever at all. His stupidity is both choice and the consequences are his as well…

    In the birther bigot’s fantasy world, only white, Christian, land and slave owning men should ever be Citizens or hold an elected position and the Constitution is a divinely inspired and sacred doctrine on parchment.

  86. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    William P. Tate:
    Majority Will:

    Mind your grammer.It is “an uperser”.NOT“a uperser”.

    That’s fun. Thanks.

  87. avatar
    Daniel July 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    Hey Mario… Won any court cases with your birther crap lately?

  88. avatar
    Jamese777 July 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Those state law cases that you cite are not controlling.

    Haven’t you heard? The United States holds 51 state elections (counting the District of Columbia) in order to accumulate the required number of Electors to become President.
    But if you want a federal case saying the same thing: How about Tisdale v Obama, heard in the US District Court for the Northern District of Virginia.
    US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”

  89. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 1:23 am #

    Thanks for posting that. I am without my copies and have asked Mario to look it up. Of course, he made no mention of having read my post or the definition in Black’s. (gasp!)

    ballantine:
    And I am so glad that Mario now recognizes the authority of Black’s Law dictionary:

    “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).

    “Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)

    It is amazing that with each post he makes a bigger ass out of himself.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2012 at 1:33 am #

    But they are not fools, therefore Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in because he knew Obama, born in the US, was a natural born citizen and eligible. It’s not necessary to make this complicated. Every court that has spoken on this topic has said Obama is eligible. It would be silly to think the Supreme Court has another opinion, and swore Obama in anyway, or that they didn’t pass Civics in high school.

    William P. Tate: A poster on the previous page did raise an interesting question that goes to the motivation of the Judges. If the court swore the uperser (sic) into office, there will be nesessarily (sic) a high burden to pursude (sic) them to completely reverse because it would make them look like fools.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    And I would have to chastise everyone else who is abusing Mr. Apuzzo as well. It’s a pretty sorry mess all around.

    James M: If he is a reasonable person, he can be asked and expected to refrain from abusing individuals on the forum.

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    Minor doesn’t seek to define “natural born citizen.” That’s just one of those birther talking points. I guess if you say it often enough, you come to believe it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: so therefore you also concede Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

  93. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    But, of course, Minor did not use your precious capitals and simply called the children of citizens “citizens”, so, according to you, that would not be the same as those that are referred to in Article I and II of the Constitution.

    “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 citizens parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “natural born Citizen” as Minor confirmed that clause to mean.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    PBS on The American Experience said:

    During the horrifying years of the Holocaust, while the Nazis were killing thousands of Jews a day, the U.S. State Department official in charge of matters concerning European refugees was Breckinridge Long, an extreme nativist with a particular suspicion of Eastern Europeans. To make matters worse, Long’s views were shared by many of his subordinates, most of whom showed themselves to be indifferent to the tragedy unfolding in Europe. One Treasury Department official would later call them an American “underground movement…to let the Jews be killed.” Long himself was extremely paranoid and came to believe not only that he was constantly under attack from “the communists, extreme radicals, Jewish professional agitators, [and] refugee enthusiasts,” but that his colleagues were conspiring against him as well. It’s not surprising that with men like Long in control, very little would be done to help the Jews in Europe.

    Read more at:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/pandeAMEX90.html

    and

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29795435/IS-MR-CHARLES-EVANS-HUGHES-A-%E2%80%9CNATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN%E2%80%9D

    gorefan: Breckinridge Long wrote an article on why Hughes was not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen.

  95. avatar
    BillTheCat July 2, 2012 at 2:29 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ramjomi,

    Do you really think that your biased opinion really matters?

    Oh, the IRONY.

  96. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 3:52 am #

    I have addressed them, repeatedly. There are many “post-Obama” decisions that are not state administrative law cases, and they all serve to reinforce what everyone here is telling you regarding the holding in WKA.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: (1) I see, when you cannot address the existing historical sources you have to resort to some post-Obama election state administrative law cases which did not analyze any historcial sources and simply missaplied Wong Kim Ark.

    Your understanding of the Slaughterhouse cases and the Elk case is no better than you personal rendition of the Minor decision. There is no reason to address dicta. As for Elk, the decision of the Court was that Elk as “Indian not taxed”, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

    Your 1, 2, 3 example of the children who are not born in the jurisdiction is wrong. Justice Gray was making a point as to how Indian tribes were like a different country within the US. He said Indians owing immediate allegiance to their tribe are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the US than children of foreigners born within the domain of THAT government. He obviously was not talking about children of aliens born in the US.

    As for Justice Swayne, here are references cited in the decision for the paragraph quoted: 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The orbiter dicta in The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872) was stated by the majority in that case. But more important, in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),

  97. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 4:36 am #

    Justice Gray, who also wrote the opinion seems to disagree with you. “The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, it follows that the Elk court said that children born in the United States to such alien parent or parents are not “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance” and cannot therefore be “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

  98. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 6:07 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like you have provided one iota of such evidence.

    Responding to one of your posts from the other thread.

    The reason I state unambiguously that you are lying about Vattel is simple:

    (This is above and beyond accepting that (i) the term “natural-born citizen” is a correct translation of Vattel’s term “indigene” and (ii) Vattel has any relevance at all to the issue at hand, both of which are highly arguable statements.)

    1) Initially you were using an interpretation of Vattel that was & is incorrect in several major respects: (a) the terms “parents” means blood relatives, not just parents; (b) the term is used as a group plural, ie: either parent, not both; (c) further on, Vattel uses the father but only as an illustration of his “just sanguinis” approach to citizenship stated above; he does not exclude either the mother or any relatives on either side; as a matter of fact, the mother is specifically included in a footnote the second edition [should be 1863 French edition Doc.]; (d) finally, Vattel mentions that other countries like England favor a “jus soli” method.

    So if we were were to apply this approach to the hypothetical case of a young Obama born in Switzerland at the time from a visiting English student and a Swiss woman, it is unambiguously clear that the child would be a Swiss “indigene” from his mother’s side of the family. Had his father hypothetically taken him back to England, he might ALSO be eligible to become a British citizen, but that would in no way impact his “quality” as a Swiss “indigene.”

    2) Had you simply misconstrued Vattel’s meaning initially, it would be perfectly understandable, considering that you are not a French lawyer and have no real knowledge on the subject (as far as I’m aware). However, the correct interpretation was pointed out to you (repeatedly, I might add) by I, a French attorney with 30+ years’ experience, including having edited translations of Vattel into English. Modestly, I will also point out that your independent Congress research jurist also arrived at the same interpretation — not that there any others, really.

    3) Even a mob lawyer arguing that his client was in Paris at the time of the crime, if shown irrefutable evidence that he was, in fact, in Marseilles at that very time, will stop arguing that he was in Paris. If he does, at least in France, our Courts will severely reprimand him, sanction him, and he carries on doing it the way you do, he may well be disbarred.

    That is why you are, to put it simply, a LIAR.

    Your apparent total lack of ethics, your meretriciousness, your dissembling make you the shame of our profession.

    I can only hope that at, the end of this charade, one or the other of your Courts or Bar Association will see fit to sanction heavily, something which you richly deserve.

  99. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 6:12 am #

    William P. Tate: 1. The Supreme Court did not know the Law of Nations, and now they must admitt they did not know.

    As established, Vattel’s Law of Nations (if applicable) only establishes Obama as a natural-born citizens (ie: “indigene”).

    So it doesn’t help your case.

  100. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 6:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And I would have to chastise everyone else who is abusing Mr. Apuzzo as well.

    It depends how you define “abuse”, doesn’t it?

    I certainly agree that private life should be off the table. But professional conduct is not.

    You will note that I do not debate him on matters pertaining to US law because, as I have repeatedly said, this is not my professional area of expertise. But on the limited and very narrow matter of Vattel, I feel perfectly within my rights to call Apuzzo a liar, because while it is fairly blunt, it is, strictly speaking, accurate.

  101. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 6:28 am #

    G: He’s completely delusional to continue to insist on such a retarded proposition. His ilk and their silly make-believe additional levels of Citizenship are nothing more than the fantasy of desperate bigots who need to cling to a false sense of “entitlement” to feel “special” … simply because they are “white”. Whether he believes his own nonsense or is merely a paid propagandist for white nationalism is immaterial at this point.

    He choses to publicly publish such vapid rubbish and continues to pursue proving he’s a loser in every court and open forum he can. I can’t imagine any amount of money that would be worth throwing all integrity and reputation away like that… at least not in any sane person nor anyone with an ounce of self-respect.

    I couldn’t agree more. Outside of our law license, our professional reputation is our most precious asset. It always makes me wince to see an attorney throw his out of the window purely for monetary gain.

    We have plenty of lawyers who knowingly represent drug dealers and the likes, and are richly-paid for it. (There is an excellent French TV series called ENGRENAGE which was broadcast on BBC sub-titled under the title of SPIRAL which features that kind of lawyers, and if you like procedural crime drama très noir, and you can find it on itunes UK, it is highly recommended.) But still, they are not held in high esteem by the rest of the profession. We all know how they make their money.

    Mario’s case is even more puzzling because I can’t believe he makes “drug cartel money” out of this repugnant charade, and yet he totally trashed his reputation for it.

  102. avatar
    Paper July 2, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Incorrect.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    JRC,

    “Citizens” of the United States includes both “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States” (Article I and II), “citizens of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment), and “citizens of the United States” (Congressional Acts and treaties).

    Hence, you can be a “citizen” of the United States and a “natural born citizen,”a “citizen” of the United States and a “Citizen of the United States,” and a “citizen” of the United States and a “citizen of the United States.”

    You cannot be a “Citizen of the United States” (Article I and II), meaning a naturalized “citizen” after birth, and a “natural born Citizen.”

    You cannot be a “citizen of the United States” (Congressional Acts or treaties), meaning a naturalized “citizen” “at birth” or after birth, and a “natural born Citizen.”

    Not all “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth (Fourteenth Amendment) are “natural born Citizens.”

    You can be a “citizen of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment) and a “natural born Citizen.” Satisfying the definition of a “natural born Citizen” necessarily satisfies the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

  103. avatar
    ballantine July 2, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ballantine,

    The only laughing stock is you.Why would Justice Gray be talking about children born to alien parents in foreign countries?Like somebody really thought that they could somehow be U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. We really needed the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us that they are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.And why did Gray use the word “domain?”He could have easily said born out of the United States like Congress always did.What little game was Justice Gray playing?

    You simply are showing you will say anything, re-write any term, twist the meaning of any statute. United States territory is not the domain of a foreign country. It is called English. It is quite astounding that nearly everything you say is wrong. Citing cases that have nothing to do with citizenship. Saying cases say the opposite of what they actually say. Say clear statement of the court saying you are wrong don’t count. What is sad is you don’t realize how stupid you look to everyone outside your small circle of moron birthers who are a joke throughout the country. Wee, we will always have idiots selling fringe legal theories. Fortunately, we have courts and real scholars who will continue to laugh at these clowns. So pleas, keep filing more cases so we and the courts can keep laughing at you.

  104. avatar
    ballantine July 2, 2012 at 7:29 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Jim,

    Minor was not willing to say and did not have to say that a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.”Of course, it was referring to the Fourteenth Amendment which uses the phrase “citizen of the United States.”

    Wong settled that question and held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident parents (and not diplomats or military invaders) is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.Wong did not hold that such a child is an Article II “natural born Citizen” as Minor confirmed that clause to mean.

    To say Minor was referring to 14th amendment citizenship is lie. Why do you make things up It does not say what type of citizenship and to claim it did is your typical dishonesty. Of course, such is the only way you can claim Minor is relevant to the question of children of aliens. The rest of the world understand it failed to take a position and no one has ever claimed it was authority on the status of children of aliens including all the participants in Wong Kim Ark.

    Wong Kim Ark held that he was a citizen since the definition of natural born subject was the basis of both the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th amendment. Please, tell us Mario, Did Wong Kim ark say natural born citizen and natural born subject meant the same thing or not? Why can’t you answer?

  105. avatar
    ballantine July 2, 2012 at 7:34 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    JRC,

    “Citizens” of the United States includes both “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States” (Article I and II), “citizens of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment), and “citizens of the United States” (Congressional Acts and treaties).

    When the only way you can make an argument is to re-define a phrase in a manner no one in history has, you are either dishonest or an idiot. You have been chaallenged to cite a single authority that agrees with you. YOu can’t. You have been challenged to explain how our early statutes and treaties used such term ina manner that could not exclude natural born citizens. You don’t respond because you can’t. You just keep repeating you are right without argument or authority. And sadly, you think that means you are winning the argument. Wee, sadly, proponants of fringe legal theories are like that. They can make real arguments because they actually have no authority. Again, it is fortunate we have real courts who will not tolerate such nonsense and will continue to give birthers the fringe treatment they deserve.

  106. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 7:38 am #

    Lupin: We have plenty of lawyers who knowingly represent drug dealers and the likes, and are richly-paid for it.

    Lupin: I consider Mario much worse than those lawyers, Drug dealers and gangsters (as well as serial killers and child rapists) have a right to legal counsel under Western systems of law, If no lawyer will take their case, the court will appoint someone. No matter how guilty those criminals are, they do have real business before the courts. Mario’s “clients”, if they exist at all, do not. They have nothing but a manufactured political grievance that has no place clogging the dockets.

  107. avatar
    Keith July 2, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Paper:
    Incorrect.

    Yeah.

    What more can you say?

    I’d love to see him put those words into one of his so-called complaints and see where it gets him.

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    The bulk of Long’s argument deals with naturalization statutes. He points out than when an alien naturalizes, his minor children are naturalized by the effect if the parents’ naturalization, and from this is says that if they were naturalized, they couldn’t have been “natural born citizens.” This argument, however, is essentially begging the question. He assumes that they aren’t born citizens and under this assumption he reads to the law to say that their naturalization proves they weren’t citizens. However, nowhere does he show that the law is ever correctly applied to those persons born in the United States, rather than to a foreign-born child of an alien.

    Long’s essay is a good example of the “doubts” that the Minor decision didn’t resolve, but he does argue correctly that someone who is not born a citizen is not a natural born citizen even if born in the country. However, US v. Wong says clearly that with a few narrow exceptions, everyone born in the country is a citizen.

    gorefan: Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes ran for President in 1916 against Woodrow Wilson and nearly won. Chief Justice Hughes’ father was a British national when Hughes was born. Breckinridge Long wrote an article on why Hughes was not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen.

  109. avatar
    ellen July 2, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    ballantine puts it well. Let me go further.

    In order to convince people that his theories about Natural Born Citizen status are correct Apuzzo ignores a key criterion of conservative legal theory, strict construction. Under strict construction it is not allowed for a court to determine that something is forbidden unless the law or the Constitution actually says “it is forbidden.”

    Well, guess what, the Constitution simply does not say that it is forbidden for the US-born children of foreign parents to be the President of the United States. To be sure, the meaning of Natural Born does exclude naturalized citizens from being president, and you can interpret that as saying that they are forbidden from being president. But the meaning of Natural Born is clear when it excludes naturalized citizens. It is not clear, and there are in fact no examples of it being used by the writers of the US Constitution, that it excludes the US-born children of foreign parents. And the rule of strict construction is that if it is not specifically and clearly forbidden, it is not forbidden.

    The four state courts (and at least two appeals of them) and one federal court that have ruled on Obama’s eligibility were right to concentrate on Wong Kim Ark and on the fact that the Minor vs Happersett ruling does not say what Apuzzo thinks. But they could just as easily have said: “There is nothing in there that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not allowed to be president.”

    Proponents of the idea that the Natural Born Citizen clause was designed as a protection against foreign influence will at this point reply: “But surely if the writers were trying to protect against foreign influence, they must have included a bar to the US-born children of foreign citizens.” But you are not allowed to make those kind of deductions under strict construction rules. If the Constitution does not say it, the Constitution does not mean it.

    And it does not say it.

    Moreover, to believe that the writers mean that the US-born children of foreigners are to be barred from becoming president requires a leap of faith (and a nasty leap of faith at that). There are no writings by any of the writers of the Constitution or any of the other leaders at the day that say that two citizen parents are required or that the US-born children of foreigners are to be distrusted, but Apuzzo says that they felt this. There is no evidence that they felt it, but Apuzzo says that they did.

    But that requires you to believe that men who had written: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” actually believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens. Well, if they had said that they believed that, then sure. But there is certainly no reason to believe that they believed such a thing if they didn’t say it, and they didn’t say it.

  110. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    The debates over the Civil Rights bill of 1866 undermine Apuzzo’s citizenship schemes, particularly the comments of AJ Rogers, Representative of the 4th district …. of New Jersey!

    If you pass this bill, you will allow the negroes of this country to compete for the high office of President of the United States. Because if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter of the Constitution of the United States, which allows all natural-born citizens to become candidates for the Presidency, and to exercise the duties of that office if elected.

    Hmm, nothing about parentage or “federal / 14th amendment citizenship” there. You’ve got to look to the rejection of Reconstruction for those arguments, as racism drove men to create all sorts of ways to re-assert the “old order”. He did throw in lots of Original Intent, used the name of the Constitution in vain, and even tossed in some faux Christian concern.

    It’s a great exchange, Mr Rogers was burned down immediately by Mr. Cook from Illinois:

    I would have been glad if he would have told us in what manner the white men of this country would have been placed in a worse condition than they are now, is this becomes the law. This general denunciation and general assault of the bill, without pointing out one single thing which is to deprive one single man of any rights he enjoys under the Government, seems to me not entitled to much weight.

    And the next day, Mr. Windom of Minnesota utilized race to ridcule the “Presidential” fears of Rogers, stating that if a black man could get himself elected on the support of 4M of his own kind over that of 26M whites, we should do everything we can to encourage such talent.

    The debates can be found here in somewhat summarized form or in the Congressional Globe.

  111. avatar
    linda July 2, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    This was posted by Nulu Chan on Scribd. It is a letter from William L Marcy, Secretary of State of the US, dated March 16, 1854 (pre-14th Amendment) to a Mr. Nones, Esq., apparently a birther of his era.

    “This is in conformity with the English Common Law, which law is generally acknowledged in this country; and a person born of alien parents would, it is presumed, be considered such natural born citizen, in the language of the Constitution, as to make him eligible to the Presidency.”
    http://tinyurl.com/723yy88

  112. avatar
    Sam the Centipede July 2, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ramjomi,

    Do you really think that your biased opinion really matters?And I must assume that it is biased since I do not know who you are and that you are most likely a part of Dr. Conspiracy’s most esteemed and revered gallery.

    Wow! That is the most amazing case of projection I have ever seen!

    Can Apuzzo not apply that question to his own sorry outpourings of nonsense: does he really think his biased opinion really matters? The country doesn’t, the politicians don’t, the courts don’t. Apuzzo’s approval rating is exactly 1.0: himself and no other.

    How can this lunatic think that there is a difference between a citizen and a Citizen based only on their typography? The law doesn’t work that way, Mario.

    Heck, if Mario had one more brain cell, he’d be an amoeba.

  113. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 2, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    Jamese777: Haven’t you heard? The United States holds 51 state elections (counting the District of Columbia) in order to accumulate the required number of Electors to become President.But if you want a federal case saying the same thing: How about Tisdale v Obama, heard in the US District Court for the Northern District of Virginia.US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”

    Tisdal is unpublished and non-precedential. It is not precedent within its own Circuit.

  114. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    Scientist: Lupin: I consider Mario much worse than those lawyers, Drug dealers and gangsters (as well as serial killers and child rapists) have a right to legal counsel under Western systems of law, If no lawyer will take their case, the court will appoint someone. No matter how guilty those criminals are, they do have real business before the courts. Mario’s “clients”, if they exist at all, do not. They have nothing but a manufactured political grievance that has no place clogging the dockets.

    Public defenders being assigned such cases are not blamed by other attorneys, of course. And of course I agree with you.

    A greater societal debate might be had about mob/drug cartel lawyers who do make a lot of money defending the Pablo Escobars of our world. But that’s not the place to have such a debate.

    I would assume that Mario’s reputation amongst his colleagues at the local bar (and I don’t mean waterholes :-)) must be pretty crappy. At best, he must come across as a lunatic.

  115. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    Sam the Centipede: Can Apuzzo not apply that question to his own sorry outpourings of nonsense: does he really think his biased opinion really matters? The country doesn’t, the politicians don’t, the courts don’t.

    As always, there’s two sides to this: Mario’s and the rest of the world’s. 🙂

  116. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Tisdal is unpublished and non-precedential.It is not precedent within its own Circuit.

    Mario is unpublished and non-precedential and is 0-8 in presenting his arguments before the court. So all that you’ve been writing here, at John’s, at your own blog is “without merit”. If you weren’t so darn entertaining in your totally unsubstantiated opinion, you’d be ignored.

  117. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. July 2, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: PBS on The American Experience said:Read more at:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/pandeAMEX90.htmlandhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29795435/IS-MR-CHARLES-EVANS-HUGHES-A-%E2%80%9CNATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN%E2%80%9D

    The people of the United States included the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution only for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (the Twelfth Amendment extends it to the Vice-President). It is the supreme law of the land. I do not see how your constant references to race, color, and religion even apply. If the clause does not serve your ideology, get it changed with a constitutional amendment.

  118. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    Here you go Mario, Judge Lewis in the Voeltz case in Florida also shoots down your 2 -parent theory.

    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=58101756&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=20039029&dktsource=CRTV

    So basically Mario, they only people who believe your drivel are birthers, it has no standing in the constitution, law, or courts. Please update your resume to reflect “Not Constitution Scholar”.

  119. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Jim: Florida also shoots down your 2 -parent theory.

    They shoot dead horses in Florida?

    I do believe that horse is the most bullet-riddled horse in the history of dead horse. And yet there’s always another birther willing to jump on the corpse and give it the spurs.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If the clause does not serve your ideology, get it changed with a constitutional amendment.

    I love it when birthers pretend they’re right. They know there’s no chance they could ever get the Constitution amended the way they wish, so they play Let’s Pretend.

    Mario, there’s a far greater (as in infinitely greater!) chance the NBC clause will be nullified by amendment than it being changed to incorporate parentage. As for me, I like the NBC requirement as-is.

  120. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 2, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Once again, the birthers fail like only they can.

  121. avatar
    Lupin July 2, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    JPotter: I do believe that horse is the most bullet-riddled horse in the history of dead horse. And yet there’s always another birther willing to jump on the corpse and give it the spurs.

    A superb analogy!

  122. avatar
    Scientist July 2, 2012 at 10:54 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The people of the United States included the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution only for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (the Twelfth Amendment extends it to the Vice-President).

    The Twelfth Amendment? The one that says “the Person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President”. Which Person was that is 2008?

  123. avatar
    Paper July 2, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    There is nothing wrong with the term “natural born citizen” in the constitution. It just doesn’t mean what you say it means. Thst’s all. It’s that simple.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The people of the United States included the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution only for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (the Twelfth Amendment extends it to the Vice-President).It is the supreme law of the land.I do not see how your constant references to race, color, and religion even apply.If the clause does not serve your ideology,get it changed with a constitutional amendment.

  124. avatar
    Jim July 2, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Mario,

    I just read over at fogbow the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirms the USDC District of New Jersey’s dismissal of Kerchner v Obama et al. Is that why you were posting so much this weekend, to try and minimize your pain from another loss? So, does that make it 0-9 now?

    If this is old news Mario, I apologize…it’s hard to keep track of all the birther failures.

  125. avatar
    US Citizen July 2, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    I can only surmise that Mario is a true blue masochistic.
    He gets “beaten” at all court cases and then comes here for verbal abuse.
    Probably has his own monogrammed ball gag and handcuffs too.
    “Thank you sir, may I have another” is likely carved on his mantlepiece.

  126. avatar
    Paper July 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    No need to show it has been amended. It just doesn’t mean what you say it does.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ballantine & Co.

    Minor v. Happersett, confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, gave us the last word on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” You have failed to show that such meaning has been somehow amended..

  127. avatar
    ScottRS July 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Well, I, for one, look forward to Noted Barrister Apuzo explaining his most recent humiliation in the 3rd – especially the part where it says “We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.”

    Read it here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf

  128. avatar
    realist July 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    And the state court in FL in the Voeltz case has also made mincemeat of the two citizen parent nonsense… but Mario and the birther attorneys are all smarter than all the courts and framers,so I’m sure another judge is just wrong.

  129. avatar
    bovril July 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    Ahh, this is the ANNIVERSARY of one of Sooper Marios’s many epic faliures.

    You remember it Mario, when the court ruled and you had to grovel and apologize.

    By the way, still waiting on that “rule of the wild west” Barnes and Noble location and date, you do HAVE a real location and date don’t you Mario..?

  130. avatar
    gorefan July 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The American Experience

    It’s all Seven Degrees of Eligibility>

    One of Justice Scalia’s heros is Chief Justice William Howard Taft. And CJ Taft wrote in Ex.Parte Grossman:

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

  131. avatar
    BillTheCat July 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Gosh where’s Mario to explain why Voeltz failed in court, we’re all ears!

  132. avatar
    JPotter July 2, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    BillTheCat: Gosh where’s Mario to explain why Voeltz failed in court, we’re all ears!

    Well, it can’t be because they failed to hire Apuzzo.

  133. avatar
    realist July 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Jim:
    Mario,

    I just read over at fogbow the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirms the USDC District of New Jersey’s dismissal of Kerchner v Obama et al.Is that why you were posting so much this weekend, to try and minimize your pain from another loss?So, does that make it 0-9 now?

    If this is old news Mario, I apologize…it’s hard to keep track of all the birther failures.

    It’s old news. It’s the 2010 smackdown in Kerchner, et al. You know, the one Mario continues to assert he did lose, yet there’s no win anywhere. 😉

  134. avatar
    Dave B. July 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Mario, I’ve been kind of worried about you. You weren’t by any chance bitten in that fracas at the bookstore, were you? You feeling all right?

  135. avatar
    DP July 2, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The people of the United States included the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution only for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (the Twelfth Amendment extends it to the Vice-President).It is the supreme law of the land.I do not see how your constant references to race, color, and religion even apply.If the clause does not serve your ideology,get it changed with a constitutional amendment.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    That’s pretty much Mario in a nutshell. There’s no point arguing with a narcissistic con man desperately craving his next fix.

  136. avatar
    sfjeff July 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “Citizens” of the United States includes both “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States” (Article I and II), “citizens of the United States” (Fourteenth Amendment), and “citizens of the United States” (Congressional Acts and treaties).

    It is hard to believe that anyone would argue such nonsense.

    I guess the desperation of not having anything else to argue is compelling.

  137. avatar
    G July 2, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    What a concise and complete smackdown by Judge Lewis!

    It completely eviscerated every bit of Birther nonsense claimed by the Plaintiff. I particularly liked the continued pattern of references to prior Birther court losses (including Ankeny) in support for why this case deserves to be shot down – and dismised WITH prejudice. The only thing that Birthers have succeeded at is building a stronger and stronger set of air-tight case law AGAINST their arguments.

    Jim:
    Here you go Mario, Judge Lewis in the Voeltz case in Florida also shoots down your 2 -parent theory.

    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=58101756&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=20039029&dktsource=CRTV

    So basically Mario, they only people who believe your drivel are birthers, it has no standing in the constitution, law, or courts.Please update your resume to reflect “Not Constitution Scholar”.

  138. avatar
    realist July 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    “news. It’s the 2010 smackdown in Kerchner, et al. You know, the one Mario continues to assert he did lose, yet there’s no win anywhere. ;)”

    I’m sorry. “did” lose should have been “didn’t” lose.

  139. avatar
    Patrick July 2, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    More “Vattel is the be-all-to-end-all-when-it-comes-to-the-constitution”? What kills me about this is that birthers, including Mario Apuzzo KNOW they are wrong about this. This isn’t about defending the Constitution; it’s about trying to nullify an election because they didn’t like the results. Birtherism is sore-loserism on steroids.

    So SCOTUS cited Vattel. Big deal. No one on the anti-birther side EVER said that SCOTUS didn’t defer to Vattel on some things.

    However, “natural born,” like many other terms in the Constitution — such as “bill of attainder,” “habeas corpus,” “militia,” “high crimes and misdemeanors” — which aren’t defined in the Constitution have their origins in English common law.

    From Wong Kim Ark:

    ////The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” … The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion … In 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.////

    Notice, the Constitution plainly states that “natural born citizen…must be interpreted in the light of the common law.” Not Vattel, not the 14th Amendment (which was not necessary in deciding Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship). English common law.

    Natural born does not come from Vattel, and neither Minor v. Happersett nor Wong Kim Ark — nor did any other SCOTUS ruling for that matter, ever say that “natural born” comes from Vattel.

    Apuzzo is simply a troll with a larger playground. He prefers to attempt to influence the courts via disinforming citizens rather than merely raising a few hackles on the internet.

    And the last time I checked, Mario Apuzzo is no Constitutional lawyer. He’s an ambulance-chaser and advocate for drunk drivers. (Personally, I would prefer to see drunk drivers hung out to dry, but I suppose some lowlife has to defend those human debris.) The point being is that deferring to Mario Apuzzo for a definition of “natural born citizen” is like getting open-heart surgery from a dermatologist!

    From Wong Kim Ark:

    ////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, 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.

    III. 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.////

    Notice, in a child born in England, even to aliens, was considered “natural born,” and the U.S. has always observed “the same rule.”

    It doesn’t get any clearer.

    Game over, Apuzzo. You lose. And you are no more an expert on this subject than anyone else on this board. For all intents and purposes, on this subject, you are a layman.

    If we were arguing about the drunk driving laws in New Jersey, you might be able to flaunt your credentials, but when it comes to natural born citizenship, you are completely out of your element.

  140. avatar
    G July 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Well said. I agree.

    Patrick:
    More “Vattel is the be-all-to-end-all-when-it-comes-to-the-constitution”? What kills me about this is that birthers, including Mario Apuzzo KNOW they are wrong about this. This isn’t about defending the Constitution; it’s about trying to nullify an election because they didn’t like the results. Birtherism is sore-loserism on steroids.

    And the last time I checked, Mario Apuzzo is no Constitutional lawyer.He’s an ambulance-chaser and advocate for drunk drivers.(Personally, I would prefer to see drunk drivers hung out to dry, but I suppose some lowlife has to defend those human debris.) The point being is that deferring to Mario Apuzzo for a definition of “natural born citizen” is like getting open-heart surgery from a dermatologist!

    Game over, Apuzzo.You lose. And you are no more an expert on this subject than anyone else on this board.For all intents and purposes, on this subject, you are a layman.

    If we were arguing about the drunk driving laws in New Jersey, you might be able to flaunt your credentials, but when it comes to natural born citizenship, you are completely out of your element.

  141. avatar
    Steve July 2, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    How many people had even heard of Vattel before 2008?

    I never heard of him until I started reading about birthers. Not once do I recall hearing the name in my AP history class in high school or my political science classes in college.
    Granted, I’ve never been to law school. Is The Law of Nations required reading at any law schools?

  142. avatar
    gorefan July 2, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    G: It completely eviscerated every bit of Birther nonsense

    I like that when the courts cite Ankeny, Hollander, and Wong, they all make the same point that if you are born in the US with few exceptions you are natural born.

    None of this nonsense that they are only 14th Amendment citizens or that the Wong decision didn’t say “natural born” citizen or that the children of aliensborn in the US are naturalized at birth. None of that stuff passes muster with the courts.

    I hope Mario asks them to let him file his amicus brief with any appeal.

  143. avatar
    JoZeppy July 2, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Steve: How many people had even heard of Vattel before 2008?I never heard of him until I started reading about birthers. Not once do I recall hearing the name in my AP history class in high school or my political science classes in college.Granted, I’ve never been to law school. Is The Law of Nations required reading at any law schools?

    I have a JD and a BA of PoliSci with a concentration in International Law. After going through all my books from undergrad and law school (Law school included a general international law course, 4 U.S. Constitutional Law courses, and a comparative Con law class…oh and I was an editor of the Journal of international law), I found a single reference to Vattel, from my undergrad International law course. That one reference was one short paragraph that said Vattel was in vouge in the late 18th and early 18th century, and quickly fell out of favor due to his internal inconsistencies. Not only is Law of Nations not required reading, I don’t think there was a sigle course where Vattel’s works were even assigned (and i attened a top tier law school…not a correspondence course like some purported “attorneys”).

  144. avatar
    Ramjomi July 2, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    Quick, someone tell Mario that Dead Swiss Philosophers don’t write the laws in the US.

  145. avatar
    brygenon July 2, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
    Linda,

    (1) I see, when you cannot address the existing historical sources you have to resort to some post-Obama election state administrative law cases which did not analyze any historcial sources and simply missaplied Wong Kim Ark.

    Specifically, Linda cited the outcome of *your* ballot challenge, Mr. Apuzzo. In the bit, “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position […]”, in that bit “the challengers” means *you* and the clients *you* represented. She was responding to your point, above: “Those state law cases that you cite are not controlling.” Controlling or not, they sure trounced you.

    You chose to take the matter up to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. Here’s the relevant bit of that decision:

    […] In addition, appellants claim that the ALJ and the Secretaryerred in finding that President Obama was born in Hawaii andthat he is a “natural born citizen.”

    We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12,2012.
    [PURPURA v. OBAMA, Decided May 31, 2012]

    Mr. Apuzzo, do you recall telling us how the courts never reached the merits of your argument in Kerchner v. Obama? Well now you’ve been heard on your merits, and the answer was that your arguments are without merit.

  146. avatar
    jtmunkus July 3, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    I’ve read and reviewed this thread, from the beginning to the end – including at the first article.

    My conclusion: MARIO WINS!

    Apoozzo has succeeded at wasting a whole bunch of sane people’s time. His ridiculous and anti-American views, and his insistence that even though NOT A SINGLE LEGAL SCHOLAR ANYWHERE, ANYTIME has confirmed a single premise the fool spews forth – he’s unequivocally always right.

    I know enough legal scholars to know that Mario isn’t one.of them. He obviously is not an attorney by profession; how could he make a living spending all his time defending his silly views about restricting citizenship to a select group of ‘right-thinking’ Americans?

    And his responses are all bloviations of flowery ‘legal’ tripe recycled ad nauseum, though he’s been proven a liar over and over again by each and every responder posting. Yet Poopoozzo persists in trying to convince [the same] sane people, over and over again, that he’s right.

    It’s the exact same thread that I’ve seen so many times before.

    Mario wins!

  147. avatar
    Lupin July 3, 2012 at 3:40 am #

    Patrick: More “Vattel is the be-all-to-end-all-when-it-comes-to-the-constitution”? What kills me about this is that birthers, including Mario Apuzzo KNOW they are wrong about this. This isn’t about defending the Constitution; it’s about trying to nullify an election because they didn’t like the results. Birtherism is sore-loserism on steroids.

    Let’s not forget that on THIS issue, Vattel only confirms that Obama is an “indigene”. So the birthers’ position is doubly stooooopid.

  148. avatar
    Lupin July 3, 2012 at 3:41 am #

    G: What a concise and complete smackdown by Judge Lewis!

    The link doesn’t work (for me?). Is there another leading to scribd or something like that?

  149. avatar
    G July 3, 2012 at 4:06 am #

    richCares:
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

    MICHAEL C. VOELTZ,CASE NO.2012-CA-00467

    Plaintiff,

    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Florida
    Democratic Party Nominee to the 2012
    Democratic Party Convention,
    KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State of Florida, and FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION,

    Defendants.
    /

    ORDERGRANTING BARACKOBAMA’S AND SECRETARY OF STATE KEN DETZNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

    This case is before me on motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Obama and Detzner. The amended complaint challenges the nomination of Defendant Obama as the Democratic Party’s nominee for the office of President of the United States, pursuant to Section 102.168, Florida Statutes. The Plaintiff alleges that candidate Obama is not eligible for that office because he is not a “natural-hom citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitutionof the United States. Because I find that the plaintiff has not and cannot state a cause of action for the relief requested under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, I grant the motions to dismiss with prejudice.There are several deficiencies in the complaint, but the biggest problem, and one which cannot be overcome by amending the complaint, is that Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States. This statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    Page 1 of 7

    (1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such
    office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election
    related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

    Plaintiff argues that President Obama has been nominated as the Democratic Party’s candidate for the office by virtue of the fact that he had no opposition for the Presidential Preference Primary Election. Under Florida Statutes Section 97.021(28), ‘”Primary election’ means an election held preceding the general election for the purpose of nominating a party nominee to be voted for in the general election to fill a national, state, county, or district office.” Because Mr. Obama was the only candidate for that primary election, Plaintiff argues that Florida Statutes, Section 101.252(1) applies. That provision reads as follows:“Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot.However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, andsuch candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.” [Emphasis added]. Florida’s Supreme Court has confirmed that “[w]hen only one candidate for a political party qualifies, that candidate is the party’s nominee.”Republican State Exec. Comm. v. Graham, 388
    So. 2d 556, 557 (1980).

    If the plaintiff was challenging the candidate’s eligibility for any other office, his analysis would be correct and these provisions would apply. The Office of President of the United States, however, is treated differently under Florida law. In every other political office, any person can qualify to run as a Democrat or Republican in a primary election and if she receives the greatest number of votes, she is, by law, that party’snominee for the general election. Candidates for
    these other offices are required to file certain documents and pay a qualifying fee (or sufficient

    petitions) during a specific time period. In 2012 that qualifying period ran from noon on

    Monday, June 4, 2012 until noon on Friday, June 8, 2012.

    Presidential candidates do not qualify during that period or pursuant to that process. Rather, Section 103.021, Florida Statutes, provides that presidential electors are designated by the respective political parties before September 1 of each presidential election year and
    nominated by the Governor.1The respective major political parties determine their nominee at a

    national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve. The Presidential Preference Primary Election in Florida is an integral part of that process for the parties, but as it relates to Florida law, there is no qualifying and no certification of nomination of the candidate as a result. Thus, under Florida law, Mr. Obama is not presently the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office.

    1 Section 103.021(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides as follows:

    Nomination forpresidentialelectors. -Candidates forpresidential electorsshallbe nominatedin the following manner:

    (1) The Governorshallnominatethe presidentialelectors of each politicalparty.The state executive committee ofeach politicalparty shall byresolution recommend candidatesfor presidential electors anddeliver a certified copy thereof to the Governor before September 1 of each presidentialelection year. The Governorshall nominateonly the electorsrecommended by the stateexecutivecommitteeof the respectivepolitical party. Each such elector shall be a qualified elector of the party he or she represents who has taken an oath that he or she will vote for the candidates of the party that he or she is nominatedto represent.The Governorshallcertifyto theDepartment of Stateon or before September 1, in each presidential election year, the names of a numberof electors for each politicalparty equalto the numberof senatorsandrepresentatives which this state has in Congress.

    (2) The namesof the presidential electors shall not be printedon the generalelection ballot, but the names of the actual candidatesfor Presidentand Vice President for whom the presidential electors will vote if elected shall be printedon the ballot in the order in which the party of which the candidate is a nominee polled the highest numberof votes for Governor in the last general election.

    The question remains whether or not this case should be stayed in anticipation that Mr. Obama will, in fact, be nominated at the national convention of the Democratic Party. Will the Plaintiffs election contest then be ripe for adjudication? I conclude not, as there has not been, and never will be, a nominationby primary election or qualification as contemplatedunder Florida law. Neither the Plaintiff nor any other elector will determine by vote the nomination. Thus, regardless of who is nominated by the party at the national convention, Plaintiff would not be able to amend his complaint to challenge the nomination under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes.Even if Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, was applicable to a challenge to the “nomination” of a candidate for Office of the President of the United States, the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for the relief requested. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the candidate has not demonstrated, and the Secretary of State has not confirmed, that the candidate is a “natural born citizen” as required by the United States Constitution. It is the plaintiffs burden, however, to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible.The Secretary of State also has no affirmative duty, or even authority, “to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.” Taylor v. Crawford, 116 So. 41, 42 (Fla. 1928); see also Cherry, 265 So. 2d at 57 (stating that nothing “places a duty upon or empowers the Secretary of State to conduct an independent inquiry with respect to circumstances or fact dehors the qualifying papers”); Hall v. Hildebrand, 168 So. 531, 364 (Fla. 1936) (finding that the filing officer “has neither theresponsibility nor the authority to pass judgment upon the supposed ineligibility of candidates for office”).

    Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary’s oath to “support the U.S. Constitution”“creates an absolute ministerial duty” on him to determine the eligibility of presidential nominees.I disagree. “The duties that fall within the scope of mandamus are legal duties of a specific, imperative, and ministerial character as distinguished from those that are discretionary.” Cherry v. Stone, 265 So. 2d 56, 51 (Fla. 1972).An oath to “support the U.S. Constitution” is not a “specific, imperative” duty to do anything of a ministerial character, let alone a specificimperative to verify the eligibility of presidential nominees or candidates.Cherry v. Stone, supra at 57. Plaintiffsallegations are thus insufficient to justify a writ of mandamus directed to the Secretary.Plaintiffsalternative request for mandamus against the Court is also insufficient for similar reasons. Plaintiff makes no allegation supporting any of the elements for a writ of mandamus against the Court. Additionally, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issuance
    of mandamus directed to it. See Davis v. State, 982 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (noting that

    “a court cannot logically issue a writ of mandamus to itself.”)

    In oral argument on the motion, the plaintiffs attorney advised the court that if given an opportunity to amend the complaint, the plaintiff could affirmatively allege that the candidate was not born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, that defect could theoretically be remedied. The second prong of the plaintiffs challenge, however, is alsodeficient and cannot be remedied. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that even if the candidate was born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, he was not born of two parents who were American citizens and therefore cannot be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

    I have reviewed and considered the legal authority submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendants on this issue and conclude as a matter of law that this allegation, if true, would not make the candidate ineligible for the office.Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides: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.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63,66 (D.N.H. 2008) (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (citations omitted); Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Wong Kim Ark, and holding that both President Obama and Senator John McCain were “natural born citizens” because “persons born within the borders of theUnited States are ‘natural born [c]itizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless ofthe citizenship of their parents.”).Thus, for procedural and substantive reasons, the complaint is legally deficient and should be dismissed. The question remains, should it be dismissed with prejudice, i.e., without leave to amend. Dismissal with prejudice should only be granted if it conclusively appears there

    is no possible way to amend the complaint to state a cause of action.As noted above, I can’t see how the Plaintiff could amend the complaint and proceed under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes.Plaintiff could perhaps contest the election if the candidate is successful. The Defendants argue that such a challenge is foreclosed as well, but as the complaint sought to challenge only the nomination, I do not reach the issue of whether Plaintiff might properly file an election contest action after the general election. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff could not, under any existing facts, amend the complaint to contest an election that has not occurred.Plaintiff suggests the possibility of a declaratory judgment claim, but I don’tsee how Plaintiff, as an individual voter, would have standing to seek declaratory relief.In short, I am unable to conceive of any other legal theory upon which the Plaintiff could proceed at this time relative to the relief sought.While these motions to dismiss were under advisement, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which was not authorized.The Secretary and the Commission have moved to strike it, which I grant.Therefore, for the reasons expressed herein, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that: The Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint are GRANTED and the PlaintiffsAmended Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.The Second Amended Complaint is stricken.
    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this …tit

    day of June, 2012.

    cc:\pies to Counsel of Record

  150. avatar
    Northland10 July 3, 2012 at 5:56 am #

    From Mario’s submission to the NJ Supreme Court:

    So, when the people adopted and ratified their new Constitution, they had this specific meaning in mind of what a “natural born “Citizen” was. That definition was a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. Upon adopting and ratifying their Constitution, that specific meaning became the supreme law of the land which can be altered only by a constitutional amendment. there has never been any doubt as to this definition. Minor Article II, Clause 5, also established a different class of “citizen” from a “natural born Citizen.” This was a “Citizen of the United States.” These two types of “citizens” are therefore constitutionally separate and distinct. They cannot be conflated and confounded with each other.

    He just put in a briefing that if you are “natural born Citizen” you cannot be a Senator or member of the House of Representative. In the Constitution (and I checked the parchment version for added authenticity).

    “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,”

    If Mario’s styles are separate and distinct, than the Representative who is a “Citizen of the United States” (not capitalization) cannot be a “natural born Cititizen.”

    How obtuse must one be to not only discuss this silly concept on a blog but actually put it on a court filing. As it is, he can probably claim victory when it goes to the US Supreme Court as he will claim they are not valid since the Constitution mentions one “supreme Court.” Come to think of it, no laws are valid since they are passed by Congress not Congrefs.

  151. avatar
    Reality Check July 3, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Nice catch Northland10. One of the many reasons Mario’s arguments (and similar ones) are doomed is that they require the invention of an entirely new third class of citizens when the courts have specifically said their are only two. It is nice to see him state that in a brief. I think Mario is so invested in this nonsense that he can make such an absurd claim to a court sincerely. Just astounding.

  152. avatar
    JoZeppy July 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    Reality Check: Nice catch Northland10. One of the many reasons Mario’s arguments (and similar ones) are doomed is that they require the invention of an entirely new third class of citizens when the courts have specifically said their are only two. It is nice to see him state that in a brief. I think Mario is so invested in this nonsense that he can make such an absurd claim to a court sincerely. Just astounding.

    Mario strikes me as being the same thing I saw in the tax protester movement. You had the people that bought into the B.S. arguments that by saying the magic words, filing the right forms the right way, or claiming to be the right kind of citizen, that you magically became exempt from paying federal income tax. You could argue with these people, because they basically just bought into a line of b.s. that was fed to them, and when you pointed out to them what they were fed was a line of b.s., they would at least abandon that line of b.s. and search for a new one (because, of course, they would never accept the underlying premise that perhaps they were actually required to pay income tax). Then you had the group that was known as the “patriots for profit.” Those were the folks selling the “information” on how to get out of taxes, the magic words to say, the magic things you do, to miraculously get out of paying taxes. For the most part, these people knew what they were peddling was b.s., but they weren’t in it to get out of paying taxes, they were in it for making money selling the packages of information to get out of taxes. There was no point in arguing with those people, because they generally did not care about what was true or not. If someone was prosecuted for tax evasion, it was because they obvoiusly didn’t follow the instructions properly. There were never any cases where the IRS lost, and a court rules in their favor, not because they were dead wrong on the law, but because the IRS never prosecuted the people that did everything right.

    So now we have Mario. Always quick with an excuse why 100% of the time these arguments are made the court calls them frivolous. Of course, his excuses are even more B.S., because fundamentally, he is saying every court got it wrong (his aguments that the state court decisions don’t count or how certain opinions are not binding is also pretty silly…while they individually may not be binding, they are presuasive, and when taken as a whole, with the courts being in 100% agreement on the issue, that’s damn persuasive that his arguments are 100% b.s.). His citizenship arugment is particularly bad, because tax protesters and sovereign citizens have been making those arguments for decades, and even back when Mario was still in law school and thought his legal career would actually amount to something meaningful. There really is no point in argueing with him, because unlike the person who buys into the b.s. just out of willful ignorance, this is Mario’s cash cow….or at least his ticket to some noteriety and perhaps some sense of not feeling like his entire legal career has been an abject failure. Being the person selling the B.S., there is no motivation conceed anything. The truth isn’t the goal, selling his brand is.

  153. avatar
    G July 3, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Well said!

    JoZeppy: There really is no point in argueing with him, because unlike the person who buys into the b.s. just out of willful ignorance, this is Mario’s cash cow….or at least his ticket to some noteriety and perhaps some sense of not feeling like his entire legal career has been an abject failure. Being the person selling the B.S., there is no motivation conceed anything. The truth isn’t the goal, selling his brand is.

  154. avatar
    Hawaiiborn July 3, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Northland10:
    From Mario’s submission to the NJ Supreme Court:

    He just put in a briefing that if you are “natural born Citizen” you cannot be a Senator or member of the House of Representative.In the Constitution (and I checked the parchment version for added authenticity).

    “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,”

    If Mario’s styles are separate and distinct, than the Representative who is a “Citizen of the United States” (not capitalization) cannot be a “natural born Cititizen.”

    How obtuse must one be to not only discuss this silly concept on a blog but actually put it on a court filing.As it is, he can probably claim victory when it goes to the US Supreme Court as he will claim they are not valid since the Constitution mentions one “supreme Court.”Come to think of it, no laws are valid since they are passed by Congress not Congrefs.

    this is a Sovereign Citizen tactic . Semantics and spellings aside, courts do not care what capitalization of certain words do. Citizen = citizen in every legal definition you can find.

    Supreme Court = supreme court
    Congress = congress

    Its a poor tactic that only the desperate use when they have nothing left.

  155. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    JoZeppy: Being the person selling the B.S., there is no motivation conceed anything. The truth isn’t the goal, selling his brand is.

    Hopefully, and sooner is better, this will be a very expensive mistake.

  156. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Hawaiiborn: this is a Sovereign Citizen tactic . Semantics and spellings aside, courts do not care what capitalization of certain words do. Citizen = citizen in every legal definition you can find.

    Supreme Court= supreme court
    Congress = congress

    Its a poor tactic that only the desperate use when they have nothing left.

    And fringe on a U.S. flag means you have a pretty flag.

  157. avatar
    JPotter July 3, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Majority Will: And fringe on a U.S. flag means you have a pretty flag.

    Unless the fringe was created by wear, in which case, it is time to give the flag a proper funeral.

    I had forgotten about the admiralty court flag routine! Thanks! 😀

  158. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    JPotter: Unless the fringe was created by wear, in which case, it is time to give the flag a proper funeral.

    I had forgotten about the admiralty court flag routine! Thanks!

    You’re welcome. So much crazy, too few on antipsychotics.

  159. avatar
    Lupin July 5, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    Majority Will: Hopefully, and sooner is better, this will be a very expensive mistake.

    Hear! Hear!

  160. avatar
    JPotter July 5, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    Dave B.: This mole popped up over yonder:

    Follow links to Toney’s piece on HuffPo …. a commenter has noted that Hawaii’s is not a “legal” part of the US, and included an ‘explanation’ of why not. Is this a new claim? They’re invalidating an entire state?!? 😉

  161. avatar
    Majority Will July 5, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    JPotter: Follow links to Toney’s piece on HuffPo …. a commenter has noted that Hawaii’s is not a “legal” part of the US, and included an ‘explanation’ of why not. Is this a new claim? They’re invalidating an entire state?!?

    Ask one of those mindless bigots if the U.S. overreacted to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
    Sometimes that shuts them up unless they’re too far gone down the rabbit hole.

  162. avatar
    JPotter July 5, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    Majority Will: Ask one of those mindless bigots if the U.S. overreacted to the attack on Pearl Harbor.Sometimes that shuts them up unless they’re too far gone down the rabbit hole.

    They’ll start in with the it was a “WWII was a Rooseveltian ploy to distract from the failure of the New Deal” meme. Folding in this “illegal state of Hawaii”, they could one up and say FDR was willing to sacrifice islanders, but too cowardly to allow an attack on the “real” US. He did round up the Japanese, you know.

    Hmmm. I have been following the nuts too long.

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    No, it’s not a new claim.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/obamaconspiracyorg-predictions-come-true/

    JPotter: Follow links to Toney’s piece on HuffPo …. a commenter has noted that Hawaii’s is not a “legal” part of the US, and included an ‘explanation’ of why not. Is this a new claim? They’re invalidating an entire state?!?

  164. avatar
    Scientist July 5, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, it’s not a new claim.

    It’s also the one birther claim with some moral and philosophiical justification, though no court is going to go there. The US annexation of Hawaii was of questionable legality, as it resulted from a coup against Queen Lili’uokalani by the white planters and missionary descendants. The problem of course is that if you open that can of worms, you would have to question the legality of the United States itself, because the entire European seizure of the continent from its native inhabitants would be quite illegal under international law (take that Vattelians).

  165. avatar
    Rickey July 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    Scientist: It’s also the one birther claim with some moral and philosophiical justification, though no court is going to go there.The US annexation of Hawaii was of questionable legality, as it resulted from a coup against Queen Lili’uokalani by the white planters and missionary descendants.The problem of course is that if you open that can of worms, you would have to question the legality of the United States itself, because the entire European seizure of the continent from its native inhabitants would be quite illegal under international law (take that Vattelians).

    And there are striking parallels between the annexation of Hawaii and the annexation of Texas. Texas, of course, was part of Mexico until American settlers successfully revolted in 1836. The resulting Republic of Texas was annexed by the United States via a joint resolution in 1846, just as Hawaii was annexed via a joint resolution.

    If Hawaii is not a legitimate state, neither is Texas.

  166. avatar
    JPotter July 5, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, it’s not a new claim.

    Shoulda known. Thanks, Doc!

  167. avatar
    Scientist July 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    Rickey: If Hawaii is not a legitimate state, neither is Texas.

    The only legitimate state (possibly) is New York, which the Dutch paid cash money for (though only Manhattan). The US did pay cash for the Louisiana Purchase, but the French stole the land from the natives so it wasn’t a valid sale. Same with the Russians and Alaska.

  168. avatar
    aarrgghh July 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, it’s not a new claim.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/obamaconspiracyorg-predictions-come-true/

    curiously, while the blogger making that claim swallows a vast menagerie of conspiracy theories of many different stripes, birferism ain’t one ‘a them:

    Once again, the internet is being spammed with emails and blog posts trying to claim that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to be President. Neil Abercrombie’s promise to settle the matter followed by his refusal/inability to do so has only made matters worse. This is a needless distraction from the economy, the wars, and Israel’s continued subversion of our government to their own ends. Why are we still wasting time with this?

    I think that the reason so many people buy into this nonsense is the total disappointment many people who supported Obama are feeling as he fails everyone of his campaign promises and seems intent on being Bush-3. Currently, Obama’s polls are in Bush country! Obama’s unwillingness to stand up to Wall Street or Israel makes him seem useless as a President, given that Wall Street and Israel are the two biggest threats to America right now.

    The birthers have been caught engaging in fraud; something which would not be necessary, indeed is highly dangerous to try, if the truth were really on their side.