Main Menu

Birthers drop non-racist pretense

One of the premier birther web sites, ObamaReleaseYourRecords, has dropped any pretense of not being racist with its article yesterday, titled: “If Obama Had A British Subject Son He Would Look Like This Sad Excuse For A Man.” What follows is a 16-second video of a black man in England hitting a teenage girl on the head in the street, knocking her senseless. Choice reader comments follow, such as:

hey slut why did obum hit that girl? you support a nigger thug and a fraud and a thief.

I’m speculating that now that the election is lost, the birthers no longer feel the need to feign respectability.

Print Friendly

,

906 Responses to Birthers drop non-racist pretense

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 24, 2012 at 1:08 am #

    Like they had anyone to start with. Honestly, I find it refreshing tha tthey’re at least being open about it now. That way everyone who happens upon that site will know to run the other way.

    Anywho someone seems to have commandeered my handle from time to time, as it shows up in random ORYR comment sections.

  2. avatar
    nbc November 24, 2012 at 3:14 am #

    Now that they have lost once again, their true emotions shine through. Not a pretty picture.

  3. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 3:30 am #

    Operation Low Profile hits a rough patch, as the directive to continue posting open and honestly and in the clear on public forums is found to have been “less than thoroughly considered”.

  4. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    “What follows is a 16-second video of a black man in England hitting a teenage girl on the head in the street, knocking her senseless.”

    And here in Philly, a black cop punched a civilian in the face, and was terminated after an investigation. The charge of disorderly conduct was dropped:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAypsDq6zXc

  5. avatar
    Sean November 24, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    So Obama’s win is causing Black people in the UK to run amok?

  6. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You feign to be someone who supports philanthropic and humanitarian causes or reforms, preaching that all the ills of the world need to be soon eradicated. Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite. Do you really believe that it is logical to take one person’s words or deeds and ascribe them to a whole group which you call the “Birthers?” Do you take the acts or deeds of a person who is a member of some race or ethnic group and blame the whole race or group for his conduct? Do the opinions posted on your blog from individual posters necessarily represent your opinions? Reasonable persons will answer all these question in the negative. But you have no problem blaming the “Birthers” for what this one commentator posted on ORYR and fallaciously calling your inflammatory article, “Birthers drop non-racist pretense.”

    So, Dr. Conspiracy, you stand indicted for your shameful conduct.

  7. avatar
    Scientist November 24, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you take the acts or deeds of a person who is a member of some race or ethnic group and blame the whole race or group for his conduct?

    The difference is that people don’t choose their ethnic or racial group, but they do choose to be birthers. If the head of a local Lions Club launched into a rascist tirade, you’re damned right that people would expect the Lions to disavow the remarks and remove the guy from office. If I were a Lion and they did not do so, I would resign. So where is the condemnation from birthers for ORYR and a banishment of him from Birthestan? Where is the birther resigning to distance himself from the rascists?

  8. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite.

    Svetlana Auerbach Orly Taitz, Barney Fife and you are the real rabble rousers. Taitz, the real demagogue, is motivated by Middle East politics – she feels Obama is bad for Israel, so she has made driving him from office, her life’s work.

    You are a bottom of the barrel DWI lawyer, masquerading as a constitutional authority – thus the real phony and hypocrite.

    Orly Taitz, in addition to being a fifth rate mail order lawyer, is also a fifth rate dentist, having been the defendant in ~22 malpractice lawsuits.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, Dr. Conspiracy, you stand indicted for your shameful conduct.

    Indicted by one of your Bowling League clubs, AKA Citizen Grand Juries?

    Mario, you owe me another screen and keyboard.

    Go help with the hurricane clean-up.

  9. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 24, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:So, Dr. Conspiracy, you stand indicted for your shameful conduct.

    Aw look! Mario is pretending to be a lawyer again.
    Why don’t you do the world a favor and be a stand-in for one of your DWI client’s victims?
    You’ll save a life worth far more than yours will ever be. And because Obits are one the one place where people are practically required to say nice things about you, you’ll finally get some positive press! No, seriously. Die.
    I know its not nice to wish bad things on people, but you defend drunk drivers for a living. So you barely count as a person. I’m sure the the holiday season upon us, you’ll be a very busy man too.

  10. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You feign to be someone who supports philanthropic and humanitarian causes or reforms, preaching that all the ills of the world need to be soon eradicated.

    Ehhh….what? The Putz can’t even construct much of a strawman. Are there parties who ‘preach’ that all the ills of the world should be perpetuated?

    (cue Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps)

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    I consider ORYR to be representative of the birther movement and their decision to publish this article significant. The reader comment I attached goes to show the understanding of and license to make more blatantly racist comments provided by the article.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you really believe that it is logical to take one person’s words or deeds and ascribe them to a whole group which you call the “Birthers?” Do you take the acts or deeds of a person who is a member of some race or ethnic group and blame the whole race or group for his conduct? Do the opinions posted on your blog from individual posters necessarily represent your opinions? Reasonable persons will answer all these question in the negative. But you have no problem blaming the “Birthers” for what this one commentator posted on ORYR and fallaciously calling your inflammatory article, “Birthers drop non-racist pretense.”

  12. avatar
    Dave B. November 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Mario,

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite…you stand indicted for your shameful conduct.

    So who’s cutting your hair these days?

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I know its not nice to wish bad things on people, but you defend drunk drivers for a living. So you barely count as a person. I’m sure the the holiday season upon us, you’ll be a very busy man too.

    Watch this and weep:

    60 Minutes: DWI: Is It Murder?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5205158n

    With DWI fatalities staying constant despite all the campaigns against the crime, some prosecutors are pursuing harsher penalties against perpetrators, including long prison terms for those who caused deaths. Bob Simon reports.

  14. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you take the acts or deeds of a person who is a member of some race or ethnic group and blame the whole race or group for his conduct?

    Are you requesting more examples? …. would you like a download of WND, Freep, Geller’s dump, ORYR, Orly’s site, Infowars, Prison Planet, various birfer YouTube channels …. oy. Don’t play coy, Putz, it’s a perfectly characteristic, representative comment.

  15. avatar
    Sudoku November 24, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    Again, Mario misses the forest for the trees. In an effort to slam Doc for labeling birthers because of one idiot’s comment, he fails to notice that Doc referred to the ORYR site and its choice to publish the racist POS of an article, with attached video, in the first place.

    smh

  16. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    What fun it is to watch the termites come out and eat the wood.

  17. avatar
    Sudoku November 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    I would call it dung beetles eating poo, but you and Monckton crawling around here are fun to watch.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    What fun it is to watch the termites come out and eat the wood.

  18. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    What fun it is to watch the termites come out and eat the wood.

    Hey, I don’t tell YOU what goes on in MY underpants, do I?

  19. avatar
    bovril November 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    How sweet, the second worst lawyer in the Western world has crawled out from his Stalinist censored little blog to babble inanely.

    PutzIe, dear Putzie how did you enjoy it this week when, as you spewed up over at Free Republic and even there you were laughed at?

    On a related note, how does it feel like to have never actually won a birther case? I mean, you have never won one have you, in point of fact, the courts have found you so unpersuasive that you were threatened with sanctions…….

    So, the question is, since you have no actual visible means of financial support ( no DUI cases with your name on them in the recent or medium past), who pays your bills other than Kerchner?

  20. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What fun it is to watch the termites come out and eat the wood.

    What fun it is to watch you and “Monckton” crawl out from under your rocks. And then blather.

    Keep this up. The intellectual exercise helps me recover from my stroke. Next, I’m going to post on YouTube, my playing Hava Nagila, klezmer style, on the accordion.

    A shout out to Mario and “Monckton.”

  21. avatar
    Dave B. November 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    What fun it is to watch the termites come out and eat the wood.

    So is this your idea of “winning”, like Sam Sewell? I reckon everybody needs to feel like they’re winning somewhere. Remind me, what is it you do for a living?

  22. avatar
    roadburner November 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You feign to be someonewho supports philanthropic and humanitarian causes or reforms, preaching that all the ills of the world need to be soon eradicated.Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite.

    `mr kettle, paging mr kettle! mr pot calling on line 1

    oh putzo, you are SUCH a card!

  23. avatar
    Dave B. November 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    roadburner: `mr kettle, paging mr kettle! mr pot calling on line 1

    You know, when the pot calls the kettle black, at least the pot’s telling the truth. That’s more than I can say for Marius Apuzzius.

  24. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Oh my, I have never seen so many termites come out of the woodwork at the same time. What fun to see how they feel compelled by loyalty to the leader to respond in mass.

  25. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What fun to see how they feel compelled by loyalty to the leader to respond in mass.

    And the same to Orly Taitz and her flunkies. I’m looking at you, Mario.

  26. avatar
    Dave B. November 24, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Oh my, I have never seen so many termites come out of the woodwork at the same time.What fun to see how they feel compelled by loyalty to the leader to respond in mass.

    You know, I really do have to wonder whether these are indeed the real Chris and Mario showing up here, or just somebody who wants to make them look bad.

  27. avatar
    roadburner November 24, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Oh my, I have never seen so many termites come out of the woodwork at the same time.What fun to see how they feel compelled by loyalty to the leader to respond in mass.

    yknow, its something different to what you think.

    we actually love you coming here….its like kicking puppies without the associated guilt. we get to enjoy a sense of shadenfreude and its all the better for your overblown ego not actually reasising it.

    an egotistical serial loser is a rare commodity, and we appreciate you bringing it to us

    we luvs ya putzo!

  28. avatar
    US Citizen November 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    No ambulances to chase?

  29. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Oh, how the haters hate. What a pity.

    Warning! This is not a Hate Free Zone.

  30. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Warning! This is not a Hate Free Zone.

    It’s a comedy zone, silly. You’re playing the straight man.

    Take a bow.

  31. avatar
    Paper November 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    You make a point; this is not a monastery. Regardless, it is a place for facts and debunking of incorrect and meritless theories.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Warning!This is not a Hate Free Zone.

  32. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    misha,

    Have a position.

    Camouflage and run.

    Those in the know will see.

    History becomes my witness.

  33. avatar
    Rickey November 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Oh my, I have never seen so many termites come out of the woodwork at the same time.What fun to see how they feel compelled by loyalty to the leader to respond in mass.

    It’s en masse, not in mass. No need to thank me.

    Are you ready to come clean about the Pakistan travel ban?

    As for racism, I suggest you take a look at Patrick’s excellent Bad Fiction blog. Several times a week he posts links to multiple vile, racist comments which are posted by birthers on various blogs.

  34. avatar
    Paper November 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    True enough, to your argument’s detriment.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    History becomes my witness.

  35. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Hey Rickey,

    You said: “It’s en masse, not in mass.”

    So, you like the French, but I prefer the English.

    I also finally figured out what can be done with that Pakistani travel ban.

  36. avatar
    Dave B. November 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Okay, that’s it. It’s got to be somebody trying to make Mario look worse.

  37. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: misha, History becomes my witness.

    Hennessy highball, not history.

  38. avatar
    Rickey November 24, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    I also finally figured out what can be done with that Pakistani travel ban.

    Are you going to put it back where you found it? Be careful – that could be painful.

  39. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said: “It’s en masse, not in mass.” So, you like the French, but I prefer the English.

    ♪ ♫ You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-toe, let’s call the whole thing off. ♫ ♪

  40. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    misha marinsky: Hennessy highball, not history.

    A zombie is probably more appropriate.

  41. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A zombie is probably more appropriate.

    That you are.

  42. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Rickey: Are you going to put it back where you found it? Be careful – that could be painful.

    Yes.

  43. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 24, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    misha marinsky: That you are.

    But you are the one drinking, not me.

  44. avatar
    misha marinsky November 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But you are the one drinking, not me.

    Eggnog, and coffee with Kahluah.

    But I’m not driving. Walking Angel, yes.

  45. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 24, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    As much as I seriously dislike seconding Mr Apuzzo’s opinions, I think he’s right. The headline “Birthers drop non-racist pretense” makes no distinction between those who – for non-racist/constitional-interpretivist reasons – believe Obama is not entitled to serve as president and those who, fundamentally, loathe Obama for being a black man in power. If you’re going to interpret birther statements according to rules of rhetoric and logic, you’ve got to hold yourself to the same standards, or you’re being hypocritical. I have no sympathy whatsoever for ORYR, the website, and the post you quoted is horrid, but a sample of birther opinions would have to be larger than the one you’ve chosen, Doc, in order to be anything other than needlessly provocative.

    I’m not questioning your bona fides, but I have met birthers who have treated me – I’m black – with real courtesy. (I spent 5 months in Florida.) On their behalf, I’d suggest you might want to re-think just how many birthers are racist and how accurately you can judge the level of birther bigotry from a blog entry – however vile – on ORYR.

    I’m very sorry if this offends.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    Me thinks the Puzzo doth protest too much.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, Dr. Conspiracy, you stand indicted for your shameful conduct.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    I appreciate your comments. The article is what you might call “over the top” and it was my intent that it be sufficiently “over the top” that people would recognize it as “over the top” and not treat it as a well-supporter generalization, but as a sensationalism.

    In fact, the headline does not say “all birthers” and it was not my intent to imply “all birthers.” This blog has a wise-cracking edge to it sometimes. It comes with the territory.

    Fazil Iskander: As much as I seriously dislike seconding Mr Apuzzo’s opinions, I think he’s right. The headline “Birthers drop non-racist pretense” makes no distinction between those who – for non-racist/constitional-interpretivist reasons – believe Obama is not entitled to serve as president and those who, fundamentally, loathe Obama for being a black man in power. If you’re going to interpret birther statements according to rules of rhetoric and logic, you’ve got to hold yourself to the same standards, or you’re being hypocritical. I have no sympathy whatsoever for ORYR, the website, and the post you quoted is horrid, but a sample of birther opinions would have to be larger than the one you’ve chosen, Doc, in order to be anything other than needlessly provocative.

  48. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But you are the one drinking, not me.

    I’ll bet you say that to all your clients. Ha!

  49. avatar
    JPotter November 24, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, you like the French, but I prefer the English.

    I thought you preferred Swiss, who in turn prefer German, French, or Italian, over English.

  50. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    JPotter: I’ll bet you say that to all your clients.

    No. Mario says, “One for the road?”

  51. avatar
    Lupin November 25, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    Fazil Iskander: The headline “Birthers drop non-racist pretense” makes no distinction between those who – (1) for non-racist/constitional-interpretivist reasons – believe Obama is not entitled to serve as president and (2) those who, fundamentally, loathe Obama for being a black man in power.

    This sums up the dilemma quite well. I don’t pretend to have met all the birthers, and yes, there may be some in category (1) who do not also belong to category (2). The problem is, from an admittedly cursory internet exploration, I haven’t met any. Once you scratch the surface, you find that (1)s easily turn into (2)s.

    I have used the analogy of mob lawyers in the past, comparing Mario to one, because he is the sockpuppet of some KKK-type organization. Now, a mob lawyer representing, say, John Gotti, may not be a criminal himself, but you will concede that he is part of a larger criminal enterprise. Mario himself may not be a racist per se, but by serving the goals of a racist organization, and doing so unethically, I might add (lying under oath, etc), he becomes part of a racist agenda.

    At that point the distinction becomes so academic that it is moot.

  52. avatar
    bovril November 25, 2012 at 4:03 am #

    All racists are bigots, all birthers are bigots, it does not mean that all birthers are racist.

    Bigotted, ignorant, festering pustules upon the collective ass of humanity, a canker, generally seditious, fundamentally anti constitutional and with the moral compass of a rabid wharf rat……yes.

    100% racist not necessarily.

    There is however a phrase and group of pathologies of individuals, such as The Toad, who compulsively and frequently cannot stop themselves from demanding to be beaten, humiliated and whose only response ” please sir can I have some more”.

  53. avatar
    Pastor Charmley November 25, 2012 at 4:34 am #

    The linked article is a wonderful piece of non sequitur reasoning. The title makes no sense at all if you try to think about it, and needs proof. White people commit similar assaults too, after all!

  54. avatar
    Lupin November 25, 2012 at 5:02 am #

    bovril: All racists are bigots, all birthers are bigots, it does not mean that all birthers are racist.

    Not all Nazis were necessarily anti-semites, but if you stand guard in a uniform at the top of a mirador in a concentration camp, I think your personal beliefs are irrelevant and I’m entitled to dump you with the other anti-semites.

    I would argue that the birther agenda is fundamentally racist and those who actively promote it, notwithstanding their own convictions, are tarred with the same brush.

  55. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    Having encountered black birthers, I’m not sure about the fundamental racism of birthers. They may be fundamentally racist, but their racism is often assumed or taken as a given. I think that assumption contravenes the rules of thought, so I believe it’s important to at least look at the assumption critically. Otherwise, what you have is hypocrisy: the insistence that the rules of thought be followed by your opponent while you ignore the rules.

    Having spent time in Ocala and Orlando, recently, I’ve met a number of people who are birthers. Some of them were, clearly, “race conscious”. One of the most striking things for a Canadian travelling in the US (that’s me) is that everyone seems race-conscious. And it’s sometimes difficult to tell the race-conscious citizens who are dangerous to you – as a black person – from the ones who are not. From my perspective it’s extremely important to distinguish the ones who’re mild from the ones who’ll do violence to you or try to fuck you up because they hate what your race represents. Any fudging of that distinction creates problems. Because: if knowing your environment is essential for survival (and identifying dangerous humans in that environment is a major part of it) anything that gives a false impression of the environment is potentially hazardous. (This is, obviously, part of the reason one has to fight birther lies. The lies give a false impression of the world and make it more difficult to get a handle on reality. Not a good thing.)

    You might be right, Lupin, that the birther agenda is “fundamentally racist”, but I haven’t heard conclusive arguments about that. If people questioned Chester Arthur’s birth (they did), if they are beginning to question Marco Rubio’s right to be president (they are), it may be that birtherism is, fundamentally, xenophobic, as opposed to racist. Does that make a difference? I think it does. It may be that the Kenyan aspect of Obama is more threatening and hateful to birthers than the “black” part. (I was just stunned when I heard an black american woman asserting that Obama was not “african-american” but “an african who is american”. She meant that as Obama’s family had not gone through the travails of slavery and its overcoming, Obama could not fundamentally understand “african-americans”. She was being xenophobic, of course and racist.) If the Kenyan part is more hateful to birthers, you have to see birtherism as a part of American xenophobia: normal, ever-present, sometimes polite, sometimes not. The point is, the cure for “xenophobia” is different than the cure for “racism”. So, when we speak of birthers, which is it we’re dealing with, American xenophobia or American racism?

    It’s important to fight both things in a society, but you can’t really start that battle before you know what you’re dealing with.

    Lupin: Not all Nazis were necessarily anti-semites, but if you stand guard in a uniform at the top of a mirador in a concentration camp, I think your personal beliefs are irrelevant and I’m entitled to dump you with the other anti-semites.

    I would argue that the birther agenda is fundamentally racist and those who actively promote it, notwithstanding their own convictions, are tarred with the same brush.

  56. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy and Coterie,

    There are people who believe that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President because that is what the Constitution demands at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. This is not racism or xenophobia, unless to enforce the constitution and its fundamental values regarding the eligibility requirements to be president is itself racism and xenophobia.

    And there are people who believe that persons from certain races, colors, religions, nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, or disability groups should not or should automatically be allowed to serve as president. Of these people, those who accept race as a sufficient condition for permitting or disqualifying one to be president are racists.

    Those people who belong to the first class are acting both morally and legally. On the contrary, those people who belong to the second class are acting both immorally and illegally. Therefore, members of the first class can justly believe that it is acceptable to belong to the first class, but not acceptable to belong to the second.

    What you have done is put all persons who question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be president, because as they contend he has not conclusively demonstrated that he was born in the United States, or admittedly he was not born to a U.S. citizen father and mother, or both, into the second class, calling them racists, without having any evidence that they all belong there.

    All the little jokes, parodies, clichés, frivolous distinctions, or toady support is not going to mask what is at best your blatant error or at worst your calculated disgusting and vile political manipulation. So, just admit your error, render an apology, and move on. After all, how would you like it if someone said that all Obots are bigots.

  57. avatar
    Bob November 25, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    I suspect many Birthers do not identify as racists because they aren’t racists on a personal level but not being a racist on a personal level doesn’t prevent a person from joining a group that promotes racism. Birtherism promotes racism.

    It’s like being a carpet salesman — you don’t have to like a certain pattern in order to sell it but you’re still representing it and selling it all the same.

    So, while a particular Birther might not be racist on a one-to-one basis if you’re STILL questioning Obama’s eligibility you are fomenting racism. You might have had a question back in 2008 but it’s been settled — and you can’t change the rules retroactively.

    And if you have a sincere interest in the subject of presidential eligibility in general, you wouldn’t constantly bring up Obama’s name — Obama has nothing to do with determining eligibility.

  58. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There are people who believe that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President because that is what the Constitution demands at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Well, duh. Who doesn’t believe that? This sounds like the real Mario. Or was that other one Saturday night Mario and this one’s Sunday morning Mario?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Those people who belong to the first class are acting both morally and legally.

    Yes, we are. You, on the other hand, have done your damnedest to make a mockery of the whole process. And in spite of your best, or worst, efforts, you’ve failed miserably. So,

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: All the little jokes, parodies, clichés, frivolous distinctions, or toady support is not going to mask what is at best your blatant error or at worst your calculated disgusting and vile political manipulation. So, just admit your error, render an apology, and move on.

    And have a pleasant Sunday. How’s the head?

  59. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    Respectfully, I think the problem with you, Mr Apuzzo, is that you make it extremely difficult to know how seriously to take your version of “constitutional rectitude”. You leave yourself open to the charge of racism or xenophobia because while stating your objection to Obama is constitutional you refuse to accept legally (constitutionally) valid rulings on your objection.

    There is a fundamental problem at the heart of your position. The constitution is a matter of law of the land. There are lawful institutions in place to defend the constitution. The most important is, of course, the court. By common (and legal) consent, the courts decide what does or does not constitute constitutional rectitude. The court doesn’t decide if an argument is “right” or “wrong”. It decides if, in its judgement, something does or doesn’t breach the constitution. Once that judgement has been rendered by a court, you’d expect the challenge would be dropped or (if continued in other courts) have a finite life. Despite the fact that no court has accepted the validity of your challenge to the constitutionality of Obama’s presidency, you keep going. It’s true, the courts have most often refused to hear your case on the grounds of standing, but there’s pretty good reason to believe that no court sees the matter of Mr Obama’s eligibility as you do. If you were a man who, genuinely, cared about the constitution, would you not also respect the legal mechanism in place to defend the constitution? What you seem to want is not only a court that accepts your standing but, also, one that agrees with your reasoning. You seem unwilling to accept anything less. Your position is anti-democratic (in that it allows for no decision that doesn’t agree with yours) and, so, one naturally wonders why you keep going. Given that your disdain for court rulings is anti-democratic, how is anyone to take your stated respect for the constitution (the root of American democracy) seriously?

    I’m not a lawyer, so I may be barking up the wrong tree, here. It may turn your lawyerly crank to keep going until you find a judge who will accept your standing and respect your arguments. To me, that makes you the lawyerly equivalent – at best – of Don Quixote or – at worse – a close-minded martinet. I don’t know you, so I have no idea what kind of man you are. But, surely, you can see the problem for those who’re curious about the nature of your campaign.

  60. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    I realize, Mr Apuzzo, that there are legitimate reasons to change the constitution. Constitutional change – the 13th amendment comes to mind – isn’t inevitably a bad idea. Are you pursuing your challenges in order to bring attention to something in the constitution that, in your opinion, needs clarifying? Or do you think that the constitution clearly means what you say it does?

    If you think the constitution clearly means what you say it does, will you go on with your challenges to “non-article II candidacies” when Mr Obama is out of office? Do you have an exit strategy that is anything besides the courts’ acceptance of your interpretation?

  61. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There are people who believe that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President because that is what the Constitution demands at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. This is not racism or xenophobia, unless to enforce the constitution and its fundamental values regarding the eligibility requirements to be president is itself racism and xenophobia.

    And there are people who believe that persons from certain races, colors, religions, nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, or disability groups should not or should automatically be allowed to serve as president. Of these people, those who accept race as a sufficient condition for permitting or disqualifying one to be president are racists.

    LOL! Putzie, you’re such a crackup. Latent racism enables birfers to believe adamantly that Obama cannot possibly be eligible. It’s the gas in their denial-mobile. The spark that got the chambers firing. Hey! “He doesn’t look like a President…he can’t be my President!”. Combined with fauxVattellism as peddled by yourself and others, and they’re off to the races.

    The endemic use of slurs on placards and internet message boards tends to give the game away.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    Enforcing the Constitution is not xenophobic or racist. However, holding a crank view of what the Constitution says implies the application of bias to the historical record, and the most likely source for that bias, and for birtherism in general, is xenophobic or racist.

    One asks why one would ignore world-class experts who say the Obama long-form PDF looks normal, but eats up self-proclaimed experts who have never before in their life done forensic document analysis, or even taken a class in the subject. They believe a convicted forger’s Obama birth certificate, but ignore one verified by the State of Hawaii. And in this instance they believe a Swiss jurist, and some out-of-context dicta and ignore the plain ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court as well as 8 direct court opinions.

    To do that requires an extreme prejudice. If not racism and xenophobia, what is it?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This is not racism or xenophobia, unless to enforce the constitution and its fundamental values regarding the eligibility requirements to be president is itself racism and xenophobia.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    You might accuse me of the fallacy of generalization, but in fact it is intentional hyperbole. If you don’t understand the concept of hyperbole, see your comment below.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You feign to be someone who supports philanthropic and humanitarian causes or reforms, preaching that all the ills of the world need to be soon eradicated. Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite

  64. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    JPotter: LOL! Putzie, you’re such a crackup. Latent racism enables birfers to believe adamantly that Obama cannot possibly be eligible. It’s the gas in their denial-mobile. The spark that got the chambers firing. Hey! “He doesn’t look like a President…he can’t be my President!”. Combined with fauxVattellism as peddled by yourself and others, and they’re off to the races.The endemic use of slurs on placards and internet message boards tends to give the game away.

    You are just one big Beg the Question dude and a rather waste of time at that.

  65. avatar
    Bob November 25, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Birthers are too stupid to understand that Birtherism foments racism.

  66. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    Fazil Iskander: Respectfully, I think the problem with you, Mr Apuzzo, is that you make it extremely difficult to know how seriously to take your version of “constitutional rectitude”. You leave yourself open to the charge of racism or xenophobia because while stating your objection to Obama is constitutional you refuse to accept legally (constitutionally) valid rulings on your objection.There is a fundamental problem at the heart of your position. The constitution is a matter of law of the land. There are lawful institutions in place to defend the constitution. The most important is, of course, the court. By common (and legal) consent, the courts decide what does or does not constitute constitutional rectitude. The court doesn’t decide if an argument is “right” or “wrong”. It decides if, in its judgement, something does or doesn’t breach the constitution. Once that judgement has been rendered by a court, you’d expect the challenge would be dropped or (if continued in other courts) have a finite life. Despite the fact that no court has accepted the validity of your challenge to the constitutionality of Obama’s presidency, you keep going. It’s true, the courts have most often refused to hear your case on the grounds of standing, but there’s pretty good reason to believe that no court sees the matter of Mr Obama’s eligibility as you do. If you were a man who, genuinely, cared about the constitution, would you not also respect the legal mechanism in place to defend the constitution? What you seem to want is not only a court that accepts your standing but, also, one that agrees with your reasoning. You seem unwilling to accept anything less. Your position is anti-democratic (in that it allows for no decision that doesn’t agree with yours) and, so, one naturally wonders why you keep going. Given that your disdain for court rulings is anti-democratic, how is anyone to take your stated respect for the constitution (the root of American democracy) seriously?I’m not a lawyer, so I may be barking up the wrong tree, here. It may turn your lawyerly crank to keep going until you find a judge who will accept your standing and respect your arguments. To me, that makes you the lawyerly equivalent – at best – of Don Quixote or – at worse – a close-minded martinet. I don’t know you, so I have no idea what kind of man you are. But, surely, you can see the problem for those who’re curious about the nature of your campaign.

    First, the issue here is whether all birthers are racists, not whether my arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have merit or not.

    Second, granting you the liberty to digress, I will address your questioning of my legal position and motivations.

    You said: “Respectfully, I think the problem with you, Mr Apuzzo, is that you make it extremely difficult to know how seriously to take your version of ‘constitutional rectitude’.”

    We are off to a bad start. Here you already show your contempt and disdain for those who would argue a constitutional issue for the probable reason that their argument does not fit well with your political agenda.

    You said: “You leave yourself open to the charge of racism or xenophobia because while stating your objection to Obama is constitutional you refuse to accept legally (constitutionally) valid rulings on your objection.”

    You are simply wrong and your not being a lawyer or your political agenda or both are probably the fundamental reasons for your error. On the contrary, it is you and not I who needs a little lesson on how our democratic republic works. What is shocking about your statement is that your ignorance, real or feigned, about our legal system causes you to conclude that I am a racist or xenophobe or both. Assuming that your ignorance is real, allow me to inform you that in our constitutional republic, we have a constitution which constitutes, among the other two branches of government, our judicial branch of government and prescribes basic rules of due process. In our legal system, individuals who demonstrate they have a sufficient interest in the matter have a right to file law suits to protect their constitutional and other rights and by so doing enforce the Constitution and the rule of law. In all this, we have both state and federal court systems with their many levels of trial and appellate jurisdictions. Under our federalist system (co-existence of both state and federal powers), questions of constitutional law are not “finally settled” until the U.S. Supreme Court renders a reasoned opinion on the matter. I have placed “finally settled” in quotations because my statement is not to be interpreted to mean that we do not accept and live with decisions of the lower courts. Rather, it only means that from a viewpoint of expecting the highest court in the land to settle important and fundamental questions of constitutional law, the issue is still open to constitutional interpretation and debate. So, as we can see, it does not take much “natural wondering” to wonder why I persist with my position. With Article II presidential eligibility being a matter involving an important and fundamental question of constitutional law and any legitimate dispute concerning that eligibility involving fundamental due process, I do not understand how you could still be honestly “curious about the nature of [my] campaign.”

    In the case of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no U.S. Supreme Court decision exists which demonstrates that my position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition is wrong. On the contrary, I have demonstrated through historical and U.S. Supreme Court cases that my position is correct. There have been petitions for certification filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on the Obama eligibility issue. I myself filed one in the Kerchner v. Obama case. But the high Court has in all cases refused to grant certification and has done so without comment. Needless to say, we cannot rule out that the Court could have its own policy reasons for not wanting to disturb a sitting president. But regardless of what motivations the Supreme Court may have, it has not provided us with any reasoned decision one way or another. Hence, the issue has not been finally decided in our legal system. This means that I, not only being a lawyer but also just being a member of our republican and democratic society which highly respects freedom of speech, am at liberty to express my opinion on the matter, like those who questioned whether Chester A. Arthur, Christopher Schürmann, Charles Evans Hughes, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, Lowell Weicker, Róger Calero, and John McCain were Article II “natural born Citizens” (by the way, these individuals were all white), regardless of what a handful of lower courts may have ruled regarding the merits of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition. My right to express my opinion exists whether these lower courts agree with me or not and despite the Obots’ presumptuous and contemptuous attitude, which is just one big Begging of the Question, that their position is correct and mine just a “crank” legal argument.

    Given the obvious problems with your argument and the probable political motivation for your argument, “how is anyone to take your stated respect for the constitution (the root of American democracy) seriously?”

  67. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are just one big Beg the Question dude and a rather waste of time at that.

    Continue along with your sand-encased cranium, Putz. I refer you to the verbal and visual statements on display at the 2009 Tea Party rallies, and the birfer blogs and associated birfer comments made since then. Consider alongside the advice found in Matt 7:15–19. And then contemplate how, if at all, the character of such vitriolic expression differs from other far right hate groups such as the WBC?

    This is what you’re enabling and encouraging, Putz.

  68. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You might accuse me of the fallacy of generalization, but in fact it is intentional hyperbole. If you don’t understand the concept of hyperbole, see your comment below.

    Your self-justification does not help you. Rather, it only lowers even lower your credibility.

  69. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    JPotter: Continue along with your sand-encased cranium, Putz. I refer you to the verbal and visual statements on display at the 2009 Tea Party rallies, and the birfer blogs and associated birfer comments made since then. Consider alongside the advice found in Matt 7:15–19. And then contemplate how, if at all, the character of such vitriolic expression differs from other far right hate groups such as the WBC?This is what you’re enabling and encouraging, Putz.

    Thank God you have not blamed me for climate change.

  70. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Thank God you have not blamed me for climate change.

    Well, you are consuming electrons. Are you pulling them from a carbon-free source?

  71. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Bob: Birthers are too stupid to understand that Birtherism foments racism.

    Can you tell me what the right to choose, the right to life, Obamacare, climate change, the war on terrorism, or Israel’s right to exist, just to name a few, foment?

  72. avatar
    Sudoku November 25, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    While feigning patriotism, objectiveness, and a respect for the Constitution, you fail to accept any court ruling saying that you and your ilk are wrong. You keep saying the SCOTUS has not ruled on the matter, but over 20 denials of cert should certainly tell you something.

    If the birthers challenged every candidate, insisted on published birth certificates, college transcripts, etc., from EVERY candidate, you would have a case that the “eligibility movement” is not necessarily racist. The fact that only Obama has been dogged about it, speaks volumes.

    To challenge Obama is not racist. To ONLY challenge Obama, is racist, IMHO.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There are people who believe that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President because that is what the Constitution demands at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. This is not racism or xenophobia, unless to enforce the constitution and its fundamental values regarding the eligibility requirements to be president is itself racism and xenophobia.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What you have done is put all persons who question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be president, because as they contend he has not conclusively demonstrated that he was born in the United States, or admittedly he was not born to a U.S. citizen father and mother, or both, into the second class, calling them racists, without having any evidence that they all belong there.

  73. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    Maybe it would help, Mr Apuzzo, if I said – up front – that I have no contempt for your position and that, as a Canadian citizen, I am simply curious about your crusade. The USA has a deep influence on my country’s culture but much less so on its politics. So, my “political agenda” doesn’t influence my opinion of you or your behaviour.

    I agree with you that not all birthers are racist and I said so. I offered xenophobia as an alternative explanation for birther behaviour, but I didn’t mean to suggest birther behaviour must be either racist or xenophobic. I accept that your motives are strictly legislative, because you’ve stated that they are.

    I haven’t – and wouldn’t – offer you a lesson in constitutional democracy. I offered a possible reason as to why disinterested observers might look elsewhere than to your concerns about the constitution for an explanation of your behaviour: that is, despite your setbacks in lowers courts, you persist in your case against President Obama. My reason may well be wrong, but it was offered without contempt.

    If I understand you correctly, your goal is a supreme court ruling on the matter of “article II eligibility”. If the supreme court strikes down your objection to President Obama’s eligibility, you’ll (I assume) bow out gracefully. As, from the outside, it looks very unlikely that your objection will be heard by the Supreme Court, how far are you willing to persist in your objections? Is this an issue that you would be willing to argue through successive administrations? (This is not a trick question. I’m simply curious as to whether or not this issue is meaningful to you only with – in your interpretation – an ineligible president in office or if you’re willing to carry on this crusade whatever the nature of administrations to come.)

    In the case of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no U.S. Supreme Court decision exists which demonstrates that my position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition is wrong. On the contrary, I have demonstrated through historical and U.S. Supreme Court cases that my position is correct.

    Even if one accepts that no Supreme Court decision exists that demonstrates your position is wrong on the meaning of “natural born Citizenship”, one is still left with the fact that none exists that demonstrates your interpretation is correct, either. In so far as the question is undecided and, therefore, needs a Supreme Court ruling, you don’t have grounds to assert that your position is “correct”. The most that you can say is that, according to your version of the relevant cases, you believe your position is correct. Fair enough, it would make no sense going into court believing otherwise. But you’ve been to court on this issue a number of times, now, and the courts have not been sympathetic to your position. What do you actually make of this “lack of sympathy” for your position? Again, not a trick question. I just wonder how you go on with what must be a tremendously frustrating endeavour. What strategy do you use to decide how to go forward? And do you believe you’re likely to find an upper court to hear your case?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: First, the issue here is whether all birthers are racists, not whether my arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have merit or not.

  74. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    Sudoku: While feigning patriotism, objectiveness, and a respect for the Constitution, you fail to accept any court ruling saying that you and your ilk are wrong. You keep saying the SCOTUS has not ruled on the matter, but over 20 denials of cert should certainly tell you something.If the birthers challenged every candidate, insisted on published birth certificates, college transcripts, etc., from EVERY candidate, you would have a case that the “eligibility movement” is not necessarily racist. The fact that only Obama has been dogged about it, speaks volumes.To challenge Obama is not racist. To ONLY challenge Obama, is racist, IMHO.

    Thank you for not adding anything of any value to this discussion.

  75. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Fazil Iskander,

    You said: “But you’ve been to court on this issue a number of times, now, and the courts have not been sympathetic to your position.”

    What about there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obama’s constitutional eligibility do you not understand?

    Also, I am not impressed with your claim that you are not a lawyer and not a U.S. citizen with a political ax to grind.

  76. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Yes, but my question was about how far you’d be willing to go on with this crusade, in view of the lack of lower court sympathy. I also wondered whether or not this issue is tied to President Obama’s administration. I mean, you’re in for a very long life dealing with this one matter, if you’re willing to carry on if or until you get a higher court ruling.

    Maybe the question is too personal for you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Fazil Iskander,

    You said:“But you’ve been to court on this issue a number of times, now, and the courts have not been sympathetic to your position.”

    What about there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obama’s constitutional eligibility do you not understand?

    Also, I am not impressed with your claim that you are not a lawyer and not a U.S. citizen with a political ax to grind.

  77. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: First, the issue here is whether all birthers are racists, not whether my arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have merit or not.

    You’re making a straw man argument, because no one here has argued that all birthers are racists.

    However, racism is endemic on birther blogs, and the people who run those blogs do not censor the racist comments. For some recent examples, check out the links to Birther Report which Patrick has posted on his Bad Fiction blog. Here are some of the vile comments which made it past moderation:

    As a former member of the military services, myself and others soon learned that most BLACKs are not dependable, they are liars, and tend to become associated with other members from the wrong side of the tracks, if you follow.

    well at least obama fits the narrative: lazy and incompetent. thats what happens when you are educated beyond your intelligence and then handed the most important office in the land. historic first affirmative action president.

    The fact is that Moochelle is a beast and no matter how much the media cleans up that bug-eyed, nappy-headed, big assed, hunched shoulders, clumsy walking, over bitten beast she is and always will be just that, a beast.

    And here is one which made it past moderation at WND:

    Chuck Reed Impeach the impostor American who is in our white house! You just can’t believe a dam word this n****r has to say!! [my edit]

    Those people are your followers. Remember, if you lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas

  78. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Can you tell me what the right to choose, the right to life, Obamacare, climate change, the war on terrorism, or Israel’s right to exist, just to name a few, foment?

    Mario, STFU.

    Thank you.

  79. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There are people who believe that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President because that is what the Constitution demands at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. This is not racism or xenophobia, unless to enforce the constitution and its fundamental values regarding the eligibility requirements to be president is itself racism and xenophobia.

    That is correct, Mario, and nobody here claims that understanding the Constitutional eligibility requirements is racist or xenophobic. No one here would abide Arnold Schwarzenegger as President, not because he has a ‘funny’ accent or name, but because he is not a natural born citizen, nor would anyone here consider someone who argued against Arnie’s candidacy a racist.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: And there are people who believe that persons from certain races, colors, religions, nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, or disability groups should not or should automatically be allowed to serve as president. Of these people, those who accept race as a sufficient condition for permitting or disqualifying one to be president are racists.

    Yes, and water is wet.

    This is the missing link Mario:

    Lee Atwater in 1981: (Reagan strategist and author of “The Southern Strategy)

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

    Do you not see the connection, here? Do you not notice how ‘benign’ concepts are substituted for ‘nigger’?

    Clearly you and others NEED to find Obama ineligible because you cannot accept this man as the choice of The People in an honest election. And why not? What is the difference between him and his predecessors that makes him so unacceptable? Politics aside, there is only one ‘real’ difference, Mario, and that is the color of his skin. But one can’t argue that “this man is ineligible because he’s a nigger” these days, the social environment has moved on, as Atwater points out.

    So what to do? Naturally, you have to find the ‘benign’ concept to disguise the racism inherent in the necessity to find him ineligible. The birth certificate must be forged and there is a 60 year conspiracy to put a mixed race foreigner in the White House to take abrogate the Constitution and start an Marxist/Athiest/Islamic Caliphate; or the authors of the Constitution changed the 400 year old (or whatever it was) meaning of the phrase “Natural Born” that they had learned and known their entire life, to something completely different and then didn’t tell anyone.

    The point is not that you or any particular individual ‘birther’ is a racist in your personal relationships (though many are) and certainly not for wanting to ensure that the Constitutional eligibility requirements are followed, any more than any particular conservative ‘austerian’ is a racist in their personal relationships (though many are) for wanting to reduce the deficit.

    The difference is that the austerians want to stop subsidies to the underprivileged in the community and increase subsidies to the overprivileged. As Atwatter pointed out, the racism is implied by who is the underprivileged and who is the overprivileged.

    In exactly the same way, in the case instant, your attempt to redefine the term “Natural Born” to mean something it has never meant in the history of America, from the first landing of British subjects on the North American continent to the present day, is nothing more than a disguise for the idea that “this man is ineligible because he’s a nigger”.

    There is simply nothing else that makes him different from either of the Bushes, or Clinton, or Reagan, or back. Your blind, willful ignorance, your absolute refusal to read and understand the appropriate case law, your complete deafness to the judges telling you point blank that you are wrong, all stems from your absolute necessity to find this particular person ineligible, because he must be, because he can’t be.

  80. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    misha marinsky: Mario, STFU.Thank you.

    misha, that is what happens when you live by contradiction. When exposed, you tell people to STFU.

  81. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    Keith: That is correct, Mario, and nobody here claims that understanding the Constitutional eligibility requirements is racist or xenophobic. No one here would abide Arnold Schwarzenegger as President, not because he has a ‘funny’ accent or name, but because he is not a natural born citizen, nor would anyone here consider someone who argued against Arnie’s candidacy a racist. Yes, and water is wet.This is the missing link Mario:Do you not see the connection, here? Do you not notice how ‘benign’ concepts are substituted for ‘nigger’? Clearly you and others NEED to find Obama ineligible because you cannot accept this man as the choice of The People in an honest election. And why not? What is the difference between him and his predecessors that makes him so unacceptable? Politics aside, there is only one ‘real’ difference, Mario, and that is the color of his skin. But one can’t argue that “this man is ineligible because he’s a nigger” these days, the social environment has moved on, as Atwater points out. So what to do? Naturally, you have to find the ‘benign’ concept to disguise the racism inherent in the necessity to find him ineligible. The birth certificate must be forged and there is a 60 year conspiracy to put a mixed race foreigner in the White House to take abrogate the Constitution and start an Marxist/Athiest/Islamic Caliphate; or the authors of the Constitution changed the 400 year old (or whatever it was) meaning of the phrase “Natural Born” that they had learned and known their entire life, to something completely different and then didn’t tell anyone.The point is not that you or any particular individual ‘birther’ is a racist in your personal relationships (though many are) and certainly not for wanting to ensure that the Constitutional eligibility requirements are followed, any more than any particular conservative ‘austerian’ is a racist in their personal relationships (though many are) for wanting to reduce the deficit.The difference is that the austerians want to stop subsidies to the underprivileged in the community and increase subsidies to the overprivileged. As Atwatter pointed out, the racism is implied by who is the underprivileged and who is the overprivileged.In exactly the same way, in the case instant, your attempt to redefine the term “Natural Born” to mean something it has never meant in the history of America, from the first landing of British subjects on the North American continent to the present day, is nothing more than a disguise for the idea that “this man is ineligible because he’s a nigger”. There is simply nothing else that makes him different from either of the Bushes, or Clinton, or Reagan, or back. Your blind, willful ignorance, your absolute refusal to read and understand the appropriate case law, your complete deafness to the judges telling you point blank that you are wrong, all stems from your absolute necessity to find this particular person ineligible, because he must be, because he can’t be.

    Keith, it is people like you that do more damage to African-Americans than you have intelligence enough to recognize.

  82. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

    Keith,

    You said: “You’re making a straw man argument, because no one here has argued that all birthers are racists.” This is the title of Dr. Conspiracy’s article: “Birthers drop non-racist pretense.” He concludes: “I’m speculating that now that the election is lost, the birthers no longer feel the need to feign respectability.”

    Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    Here’s a current one from Orly’s blog responding to what Judge Wingate in Mississippi will do:

    Isn’t this Miss. judge black? A black judge won’t rule against Obama!

    Rickey: However, racism is endemic on birther blogs, and the people who run those blogs do not censor the racist comments

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    Keith, be gentle. Apuzzo is one quarter black.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Keith, it is people like you that do more damage to African-Americans than you have intelligence enough to recognize.

  85. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    Wait, is this true? Or did you mean Mario was once a quarterback?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Keith, be gentle. Apuzzo is one quarter black.

  86. avatar
    Daniel November 25, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    I see Mario’s back with his usual “I know you are but what am I” brand of jurispudding.

    Hey Apuzzo, won any court cases lately? Bwahahahahaha!!!

  87. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    Daniel: I see Mario’s back with his usual “I know you are but what am I” brand of jurispudding.Hey Apuzzo, won any court cases lately? Bwahahahahaha!!!

    Fool.

  88. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Keith, be gentle. Apuzzo is one quarter black.

    Yea, I know, it’s only phonies like you that know anything about the subject.

  89. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    Fazil Iskander: Yes, but my question was about how far you’d be willing to go on with this crusade, in view of the lack of lower court sympathy. I also wondered whether or not this issue is tied to President Obama’s administration. I mean, you’re in for a very long life dealing with this one matter, if you’re willing to carry on if or until you get a higher court ruling.Maybe the question is too personal for you.

    People like you are wolves in sheep’s clothing. You give this image of being kind, considerate, and fair. And let us not forget that you are never lawyers and not even U.S. citizens. But all along you subtely attempt to undermine my argument. There then comes a point where you see yourself failing in your game and you will come out of your shell and show your true colors.

    For how long I am willing to fight for what I believe does not determine the merits of my argument.

    You also argue that I should not persist in my position against Obama because it has no merit at the same time that you argue that unless I persist in my position against others, then there is no merit to my argument. So, my argument has no merit when it comes to Obama (black), but then takes on merit when applied to others (whites). Now really.

    Finally, you are off topic which is whether all birthers are racists.

  90. avatar
    US Citizen November 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Go easy.
    You can hardly expect Mario to be out winning cases when he has to patrol blogs for undeserved racism against birthers. ;-)

  91. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Keith,

    You said:“You’re making a straw man argument, because no one here has argued that all birthers are racists.”This is the title of Dr. Conspiracy’s article:“Birthers drop non-racist pretense.”He concludes:“I’m speculating that now that the election is lost, the birthers no longer feel the need to feign respectability.”

    Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    That’s hilarious, because Keith didn’t make the straw man comment – I did. And you accuse others of reading comprehension problems!

    Doc’s title does not say “All Birthers drop non-racist pretense.” If I titled an article “Republicans in shock over Romney loss,” would that necessarily mean that I was saying that all Republicans were in shock over the election results?

    Anyone who has spent any time on this blog knows that Doc has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that all birthers are racists. I must say, however, that I would be more inclined to believe that you are not a racist if you condemned the birther remarks which I quoted above.

  92. avatar
    Sudoku November 25, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Typical Mario. Snipes over substance. The same old song and dance, posts how he is right and everyone, every court, etc., is wrong. He seems to enjoy it at his site, where his small chorus of fawning sycophants repeat his views back to him in praise. When actually challenged or questioned, he stamps his foot, repeats, again, how he is right or simply avoids the issue and passes out insults.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Thank you for not adding anything of any value to this discussion.

  93. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Under our federalist system (co-existence of both state and federal powers), questions of constitutional law are not “finally settled” until the U.S. Supreme Court renders a reasoned opinion on the matter.

    I am not a lawyer but even I know that that is completely untrue. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have to issue a ‘reasoned opinion’ on a matter in order to “finally settle” an issue. Circuit Courts decisions are usually final for example. When you petition for certiorari you are asking the SCOTUS to overrule the lower court. If they refuse Cert they render the decision final (essentially), and the issue is “finally settled” without a reasoned opinion on the matter from the SCOTUS.

    Yes, I know, you are probably already jumping for your keyboard to let me know that denying cert doesn’t really mean that the SCOTUS agrees with the lower court, all it really means is that at least 4 of the 9 judges do not agree that the writ is ‘cert worthy’. That is technically correct, and before you are going to get 4 judges to accept it, you need to get at least 1 judge to ask questions about it. If you can’t even 1 judge to find it ‘interesting’ enough to ask the parties for more information, YOU AIN”T GONNA GET A REASONED OPINION AND THE ISSUE IS SETTLED at that point, even if there is SCOTUS level precedent established.

  94. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 25, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    You really have an amazingly large chip on your shoulder, don’t you?

    I wasn’t trying to undermine your argument. I was interested in your motivation. How long you’re willing to go on wasn’t a question about the merits of your argument but a question about the kind of person you are. It’s come up here, often, that there are true believers among birthers and then there are trolls. As far as I can tell, you’re one of the only verifiably “true believers” around. So, I was interested in you as a human being.

    You also argue that I should not persist in my position against Obama because it has no merit at the same time that you argue that unless I persist in my position against others, then there is no merit to my argument. So, my argument has no merit when it comes to Obama (black), but then takes on merit when applied to others (whites). Now really.

    Nowhere did I argue that “unless you persist in your position” your position has no merit. (I defy you to show me where I’ve said any such thing.) And the rest of that paragraph is paranoid and very strange, given what I actually wrote and the tone of what I wrote.

    And, on topic: It’s been said repeatedly that not all bithers are racist. I said it explicitly, above. Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: People like you are wolves in sheep’s clothing.You give this image of being kind, considerate, and fair.And let us not forget that you are never lawyers and not even U.S. citizens.But all along you subtely attempt to undermine my argument.There then comes a point where you see yourself failing in your game and you will come out of your shell and show your true colors.

    For how long I am willing to fight for what I believe does not determine the merits of my argument.

    You also argue that I should not persist in my position against Obama because it has no merit at the same time that you argue that unless I persist in my position against others, then there is no merit to my argument.So, my argument has no merit when it comes to Obama (black), but then takes on merit when applied to others (whites).Now really.

    Finally, you are off topic which is whether all birthers are racists.

  95. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    US Citizen: Go easy.You can hardly expect Mario to be out winning cases when he has to patrol blogs for undeserved racism against birthers.

    Thank you big guy. What would we have done without you.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Federal judge Gibney seems to think this issue you’re trying to get settled was settled long ago, and you know what? I think he’s right. You’re just trying to deny that you’ve been defeated by holding out for a Supreme Court decision that will never come (because it’s already happened in US v. Wong). The only thing that’s not 100% settled is the case of a foreign-born presidential candidate who was a US citizen at birth.

    People in denial are impervious to argument, and can be quite frustrating to talk to.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: questions of constitutional law are not “finally settled” until the U.S. Supreme Court renders a reasoned opinion on the matter.

  97. avatar
    Forsooth November 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    So incredibly toxic! A marvel of toxicity is Mario Apuzzo.

  98. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Rickey,

    Whether it’s Keith or Rickey, do you really think it matters? Ergo, reading comprehension not needed.

    You said: “I would be more inclined to believe that you are not a racist if you condemned the birther remarks which I quoted above.”

    First, you do have very low standards. Second, where is the evidence that they were made by “birthers” which make them “birther remarks?”

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    So Apuzzo, do you think that article at ORYR, “If Obama Had A British Subject Son He Would Look Like This Sad Excuse For A Man,” is racist or not?

    (Apuzzo hates these direct questions.)

  100. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Sudoku: Typical Mario. Snipes over substance. The same old song and dance, posts how he is right and everyone, every court, etc., is wrong. He seems to enjoy it at his site, where his small chorus of fawning sycophants repeat his views back to him in praise. When actually challenged or questioned, he stamps his foot, repeats, again, how he is right or simply avoids the issue and passes out insults.

    Thank you for not adding anything of any value to this discussion.

  101. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Keith: I am not a lawyer but even I know that that is completely untrue. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have to issue a ‘reasoned opinion’ on a matter in order to “finally settle” an issue. Circuit Courts decisions are usually final for example. When you petition for certiorari you are asking the SCOTUS to overrule the lower court. If they refuse Cert they render the decision final (essentially), and the issue is “finally settled” without a reasoned opinion on the matter from the SCOTUS. Yes, I know, you are probably already jumping for your keyboard to let me know that denying cert doesn’t really mean that the SCOTUS agrees with the lower court, all it really means is that at least 4 of the 9 judges do not agree that the writ is ‘cert worthy’. That is technically correct, and before you are going to get 4 judges to accept it, you need to get at least 1 judge to ask questions about it. If you can’t even 1 judge to find it ‘interesting’ enough to ask the parties for more information, YOU AIN”T GONNA GET A REASONED OPINION AND THE ISSUE IS SETTLED at that point, even if there is SCOTUS level precedent established.

    I said: “Under our federalist system (co-existence of both state and federal powers), questions of constitutional law are not “finally settled” until the U.S. Supreme Court renders a reasoned opinion on the matter. I have placed “finally settled” in quotations because my statement is not to be interpreted to mean that we do not accept and live with decisions of the lower courts. Rather, it only means that from a viewpoint of expecting the highest court in the land to settle important and fundamental questions of constitutional law, the issue is still open to constitutional interpretation and debate.”

    Some reading comprehension would be appreciated.

  102. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Can you tell me what the right to choose, the right to life, Obamacare, climate change, the war on terrorism, or Israel’s right to exist, just to name a few, foment?

    Are you suggesting they ‘foment’ racism?

  103. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Federal judge Gibney seems to think this issue you’re trying to get settled was settled long ago, and you know what? I think he’s right. You’re just trying to deny that you’ve been defeated by holding out for a Supreme Court decision that will never come (because it’s already happened in US v. Wong). The only thing that’s not 100% settled is the case of a foreign-born presidential candidate who was a US citizen at birth.People in denial are impervious to argument, and can be quite frustrating to talk to.

    More intellectual hot air from you, as usual. You are the one who is burning with rage with the thought that in light of so many Americans having the position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. Supreme Court has not legitimized for history’s sake Obama’s presidency.

  104. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Mario,

    Could you refer me to any pre-2007 writings you have on this subject? That is, the true meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the context of American Constitutional law?

    Since this is an idealistic crusade for you, not politically driven—you’re just in it for the truth and to right all wrongs, right?—then I trust has been near and dear to your heart for many years. Perhaps this is even your life’s works. Please, point me to your earliest works. And, if you could, your earliest inspirations in this direction. From where and whence did you uncover this great truth? Where found you your special purpose?

  105. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So Apuzzo, do you think that article at ORYR, “If Obama Had A British Subject Son He Would Look Like This Sad Excuse For A Man,” is racist or not?(Apuzzo hates these direct questions.)

    Deflection will not help you.

  106. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    JPotter: Are you suggesting they ‘foment’ racism?

    The lesson learned is that big thoughts do not fit in small minds.

  107. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    JPotter: Mario,Could you refer me to any pre-2007 writings you have on this subject? That is, the true meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the context of American Constitutional law?Since this is an idealistic crusade for you, not politically driven—you’re just in it for the truth and to right all wrongs, right?—then I trust has been near and dear to your heart for many years. Perhaps this is even your life’s works. Please, point me to your earliest works. And, if you could, your earliest inspirations in this direction. From where and whence did you uncover this great truth? Where found you your special purpose?

    You continue to be a fool.

  108. avatar
    Paper November 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    Incorrect. The Supreme Court has handled this matter, for anyone born in America at the very least. Your error has been pointed out many times. It remains an error despite your assertions otherwise.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: … the position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. Supreme Court has not legitimized for history’s sake Obama’s presidency.

  109. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Fazil Iskander,

    You said:“But you’ve been to court on this issue a number of times, now, and the courts have not been sympathetic to your position.”

    What about there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obama’s constitutional eligibility do you not understand?

    Also, I am not impressed with your claim that you are not a lawyer and not a U.S. citizen with a political ax to grind.

    What is it exactly about Obama’s eligibility, as opposed to anyone else’s, that drives you?

    The Supreme Court HAS described several circumstances of birth that lead to a person being Natural Born. One of those circumstances is being born in the United States to parents both of whom are citizens (Minor v. Happersett). Another of those circumstances is being born in the United States to parents neither of whom are citizens (Wong Kim Ark).

    Now it is true that at first glance there doesn’t seem to be a case that specifically describes Obama’s case of being born in the United States to parents one of whom is a citizen and one who is not a citizen. But since, WKA in fact shows that being born in the United States is enough to establish being Natural Born with out reference to parentage at all, it does in fact address Obama’s case.

    I understand that you try to find a third class of citizenship, something other than ‘natural born’ or ‘naturalized’. But you will, I am sure, recognize these words from Minor v. Happersett:

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.

    So, I acknowledge that you are correct that no Supreme Court has ever ruled on the question: “Does Barrack Hussein Obama meet the Constitutional Eligibility specification?”. However there most certainly are Supreme Court decisions that apply to President Obama’s birth circumstances, and fully establish him as a member of the set of “Natural Born CItizens”.

    You are being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to maintain that that is a question that is worth answering especially in light of the absence of a Supreme Court ruling on the question “Does Richard Milhous Nixon meet the Constitutional Eligibility specification?” or “Does George Walker Bush meet the Constitutional Eligibility specification?” or “Does William Jefferson Clinton meet the Constitutional Eligibility specification?” or any other similar question of the form “Does meet the Constitutional Eligibility specification?”

    I have an object on my desk. It is a sphere 9 and 1/8 inches in circumference, it has a cork center which is wrapped in yarn and covered in two pieces of leather held together with 108 double stitches. The whole assembly weighs 5 ounces. It has the words “Official Major League Baseball” and the signature of “Allan H. Selig” printed on it. It is in pristine “never used – right out of the box” condition.

    Every Major League Baseball Player, Umpire, Manager, Coach, Scorekeeper, and Administrator would accept this ball for use in a Major League Baseball game. But extrapolating from your apparent insistence that the Supreme Court has to specifically rule on the eligibility of every Presidential candidate, you would demand that the MLB Rules Committee (coincidentally consisting of 9 members!) has to rule specifically on my ball, and by extension, to every single one of the dozens of balls that are used in each of the thousands of MLB games played each season.

  110. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue to be a fool.

    I suppose I’ll have to take that as a ‘no’, unless you’re willing to offer up an honest answer to the serious question. There’s nothing embarrassing to you about the answers to those questions …. is there?

  111. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The lesson learned is that big thoughts do not fit in small minds.

    And that explains your inability to express them?

  112. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Rickey,

    Whether it’s Keith or Rickey, do you really think it matters?Ergo, reading comprehension not needed.

    You said:“I would be more inclined to believe that you are not a racist if you condemned the birther remarks which I quoted above.”

    First, you do have very low standards.Second, where is the evidence that they were made by “birthers” which make them “birther remarks?”

    If your reading comprehension was better, you would realize that I said that those quotes were posted by birthers at the Birther Report blog and at WND. I also told you that the Bad Fiction blog has posted links to hundreds, if not thousands, of racist notes posted at Obama Release Your Records, Birther Report, WND, etc.

    But, for argument’s say, let’s say the quotes which I posted above were not made by birthers. Is it necessary to know who made them in order to condemn them? Do you find those statements to be offensive, or do they not bother you?

  113. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Rickey: If your reading comprehension was better, you would realize that I said that those quotes were posted by birthers at the Birther Report blog and at WND. I also told you that the Bad Fiction blog has posted links to hundreds, if not thousands, of racist notes posted at Obama Release Your Records, Birther Report, WND, etc. But, for argument’s say, let’s say the quotes which I posted above were not made by birthers. Is it necessary to know who made them in order to condemn them? Do you find those statements to be offensive, or do they not bother you?

    Like I said, you have very low standards.

  114. avatar
    Sam the Centipede November 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Paper: Incorrect. The Supreme Court has handled this matter, for anyone born in America at the very least. Your error has been pointed out many times. It remains an error despite your assertions otherwise.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: … the position that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. Supreme Court has not legitimized for history’s sake Obama’s presidency.

    Agreed Paper, but it’s not only the Supreme Court which has legitimized Mr Obama’s citizen status and eligibility for being President.

    The US electorate has also twice decided that he should be Our Man in the White House. That is the highest authority in a democracy. I think it should be even higher than the Constitution, but I understand why many think otherwise.

    Apuzzo is so ignorant on the law. He invents a lot of it, with his ridiculous different categories of citizenship, which are figments of his imagination. He rejects the court system and its role in deciding the law – at least he rejects it when it refuses to play its role in his fantasies.

    Apuzzo does not understand how courts work. They do NOT exist to answer ridiculous hypothetical questions. They exist to resolve real disputes where one party claims to have been wronged by another. There is NO real dispute about Mr Obama’s citizenship (he was born in Hawai’i, a state of the USA, therefore he is a natural born citizen regardless of the puffery and nonsense of a fool and his followers). There is NO real dispute about Mr Obama’s presidency as he was elected by the US electorate. Again.

    There is NOTHING for a court to decide, except whether birther lawyers and plaintiffs should be sanctioned for the waste of the courts’ and defendants’ time, and whether they should be granted vexatious litigant status.

    A court cannot and should not concern itself with frivolous fairies stories concocted by fantastists. And that is birtherism.

    One of the saddest aspects of Apuzzo and his buddy in bloviation, Farrar, is how they wander the web to bang on and on with the same discredited, nonsensical rubbish. Both keep declaring themselves winners of arguments by fiat, even though they rarely address any counter-argument directly. They have not won any arguments anywhere. Not one. With such a flood of disagreement and well-reasoned refutation, sane people would start saying to themselves “perhaps I’m wrong?”. Competent lawyers would not need to be told.

  115. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Keith,

    You write so much and say so little.

    The Founders and Framers put in the Constitution that the type of “citizen” who was eligible to be president depended upon when the person was born. They provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that for those born before the Constitution was adopted, they could be “Citizens of the United States.” For those born after the Constitution was adopted, “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen” could be President. Excluding anyone who was not a “natural born Citizen,” for those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one qualified to be President who may be a “citizen of the United States” rather than a “natural born Citizen.” Consider that American common law, as Minor v. Happersett confirmed, makes those born in the country to “citizen” parents “natural born Citizens” and the Fourteenth Amendment, as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed, makes those who are born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “citizens of the United States.” These historical and legal developments along with reason and logic demonstrate that today a child who is born in the United States to “citizen” parents, making the child a “natural born Citizen,” is eligible to be President, and a child who is born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” making the child only a “citizen of the United States,” is not.

  116. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Keith, it is people like you that do more damage to African-Americans than you have intelligence enough to recognize.

    That is an interesting opinion, Mario. Care to expand on that a bit?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    You said:“You’re making a straw man argument, because no one here has argued that all birthers are racists.”

    No, I didn’t.

    Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    Indeed.

  117. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    Keith: If you can’t even 1 judge to find it ‘interesting’ enough to ask the parties for more information, YOU AIN”T GONNA GET A REASONED OPINION AND THE ISSUE IS SETTLED at that point, even if there is SCOTUS level precedent established.

    Sorry.

    That was supposed to read ‘… even if there is no SCOTUS level precedent established.’

  118. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Rickey,

    Stop being a phony.

    You said: “Doc’s title does not say “All Birthers drop non-racist pretense.” If I titled an article “Republicans in shock over Romney loss,” would that necessarily mean that I was saying that all Republicans were in shock over the election results?”

    Dr. Conspiracy would not write: “Republicans drop non-racist pretense,” even though he did not say “All Republicans drop non-racist pretense.” So, why should he be allowed to write “Birthers drop non-racist pretense” simply because he did not say “All Birthers drop non-racist pretense?”

    You have some high image of yourself, thinking that you can fool people with your intellectually silly arguments.

  119. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    JPotter: And that explains your inability to express them?

    But I did express one and it did not fit in your mind.

  120. avatar
    Rickey November 25, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    You have some high image of yourself, thinking that you can fool people with your intellectually silly arguments.

    You will have to excuse me. My irony meter just exploded.

  121. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Sunday night Mario is more like Saturday night Mario than Sunday morning Mario. I wonder why that is?

  122. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Sam the Centipede: Agreed Paper, but it’s not only the Supreme Court which has legitimized Mr Obama’s citizen status and eligibility for being President.The US electorate has also twice decided that he should be Our Man in the White House. That is the highest authority in a democracy. I think it should be even higher than the Constitution, but I understand why many think otherwise.Apuzzo is so ignorant on the law. He invents a lot of it, with his ridiculous different categories of citizenship, which are figments of his imagination. He rejects the court system and its role in deciding the law – at least he rejects it when it refuses to play its role in his fantasies.Apuzzo does not understand how courts work. They do NOT exist to answer ridiculous hypothetical questions. They exist to resolve real disputes where one party claims to have been wronged by another. There is NO real dispute about Mr Obama’s citizenship (he was born in Hawai’i, a state of the USA, therefore he is a natural born citizen regardless of the puffery and nonsense of a fool and his followers). There is NO real dispute about Mr Obama’s presidency as he was elected by the US electorate. Again.There is NOTHING for a court to decide, except whether birther lawyers and plaintiffs should be sanctioned for the waste of the courts’ and defendants’ time, and whether they should be granted vexatious litigant status.A court cannot and should not concern itself with frivolous fairies stories concocted by fantastists. And that is birtherism.One of the saddest aspects of Apuzzo and his buddy in bloviation, Farrar, is how they wander the web to bang on and on with the same discredited, nonsensical rubbish. Both keep declaring themselves winners of arguments by fiat, even though they rarely address any counter-argument directly. They have not won any arguments anywhere. Not one. With such a flood of disagreement and well-reasoned refutation, sane people would start saying to themselves “perhaps I’m wrong?”. Competent lawyers would not need to be told.

    If you said anything worthwhile, I would respond.

  123. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: misha, that is what happens when you live by contradiction.When exposed, you tell people to STFU.

    I suggest you watch this, and learn argument vs. contradiction:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

  124. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Rickey: You will have to excuse me. My irony meter just exploded.

    How do I know that I spoke the truth? The Obot irony meter explodes.

  125. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Finally, you are off topic which is whether all birthers are racists.

    No, all Denialists are bigots.

  126. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    misha marinsky: I suggest you watch this, and learn argument vs. contradiction:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

    I am not watching anything that you suggest, for it I do it will probably be the image of a farmer shoveling horse manure.

  127. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If you said anything worthwhile, I would respond.

    If you said anything worthwhile, I would not ridicule.

    You and Orly deserve all the derision heaped upon your twisted, disingenuous arguments.

  128. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Dave B.: Sunday night Mario is more like Saturday night Mario than Sunday morning Mario. I wonder why that is?

    Dave B, no, you are only projecting given that the Obots do shift work on here.

  129. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not watching anything that you suggest, for it I do it will probably be the image of a farmer shoveling horse manure.

    No, it’s Monty Python’s Argument Clinic – which would provide you with valuable lessons.

    Try it sometime.

  130. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If you said anything worthwhile, I would respond.

    Mario, you’d be mighty lonesome if you were held to the same standard. Are you lonesome, Mario? Maybe if you found a new barbershop you could kill two birds with one stone.

    misha marinsky: I suggest you watch this, and learn argument vs. contradiction:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

    I think that might already be part of Mario’s education.

  131. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Dave B, no, you are only projecting given that the Obots do shift work on here.

    No, Mario, you really were in much better form this morning. Briefly. Of course, what is for you “much better form” leaves plenty of room for improvement. Are you drinking enough water? Dehydration can have all kinds of effects on one’s performance.

  132. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Stop being a phony.

    Says the DWI lawyer pretending to be a Constitutional authority – like President Obama.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have some high image of yourself, thinking that you can fool people with your intellectually silly arguments.

    No, that’s you and Orly, getting bigots and the credulous to click on the PayPal button.

  133. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Dave B.: Are you drinking enough water?

    Jack Daniels for breakfast.

  134. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Dave B.: Mario, you’d be mighty lonesome if you were held to the same standard. Are you lonesome, Mario? Maybe if you found a new barbershop you could kill two birds with one stone.I think that might already be part of Mario’s education.

    Poor Dave B, he has a fetish about men’s haircuts.

  135. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    misha marinsky: No, it’s Monty Python’s Argument Clinic – which would provide you with valuable lessons.Try it sometime.

    No, misha, you’re not going to fool me.

  136. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    Dave B.: No, Mario, you really were in much better form this morning. Briefly. Of course, what is for you “much better form” leaves plenty of room for improvement. Are you drinking enough water? Dehydration can have all kinds of effects on one’s performance.

    Dave B, I heard that drinking water is also good for when someone is constipated.

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    I knew you wouldn’t answer the question.

    The question: “Do you think that article at ORYR, ‘If Obama Had A British Subject Son He Would Look Like This Sad Excuse For A Man,’ is racist or not?” is central to the validity of your criticism of this article.

    In your typical style, you raise objections based on false context. The headline of this article cannot be understood outside of the context of the topic sentence of the first paragraph. That paragraph alleges that the ORYR article is racist.

    You seem unwilling to say whether you think it is racist or not. You’re in a pickle. If you say that it is not racist, you risk the ridicule of pretty much everybody to whom it is obviously racist. If you say that it is racist, then you essentially agree with the story I wrote, which makes your objection here foolish and petty.

    I stand by my article and its headline. If you want to impugn my article then you will have to show that the ORYR article is not racist. If you want to succeed in your crank legal theories, then you will have to overturn US v. Wong. And if you want go move one inch towards redemption, you will have to admit that you were full of crap when you wrote about a “travel ban to Pakistan” in a certain legal brief.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Deflection will not help you.

  138. avatar
    misha marinsky November 25, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: No, misha, you’re not going to fool me.

    It would be a waste for you to watch Monty Python. The subtlety is beyond you.

  139. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    misha marinsky: It would be a waste for you to watch Monty Python. The subtlety is beyond you.

    Poor misha, all dressed up with a pocket full of money and no where to go.

  140. avatar
    Paper November 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    Again, incorrect. Your distinction here is in error. You have made ths point before. It is wrong.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Consider that American common law, as Minor v. Happersett confirmed, makes those born in the country to “citizen” parents “natural born Citizens” and the Fourteenth Amendment, as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed, makes those who are born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “citizens of the United States.”These historical and legal developments along with reason and logic demonstrate that today a child who is born in the United States to “citizen” parents, making the child a “natural born Citizen,” is eligible to be President, and a child who is born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” making the child only a “citizen of the United States,” is not.

  141. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Dave B, he has a fetish about men’s haircuts.

    No, I’ve just noticed how that the more flustered you get, like when Alexandra Hill was taking you to the cleaners, the more that cowlick of yours sticks up. You really don’t need that kind of tell. Have you looked in the mirror this evening, by any chance?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Dave B, I heard that drinking water is also good for when someone is constipated.

    Like I said, Mario, are you drinking enough water?

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 25, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    I didn’t click on the link because I knew exactly what it had to be.

    misha marinsky: No, it’s Monty Python’s Argument Clinic – which would provide you with valuable lessons.

  143. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    You write so much and say so little.

    And you make a lot of comments that say absolutely nothing whatsoever.

    The Founders and Framers put in the Constitution that the type of “citizen” who was eligible to be president depended upon when the person was born.They provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that for those born before the Constitution was adopted, they could be “Citizens of the United States.”

    That is not correct. The clause says that the President must be either (1) a Natural Born Citizen OR (2) any kind of citizen (that is natural born or naturalized) at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

    The Grandfather clause temporarily (because those referenced will eventually die) ADDS to the pool of persons eligible to the office and is intended to benefit those foreign born patriots who contributed to the founding of the country. People like Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the British West Indies and was a naturalized citizen of New York when the Constitution was adopted.

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    For those born after the Constitution was adopted, “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen” could be President.Excluding anyone who was not a “natural born Citizen,” for those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one qualified to be President who may be a “citizen of the United States” rather than a “natural born Citizen.”

    That is an extremely awkward way to say that after the grandfather clause expired due to the eventual death of the naturalized citizen patriot class, the only operative part of the clause is the ‘natural born citizen’ part. New flash Mario: water is wet.

    Consider that American common law, as Minor v. Happersett confirmed, makes those born in the country to “citizen” parents “natural born Citizens”

    Minor v. Happersett also confirmed that there were EXACTLY TWO kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized.

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    and the Fourteenth Amendment, as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed, makes those who are born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “citizens of the United States.”

    The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t ‘make’ anybody anything. The Fourteenth Amendment restored the common law as it was understood before the racist “Dred Scott” decision, and put it out of reach of the vagaries of political interpretation. It says in plain English, just like the Court in Minor said, that there are two kinds of Citizens: born and naturalized. Period.

    And WKA confirmed that there are exactly two kinds of citizens: born and naturalized; that it didn’t matter who your parents were or what their citizenship status was if you were born in the United States. If you are born in the United States, you are a born a citizen.

    And since there are only two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized, the born citizens must be what is meant by “Natural Born Citizens” for the purposes of Article 2 Section 1.

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    These historical and legal developments along with reason and logic demonstrate that today a child who is born in the United States to “citizen” parents, making the child a “natural born Citizen,” is eligible to be President, and a child who is born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” making the child only a “citizen of the United States,” is not.

    You continually go round and round and round trying to invent 2 kinds of born citizens out of nothing at all.

    Every argument you make, every SCOTUS case you quote says that there are born citizens and there are naturalized citizens. Period.

    Minor doesn’t say the only Natural Born Citizens are those born to 2 citizen parents. It just doesn’t. It says that it knows for sure that those folks are NBC and it is not going to comment on other folks birth circumstances because the topic was not germane to the issue at hand. You can shout ‘la la la la’ and stick your fingers in your ears as long as you like, it isn’t going to change what the Court said in the case.

    WKA did not say that there was a class of born citizens that were not natural born. Indeed, it acknowledges the finding in Minor that there are only 2 kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Wong could not have been naturalized as he was born in the US, so he was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen. The status of his, and by extension anyone else who is born in the US (under the jurisdiction, of course), parents had absolutely nothing to do with it.

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    I get the impression that part of the reason that you come here is to rehearse your arguments, that you think we just don’t understand your ‘two kinds of born citizen’ concept and if you could just use the right words (and hold your tongue just right while standing on one leg) we’d see the light and then you would know how to convince a judge.

    The problem is we are not that stupid, we understand exactly what you are trying to argue, and we understand exactly why you are wrong. Federal court judges don’t get to be Federal court judges by being stupid and not grasping the arguments put before them (well, OK, that is a generalization that I have no real evidence for or against). I really don’t think you are going to find a magic incantation that is going to suddenly explode over 400 years of settled law.

  144. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, why should he be allowed to write “Birthers drop non-racist pretense” simply because he did not say “All Birthers drop non-racist pretense?”

    Most of your comment is undecipherable as written but I suspect I get the gist of it.

    The answer, Mario, is that it is a HEADLINE. Headlines are meant to attract attention to the article. Its a teaser, and has a bazillion years of precedent behind it. In this case the article actually addresses what the headline teases, unlike others I won’t name but their intials are WND (among many others).

    Here are some examples from my local (Melbourne, Australia) newspaper of record, “The Age”, today:

    Prisoners at risk of being forgotten by abuse inquiry, warns victims group Is this referring to ALL prisoners everywhere or just more than one?

    Advisors pick open bonuses Again is this all advisors or just more than one? In this case the article never indicates what it means by an ‘open bonus’ or if there is a contrasting ‘closed bonus’ or ‘fixed bonus’ or ‘whatever bonus’ that they could pick. Furthermore, there seems to be two groups of advisors, making completely different recommendations, so they aren’t ‘picking’ at all, they are disagreeing. I am not trying to comment on the quality of the article, but on the headline that doesn’t match the content of the article.

    Australian start-ups think too small, survey finds All start-up or more than one?

    Schools face battle of the bulge (referring to student numbers, not student waist lines) Again, all schools or more than one?

    Your complaint is pedantic and without merit.

    And vexatious.

  145. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    misha marinsky: No, it’s Monty Python’s Argument Clinic – which would provide you with valuable lessons.

    Try it sometime.

    Or just read some of bovril’s comments.

  146. avatar
    Keith November 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: No, misha, you’re not going to fool me.

    Yes he is.

  147. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But I did express one and it did not fit in your mind.

    No, you asked a question. A pure interrogative is not a declarative. Try again. If you insist on being rhetorical, here’s a sugggestion: “[List of items] [verb] [object], do they not?” Silly, Mario, you left out the object last time!

    Speaking of questions, I asked you a few, about your career. I’d like to hear straight from the source. I was educated in America, and it’s alleged that America education has many deficiencies. Google “deficiencies of american education” for a slew of punditry on such. I’m no expert on education, but I can attest from personal experience that coverage of the legal careers of famous Italian plumbers is completely deficient. So, make a start, make a contribution, correct that deficiency here and now!

  148. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    JPotter,

    You said: “I was educated in America, and it’s alleged that America education has many deficiencies.” I can see that.

  149. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

    Poor Dave B, he has got some real hidden problems, looking at men’s cowlicks and asking them if they looked in the mirror tonight.

  150. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Keith: Or just read some of bovril’s comments.

    I do not have enough mechanic’s tools to read and understand what he and Whisky write.

  151. avatar
    JoZeppy November 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If you said anything worthwhile, I would respond.

    I believe this has been most courts’ reaction to your legal arguments.

  152. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    Keith: I’m speculating that now that the election is lost, the birthers no longer feel the need to feign respectability.

    Dr. Conspiracy’s article says: “I’m speculating that now that the election is lost, the birthers no longer feel the need to feign respectability.”

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

  153. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    JoZeppy: I believe this has been most courts’ reaction to your legal arguments.

    I would stay home if I were you. You just admitted that the courts have not responded.

  154. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Keith: And you make a lot of comments that say absolutely nothing whatsoever.That is not correct. The clause says that the President must be either (1) a Natural Born Citizen OR (2) any kind of citizen (that is natural born or naturalized) at the time that the Constitution was adopted. The Grandfather clause temporarily (because those referenced will eventually die) ADDS to the pool of persons eligible to the office and is intended to benefit those foreign born patriots who contributed to the founding of the country. People like Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the British West Indies and was a naturalized citizen of New York when the Constitution was adopted. A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.That is an extremely awkward way to say that after the grandfather clause expired due to the eventual death of the naturalized citizen patriot class, the only operative part of the clause is the ‘natural born citizen’ part. New flash Mario: water is wet. Minor v. Happersett also confirmed that there were EXACTLY TWO kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized. A little reading comprehension would be appreciated. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t ‘make’ anybody anything. The Fourteenth Amendment restored the common law as it was understood before the racist “Dred Scott” decision, and put it out of reach of the vagaries of political interpretation. It says in plain English, just like the Court in Minor said, that there are two kinds of Citizens: born and naturalized. Period.And WKA confirmed that there are exactly two kinds of citizens: born and naturalized; that it didn’t matter who your parents were or what their citizenship status was if you were born in the United States. If you are born in the United States, you are a born a citizen.And since there are only two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized, the born citizens must be what is meant by “Natural Born Citizens” for the purposes of Article 2 Section 1. A little reading comprehension would be appreciated. You continually go round and round and round trying to invent 2 kinds of born citizens out of nothing at all. Every argument you make, every SCOTUS case you quote says that there are born citizens and there are naturalized citizens. Period. Minor doesn’t say the only Natural Born Citizens are those born to 2 citizen parents. It just doesn’t. It says that it knows for sure that those folks are NBC and it is not going to comment on other folks birth circumstances because the topic was not germane to the issue at hand. You can shout ‘la la la la’ and stick your fingers in your ears as long as you like, it isn’t going to change what the Court said in the case.WKA did not say that there was a class of born citizens that were not natural born. Indeed, it acknowledges the finding in Minor that there are only 2 kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Wong could not have been naturalized as he was born in the US, so he was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen. The status of his, and by extension anyone else who is born in the US (under the jurisdiction, of course), parents had absolutely nothing to do with it. A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.I get the impression that part of the reason that you come here is to rehearse your arguments, that you think we just don’t understand your ‘two kinds of born citizen’ concept and if you could just use the right words (and hold your tongue just right while standing on one leg) we’d see the light and then you would know how to convince a judge.The problem is we are not that stupid, we understand exactly what you are trying to argue, and we understand exactly why you are wrong. Federal court judges don’t get to be Federal court judges by being stupid and not grasping the arguments put before them (well, OK, that is a generalization that I have no real evidence for or against). I really don’t think you are going to find a magic incantation that is going to suddenly explode over 400 years of settled law.

    You keep saying that there are only “natural born Citizens” and “naturalized citizens.” But the last time that I looked, the Constituiton said “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.” Why do you just invent things?

    You said: “[S]o he [Wong] was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen.” This is so logically fallacious. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of affirming the consequent? First, the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” The clause “natural born Citizen” has one and only one definition which is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Second, being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for the definition also includes birth in the country to citizen parents. Hence, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when you state that if someone is a born citizen he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

  155. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Geez. What’s next, Mario, you gonna tell us the Jerk Store called? You’re really just trying a little too hard now.
    Seriously, though, you could use that cowlick as a kind of bio-feedback device. For instance, you could stand in front of a mirror and think about how Alexandra Hill sent you back to school. When you get to where you can do that without that cowlick giving you away, well, that’ll be one of your problems dealt with. Good luck!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Dave B, he has got some real hidden problems, looking at men’s cowlicks and asking them if they looked in the mirror tonight.

  156. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    Dave B.: Geez. What’s next, Mario, you gonna tell us the Jerk Store called? You’re really just trying a little too hard now.Seriously, though, you could use that cowlick as a kind of bio-feedback device. For instance, you could stand in front of a mirror and think about how Alexandra Hill sent you back to school. When you get to where you can do that without that cowlick giving you away, well, that’ll be one of your problems dealt with. Good luck!

    Poor, Dave B & Co., working for such little money.

    Pajama bandits

    A person identified as “AMA” posted a comment on the website Above Top Secret that apparently offers insight into how professional trolls operate.

    I was a paid Internet troll

    For almost five years, I was a paid Internet troll. Yes, I admit.

    But first let me state that I never performed my job here on ATS, though I believe I have occasionally seen a handful on here who were using a script similar to what I was assigned.

    I cannot and will not name names, but after an internship at a firm with government and political party (Republican) contracts, I was offered the position of “Online Communications Associate” at another company by someone from the original firm for which I interned. My contract completed one year ago, and I have since moved on.

    Utilizing six artificial personas, I was active in social networks and bulletin boards. But since I came to love and respect this site, as I stated, I never performed my functions here. Each week, I and presumably several others, were provided with information to use in our online postings. At first the information was comprised of fully conceived scripts, but as I became more and more experienced, it eventually became simple bullet or talking points.

    At first I needed to provide links to my postings, but when the company name changed (never knew the real names of any people there), that requirement stopped.

    The pay wasn’t very good, but since I was working from my apartment, I suppose it wasn’t bad, and I was able to do several other writing assignments on the side.

    AMA

    Source: “Leftist ‘trolls’ in ongoing war with WND, ” accessed at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/leftist-trolls-in-ongoing-war-with-wnd/ .

  157. avatar
    Sudoku November 25, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    Here’s your chance Mario. The “termites” are paying attention. Post a link to any legal authority, court ruling, article in a legal journal, legal text, etc., published between 1875 and 2006, that says the Court in Minor defined NBC. Post away! You have the floor.

    Now, it occurs to me, that since you have never done so, either;

    1. You have a source and, yet, have repeatedly failed to site it in any of your many pleadings, briefs, blog posts, and are thereby incompetent and have accordingly lost every birther case you have been involved in; or

    2. You don’t have such a source, and you are exposed as a fraud.

    Which is it?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said: “[S]o he [Wong] was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen.” This is so logically fallacious. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of affirming the consequent? First, the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” The clause “natural born Citizen” has one and only one definition which is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Second, being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for the definition also includes birth in the country to citizen parents. Hence, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when you state that if someone is a born citizen he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

  158. avatar
    Sudoku November 25, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    Oh, well, if it is on WND it must be true…..

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Source: “Leftist ‘trolls’ in ongoing war with WND, ” accessed at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/leftist-trolls-in-ongoing-war-with-wnd/ .

  159. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Sudoku: Here’s your chance Mario. The “termites” are paying attention. Post a link to any legal authority, court ruling, article in a legal journal, legal text, etc., published between 1875 and 2006, that says the Court in Minor defined NBC. Post away! You have the floor.Now, it occurs to me, that since you have never done so, either;1. You have a source and, yet, have repeatedly failed to site it in any of your many pleadings, briefs, blog posts, and are thereby incompetent and have accordingly lost every birther case you have been involved in; or2. You don’t have such a source, and you are exposed as a fraud.Which is it?

    I see that you are working the night shift.

    JPotter said: “I [referring to himself] was educated in America, and it’s alleged that America [sic] education has many deficiencies.” I can see that you suffer from the same ailment. You need others to tell you the meaning of what you read. Where have we gone wrong?

  160. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor, Dave B & Co., working for such little money.

    I see people bring that up from time to time. Where do I sign up? You should know, this lawyer thing can’t be working out that well for you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Pajama bandits

    A person identified as “AMA”

    So what’s the other “A” for? When it comes to trolling, you sure do believe in quantity over quality, don’t you? It might not hurt to reconsider that one. Just a suggestion.
    Having warm thoughts about Ms. Hill yet?

  161. avatar
    Sudoku November 25, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Another non-responsive answer. So, no case, no authority, etc. Fraud it is!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I see that you are working the night shift.

  162. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 25, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    After a while one just gets tired of beating the opposition so badly. They even teach you in low level sports that you should not beat the opposition so badly. But sometimes one just gets carried away.

    You trolls on here really need to go back to troll school and hone in on your battle skills.

  163. avatar
    Sudoku November 25, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    Another post, no authority. Why not school us? Show us the error of our ways. I, for one, have not been able to fine an authority in support of your position. Why wouldn’t you list it in your pleadings? Why not flaunt it for all of us to weep over?

    Fraud!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    After a while one just gets tired of beating the opposition so badly.They even teach you in low level sports that you should not beat the opposition so badly.But sometimes one just gets carried away.

    You trolls on here really need to go back to troll school and hone in on your battle skills.

  164. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: After a while one just gets tired of beating the opposition so badly. They even teach you in low level sports that you should not beat the opposition so badly. But sometimes one just gets carried away.

    Speaking of which…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_4k&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=6&feature=plcp
    I bet you don’t want to click on that one, either. So many magic moments…

  165. avatar
    Dave B. November 25, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    Dave B.: So what’s the other “A” for?

    I may have it:
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo? Apuzzo, Mario (Attorney)?

  166. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    JPotter,

    You said:“I was educated in America, and it’s alleged that America education has many deficiencies.”I can see that.

    Care to volunteer your alma mater? Surely you can answer something that simple.

  167. avatar
    JPotter November 25, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Birtherism associated with racism on Meet the Press! Oy vey! And not a birther in sight to offer a defense. So unfair. Mario, where were you? A spirited explanation of the purely Constitutional motives was sorely missed.

    ;)

    Note: it’s a long, free-ranging discussion, birtherism pops up multiple times, brought up by a non-pundit guest, Ken Burns. I guess (much to his credit) he didn’t get the memo detailing the media ban on birfer mentions.

  168. avatar
    JoZeppy November 25, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I would stay home if I were you. You just admitted that the courts have not responded.

    Well, saying your arguments have no legal merit is pretty much saying go home until you have something worth our time…but hey, I suppose in Mario-world that means they haven’t specifically rejected your arguments.

  169. avatar
    JoZeppy November 25, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: After a while one just gets tired of beating the opposition so badly. They even teach you in low level sports that you should not beat the opposition so badly. But sometimes one just gets carried away. You trolls on here really need to go back to troll school and hone in on your battle skills.

    Says the man whose arguments have been consistently laughed out of the court…

    keep deflecting Mario. You have yet to convince a single court to remotely take your fantasy seriously. And yet you come here and expect anyone to take you seriously? You have universally failed to convince the people that matter…the ones with the black robes. All the bravado in the world can’t overcome that.

  170. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion November 25, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Rickey: I also told you that the Bad Fiction blog has posted links to hundreds, if not thousands, of racist notes posted at Obama Release Your Records,Birther Report, WND, etc.

    Birther Report even before the election was starting to look more and more like “Stormfront” every single day. I see the article as they finally dropped all pretense as to what and who there were.

    As for Apuzzo, while I’d prefer not to agree with a DUI attorney who’s notion of citizenship has been shot down by every single court it’s been brought before, I will say I’ve never said all birthers are racist.

    There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton.

    There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated John McCain.

    There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney.

    There are some who are mad that a Democrat is in the White House rather than a Republican.

    And yes, there are some who are mad because an African-American is President rather than a Caucasian.

    Not all birthers are racist, but there’s a lot of racists who are birthers – and even more birthers who have no problems ignoring or defending the racist comments of their brethren.

  171. avatar
    JPotter November 26, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    Patrick McKinnion: There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton.

    There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated John McCain.

    There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney.

    There are some who are mad that a Democrat is in the White House rather than a Republican.

    And yes, there are some who are mad because an African-American is President rather than a Caucasian.

    Not all birthers are racist, but there’s a lot of racists who are birthers – and even more birthers who have no problems ignoring or defending the racist comments of their brethren.

    … and plenty of all of the above who, while being self-proclaimed not-a-racists, slip into the use of slurs while expressing their gripe. Birther as a generalization is not interchangeable with fire-eating racist, but passive, ‘soft’ racism is one component used to perceive Obama as, and label Obama as, the Other.

  172. avatar
    misha marinsky November 26, 2012 at 12:20 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: History becomes my witness.

    In the Court of History, only your looks count – and I don’t like your looks.

  173. avatar
    Paper November 26, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Incorrect. You are in error. Repeatedly. Your definition is meritless.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep saying that there are only “natural born Citizens” and “naturalized citizens.”But the last time that I looked, the Constituiton said “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.”Why do you just invent things?

    You said:“[S]o he [Wong] was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen.”This is so logically fallacious.Have you ever heard of the fallacy of affirming the consequent? First, the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.”The clause “natural born Citizen” has one and only one definition which is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).Second, being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for the definition also includes birth in the country to citizen parents.Hence, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when you state that if someone is a born citizen he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

  174. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Dr. Conspiracy’s article says:“I’m speculating that now that the election is lost, the birthers no longer feel the need to feign respectability.”

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

    What in blazes are you talking about? I didn’t say that.

  175. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep saying that there are only “natural born Citizens” and “naturalized citizens.” But the last time that I looked, the Constituiton said “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.” Why do you just invent things?

    No invention, just an obvious, trivial description. The set of all persons who are a “citizen of the United States” includes all those persons who are a “Natural born Citizen” and all those persons who are a “Naturalized Citizen”. There are no other types of citizens. It is really very simple, Esquire.

    You should re-read the Constitution by the way. It does mention naturalized citizens. I’ll help you find it: check out Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    You said: “[S]o he [Wong] was a born citizen and therefore he was a natural born citizen.” This is so logically fallacious. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of affirming the consequent? First, the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.”

    That is the only precise definition of NBC you are ever going to get, Esquire: A “Natural Born CItizen” is a person who was born a citizen. Every thing else is discussion about what it means to be “born a citizen”.

    The clause “natural born Citizen” has one and only one definition which is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

    Wrong, Esquire: Minor did not define NBC, Minor described one circumstance of birth for which there was no doubt about NBC and did not go further because it was not necessary for the case.

    I repeat myself: a “Natural Born CItizen” is a person who was born a citizen. Period. That is the one and only one definition. Its a wonder that you continue to quote Minor and WKA and yet you apparently haven’t bother to read either one to understand the case or the reason for the discussion contained in them. Cutting and pasting cherry picked quotes while ignoring the context of those quotes is not understanding the case, it is just plain old fashioned intellectual dishonesty.

    Every thing else is discussion about what it means to be “born a citizen”. Minor described once such circumstance, (born on the soil to 2 citizen parents), and expressly said that part of that described circumstance (the 2 citizen parents part) may well be over specifying the need. Wong Kim Ark cleared up that doubt, for a person who is born on U.S. soil, and under jurisdiction, the citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant.

    Second, being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for the definition also includes birth in the country to citizen parents. Hence, you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when you state that if someone is a born citizen he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

    No you are incorrect. Two examples spring to mind: George Romney and John McCain. I am sure you are aware that Romney was born in Mexico and McCain in the Canal Zone. Neither one born in country. Both are Natural Born Citizens, even though they were born overseas. Why? Because their parents were citizens.

    Born (under jurisdiction) on U.S. Soil :: Parents status irrelevant.
    Born overseas :: Parents status is most definitely relevant.

    Romney dropped out of the nomination race, but not before his status was questioned and his eligibility judged to be valid (in the court of public opinion). McCain did run, as you know, and his status was questioned, and his eligibility judged to be valid by the House and Senate in unanimous non-binding resolutions.

    As the Doc has pointed out to you many, many times. If you want to succeed in your quest you have two options: demonstrate that the Court got it wrong 100 years ago in WKA (and you aren’t going to do that by continuing to misinterpret the WKA holding) or promote and pass a Constitutional Amendment (which is how ‘We The People’ overturned Sanford).

    Your quest for a third class of citizen ship is doomed to failure. You won’t ‘get’ Obama, and you won’t ‘get’ the children of undocumented aliens either.

  176. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 1:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I would stay home if I were you.You just admitted that the courts have not responded.

    I am fascinated that you have existed on the planet as long as you have, apparently negotiated school all the way to the point of getting a Law degree, yet have never figured out that the word “NO” is a response; and that the phrase “your argument has no merit” is a reason for rejection that was based on the merits of your argument.

  177. avatar
    Rickey November 26, 2012 at 2:12 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I knew you wouldn’t answer the question.

    The question: “Do you think that article at ORYR, ‘If Obama Had A British Subject Son He Would Look Like This Sad Excuse For A Man,’ is racist or not?” is central to the validity of your criticism of this article.

    In your typical style, you raise objections based on false context. The headline of this article cannot be understood outside of the context of the topic sentence of the first paragraph. That paragraph alleges that the ORYR article is racist.

    You seem unwilling to say whether you think it is racist or not.

    He did the same thing with me. I asked him twice if the posts which Patrick at Bad Fiction linked to are racist statements, and Mario refuses to respond. It makes one wonder. Either he does not believe that the statements are racist, or he does not care that they are racist.

  178. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 2:20 am #

    Sorry for the screwed up mark up on that post above. I hope it is readable anyway.

  179. avatar
    JPotter November 26, 2012 at 2:43 am #

    Rickey: Either he does not believe that the statements are racist, or he does not care that they are racist.

    He’s a dull guy utterly lacking in creativity, humor, and wit. Incapable of a witty rejoinder, he’s left with 1) silence, 2) lame misdirection, 3) giving an honest answer, or 4) admitting error or fault. Guess which two he can’t afford?

  180. avatar
    bovril November 26, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    Ah so much Mario delusion, so little time…..

    So deluded man who stumbles when pretending to be a lawyer, press cut to the chase shall we, or as is patently obvious in your case, chaser.

    You have, in the vast echo chamber that passes for your mind, decided that there are in point of fact, for purposes of the presidency, 3 types of citizen, NBC, NBC who in the mind of Mario is not an NBC and naturalized.

    Now, if you had read the actual real live constitution, you would see the bit that says that congress get to make the rules on naturalization.

    Now, there are all sorts of law around naturalization but they all require amongst other matters a legally binding attestation, a formal swearing in and paperwork, lots and loss of paperwork.

    They also require lots of legal words and definitions and stuff.

    Now I have been through much of the rule laws and regulations around citizenship and naturalization yet I find not a single solitary instance where you have a citizen, Born in the USA, of one or none citizen parents, who has any of these multiple and various legal steps, paperwork or certificates of naturalization.

    I mean congress has laid out acres ound this very topic and yet nowhere is there a single solitary instance of this naturalization process.

    It is as if the have no legal basis for these types of citizen.

    In point of fact there is no legal case, cite, constitutional cease, SC opinion etc that agrees with this magical 3rd category.

    .So, either the world is wrong or the second worst lawyer in the Western world is, guesses which online is based in the equality based world.

    Go on Mario, show us a single case where one of these magical class, born in the USA was naturalized.

  181. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    In re Mario, there are two issues:

    1) I’m not a mind reader, so I will not claim that Mario himself is a racist/bigot/xenophobe. However, his client(s) is/are. Therefore Mario promotes a racist etc. agenda. His personal views are ultimately irrelevant.

    2) One doesn’t become a constitutional lawyer overnight; I have in the past challenged birthers to show me any article, blog or forum post, etc, PREDATING Obama’s campaign in which they might have expressed any interest at all in such issues; none have been able to do so. Therefore that claim is hypocritical at best, a lie at worst.

  182. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 26, 2012 at 3:14 am #

    Mario, you talk about logical fallacies.

    You commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent all the time. Your entire argument on Minor is a denial of the Antecedent.

    If A, then B
    Not A
    Therefore Not B.

    If someone is born to two citizen parents and born in the country, then they are a natural born citizen. A is not born to two citizen parents and born in the country, therefore A is not a natural born citizen.

    Classic case of denying the antecedent. So, you lecturing someone on logical fallacies just broke my irony meter.

  183. avatar
    Lupin November 26, 2012 at 3:22 am #

    A good mob lawyer must have an extremely thick skin; like the bounty hunters of the old west, people spit on the ground when they pass, they are held in contempt by the rest of the profession, and generally despised by one an all. They have to stomach loathsome clients and be resigned to pretty much lie all the time. On the other hand, they make a lot of money on a repeat business.

    By choosing the represent extreme right-wing parties, Mario has chosen a pretty similar path, except that his skin is too thin to just laugh all the way to the bank as he should, hence his herpes-like eruptions here.

    Whether he has bought into his clients’ delusions, or simply misses the respectability he used to have, and somehow wants to cling to an imaginary shred of dignity, I can’t tell, but it’s pretty pathetic.

    There is an episode of MURPHY BROWN in which a former, once respectable colleague of Murphy, played by the wonderful Wallace Shawn, has also been hired to be an extreme right-wing propagandist. The scene where he comes unglued because he can no longer mouth the indefensible in front of his former colleague is truly hilarious.

    Mario is just like Wallace Shawn before his conscience kicks in.

  184. avatar
    Sam the Centipede November 26, 2012 at 6:27 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep saying that there are only “natural born Citizens” and “naturalized citizens.”But the last time that I looked, the Constituiton said “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.”Why do you just invent things?

    Yes, Mario the Pretend Lawyer, the Constitution does use those words, but you are an idiot and your mis-interpretation of them is idiotic. Your attempts to construct a fairy tale castle of nonsensical nastiness on that have been rejected by every court that has considered any facet of it, and have been rejected by legal scholars. Only a few deluded (often racist) birthers accept them, and then primarily because they hate Mr Obama.

    Put most simply: everybody except you and a few birther buffoons understands that Those Words Do Not Mean What You Say They Mean.

    You and your buddy-in-bloviation David Farrar do not understand that you cannot simply concoct a wild misinterpretation of words that has a string of tenuous semi-logic and then expect the world (or courts) to accept it.

    You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    Please, stop drivelling, start thinking.

  185. avatar
    The Magic M November 26, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If I titled an article “Republicans in shock over Romney loss,” would that necessarily mean that I was saying that all Republicans were in shock over the election results?”

    If a court said “people born in the US to citizen parents are NBC”, would that necessarily mean that it was saying that only people born in the US to citizen parents are NBC?

    Checkmate.

    (Besides, your previous argument that Minor leaves the “born to one citizen parent” out because the citizenship of the mother followed that of the father does not hold water. If that were the case, why mention “parents” (plural) at all and not just say “born to a citizen father”?)

  186. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 26, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    Patrick McKinnion: Birther Report even before the election was starting to look more and more like “Stormfront” every single day. I see the article as they finally dropped all pretense as to what and who there were.As for Apuzzo, while I’d prefer not to agree with a DUI attorney who’s notion of citizenship has been shot down by every single court it’s been brought before, I will say I’ve never said all birthers are racist.There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton.There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated John McCain.There are some who are mad that Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney.There are some who are mad that a Democrat is in the White House rather than a Republican.And yes, there are some who are mad because an African-American is President rather than a Caucasian. Not all birthers are racist, but there’s a lot of racists who are birthers – and even more birthers who have no problems ignoring or defending the racist comments of their brethren.

    Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

  187. avatar
    Scientist November 26, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

    I’m sure there are racist non-birthers. Doc’s headline neither said nor implied otherwise.

  188. avatar
    bovril November 26, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Obama IS an NBC, so how pray tell Toad how would someone who supports that and is not arguing it be racist?

    You really need to cut down on the grappa first thing Mario.

  189. avatar
    misha marinsky November 26, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

    Please define “racist.”

  190. avatar
    Dave B. November 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

    Up and at’em this fine Monday morning, eh Mario? Drinking lots of water today? Don’t forget!
    Hey, have you ever seen this classic? Gotta love Billy Wilder.
    http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/12_06/1945/37884/l_37884_3caee743.jpg
    I thought you could relate. He’s got a problem with his hair, too! (Ray Milland, that is– not Billy Wilder.)

  191. avatar
    The Magic M November 26, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

    I’m pretty sure. Otherwise the Vattelist movement would include *all* racists in the country, and that is absurd on its face by the obvious low numbers of Vattelists (who can’t even get 10,000 people on the streets like the protesters in Egypt).

  192. avatar
    JPotter November 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

    Yep.

  193. avatar
    JPotter November 26, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    JPotter: Yep.

    …. but these would not be them.

  194. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Keith,

    You said: “I repeat myself: a “Natural Born Citizen” is a person who was born a citizen. Period.”

    You’re such a genius. Einstein should be jealous.

  195. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion November 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are there any persons who maintain that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” who are racists?

    I suppose there are, but since my field of interest is birthers as a whole, rather than racists or white nationalists in general, I cannot say for certain if there are or are-not non-birther racists. As a rule of thumb, I try not to visit most of the hard core racist sites because I find the content disgusting. I wouldn’t be surprised to find non-birther racists though.

    I will say that certain birther arguments that I have seen, such as the use of the Dred Scott decision, the “only a 14th Amendment citizen” claims, or the claims of Gordon Epperly of Alaska, (who has repeatedly filed court cases stating that only white males are “natural born citizens” and that non-whites and women are only “naturalized” or “statutory” citizens), have been seen before in white nationalist or racist arguments and discussion groups.

  196. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    You said:“I repeat myself: a “Natural Born Citizen” is a person who was born a citizen. Period.”

    You’re such a genius.Einstein should be jealous.

    He’s looking over my shoulder even as I type this. At least his photo is.

    My childhood nickname was Einstein. Your recognition of my genius through nothing but this keyboard interaction is remarkably insightful.

    I tips me ‘at to you, squire. (Sorry, Esquire).

  197. avatar
    Dave B. November 26, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Dave B.: Up and at’em this fine Monday morning, eh Mario? Drinking lots of water today? Don’t forget!
    Hey, have you ever seen this classic? Gotta love Billy Wilder.

    This link should work:
    http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/the-lost-weekend/

  198. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Keith: He’s looking over my shoulder even as I type this. At least his photo is.

    My childhood nickname was Einstein. Your recognition of my genius through nothing but this keyboard interaction is remarkably insightful.

    I tips me ‘at to you, squire. (Sorry, Esquire).

    You do realize that when one kid says “way to go Einstein” to another kid, it’s not because the first kid thinks the second is actually smart……….

  199. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Fool.

    I could be a fool a hundred times over, and I’d still be smarter than a failed birther lawyer.

    So you didn’t answer the question, Mario…. HAVE you won any court cases lately? ;-)

  200. avatar
    Rickey November 26, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Keith:

    My childhood nickname was Einstein. Your recognition of my genius through nothing but this keyboard interaction is remarkably insightful.

    When I was in the Navy my nickname was Univac.

    I wonder what Mario’s nickname was.

  201. avatar
    Rickey November 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    JPotter: He’s a dull guy utterly lacking in creativity, humor, and wit. Incapable of a witty rejoinder, he’s left with 1) silence, 2) lame misdirection, 3) giving an honest answer, or 4) admitting error or fault. Guess which two he can’t afford?

    I had forgotten that Mario has written for ObamaReleaseYourRecords in the past, so he has a vested interest in not calling out the site for allowing blatantly racist comments to be posted there.

  202. avatar
    Keith November 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Daniel: You do realize that when one kid says “way to go Einstein” to another kid, it’s not because the first kid thinks the second is actually smart……….

    It wasn’t like that I promise! It was genuine admiration for my smarts! You’re just being mean.

    MOMMY! Daniel’s being mean to me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  203. avatar
    Daniel November 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Keith: It wasn’t like that I promise! It was genuine admiration for my smarts! You’re just being mean.

    MOMMY! Daniel’s being mean to me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Stop being a birther……… :-P

  204. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 26, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Mario, you talk about logical fallacies.You commit the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent all the time. Your entire argument on Minor is a denial of the Antecedent.If A, then BNot ATherefore Not B.If someone is born to two citizen parents and born in the country, then they are a natural born citizen. A is not born to two citizen parents and born in the country, therefore A is not a natural born citizen.Classic case of denying the antecedent. So, you lecturing someone on logical fallacies just broke my irony meter.

    My advice to you is twofold: you should go back to logic school and get your irony meter fixed.

  205. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater November 27, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: My advice to you is twofold:you should go back to logic school and get your irony meter fixed.

    He wouldn’t have to keep getting his irony meter fixed if you didn’t keep breaking it.

  206. avatar
    Rickey November 27, 2012 at 12:47 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: He wouldn’t have to keep getting his irony meter fixed if you didn’t keep breaking it.

    Mario’s “retorts” are becoming increasingly lame and tiresome.

  207. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 27, 2012 at 1:05 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: He wouldn’t have to keep getting his irony meter fixed if you didn’t keep breaking it.

    Your comment is not helpful at all. That I keep breaking his irony meter is why I am telling him to get it fixed.

  208. avatar
    JPotter November 27, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Rickey: Mario’s “retorts” are becoming increasingly lame and tiresome.

    “Becoming”? I googled “Mario Apuzzo, Esq.” on OCT the other day. He’s been drawing from the same shallow bag for years here, and, presumably, elsewhere. He doesn’t leave his wit at the door, does he?

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    As someone with a graduate degree in mathematics and who has an article published in a scholarly journal on explosions (“The explosion point characterization theorem”), I hereby issue this affidavit stating: dunstvangeet’s comment is a proper application of logical theory to Mr. Apuzzo’s comment, and I endorse his conclusion that Apuzzo’s reading of the Minor case involves the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent. Is there a notary in the house?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: My advice to you is twofold: you should go back to logic school and get your irony meter fixed.

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 27, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    Is this an appeal to an anonymous expert? There may be professional trolls, but this one displays no specialized knowledge. It doesn’t ring true, particularly in his praise for that specific web site.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A person identified as “AMA” posted a comment on the website Above Top Secret that apparently offers insight into how professional trolls operate.

  211. avatar
    The Magic M November 27, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There may be professional trolls, but this one displays no specialized knowledge.

    Besides, it is unrelated anyway. The fact that paid trolls (may) exist does not prove, or even make any more likely, that voices of reason on birther boards fall among this category.
    At least no more than the fact that black sheep and blue swans exist proves any of them are posting here.
    However, in Wingnut City, it’s enough to make them all go “I knew it!”. Then again, they would’ve believed Corsi invoking “a spokesman for Obot Central who wished to remain anonymous” just as well.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Is there a notary in the house?

    Way to go:

    Sheldon Cooper: No, you’re wrong. See, as you know, a few years ago I achieved one of my lesser dreams and became a notary public. From time to time I notarize banking documents for Raj. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2058495/quotes, typos fixed)

  212. avatar
    gorefan November 27, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    The Magic M: Sheldon Cooper

    You might enjoy this site.

    http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/

  213. avatar
    gorefan November 27, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A person identified as “AMA” posted a comment on the website Above Top Secret that apparently offers insight into how professional trolls operate.

    So “AMA” was paid by the Republicans? Interesting. BTW, “AMA” used the name “halfsorry” at the ATS website.

    “My script was completely focused on politics, generally supporting just about any extreme conservative position. I never received anything outside that thematic.” reply posted on 10-8-2011 @ 01:23 PM by halfsorry.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread738780/pg1

    Any chance, Mario is your middle name and your first name is “Anthony”?

  214. avatar
    Dave B. November 27, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There may be professional trolls, but this one displays no specialized knowledge.

    Doc, I think maybe the “professional troll” in question just didn’t want to call himself “MAE”. I’d like to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s opinion on that “person identified as “AMA””.

  215. avatar
    Keith November 27, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Is this an appeal to an anonymous expert? There may be professional trolls, but this one displays no specialized knowledge. It doesn’t ring true, particularly in his praise for that specific web site.

    There was a whole series of threads on ATS about disinformation trolls conspiracy.

    The site is specifically and openly a honey-pot for conspiracy theorist cranks of all kinds. (Somebody has to give advice about notifying the authorities about your neighbor that is a gray skin alien don’t they?) It can be fun picking at the scabs over there sometimes, but I come away with the idea that 90% of the posters (minimum) are 12 years old.

  216. avatar
    The Magic M November 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    gorefan: You might enjoy this site.

    http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/

    Thx! :)

  217. avatar
    roadburner November 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    JPotter: He doesn’t leave his wit at the door, does he?

    no, he just crosses the threshold with half of it.

  218. avatar
    JPotter November 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A person identified as “AMA” posted a comment on the website Above Top Secret that apparently offers insight into how professional trolls operate.

    LOL! Mario citing the same foolery as Corsi did at WND, and on the same day. And passing it off as genuine. Drinking from the same well?

    roadburner: no, he just crosses the threshold with half of it.

    Ah, thanks for that observation. Let’s see …. calculator …. half of nothing … that’s …. ummm …. zero …. divided by …. two …..

    P.S … If I remember correctly, that Google search turned up 9500 hits for Mario’s exact handle here, since 2009. That’s a lot of banter.

  219. avatar
    Daniel November 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    WEll Corsi and Mario ARE two peas in a pod….

  220. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 29, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: As someone with a graduate degree in mathematics and who has an article published in a scholarly journal on explosions (“The explosion point characterization theorem”), I hereby issue this affidavit stating: dunstvangeet’s comment is a proper application of logical theory to Mr. Apuzzo’s comment, and I endorse his conclusion that Apuzzo’s reading of the Minor case involves the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent. Is there a notary in the house?

    For a response to your comment, see my new article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html.

    I hope the explosions that your wrote about in your graduate work in mathematics were explosions of soda pop and not of real bombs.

  221. avatar
    misha marinsky November 29, 2012 at 1:27 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I hope the explosions that your wrote about…explosions of soda pop and not of real bombs.

    I hope those explosions of your drunk clients smashing into others, did not cause suffering.

    I’m not linking the Bob Simon 60 Minutes story, because you won’t click on it.

    Just to remind you, a drunk insurance salesman hit another car head-on, killed the driver and decapitated an 8 year old girl.

    It’s right up your alley. Enjoy slumming.

  222. avatar
    Lani November 29, 2012 at 1:47 am #

    Regular posters are very kind and patient with trolls. I’m not sure it’s worth the effort, but I admire your calm perseverance.

  223. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2012 at 3:34 am #

    While Mario’s legal theories have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, and are of no interest anymore, I find Mario himself, and his “practice” (whatever that means in this case) an endless source of interest. He is not important enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant a 60 Minutes-type exposé, but I’d certainly love to read a good piece of investigative journalism on him.

  224. avatar
    bovril November 29, 2012 at 6:10 am #

    Lupin

    My only quibble is you describe The Toads inane blather as “theories”.

    In the real world….(courtesy of the AAAS)

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

    Evolution is good to go, plate tectonics is good to go, Mario’s inane, fact free, hate and ethanol fuelled free association drivel doesn’t get past crank musings at best…. 8-)

  225. avatar
    Scientist November 29, 2012 at 6:54 am #

    bovril-In science the word “theory” has a precise meaning, as you describe. Mario’s blatherings certainly don’t meet that standard. However, the law uses that term more loosely. Attorneys are commonly said to have “a theory of the case”. That can be something as non-sensical as “the 42 eyewitnesses who saw my client kill that guy were all mistaken” or “natural born citizen requires 2 citizen parents (not just 1, but 2, where no legal case has ever established that use of the plural excludes the singular)”. Both are “theories” of a legal case and both are equally ridiculous.

  226. avatar
    bovril November 29, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    What, are we positing that The Toad has in fact made up shit to create a fantasy “theory” with the intellectual validity and heft of Phlogiston theory…!!!

    Say it’s not true…… 8-)

  227. avatar
    The Magic M November 29, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Scientist: That can be something as non-sensical as “the 42 eyewitnesses who saw my client kill that guy were all mistaken”

    Though he could wrap it into “prove that my client doesn’t have an identical twin that nobody has ever heard of”. ;)

  228. avatar
    Lupin November 29, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    I’ll happily withdraw the word “theory(ies)” (in re Mario’s) and replace it with “lucubrations”.

  229. avatar
    Scientist November 29, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    bovril: What, are we positing that The Toad has in fact made up $h!t to create a fantasy “theory” with the intellectual validity and heft of Phlogiston theory…!!!

    Certainly not! Phlogiston theory was far more respectable in its day than Mario’s nonsense is today. It accounted for the facts known at the time and was open, as any scientifc theory must be, to empirical falsification. Once Lavoisier found oxygen, phlogiston faded away.

    By contrast, Mario has had a whole passel of empirical falsifications delivered by courts throughout the land. Rather, than say, “I was wrong”, he persists in his errors.

  230. avatar
    MN-Skeptic November 29, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    Mario is to logic as Glenn Beck is to art.

  231. avatar
    Majority Will November 29, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    misha marinsky: I hope those explosions of your drunk clients smashing into others, did not cause suffering.

    I’m not linking the Bob Simon 60 Minutes story, because you won’t click on it.

    Just to remind you, a drunk insurance salesman hit another car head-on, killed the driver and decapitated an 8 year old girl.

    It’s right up your alley. Enjoy slumming.

    I understand your need to bash the delusional birther troll as well as your disgust of the horrors of drunk driving.

    However, don’t lose sight of the fact that everyone in this country, regardless of circumstance, is entitled to legal counsel, a fair trial and the assumption of innocence before being proven guilty or not guilty in a court of law.

    To demean the profession of defense attorney or blame them for their clients’ alleged crimes by association is just as offensive as those who demand that the President has the responsibility to prove his vital records aren’t fraudulent.

    “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” – Moses Maimonides

  232. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    Neither.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion_point

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I hope the explosions that your wrote about in your graduate work in mathematics were explosions of soda pop and not of real bombs.

  233. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    I am pleased that you chose to waste your time writing the article rather than doing something more destructive.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: For a response to your comment, see my new article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at

  234. avatar
    Dave B. November 29, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    Mario was just putting a little weekend in his week last night when he showed up here.

  235. avatar
    bovril November 29, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Neither.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion_point

    Ohhhhh, I was hoping to find that Doc C was in fact a classic RWNJ boogeyman, the “bomb throwing” anarchist of Ye Olde Skool… 8-)

    If it helps fuel Mendax Mendax Mario’s paranoia, the military did spent oodles and oodles of money showing and training me in how to make things that go !!!!BANG!!!!

    Ahhhhhh the stuff they encouraged you to know and be able to do in the run up to the end of the Cold War

    Lets not forget the Warsaw Pact, Russian Hordes, theatre tactical nuclear strikes, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare, tanks thundering through the mists of the Fulda Gap, the Able Archer near miss…..simpler times…… 8-)

  236. avatar
    JPotter November 29, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    Lupin: He is not important enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant a 60 Minutes-type exposé,

    Ach, if only we could resurrect the 1980s version of Mike Wallace …. !

    Dr. Conspiracy: I am pleased that you chose to waste your time writing the article rather than doing something more destructive.

    You just made the QotD on your own site! :D

    bovril: tanks thundering through the mists of the Fulda Gap,

    Used to dream of flying a Warthog to glory over a freefire orgy of destruction in Central Europe. Had it ever happened it would have been a regreattable tragedy …. but what a show. The dream lives on in simulation …. some of the fun, none of the sorrow. Well, a little guilt over time ‘wasted’. :P

  237. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 29, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Is there a notary in the house?

    Being a Notary would be so COOL! You could write stuff like “So-and-so is an butt munch, and then notarize it! Of course, I’d probably be stripped of my status as a Notary in all of five minutes, for grossly abusing my power to notarize all sorts of absurd things.

  238. avatar
    Sudoku November 30, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    Hey Misha, you got a shout out over at Mario’s place. He seems to be having pout that no one is paying attention to his latest dreck re-rehash, and goes on to quote deaths tolls for Stalin and Mao. Really.

    “The only responses that I have so far received to this article at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog are sophomoric personal attacks against me by Dr. Conspiracy and his sycophantic Obot contingent (probably paid trolls).

    What is rather disturbing is that there is a commentator there by the name of misha marinsky, who admits to being a communist….”

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=9003883837857408749

    misha marinsky: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Stop being a phony.

    Says the DWI lawyer pretending to be a Constitutional authority – like President Obama.

  239. avatar
    Paper November 30, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, sorry for not responding to your post/article about logic. I read it, and thought of responding, but it really just comes down to this: incorrect.

    I thought you might be bored hearing the same basic reality over and over again, without any sign on your part that you will adjust to reality, but to give you feedback, your logic is meaningless because your premise is incorrect. The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already).

    Until you change your premise, your logic is irrelevant, and there is no need to discuss it.

  240. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

    Sudoku: What is rather disturbing is that there is a commentator there by the name of misha marinsky, who admits to being a communist….”

    Youser!

  241. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Majority Will: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” – Moses Maimonides

    First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.

    Our Constitution holds innocent until proven guilty, but Mario and his ilk have declared Obama and his supporters guilty, and then placed the burden of innocence on our side.

    Mario is a criminal defense lawyer, who is not in the league of Oscar Goodman. Plus, he is a hypocrite, a liar and a rabble rouser. That is why he has earned my contempt.

    I want to repeat Bob Simon’s “60 Minutes” report, and the suffering caused by drunk drivers:

    DWI Deaths: Is It Murder? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4694666.html

  242. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    misha marinsky: First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.

    Our Constitution holds innocent until proven guilty, but Mario and his ilk have declared Obama and his supporters guilty, and then placed the burden of innocence on our side.

    Mario is a criminal defense lawyer, who is not in the league of Oscar Goodman. Plus, he is a hypocrite, a liar and a rabble rouser. That is why he has earned my contempt.

    I want to repeat Bob Simon’s “60 Minutes” report, and the suffering caused by drunk drivers:

    DWI Deaths: Is It Murder?http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4694666.html

    You either missed my point or ignored it entirely. :-x

    “First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.”

    Are you trying to one up me on knowing Jewish scholars? Really?

  243. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    Sudoku: He seems to be having pout that no one is paying attention to his latest dreck re-rehash, and goes on to quote deaths tolls for Stalin and Mao. Really.

    It’s nothing but sad and pathetic hit whoring for his cesspool of blog.

  244. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    Majority Will: You either missed my point or ignored it entirely.

    “First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.”

    Are you trying to one up me on knowing Jewish scholars? Really?

    I agree with you. Did I really come across as petulant?! I apologize.

    Too much coffee. Oops.

    Time for a break. I’m going to walk Angel.

  245. avatar
    Sudoku November 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    You are right. I thought Mario had hit bottom, but he continues to sink, lower and lower.

    Majority Will: It’s nothing but sad and pathetic hit whoring for his cesspool of blog.

  246. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    misha marinsky: I agree with you. Did I really come across as petulant?! I apologize.

    Too much coffee. Oops.

    Time for a break. I’m going to walk Angel.

    Apology accepted. Thanks.

  247. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    Sudoku:
    You are right.I thought Mario had hit bottom, but he continues to sink, lower and lower.

    And the putz will probably continue to get more desperate for attention as time marches on and people care less and less about his bigotry and mental illness.

  248. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Paper: Mario Apuzzo, sorry for not responding to your post/article about logic. I read it, and thought of responding, but it really just comes down to this: incorrect. I thought you might be bored hearing the same basic reality over and over again, without any sign on your part that you will adjust to reality, but to give you feedback, your logic is meaningless because your premise is incorrect. The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already). Until you change your premise, your logic is irrelevant, and there is no need to discuss it.

    You do not argue that my logic does not follow from my premise. Rather, you argue that my premise is incorrect and therefore my logic is not relevant.

    But your argument is nothing but another logical fallacy called begging the question.

    I have demonstrated through historical and legal sources why my premise, i.e., the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” is correct and yours incorrect.

    You have failed to demonstrate how your definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct and mine is wrong.

    The best that you can do is argue that any child who is a “born citizen” is a “natural born Citizen” which argument I have shown is a tautology and suffers from the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hence, you have not properly defined a “natural born Citizen.”

    You said: “The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already).” Here, you conflate a “natural born Citizen” with a “citizen of the United States.” The citizenship of parents is not relevant for those who are born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which the Fourteenth Amendment defines as “citizens of the United States.” But the citizenship of parents is very relevant for anyone born in the United States who wants to be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” because according to the prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Hence, my logic which follows from my correct premise is also correct.

    You have proven absolutely nothing with your reply other than to show that you have no valid reply. You are therefore the one who needs a reality check, not I.

  249. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have demonstrated through historical and legal sources why my premise, i.e., the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” is correct and yours incorrect.

    How’s that been working out for you, Mario?

  250. avatar
    Thomas Brown November 30, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    I love the smell of garlic in the afternoon.

    It smells like failure.

  251. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    Dave B.: How’s that been working out for you, Mario?

    It has been working our for me just great. You and your sophomore team have not been able to demonstrate that I am wrong and you are correct.

  252. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It has been working our for me just great.

    Reeeeee-ally?

  253. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: according to the prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Since no legal ruling has ever said that “parents” means both rather than one or both, that describes Barack Obama to a tee (as the Vermont judge noted).

    “parents must pick up children by 5 PM” doesn’t mean both must show up.

    “parents must sign permission slip” only 1 is required. If both parents must sign, it must explicitly say so. That is the law, sir. I have signed plenty of school forms in my day (legal documents, FYI) and those that required both parents to sign said so explicitly. If you wish to argue, cite a court case to the contrary, not a bunch of your hand waving.

  254. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    Scientist: If you wish to argue, cite a court case to the contrary, not a bunch of your hand waving.

    Careful now, you start bringing actual court cases into Mario’s dreamworld, you might bring back this memory:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=69&feature=plcp
    I think he just wants to put that one behind him.

  255. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have failed to demonstrate how your definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct and mine is wrong.

    LOL!

    Instead of going around the junior high civics material again, perhaps a simpler test. Which “definition” best reflects the history American Presidential elections? Your super-sekrit, extra-special preferred one, or the understanding the country actually operates on?

    Which Presidents have been asked to ‘certify’ the citizenship status of their parents? That is, before a court or Congress?

  256. avatar
    Majority Will November 30, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    And of course, as predicted . . . this pathetic putz and puerile prince of “lalalalalalala, I can’t hear you” drips on.

    Are there no bridges to guard in the dense jungles of New Jersey?

  257. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    misha marinsky: I agree with you. Did I really come across as petulant?!

    Majority Will: Apology accepted. Thanks.

    Every Thursday night, a rabbi in a shtetl held informal court. The Rebbetzin always stood behind him.

    A couple came in, and she told her side of the dispute. The rabbi replied, “You’re right.”

    Her husband quickly said, “Wait, rabbi. You haven’t heard MY side.”

    “OK, go ahead.”

    He told his side of the dispute. The rabbi replied, “You’re right.”

    The Rebbetzin then said, “Husband – she can’t be right and he can’t be right. They both can’t be right.”

    The rabbi turned to her and said, “You know, you’re right too.”

  258. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    Scientist: Since no legal ruling has ever said that “parents” means both rather than one or both, that describes Barack Obama to a tee (as the Vermont judge noted). “parents must pick up children by 5 PM” doesn’t mean both must show up.“parents must sign permission slip” only 1 is required. If both parents must sign, it must explicitly say so. That is the law, sir. I have signed plenty of school forms in my day (legal documents, FYI) and those that required both parents to sign said so explicitly. If you wish to argue, cite a court case to the contrary, not a bunch of your hand waving.

    At the Founding, a husband and wife had only one citizenship, that of the husband. Hence, “parents” meant both husband and wife with the same citizenship, that of the husband. That Congress in 1922 granted to women the right to have their own citizenship did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

  259. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

    A crank belief, which has been thoroughly discredited – as you well know.

  260. avatar
    Graham Shevlin November 30, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    Mario, simply repeating that you are right when every significant court case in recorded history contradicts you does not make your statements true. It simply makes you sound like a bullshitter who lives in a weird parallel universe that the legal system does not recognize.

  261. avatar
    roadburner November 30, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: .That Congress in 1922 granted to women the right to have their own citizenship did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

    oh wow! you seem to have discovered something new!

    great, finally, any. day. now.

    hold on….hasnt this 2 parent stuff been in court before? and the result was what?

    oh yes, a fail every time.

    cmon putzo, if you want to win a birfoon case, regurgitating the same crap every time gets you nowhere. the law and the constitution disagrees with you, hence why you keep losing.

    all youre achieving is just a longer list of fails.

  262. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It has been working our for me just great. You and your sophomore team have not been able to demonstrate that I am wrong and you are correct.

    Only in a world where we ingore the fact that every court who heard your argument has dismissed them as frivolous and without merit….besides that minor fact, yeah, working out just spiffy.

  263. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: At the Founding, a husband and wife had only one citizenship, that of the husband. Hence, “parents” meant both husband and wife with the same citizenship, that of the husband. That Congress in 1922 granted to women the right to have their own citizenship did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

    Where is a court case saying that you must have “citizen” parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen? Again, I don’t care about your opinion or opinions, only the opinions of judges (or even one judge). You do know what a court case is, sir?

  264. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: Only in a world where we ingore the fact that every court who heard your argument has dismissed them as frivolous and without merit….besides that minor fact, yeah, working out just spiffy.

    What a total failure. The sophomores here cannot demonstrate they are correct so they just point to what some lower court did nor did not do, all in light of there being no U.S. Supreme Court case agreeing with them.

  265. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    Scientist: Where is a court case saying that you must have “citizen” parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen? Again, I don’t care about your opinion or opinions, only the opinions of judges (or even one judge). You do know what a court case is, sir?

    I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural). You are the one who cannot cite one U.S. Supreme Court case which says that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents.

  266. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

    Graham Shevlin: Mario, simply repeating that you are right when every significant court case in recorded history contradicts you does not make your statements true. It simply makes you sound like a bullshitter who lives in a weird parallel universe that the legal system does not recognize.

    You are quite a B.S.er.

  267. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm #

    I along with a number of judges, administrative, superior court, state appeals, federal district and appeals, seem to have found it in US v. Wong.

    Why you cannot see it, you will have to explain for yourself.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural). You are the one who cannot cite one U.S. Supreme Court case which says that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents.

  268. avatar
    Thomas Brown November 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are quite a B.S.er.

    May be. But you’re the actual BS.

  269. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural).

    No, you have never quoted any. Even your beloved Minor does not state that parents means both. Nowhere does it say that.

    I think I have been more than fair in offering a bipartsian compromise of 1 citizen parent, especiallysince courts have told you clearly that 0 are required. Compromises are the essence of the law-Supreme Court rulings generally are decided by compromise to get the necessary votes.

    1 is the final offer. Take it or leave it.

  270. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    There is quite a bit of substantive argument here and elsewhere that proves our side is correct. You have consistently ignored these arguments, choosing rather to double down on the ones you have made and that the courts have rejected.

    Just because you won’t admit defeat doesn’t mean that you are not defeated. That’s your problem, not mine.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have demonstrated through historical and legal sources why my premise, i.e., the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” is correct and yours incorrect.

  271. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Thomas Brown: May be. But you’re the actual BS.

    I am happy to see you like garlic and I do hope that you do more than just smell it. Actually, I definitely recommend for you that you consume heavy doses. It will significantly enhance blood flow to your brain and thereby improve brain function.

  272. avatar
    Northland10 November 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Minor fact?

    JoZeppy: Only in a world where we ingore the fact that every court who heard your argument has dismissed them as frivolous and without merit….besides that minor fact, yeah, working out just spiffy.

  273. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What a total failure. The sophomores here cannot demonstrate they are correct so they just point to what some lower court did nor did not do, all in light of there being no U.S. Supreme Court case agreeing with them.

    Utter B.S. Mario, and you know it. We don’t need a SCOTUS case. Anyone who remotely paid attention in their first year of law school know that. Everyone but you and a handful of crackpots understand that Minor never defined NBC. Everyone but you and a handful of crackpots understand that WKA held that a person born on US soil is NBC. Every court you and your cohorts argued otherwise before dismissed your arguments as having no merit and Minor and WKA mean exactly what everyone but you and your merry band of nutters seems to think. That means to the reality based world, we are dealing with well settled law. That means SCOTUS will never grant you cert because they don’t waste their time with well settled law. It’s so well settled that every respondent has waived the right to respond and not a single Justice has ever asked for a response.

    No one here needs to demonstrate jack. The courts have clearly done all the work for us. Again, for those of us working in the reality based world, the courts are the final arbiters of what the law is. When one’s arguments are universally met with rejection, and very often described as lacking any merit, wholly unsupported in law, and frivolous, there isn’t any reason to debate the finer points fantasies.

    But you can continue to pretend that the lack of a SCOTUS decision on a birther case really means something, knowing full well that the Court will never take up one of your nutter cases. You may even convince a couple of rubes to hit the paypal button in the vain hopes that just maybe this time the Court will grant cert. But for the rest of us, it’s not working. You’re just another snake oil salesman trying to sell your magic elixir out of the back of your wagon.

    Keep trying Mario…keep laying on the false bravado…I’m sure everyone who graduates from Temple is proud to share the same degree as you.

  274. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I along with a number of judges, administrative, superior court, state appeals, federal district and appeals, seem to have found it in US v. Wong.Why you cannot see it, you will have to explain for yourself.

    Since you concede that the only case that you rely upon is Wong Kim Ark, please provide the holding of the Court which supports your thesis that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. I need an actual quote of the holding and not what your interpretation of some language is.

  275. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    Poor JoeZeppy, he takes the high ground but in the end he really cannot demonstrate the merits of his arguments and so he just repeats the same old story line about how the courts have decided it all already.

  276. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Since you concede that the only case that you rely upon is Wong Kim Ark, please provide the holding of the Court which supports your thesis that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. I need an actual quote of the holding and not what your interpretation of some language is.

    And I would like a quote from a Supreme Court holding that says that you need 2 citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. I would also like any Supreme Court holding that ever held any individual could not be President (or could be for that matter).

  277. avatar
    Paper November 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    You have incorrectly misquoted and selectively misread various sentences. Your basic understanding of the English sentences is incorrect, never mind the history.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural).

  278. avatar
    Paper November 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    Indeed.

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Just because you [Mario Apuzzo] won’t admit defeat doesn’t mean that you are not defeated. That’s your problem, not mine.

  279. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Come on Mario, show me any court that has ever ruled you need 2 citizen parents to be President. It doesn’t have to be the Supreme Court, Traffic Court will do.

  280. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoeZeppy, he takes the high ground but in the end he really cannot demonstrate the merits of his arguments and so he just repeats the same old story line about how the courts have decided it all already.

    Arguing the “merits” of your position is much akin to arguing who would win in a fight between the Predator and the Alien, Jason v. Freddie, Hulk v. Wolverine. It may be fun for some (even to the point of making a movie…well, not in your case), but it still comes down to the fact that you’re arguing fantasy that has no basis in reality. And as for the courts having decided it already….well, fact of the matter is they have. The whole point of bring a suit, and arguing before a court is to convince them you are right. Something you and your kin have universally failed to do. So the fact that you have a 100% failure rate isn’t some minor technicality to sweep aside, it’s a complete and crushing defeat of your arguments. The courts are the final word on the law, and they have said you’re full of bunk. What more can any person here, even if that person was Lawrence Tribe, add to the discussion when the courts have been so clear and unambiguous?

  281. avatar
    Keith November 30, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What a total failure.The sophomores here cannot demonstrate they are correct so they just point to what some lower court did nor did not do, all in light of there being no U.S. Supreme Court case agreeing with them.

    This is the crux of the Government’s argument in Wong Kim Ark:

    For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply -with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

    The government in its appeal argued specifically that if this ‘obnoxious’ Chinese kid were considered to be a citizen, then he must be a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President.

    The Supreme Court held that indeed he was a citizen. Therefore, by the Government’s own logic he was a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President.

    Wong Kim Ark had ZERO citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the number of citizen parents was irrelevant to an individual who was born in the United States.

    The issue is settled for persons born in the United States. Period. You pretend to not understand this all you want, but you will not change the facts by denying them. You can continue to argue the Government’s case in WKA, that obnoxious Chinese (or more to the point in today’s environment, obnoxious Latinos) shouldn’t be allowed to be citizens, that is your right, but it is more than abundantly clear that there is no court that will listen to you. You would have better luck campaigning for a Constitutional Amendment.

    Where the issue is not settled, IMO, is for those persons born OUTSIDE the United States. If you want to make a name for yourself, that is the kind of case you should be pursuing. Is John McCain a natural born citizen? This is a question vital to the security of the Constitution. With the number of American military forces overseas, and more and more women serving alongside men in combat zones all over the world, there is going to be a baby boom of foreign born citizens wanting to run for President in the next 30 to 40 years. We had better get this settled now.

    Of course, my opinion is that McCain is NBC, but I acknowledge that there is an actual controversy about it.

    There is no controversy about Wong Kim Ark or Barack Obama, and your attempts to invent multiple classes of ‘born citizens’ is, to put it plainly, a farce.

    The Supreme Court answered that question in no uncertain terms:

  282. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Keith: There is no controversy about Wong Kim Ark or Barack Obama, and your attempts to invent multiple classes of ‘born citizens’ is, to put it plainly, a farce.

    Here, here, well-stated, well-written post, from start to finish. Hats off, sir.

  283. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    JoZeppy: Arguing the “merits” of your position is much akin to arguing who would win in a fight between the Predator and the Alien, Jason v. Freddie, Hulk v. Wolverine. It may be fun for some (even to the point of making a movie…well, not in your case), but it still comes down to the fact that you’re arguing fantasy that has no basis in reality. And as for the courts having decided it already….well, fact of the matter is they have. The whole point of bring a suit, and arguing before a court is to convince them you are right. Something you and your kin have universally failed to do. So the fact that you have a 100% failure rate isn’t some minor technicality to sweep aside, it’s a complete and crushing defeat of your arguments. The courts are the final word on the law, and they have said you’re full of bunk. What more can any person here, even if that person was Lawrence Tribe, add to the discussion when the courts have been so clear and unambiguous?

    Poor JoeZeppy, he just has no where to go. So he just keeps repeating how some lower courts have decided it all already. Too bad that he does not have his own argument which shows that he is correct.

  284. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Keith: This is the crux of the Government’s argument in Wong Kim Ark:The government in its appeal argued specifically that if this ‘obnoxious’ Chinese kid were considered to be a citizen, then he must be a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President.The Supreme Court held that indeed he was a citizen. Therefore, by the Government’s own logic he was a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President. Wong Kim Ark had ZERO citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the number of citizen parents was irrelevant to an individual who was born in the United States.The issue is settled for persons born in the United States. Period. You pretend to not understand this all you want, but you will not change the facts by denying them. You can continue to argue the Government’s case in WKA, that obnoxious Chinese (or more to the point in today’s environment, obnoxious Latinos) shouldn’t be allowed to be citizens, that is your right, but it is more than abundantly clear that there is no court that will listen to you. You would have better luck campaigning for a Constitutional Amendment.Where the issue is not settled, IMO, is for those persons born OUTSIDE the United States. If you want to make a name for yourself, that is the kind of case you should be pursuing. Is John McCain a natural born citizen? This is a question vital to the security of the Constitution. With the number of American military forces overseas, and more and more women serving alongside men in combat zones all over the world, there is going to be a baby boom of foreign born citizens wanting to run for President in the next 30 to 40 years. We had better get this settled now.Of course, my opinion is that McCain is NBC, but I acknowledge that there is an actual controversy about it. There is no controversy about Wong Kim Ark or Barack Obama, and your attempts to invent multiple classes of ‘born citizens’ is, to put it plainly, a farce. The Supreme Court answered that question in no uncertain terms:

    There are several problems with your argument.

    The holding of a U.S. Supreme Court case does not come for the argument of the parties in the case. That you must resort to the argument of counsel rather than the holding of the Wong Kim Ark decision speaks volumes.

    I am not arguing that Wong was not a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, I am arguing that he was not a “natural born Citizen” The Court in Wong knew the difference, stated that difference, and held that he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth which is the same citizenship status that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizens parents have and which you say raises a question regarding whether they are “natural born Citizens.” So do not try to inflame the argument with your race baiting.

  285. avatar
    Keith November 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    A few questions to ponder:

    Is a “round circle” different than a “circle”?
    Is “black ebony” darker than “ebony”?
    Is a “legless snake” skinner than a “snake”?
    Is it better to “successfully complete a marathon” than to “complete a marathon”?
    Is a “deadly fatal accident” more tragic than a “fatal accident”?
    Is a “natural born citizen” more of a citizen than a “born citizen”?

  286. avatar
    Sudoku November 30, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Only in Mario-land does your “own argument” trump court rulings.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoeZeppy, he just has no where to go. So he just keeps repeating how some lower courts have decided it all already. Too bad that he does not have his own argument which shows that he is correct.

  287. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    Poor

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: in the end he really cannot demonstrate the merits of his arguments and so he just repeats the same old story line about how the courts have decided it all already.

    …in cases where it wasn’t even at issue. So remind me again, Mario– not that I want to dredge up unpleasant old memories for you or anything– what’s your scorecard on this one? You really shouldn’t feel too bad about Alexandra Hill beating you like a dirty rug in New Jersey– an empty chair could’ve beaten the case you showed up with. It’s not your fault your case was so weak. Oh, wait, that was entirely your fault. Sorry!

  288. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Court in Wong knew the difference, stated that difference, and held that he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth which is the same citizenship status that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizens parents have and which you say raises a question regarding whether they are “natural born Citizens.”

    And not satisfied with beating the dead horse of birther arguments, for an encore, Mario whips out the “14th Amendment Citizenship” argument that courts have been calling frivolous since tax protesters and white supremecists first whipped them out 20 years ago. What could be next in the Mario parade of long debunked junk law? Perhaps something about the gold fringe on the flag? Maybe something about the Federal Government being a corporation, and not legitimate? Heck go for broke and whip out the New World Order with a side of black helicopters!

  289. avatar
    JoZeppy November 30, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoeZeppy, he just has no where to go. So he just keeps repeating how some lower courts have decided it all already. Too bad that he does not have his own argument which shows that he is correct.

    Ummm…..I don’t know how to break this to you…..but the argument of, “every single court in the country that has heard this argument has ruled the exact same way” and actually being truthful when saying that, will win 99 out of a 100 times (and that one time will be when the SCOTUS reverses itself).

    I don’t need “my own argument” to show I am correct. I have every court that has had to deal with your ilk behind me. And all of your denials and false bravado can’t change that.

    but hey, now you’re teaming up with Orly….I’m sure that will be something to put in the Temple Law Alumni magazine.

  290. avatar
    sfjeff November 30, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Since you concede that the only case that you rely upon is Wong Kim Ark, please provide the holding of the Court which supports your thesis that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. I need an actual quote of the holding and not what your interpretation of some language is.

    I think the Indiana Court of Appeals states it very succinctly- now grant you I am not a highly respected and trained lawyer like yourself but I believe the Appellate Court Justices of Indiana have some gravitas in this matter:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    Regardless of your dancing around about the Supreme Court not ruling- actual competant legal experts have stated their opinion here.

    And no competant legal expert supports your wacky theory

  291. avatar
    Northland10 November 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

    Keith:
    A few questions to ponder:

    Is a “round circle” different than a “circle”?
    Is “black ebony” darker than “ebony”?
    Is a “legless snake” skinner than a “snake”?
    Is it better to “successfully complete a marathon” than to “complete a marathon”?
    Is a “deadly fatal accident” more tragic than a “fatal accident”?
    Is a “natural born citizen” more of a citizen than a “born citizen”?

    Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

  292. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Mario-Where is any holding by the Supreme Court that says they have the power to overturn an election? You seem to believe they have unlimited power. Wisely, the Justices are more modest regarding their non-magical abilities.

    When somene is elected President and confirmed by Congress, then, by definition, they meet the requirements to be President. We hold that truth to be self-evident.

  293. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    Northland10: Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

    Now see, I’d been wondering about that. I’d thought there might be the barest glimmer of a chance that our Mario Apuzzo, Esq. here was just somebody trying to make the real Mario look like even more of a lackwit dullard than he is. It appears I misunderestimated him.

  294. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    I read Apuzzo’s stuff from time to time, but I haven’t seen it. He writes so much it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, if there were really a case on point, I’m sure I would have heard about it by now.

    Scientist: Where is a court case saying that you must have “citizen” parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen?

  295. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    That’s the fallacy of false equivalence. Saying that two people are both “citizens at birth” is not necessarily the same thing as their having the same status vis-a-vis eligibility to be President. Come on, that is a standard logical fallacy. At least you could try to be more inventive.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not arguing that Wong was not a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, I am arguing that he was not a “natural born Citizen” The Court in Wong knew the difference, stated that difference, and held that he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth which is the same citizenship status that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizens parents have and which you say raises a question regarding whether they are “natural born Citizens.” So do not try to inflame the argument with your race baiting

  296. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    I think that Mario is saying that the Supreme Court has not addressed the question of presidential eligibility, and therefore he could well remain in denial for the rest of his life. Even if the Supreme Court did layout a very clear definition of NBC, say in a case involving a foreign-born candidate, Mario could still say that they refused to address each and every argument that he made in his own failed cases.

    The essence of birtherism is denial. I don’t see how Mario could ever achieve clarity, nor how one could actually argue with such a person, any more than with a sign on a fence post.

    JoZeppy: And as for the courts having decided it already….well, fact of the matter is they have. The whole point of bring a suit, and arguing before a court is to convince them you are right. Something you and your kin have universally failed to do. So the fact that you have a 100% failure rate isn’t some minor technicality to sweep aside, it’s a complete and crushing defeat of your arguments. The courts are the final word on the law, and they have said you’re full of bunk. What more can any person here, even if that person was Lawrence Tribe, add to the discussion when the courts have been so clear and unambiguous?

  297. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom videos from the Purpura case with the mean-spirited mountebank that posts here. Who knows, maybe it’s really Kerchner posting here under Apuzzo’s name.

    Northland10: Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

  298. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think that Mario is saying that the Supreme Court has not addressed the question of presidential eligibility

    In the law, one always starts with a presumption, a default position. Innocent, until proven guilty, for example. On presidential eligibility, the only possible presumption or default position is that someone elected by the people, validated by Congress, and sitting in the White House is eligible until ruled otherwise. If the presumption or default were that they were ineligible until the Supreme Court ruled them eligible, then none of the 44 were eligible.

  299. avatar
    Paper November 30, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    We’ve been around this point before. You are making something up and claiming it is real; it is not. Your distinction and parsing of words is meritless. You have nothing that demonstrates parentage of children born here matters to NBC, despite your claims. Misreading, misquoting and making stuff up is meritless.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    You said:“The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already).”Here, you conflate a “natural born Citizen” with a “citizen of the United States.” The citizenship of parents is not relevant for those who are born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which the Fourteenth Amendment defines as “citizens of the United States.”But the citizenship of parents is very relevant for anyone born in the United States who wants to be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” because according to the prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

  300. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom videos from the Purpura case with the mean-spirited mountebank that posts here. Who knows, maybe it’s really Kerchner posting here under Apuzzo’s name.

    You can pretend all you want, but I know that you are as phony as a three dollar bill.

  301. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Keith: A few questions to ponder:Is a “round circle” different than a “circle”?Is “black ebony” darker than “ebony”?Is a “legless snake” skinner than a “snake”?Is it better to “successfully complete a marathon” than to “complete a marathon”?Is a “deadly fatal accident” more tragic than a “fatal accident”?Is a “natural born citizen” more of a citizen than a “born citizen”?

    Your point does not work. You give various examples of redundancies and then throw “natural born Citizen” among the mix to try to prove that “natural born Citizen” is also a redundancy of “born citizen.” But there is a fundamental problem with your argument. The Founders and Framers chose “natural born Citizen” and not “born citizen” for a purpose. They did not want to give Congress the power to change its meaning as it may wish at any given time. Hence, unlike how they potentially foresaw the loose and ever changing “citizen of the United States,” they put a “natural born Citizen” beyond Congress’s naturalization powers to alter. Also, the former had a greater allegiance requirement than did the latter. So, “natural born Citizen,” is not a redundancy of “born citizen,” for there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen,” and a “born citizen.”

    I have long argued that the Obots want to erase that pesky “natural” out of “natural born Citizen” and you have just proven my point.

  302. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom

    Mario is not the mouse that roared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, “natural born Citizen,” is not a redundancy of “born citizen,” for there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen,” and a “born citizen.”

    Do you really believe anyone here thinks you are sane?

    BTW, I read your comment that I am a communist. “Communist” and “Glenn Beck” each have nine letters. Coincidence?

  303. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: At least you could try to be more inventive.

    He’s plenty inventive when defending a DWI client.

  304. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom videos from the Purpura case with the mean-spirited mountebank that posts here.

    That’s a truly remarkable transformation, isn’t it? I wonder what Nick Purpura was thinking while his attorney was getting his head handed to him in that hearing. Mario, how did that hearing turn out again? What was it Judge Masin said about your position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen”?

  305. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

    Dave B,

    We all felt real good in that court room like we are feeling right now taking pleasure in me handing you and your Obot buddies your heads with everyone of your lame comments.

  306. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That’s the fallacy of false equivalence. Saying that two people are both “citizens at birth” is not necessarily the same thing as their having the same status vis-a-vis eligibility to be President. Come on, that is a standard logical fallacy. At least you could try to be more inventive.

    Making stuff up are we? Where do you get your constitutional distinction between a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment and a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under a Congressional statute, such that the former is eligible to be President and the latter is not?

  307. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We all felt real good in that court room like we are feeling right now

    And then what happened?
    What good is a lawyer who gets his plow cleaned in court and thinks he can make up for it by posting the same lame arguments on the internet (with some exceptionally inane banter thrown in for good measure)? Are you familiar with the quaint expression “where the rubber meets the road”? And what exactly was it that Judge Masin said about your position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen”?

  308. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 30, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    Poor Dave B, when he is on his own debating on the internet he thinks he is in some other place in some other time where the current arguments were not even addressed in the first place. He surely can’t fight is own battles but expects others to do so for him from some other time and place. Poor soul.

  309. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Dave B, when he is on his own debating on the internet he thinks he is in some other place in some other time where the current arguments were not even addressed in the first place.

    Huh?

  310. avatar
    Paper November 30, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    Incorrect yet again. You are misreading the word natural-born. Your interpretations of the language are flawed.

    Natural in this configuration means integral to birth, that it is inherently part of one’s nature at birth, inalienable even. Do a search on any term involving “natural-born.” Natural born musician, natural born kisser, natural born leader. It goes on and on. Used over and over in the language. We don’t just say Birn kisser, born leader. We add emphasis and a distinction of natural, as inseparable from and inherent to one’s nature.

    The reason why there is some question about citizens born citizens but abroad is because their citizenship at birth depends upon laws that change. I may argue that once an individual is born a citizen, no matter where, that they are natural-born, but regardless, all citizens born here are natural-born. Their citizenship is inherent, inalienable and natural. (As akin to natural rights that are not dependent upon law.) congress can do nothing about their citizenship. They can, however, impact citizenship of those born abroad, at least George they are born.

    Citizenship of those born here is not changeable, despite your assertion. *All* such citizens are beyond Congress and its naturalization powers.

    Your distinction is spurious.

    Indeed, rather than erasing “natural,” I myself embrace it. The word “natural” highlights your error, as there have never been any citizens born here whose citizenship was alienable. Parentage has not had any impact on that inalienability.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Your point does not work.You give various examples of redundancies and then throw “natural born Citizen” among the mix to try to prove that “natural born Citizen” is also a redundancy of “born citizen.”But there is a fundamental problem with your argument.The Founders and Framers chose “natural born Citizen” and not “born citizen” for a purpose.They did not want to give Congress the power to change its meaning as it may wish at any given time.Hence, unlike how they potentially foresaw the loose and ever changing “citizen of the United States,” they put a “natural born Citizen” beyond Congress’s naturalization powers to alter.Also, the former had a greater allegiance requirement than did the latter.So, “natural born Citizen,” is not a redundancy of “born citizen,” for there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen,” and a “born citizen.”

    I have long argued that the Obots want to erase that pesky “natural” out of “natural born Citizen”and you have just proven my point.

  311. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

    BAD KITTY FOR PRESIDENT

    Finally! A civics text les birfers can relate to!

    Bad kitty, irritated to no end by the encroachment of Stray Cats into her neighborhood, decides to run for President of the Neighborhood Cat Club …. so she can decree that all Stray Cats be thrown into an active volcano.

    In the end … well, you’ll just have to read it for yourself.

    In the back, right there in the glossary, is a definition of “native-born citizen”. The Putz may find it instructive.

  312. avatar
    Paper November 30, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    Despite all your continual digs at various commenters, your assertions about citizenship remain meritless. Your various dominance games are irrelevant.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    [random boilerplate insult, taunt]

  313. avatar
    Dave B. November 30, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    Paper: Your various dominance games are irrelevant.

    Not to mention singularly inept!

  314. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    Northland10: Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

    I have pondered the shape of his melon. It ain’t natural.

  315. avatar
    Sudoku December 1, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    Clearly, Mario needs Doc and the commenters here to fulfill his….life? Arguments? Existence?

    I don’t know for sure, but whatever it is, Mario needs Doc.

  316. avatar
    Keith December 1, 2012 at 12:27 am #

    Paper: The reason why there is some question about citizens born citizens but abroad is because their citizenship at birth depends upon laws that change. I may argue that once an individual is born a citizen, no matter where, that they are natural-born, but regardless, all citizens born here are natural-born. Their citizenship is inherent, inalienable and natural. (As akin to natural rights that are not dependent upon law.) congress can do nothing about their citizenship. They can, however, impact citizenship of those born abroad, at least George they are born.

    Spot on. Well said.

  317. avatar
    JPotter December 1, 2012 at 12:36 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”

    I can’t believe he went there. Talk about giving the game away. Thanks for confirming the sources of your “intellectual property.”

  318. avatar
    Sudoku December 1, 2012 at 12:44 am #

    Intellectual? I love it! You are such a card!

    JPotter: I can’t believe he went there. Talk about giving the game away. Thanks for confirming the sources of your “intellectual property.”

  319. avatar
    LW December 1, 2012 at 2:21 am #

    JoZeppy: What could be next in the Mario parade of long debunked junk law?

    I’m hoping for “signing contracts with red crayon,” myself.

  320. avatar
    bovril December 1, 2012 at 3:21 am #

    There’s a name for someone who gets beaten again and again and who’s only response is “please sir can I have some more….”

    So, Mendax Mario, since you have never, ever won a birthers case in life and in point of fact each and ever of your” arguments” have all been rejected by the courts throughout the USA, how do equate your fails with ” winning”?

    Seriously, every single one of your asinine theories has been shown to be ineffective, illogical, fact free, without standing or basis in law or the constitution.

    You have no supporting case law that is accepted as what you want it to be

    Your ideas are in fact so value free that the court threatened you with sanctions.

    So, either you

    Are a pathological liar
    Suffering from battered wife syndrome
    An intellectual, ethical and moral vacuum
    A poorly closeted masochist
    Some or all of the above

    What did your last psychological evaluation state?

  321. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2012 at 3:43 am #

    bovril: So, either you

    Are a pathological liar
    Suffering from battered wife syndrome
    An intellectual, ethical and moral vacuum
    A poorly closeted masochist
    Some or all of the above

    This is really the crux of the matter.

    Mario’s legal lucubrations are the equivalent of the French taunts of King Arthur in MONTY PYTHON & THE HOLY GRAIL (“We already have one,” “I fart in your general direction,’ etc.) and therefore of no interest whatsoever.

    I’ve been saying lately that the paradigm of this new century is “Idiots or liars?”

    Is Mario a delusional fool, the suit & tie equivalent of the guy standing on a soap box on Hyde Park Corner in London haranguing about the Freemason conspiracy and the End of the World? Or is he a crafty, meretricious, ethics-free sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

    I wish I could figure it out.

  322. avatar
    Dave B. December 1, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    Lupin: Is Mario a delusional fool, the suit & tie equivalent of the guy standing on a soap box on Hyde Park Corner in London haranguing about the Freemason conspiracy and the End of the World? Or is he a crafty, meretricious, ethics-free sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

    Or is he an ethics-free delusional fool sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

  323. avatar
    Paper December 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    He suffers a worse judgement than having his character scrutinized: his arguments are meritless no matter how he contorts them.

    He clearly cares nothing about how people think of his character. Good enough. He doesn’t care, I don’t care. No need to play distracting power games that are meaningless.

    Because in terms of real power, or just in terms of what he demonstrably cares about, his arguments, those arguments, unfortunately for his case, are meritless.

    Dave B.: Or is he an ethics-free delusional fool sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

  324. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Paper: Incorrect yet again. You are misreading the word natural-born. Your interpretations of the language are flawed.Natural in this configuration means integral to birth, that it is inherently part of one’s nature at birth, inalienable even. Do a search on any term involving “natural-born.” Natural born musician, natural born kisser, natural born leader. It goes on and on. Used over and over in the language. We don’t just say Birn kisser, born leader. We add emphasis and a distinction of natural, as inseparable from and inherent to one’s nature.The reason why there is some question about citizens born citizens but abroad is because their citizenship at birth depends upon laws that change. I may argue that once an individual is born a citizen, no matter where, that they are natural-born, but regardless, all citizens born here are natural-born. Their citizenship is inherent, inalienable and natural. (As akin to natural rights that are not dependent upon law.) congress can do nothing about their citizenship. They can, however, impact citizenship of those born abroad, at least George they are born. Citizenship of those born here is not changeable, despite your assertion. *All* such citizens are beyond Congress and its naturalization powers.Your distinction is spurious.Indeed, rather than erasing “natural,” I myself embrace it. The word “natural” highlights your error, as there have never been any citizens born here whose citizenship was alienable. Parentage has not had any impact on that inalienability.

    You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen” under Article II, being “natural born,” enjoys absolute immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers. A “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment also enjoys immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers, but only to the extent that it may be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress cannot under Section 5 of that amendment enforce what a “citizen of the United States” is by defining what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. In any event, that both classes of born “citizens,” who are both born on U.S. soil, enjoy that immunity does not mean that the two citizenship statuses are constitutionally equivalent.

  325. avatar
    JPotter December 2, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”

    Oh, look who’s back! Hard to conflate an entity with itself. Hey, could you please comment on Coleman’s commentary on “The Idiocy of ‘Instant’ Citizenship”? If you need help finding it, just ask. Go ahead, feign unfamiliarity.

  326. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    JPotter: Oh, look who’s back! Hard to conflate an entity with itself. Hey, could you please comment on Coleman’s commentary on “The Idiocy of ‘Instant’ Citizenship”? If you need help finding it, just ask. Go ahead, feign unfamiliarity.

    You believe that it is “[h]ard to conflate an entity with itself.” So you actual admit that you do not see a difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    Additionally, are you saying that anyone to whom Congress may offer “instant citizenship” is an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

  327. avatar
    Reality Check December 2, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    Ah so Mario Apuzzo is back. I wanted to congratulate him on working with Orly Taitz. The partnership of the two worst attorneys in the entire country should make for much amusement. I completely approve of the marriage.

  328. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    And you are begging the question by assuming a definition of natural born citizen which is rejected by most legal scholars.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen” under Article II, being “natural born,” enjoys absolute immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers.

  329. avatar
    nbc December 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    How many courts have now explicitly rejected Mario’s musings? The last one called it at best an interesting academic exercise

    Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.

    And this court…

    Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed 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.

    Mario is getting exactly the respect his arguments deserve :-)

  330. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you actual admit that you do not see a difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    I do see the difference. “Citizen of the United States” specifies one particular country-the US. “Natural born Citizen” does not. So, under Article II you could be a natural born citizen of the Netherlands, or Thailand or Bolivia and that would be OK.

    You should try to present this more clearly so that judges understand this point.

  331. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Reality Check: Ah so Mario Apuzzo is back. I wanted to congratulate him on working with Orly Taitz. The partnership of the two worst attorneys in the entire country should make for much amusement. I completely approve of the marriage.

    Professor, you are the one who is back. Do you not have some exams to correct?

  332. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you actual admit that you do not see a difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    Unless they are from Mars, there is no difference.

    You and your ilk are stuck with Obama, just like we had to put up with Shrub.

  333. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And you are begging the question by assuming a definition of natural born citizen which is rejected by most legal scholars.

    I am not begging anything. I have demonstrated why my position is correct, something which you have not done.

  334. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you not have some exams to correct?

    Do you not have the town drunk to defend?

  335. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have demonstrated why my position is correct.

    Only to the other asylum inmates.

  336. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not begging anything.

    You beg juries to acquit clients who are a danger to the commonweal.

  337. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Scientist: So, under Article II you could be a natural born citizen of the Netherlands, or Thailand or Bolivia and that would be OK.

    Or Mars – just like Mario.

  338. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    nbc: How many courts have now explicitly rejected Mario’s musings? The last one called it at best an interesting academic exerciseAnd this court…Mario is getting exactly the respect his arguments deserve

    Saying an argument is “academic only” without addressing it does not demonstrate that the argument is wrong.

    Simply saying an argument is “without merit” without showing how does not demonstrate how the argument is without merit.

  339. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    misha marinsky: Do you not have the town drunk to defend?

    Do you not have some poor peasant or some member of the intelligentsia to kill?

  340. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not begging anything. I have demonstrated why my position is correct, something which you have not done.

    I agree your position is “correct”. “Natural born ciitizen” and “citizen of the United States” are indeed different, since “”natual born citizen” does not specify any particular country.

    That is what you have been arguing, but in 4 years you never said so clearly, as I just did.

    I also agree with you that Barack Obama should be not be on the 2016 ballot.

  341. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    This is your error. Your made-up definition is meritless.

    I noted the inalienability of citizenship to point out that that is the natural (and key) sense of the word “natural” in this usage. Not born of two citizen parents. Just merely on the level of basic English. A natural born musician, for example, may or may not have musician parents.

    To play your game, moreover, I just note that even if there were such a distinction as you would invent, it would remain merely a distinction between two different kinds of natural born citizenship, where the distinction is as meaningless as that between natural born citizens born in different states. It matters not what state you are born in; it matters not who your parents are.

    In terms of the exceptions, you will note as well that children of diplomats and others not subject to our jurisdiction were not natural born citizens even before the 14th Amendment.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”A “natural born Citizen” under Article II, being “natural born,” enjoys absolute immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers.A “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment also enjoys immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers, but only to the extent that it may be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress cannot under Section 5 of that amendment enforce what a “citizen of the United States” is by defining what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.In any event, that both classes of born “citizens,” who are both born on U.S. soil, enjoy that immunity does not mean that the two citizenship statuses are constitutionally equivalent.

  342. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    misha marinsky: Only to the other asylum inmates.

    I’m sure you know a lot about asylums.

  343. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you not have some poor peasant or some member of the intelligentsia to kill?

    Huh? Did you mean some poor pheasant?

  344. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    Paper: This is your error. Your made-up definition is meritless.I noted the inalienability of citizenship to point out that that is the natural (and key) sense of the word “natural” in this usage. Not born of two citizen parents. Just merely on the level of basic English. A natural born musician, for example, may or may not have musician parents.To play your game, moreover, I just note that even if there were such a distinction as you would invent, it would remain merely a distinction between two different kinds of natural born citizenship, where the distinction is as meaningless as that between natural born citizens born in different states. It matters not what state you are born in; it matters not who your parents are. In terms of the exceptions, you will note as well that children of diplomats and others not subject to our jurisdiction were not natural born citizens even before the 14th Amendment.

    Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

  345. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’m sure you know a lot about asylums.

    My grandmother died in Gowanda State Hospital. She was saved by being hidden in a trunk in an attic, and went mad from it.

  346. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    misha marinsky: Huh? Did you mean some poor pheasant?

    No, your kind killed peasants, not pheasants.

  347. avatar
    JPotter December 2, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Additionally, are you saying that anyone to whom Congress may offer “instant citizenship” is an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

    No, I am asking you to comment on a specific article by a specific writer. I know specifics are hard for you, but you might like this one. Need help finding it, if we pretend you are unfamiliar?

  348. avatar
    JPotter December 2, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    QotD!

    Got to get an extinguisher going in the metering room …. !

  349. avatar
    misha marinsky December 2, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: No, your kind killed peasants, not pheasants.

    Considering the kibbutzim did everything they could for Arab civil rights, I doubt it.

  350. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    misha marinsky: My grandmother died in Gowanda State Hospital. She was saved by being hidden in a trunk in an attic, and went mad from it.

    I can see that your grandmother’s harrowing experience has had a psychological effect on you.

  351. avatar
    Scientist December 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    Yes it does. Unless everyone agrees on a definition arguments are meaningless. Try arguing whether “glafrithy” is good or bad. It’s absurd unless you first define what “glafrithy” means.

  352. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    JPotter: No, I am asking you to comment on a specific article by a specific writer. I know specifics are hard for you, but you might like this one. Need help finding it, if we pretend you are unfamiliar?

    Provide the article link. I will read it and give you my thoughts.

  353. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Incorrect, you have not.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not begging anything.I have demonstrated why my position is correct…

  354. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Paper: Incorrect, you have not.

    So, we can agree that you have one position and I have another.

  355. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    Exactly. Which is why your argument is a failure.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

  356. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    Paper: Exactly. Which is why your argument is a failure.

    It is my opinion that I have demonstrated my argument to be correct. It is also my opinion that you have not demonstrated that your argument is correct. So, I can say the same thing that you say about my argument, that your argument is a failure.

  357. avatar
    JPotter December 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Provide the article link.I will read it and give you my thoughts.

    Well, it’s from 1999. Was published for Kindle in 2010. You can preview Coleman’s musings on Constitutional matters at Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Should-United-States-Constitution-Rights/dp/1893157032/ref=tmm_hrd_title_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1354492121&sr=8-1

    The section on “instant citizenship” starts on p. 34. Use the search feature to jump tight to it.

  358. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    Yes. The difference is yours is a failure. I do not mean defeat. Not admitting defeat is even admirable in some contexts. You’ve got that down cold. But failure is different. Failure persists, until you let it go.

    Despite your assertions, you have done nothing but merely make up your own definition. You have not demonstrated your position as being correct, no matter how much you say you have.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, we can agree that you have one position and I have another.

  359. avatar
    nbc December 2, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, we can agree that you have one position and I have another.

    And yours has been rejected by various courts already…. His, not so much…

    ROTFL….

    The difference between wishful thinking on your part and a well reasoned analysis of the history and relevant court cases by et al

  360. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Scientist: Yes it does. Unless everyone agrees on a definition arguments are meaningless. Try arguing whether “glafrithy” is good or bad. It’s absurd unless you first define what “glafrithy” means.

    Minor v. Happersett (1875) held:

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

    Minor at 167-68. So the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defined who at common law, after the original citizens came into being, were not only the “citizens” but also the “natural-born citizens.” That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expanded who were the “citizens” by also including children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

  361. avatar
    nbc December 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm #

    Saying an argument is “academic only” without addressing it does not demonstrate that the argument is wrong.

    No it does not but anyone can figure out where you went wrong. So the Court believes that it need not spell out the obvious…

    Again, you have little more on your side than an appeal to your personal opinion.

    Good luck with that one my friend.

    And good luck hooking up with Orly. The two of you deserve each other.

  362. avatar
    nbc December 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    Happersett states that it need not address the status of children born to foreigners. Wong Kim Ark did.

    Still pretending not to understand? Fascinating denial my friend. Does it not hurt to be remembered for your ill fated position on Natural Born Citizenship?

    In official court cases nonetheless…

    Priceless

  363. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 11:28 pm #

    nbc: Happersett states that it need not address the status of children born to foreigners. Wong Kim Ark did.Still pretending not to understand? Fascinating denial my friend. Does it not hurt to be remembered for your ill fated position on Natural Born Citizenship?In official court cases nonetheless…Priceless

    You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation and what they wrote in the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility. I cannot say that you and your Gang of Five can say the same.

  364. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    nbc: And yours has been rejected by various courts already…. His, not so much…ROTFL….The difference between wishful thinking on your part and a well reasoned analysis of the history and relevant court cases by et al

    Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any state Supreme Court has demonstrated my argument to be incorrect.

  365. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    And here you go, proving once again that you indeed do make up your own definition.

    Again…

    Minor, extremely clearly, points to one tree in the forest and says that tree is a tree; the rest of the forest may be full of trees, too, but we don’t have to worry about that here and now. It is sufficient here to say maple trees are clearly trees.

    Minor does *not* define trees as maple trees. Minor does not *define* natural born citizenship. It just points to one class as being clearly included.

    Your argument, thus, has no merit. Demonstrably.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett (1875) held:

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves,upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.As to this classthere 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 at 167-68. So the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defined who at common law, after the original citizens came into being, were not only the “citizens” but also the “natural-born citizens.”That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expanded who were the “citizens” by also including children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

  366. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 2, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    Paper: And here you go, proving once again that you indeed do make up your own definition. Again…Minor, extremely clearly, points to one tree in the forest and says that tree is a tree; the rest of the forest may be full of trees, too, but we don’t have to worry about that here and now. It is sufficient here to say maple trees are clearly trees. Minor does *not* define trees as maple trees. Minor does not *define* natural born citizenship. It just points to one class as being clearly included.Your argument, thus, has no merit. Demonstrably.

    You really are dense. A “natural born Citizen” does not have subsets like animals, trees, plants, cars, etc. There is only one “natural born Citizen” and Minor defined one.

  367. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    But we have.

    And others have.

    Your failures are basic and obvious. They cannot survive attention much less scrutiny. They will persist in whatever venue.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any state Supreme Court has demonstrated my argument to be incorrect.

  368. avatar
    Paper December 2, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    Insults. Yawn.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You really are dense.A “natural born Citizen” does not have subsets like animals, trees, plants, cars, etc.There is only one “natural born Citizen” and Minor defined one.

  369. avatar
    Paper December 3, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    Clearly and obviously, this is incorrect.

    But even by your own style of analysis, Minor only says that they themselves are “citizens.” It doesn’t say they are “natural-born citizens.”

    Never mind the beginning of the paragraph. Just as you ignore how Minor clearly qualifies its statement about only speaking to a *part* of the definition and specifically says not the whole definition.

    You are failing at basic English, never mind legal analysis. You will never be able to sneak around this point.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You really are dense.A “natural born Citizen” does not have subsets like animals, trees, plants, cars, etc.There is only one “natural born Citizen” and Minor defined one.

  370. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There is only one “natural born Citizen”

    Uh-oh … who ya gonna go with …. assuming you mean there was one one NBC, ever?

    Nah, that would be silly, right? Surely you mean that there is only one natural born citizen at a time. And how do we know who it is? Because they’ve been inaugurated as President! If tehy weren’t NBC, that would be impossible!

    Hmm, oh, shucky-darn, those pesky Vice-Presidents. SO, like, there’s only one NBC at a time, and a standby just in case? Should the current NBC meet an untimely demise, the mantle of NBC-ship transfers, mystically, through the totem of bible, in the hands of a representative of the Constitutional-priest caste, the Federal judiciary?

    Think of LBJ on the plane in Dallas while watching this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5sQBXvSLfQ

    Man, that’s just beautiful Mario. Thanks for opening my eyes.

  371. avatar
    Paper December 3, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    But even in Minor they didn’t become natural born citizens. They merely became “citizens.” By your own way of reading. I mean, they talk about natural born citizenship, but then in the end just say:

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

    See? “Citizens.” Just like you type it. Citizens. Children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves “citizens.”

    The court’s just saying we can talk about natural born citizens, but you know what, no need, it’s sufficient that they are citizens, we don’t need to worry about whether or not they are natural born.

    I mean, that is how you analyze things.

    Never mind that this paragraph, and the rest of Minr, makes no sense linguistically if you do not “conflate” (to use your term) or use citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have just called them “citizens” in that last sentence of the paragraph, and elsewhere there.

    What, you say? But it is understood they meant natural born? Exactly. Thus ends your 14th Amendment citizen distinction, which never existed anyway.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it.Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

  372. avatar
    bovril December 3, 2012 at 2:45 am #

    Mendax Mario,

    One is curious, other than pure masochistic self abuse, why oh why do you persist in this sad little set of lies and particularly on sites such as this where your normal Stalinist censoring is not in effect?

    Your pathetic ideas and personal opinions have all been laughed out of court on multiple occasions, you have teetered on formal sanctions repeatedly, are regarded as a laughably inept pretend lawyer and has had each of your voluminous and fact free diatribes picked
    apart as the nonsense they are.

    You lose to very junior associates, the entire thesis of your nonsense bears no resemblance to the legal framework in this country and is profoundly anti constitutional.

    You and you fellow traveler ilk have posited junk legal theory which is and has been rejected on every occasion it has entered the courts

    To cap it all you are now getting into bed with truly the worst lawyer in the Western world. You are aware of her profoundly insane methods and how she will turn on her supporters at the drop of a hat?

    I do trust you can cast your mind back to your days at Temple and remember as a putative officer of the court that there are ethical canons and requirements if, when acting as co- counsel, you are aware of the unethical actions of your partner in crime.

    I would suggest you have a look at the current mad old Orly v Leah Lax cat fight if I were you.

    This is the first and only piece of friendly advice I will ever give you Mario, i personally find you a nasty childish piece of work but even you I would not wish to be seen in the company of that woman.

  373. avatar
    Lupin December 3, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    bovril: One is curious, other than pure masochistic self abuse, why oh why do you persist in this sad little set of lies and particularly on sites such as this where your normal Stalinist censoring is not in effect?

    Indeed. As I said it boils down to “idiot or liar”?

    My money is on “liar” but I could be wrong.

    ps: FWIW I think Atrios first coined the “idiot or liar” meme.

  374. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2012 at 3:21 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    That is a fatuous argument. They didn’t ‘go on’ to become anything. They always were.

    Yes they are “Citizens”, and the kind of “Citizens” they are is “Natural Born Citizens”. That is the only possibility, since the only other option is “Naturalized Citizens” and they are demonstrably not that.

    The Governments argument in WKA even specifically said that if WKA was found to be a Citizen, then he would, in fact, be a natural born citizen, eligible to be President. They used that argument because that was the only possible outcome: IF (WKA = ‘citizen’ of any kind) THEN (WKA = ‘natural born citizen’).That was the whole point of the case – it was the intention of Congress that the Chinese Exclusion acts were meant to exclude Chinese from citizenship so how could WKA be allowed to be a citizen and eligible to be President to boot?

    The Government recognized this fact, because unlike you, it understood that “Naturalized” means “Made Natural”, and the opposite of “Made Natural” is “Born Natural”. Thus you can be made a citizen, or you can be born a citizen, period.

    The two citizenship categories are “Natural Made Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”. That’s all there is to it Mario.

    As the saying goes, you are welcome to your own opinion, but you are not welcome to your own facts.

    You cannot and will not succeed in using President Obama as a stalking horse to promote your nationalist fantasy of creating wedges between Americans in order to cling to the your old comfortable status quo faux-utopia. America rejected the ideas behind the Chinese Exclusion Act, and it will not return to it.

    That ship has sailed, Mario. Live with it.

  375. avatar
    Daniel December 3, 2012 at 4:15 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it.Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation and what they wrote in the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility.I cannot say that you and your Gang of Five can say the same.

    You can always tell when moron Marion has lost a case really, Really REALLY bad in the courts. He comes here and tries to convince us of the foolishness he could nerve manage to convince a court of.

    Of course he’s got as much chance of convincing sane people to adopt his insanity as he does of winning a court case. Kind of makes you wonder why he wastes his time?

  376. avatar
    bovril December 3, 2012 at 4:57 am #

    So,

    Mendax Mario start his drivel at 20:00 on this Sunday night, then we had a batch over an 8 hour period the previous Saturday etc etc.

    Looking at the time lines, it appears we have a combination of Mario as “Nobby no mates” and sad loner syndrome, possibly fuelled by the consumption of TV Dinner for one and alcohol alone at home.

    My God, we’re the closest Mario has to friends !!!

    It all becomes clearer now, the poor chap is a shut in, limited social interactions, limited to no social life, day consumed by repetitive, compulsive, value free OCD behaviour, only substantial interaction is virtual.

    If I had a heart I would suggest we should call the Division of Addictions and Mental Health Planning for Middlesex County or the Middlesex County of Social Sercices Adult Protective Servioces section and ask them to look in on Mario.

  377. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 5:51 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation

    It is long past time that everyone on both sides stopped bowing and scraping before those deeply flawed “Founders and Framers”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?src=me&ref=general

    Those alive today would do much better to act like grown ups and decide for themselves what works in today’s world rather than delegating that task to a bunch of dead guys who had their own problems while they were alive.

  378. avatar
    misha marinsky December 3, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    Scientist: It is long past time that everyone on both sides stopped bowing and scraping before those deeply flawed “Founders and Framers”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html

    I read the article before you linked to it.

    They had feet of clay, just like everyone else.

  379. avatar
    misha marinsky December 3, 2012 at 7:27 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I can see that your grandmother’s harrowing experience has had a psychological effect on you.

    The blood of your clients’ victims, is on your hands.

  380. avatar
    Lupin December 3, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Keith: You cannot and will not succeed in using President Obama as a stalking horse to promote your nationalist fantasy of creating wedges between Americans in order to cling to the your old comfortable status quo faux-utopia. America rejected the ideas behind the Chinese Exclusion Act, and it will not return to it.

    Bravo!!!!!!!!!

  381. avatar
    Lupin December 3, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    bovril: It all becomes clearer now, the poor chap is a shut in, limited social interactions, limited to no social life, day consumed by repetitive, compulsive, value free OCD behaviour, only substantial interaction is virtual.

    I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

  382. avatar
    Northland10 December 3, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    Given his timing here and elsewhere, I have wondered the same.

    I will grant Mario one thing. If he is intent on others understanding the concept of citizenship in a historical sense he has succeeded. Partly, in response to his statements, I have learned a great deal. I have learned how wrong he is but I still learned.

    Lupin: I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

  383. avatar
    bovril December 3, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    Well, its plain that he never ACTUALLY learns anything and his “arguments” are identical to the ones he’s used over at least the last 2-3 years.

    The only thing he’s added is an every expanding corpus of copy ‘n paste snippets of nonsense that he believes supports his guano insane personal beliefs, even though they have all been pulled apart on innumerable occassions.

    Basically he has a personal conclusion and everything must be made to support the conclusion….

    Nicholas Chauvin anyone…. 8-)

  384. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Lupin: I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

    Use random people online to prepare for facing a live judge?

    Great tactical plan. Cheap, and you get what you paid for.

    I think he likes it here (online in general that is, not just OCT) because he’s allowed to ramble on forever, and can say what’s on his mind. In court, he can be objected to, silenced, and is on a clock. And he dare not pipe in with his classic one-line, wannabe-zingers, that we’ve all come to know and love here. Despite the repetition.

    I do have to apologize tho. I made a crack about the # of hits Mario’s handle pulls up here. Silly me, every time Google indexes OCT, it picks up the recent comments on the current version of every article is crawls. It’s a lot of boorishness, only the keeper of the database could quantify it.

  385. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    Lupin: I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

    I have directly called him out on it a couple of times.

  386. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any state Supreme Court has demonstrated my argument to be incorrect.

    No…but they surely didn’t feel the need to disagree with the lower courts that determined your arguments have “no merit.”

    The end result is still the same. No court in the United States accepts your theories.

  387. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It is my opinion that I have demonstrated my argument to be correct. It is also my opinion that you have not demonstrated that your argument is correct. So, I can say the same thing that you say about my argument, that your argument is a failure.

    Ignoring the little details that no court has ever cited to Minor as the definition of Natural Born Citizenship, no court has every held that Wong was anything but a Natural Born Citizenship, and no court has ever held that the 14th Amendment created some new kind of citizen, and in fact has directly rejected that notion when argued by tax protesters and white supremicists.

    Besides those minor details, and any objective measure of what the actual law is, sure.

    If you are so confident in your theories Mario, why haven’t you published them in a respected law journal, like real legal scholars?

  388. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    JoZeppy: No…but they surely didn’t feel the need to disagree with the lower courts that determined your arguments have “no merit.”The end result is still the same. No court in the United States accepts your theories.

    You guys just love fallacious reasoning. To feel the need to disagree with a proposition is one thing, whether that proposition is correct is another.

  389. avatar
    The Magic M December 3, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys just love fallacious reasoning.

    Hey ambulance chaser, can I sue you for my irony meters blown up by that last comment? Can I get Orly to represent me pro hack shite?

  390. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    JoZeppy: Ignoring the little details that no court has ever cited to Minor as the definition of Natural Born Citizenship, no court has every held that Wong was anything but a Natural Born Citizenship, and no court has ever held that the 14th Amendment created some new kind of citizen, and in fact has directly rejected that notion when argued by tax protesters and white supremicists.Besides those minor details, and any objective measure of what the actual law is, sure.If you are so confident in your theories Mario, why haven’t you published them in a respected law journal, like real legal scholars?

    Come on! Your logic continues to seriously fail. No court has ever ruled that the United States landed on the moon, so therefore we did not land on the moon. Please, please.

    Also, spare me of your tax protesters and white supremacists. Sure, just set them up, easily dispose of them, and declare victory.

  391. avatar
    Lupin December 3, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys just love fallacious reasoning.

    Which reminds me: have you denied the charges that you are somehow connected to the Ku Klux Klan following your appearance on the Momma E radio show just 4 days after the Klan’s national membership director?

  392. avatar
    bovril December 3, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Come on Mendax Mario, tell us the REAL reason you have jumped into the bed of thistles that is Mad Old Orly World.

  393. avatar
    donna December 3, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    Lupin:

    perhaps you can get mario to issue the correct translation of the french “les parents”

  394. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys just love fallacious reasoning. To feel the need to disagree with a proposition is one thing, whether that proposition is correct is another.

    In our legal system, the courts are the final arbiters of what the law is. You in fact try to prove your proposition by citing to the opinions of the courts. The fact that no court has ever cited to those same opnions for the propositions you make, and in fact have said that doing so constitutes a frivolous argument says something. Just because your mommy may have told you that your opinion is equally valid to everyone elses doesn’t make it so. Sometimes, you are flat wrong, and to call you out on your bat ass crazy theories that have been universially rejected by the courts is a perfectly fine thing to do.

  395. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Come on! Your logic continues to seriously fail. No court has ever ruled that the United States landed on the moon, so therefore we did not land on the moon. Please, please.

    As far as I know, the question has never been before a court. However, the courts have addressed the question of natural born citizenship many times…and any guesses how they have ruled each and every time….speaking of logic continuing to serious fail.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Also, spare me of your tax protesters and white supremacists. Sure, just set them up, easily dispose of them, and declare victory.

    Perhaps if you don’t want to be lumped in with them, you shouldn’t adopt their 14th Amendment Citizenship argument that the courts have been rejecting for decades. Seriously Mario, you’re not even original enough to come up with your own junk law arguments, all you do is steal the frivolous arguments of others. For all your bluster, one would think you came up with these arguments yourself rather than cribbing from other hacks and rejects.

  396. avatar
    Thomas Brown December 3, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Fascinating how Mario “Serial Failure” Apuzzo pays scant attention to all the other articles, but seems obsessed with the one on Birther Racism.

    Hit a little close to home, eh, Mario?

  397. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it.Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation and what they wrote in the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility.I cannot say that you and your Gang of Five can say the same.

    The Court in WKA is quite clear that such children became citizens and natural born citizens by virtue of their birth on soil. They spent all this time to outline the meaning of the term ‘natural born’… Perhaps you must have missed it. The other courts however did not miss this..

    Of course you have no regrets, as it is too late to undo these follies. You have only one choice now, pretending to be correct even though history, legal precedent and recent court rulings all show your argument to be ‘academic’ at best, academic and wrong.

    As I said, you and Orly would make for a lovely couple.

  398. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 3, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Hey, Mario…

    Look at your fallacious argument…

    Argument from ignorance – A informal fallacy where one asserts that something is true because it has not proven to be false.

    Again, you lecturing someone on fallacious argument is amusing.

  399. avatar
    Thomas Brown December 3, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    It’s a fun passtime to spot the informal fallacies in Birther arguments… (try and collect them all!)

    The garbage argument that Mario uses the most, and the least tenable in court, is:

    Assuming Facts Not In Evidence. (c.f. the Pakistan Travel Ban, etc.)

  400. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 3, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    Shifting the Burden (c.f. Obama must prove that he’s a Natural Born Citizen to my satisfaction. I don’t have to prove that he’s not.)

    There’s also the formal fallacies in Birther Arguments.

    Denying the Antecedant (c.f. If you’re born to 2 citizen parents on American Soil, then you’re a Natural Born Citizen. Obama is not born to 2 citizen parents on American Soil, therefore Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.)

  401. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    donna: Lupin:perhaps you can get mario to issue the correct translation of the french “les parents”

    Donna,

    Where have you been all this time? Did you not know that the U.S. Supreme Court did that already a very long time ago?

  402. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    JoZeppy: In our legal system, the courts are the final arbiters of what the law is. You in fact try to prove your proposition by citing to the opinions of the courts. The fact that no court has ever cited to those same opnions for the propositions you make, and in fact have said that doing so constitutes a frivolous argument says something. Just because your mommy may have told you that your opinion is equally valid to everyone elses doesn’t make it so. Sometimes, you are flat wrong, and to call you out on your bat ass crazy theories that have been universially rejected by the courts is a perfectly fine thing to do.

    You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

  403. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    JoZeppy: As far as I know, the question has never been before a court. However, the courts have addressed the question of natural born citizenship many times…and any guesses how they have ruled each and every time….speaking of logic continuing to serious fail.Perhaps if you don’t want to be lumped in with them, you shouldn’t adopt their 14th Amendment Citizenship argument that the courts have been rejecting for decades. Seriously Mario, you’re not even original enough to come up with your own junk law arguments, all you do is steal the frivolous arguments of others. For all your bluster, one would think you came up with these arguments yourself rather than cribbing from other hacks and rejects.

    You are a liar and a fraud.

  404. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Fascinating how Mario “Serial Failure” Apuzzo pays scant attention to all the other articles, but seems obsessed with the one on Birther Racism.Hit a little close to home, eh, Mario?

    I see that you did not take my advice and eat enough of that garlic that you have just been smelling

  405. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    nbc,

    You said: “The Court in WKA is quite clear that such children became citizens and natural born citizens by virtue of their birth on soil.”

    Making stuff up. The Court said that by virtue of being born in the country Wong was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child of citizen parents.

    You are correct. I have no regrets. I am not pretending to be correct. I am correct.

  406. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am correct.

    And the entire legal system fails to agree with you because … ? You have special knowledge / insight? The entire country is in a conspiracy against you and your ‘truth’?

    Any thoughts on Coleman yet?

  407. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    And???? You say that like it somehow only the State or US Supreme Court opinions have any precidential value. You don’t have any cases on any level saying your arguments are correct, but have several (including the courts of appeals) saying your arguments are fivolous. And while I don’t know what the law is in every state that has regarding access to appeals to the highest court, I can guarentee you the SCOTUS will never hear your arguments. You and I both know that. Why? Because every single other court that has heard your arguments not only disagreed with you, but said your arguments have no merit what so ever, and the Supreme Court doesn’t take cases correctly decided on well established law.

    But you can hide behind the meaningless statement that no supreme court, state of US, has said your arguments are incorrect. That may mean something in super Mario-land, but for those of us in the reality based community, it’s pretty meaningless.

  408. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    So, you’re entire argument is “Nobody has proven my argument is incorrect, therefore it must be correct.”

    Look up the fallacy of: Argument from Ignorance.

  409. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a liar and a fraud.

    Project much?

  410. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not pretending to be correct. I am correct.

    And yet the court labeled your arguments “without legal merit.”

    It must take an unbelievable amount of effort (or alcohol) to this disjointed from reality.

    At least Orly has the excuse of being a genuinely poor excuse of a lawyer with a mail order JD.

  411. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    I say the natural born citizen clause is superceded by the 12th, 14th and 20th amendments and is unenforceable. Do you have any State or US Supreme Court case in which someone was barred from running for or serving as President because they were not a natural born citizen?

    You do not. Therefore, I am correct. The clause is dead. Deceased. Gone to meet its maker. It is an ex clause (but not a Santa clause).

  412. avatar
    Jim December 3, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    Well, none that you can understand I guess. EVERY case you’ve either argued this point, or used your argument has found you’re arguments are without merit…which means incorrect.

  413. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    JoZeppy: And yet the court labeled your arguments “without legal merit.”It must take an unbelievable amount of effort (or alcohol) to this disjointed from reality.At least Orly has the excuse of being a genuinely poor excuse of a lawyer with a mail order JD.

    There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.” What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

  414. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    JPotter: And the entire legal system fails to agree with you because … ? You have special knowledge / insight? The entire country is in a conspiracy against you and your ‘truth’?Any thoughts on Coleman yet?

    I did not see the link that you were supposed to send me.

  415. avatar
    Jim December 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.”What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

    There is no provision in the Constitution and no
    controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

  416. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    JoZeppy: And???? You say that like it somehow only the State or US Supreme Court opinions have any precidential value. You don’t have any cases on any level saying your arguments are correct, but have several (including the courts of appeals) saying your arguments are fivolous. And while I don’t know what the law is in every state that has regarding access to appeals to the highest court, I can guarentee you the SCOTUS will never hear your arguments. You and I both know that. Why? Because every single other court that has heard your arguments not only disagreed with you, but said your arguments have no merit what so ever, and the Supreme Court doesn’t take cases correctly decided on well established law. But you can hide behind the meaningless statement that no supreme court, state of US, has said your arguments are incorrect. That may mean something in super Mario-land, but for those of us in the reality based community, it’s pretty meaningless.

    You are free to interpret the lack of a Supreme Court decision one way and I am free to interpret another.

    Many Americans agree with you and many agree with me.

  417. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    dunstvangeet: So, you’re entire argument is “Nobody has proven my argument is incorrect, therefore it must be correct.”Look up the fallacy of: Argument from Ignorance.

    The straw man fallacy is all yours, my friend. What you have done is take my position and convert it into a statement of extreme, i.e., “therefore it must be correct.” I never said that. What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

  418. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Scientist: I say the natural born citizen clause is superceded by the 12th, 14th and 20th amendments and is unenforceable. Do you have any State or US Supreme Court case in which someone was barred from running for or serving as President because they were not a natural born citizen? You do not. Therefore, I am correct. The clause is dead. Deceased. Gone to meet its maker. It is an ex clause (but not a Santa clause).

    A bank robber has robbed 10 banks and gotten away with it. Based on your logic, I am entitled to conclude that it is legal to rob banks.

  419. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

    Mario day dreams: On the contrary, I have demonstrated through historical and U.S. Supreme Court cases that my position is correct.

    ROTFL… Yes, you mean you have tried to argue why you believe that your position is correct even though history, precedent and recent court cases all have come to reject your position.

    Lovely legacy… Who was it during WKA that tried to argue the same arguments you raised and lost? George Collins.. Remember his ‘legacy’ :-)

    The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    What again did Holmes ‘argue’?

    And this court did in Minor v. Happersett (21 Wall., 167) look to the common law to ascertain from its nomenclature who were meant by “natural-born citizens,” and they found just what the Government is contending for here, that “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

  420. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

    Just rejected by the courts as ‘academic’ or as “[t[he petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”

    Ouch… The courts so far have, like others, not been very impressed by your attempts.

  421. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.” What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

    Yet… But of course, it is doubtful that given the lack of merit of your arguments, a Supreme Court would take the case.

    As to ‘Americans who conclude’, you do realize that this is a logical fallacy. As far as legal scholars, legal precedent and recent court rulings, they all reject your argument. As did the Court in US v WKA.

  422. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.” What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

    As I have said many times, the lack of Supreme Court decisions, state or federal, does not mean there is no case law on the subject, nor does it lessen the fact that your arguments have been call lacking legal merit by other courts. Fact of the matter is the US Surpeme Court has refused to hear your arguments on a few instances. Not only did they not grant you cert, they didn’t even ask for a respondent’s brief. Might have something to do with the fact that every lower court came to the exact same conclusion.

    The fact that many Americans agree with you is even more meaningless. Many Americans believe there is no legal obligation to pay Federal income tax. Their misguided beliefs don’t protect them when the IRS come knocking on their door. How many legal scholars agree with you? Why have you failed to publish your opinions in a journal of law of any sort?

  423. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A bank robber has robbed 10 banks and gotten away with it. Based on your logic, I am entitled to conclude that it is legal to rob banks.

    Poor analogy. You have filed your case in several courts which rejected the argument. There is no evidence of a crime, no reasoned argument as to why the Courts, including WKA were wrong in rejecting the arguments raised on appeal, or why we should take your position seriously. Sure, there is a miniscule probability that you are correct in your interpretation but so far, you are doing a poor job when the issue is heard in court. The Courts all reject your musings as being at odds with US v WKA where the Government had raised many of the similar ‘arguments’ which were rejected outright.

  424. avatar
    donna December 3, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Mario:

    Donna,

    Where have you been all this time? Did you not know that the U.S. Supreme Court did that already a very long time ago?

    per favore mario, translate this into english pour moi:

    “j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique”

    grazie mille

  425. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are free to interpret the lack of a Supreme Court decision one way and I am free to interpret another. Many Americans agree with you and many agree with me.

    No Mario, you are not. The Supreme Court is not required to correct one deluded attorney’s wrong interpretation of case law. Particularly when every lower court has come to the exact same conclusion. The Supreme Court spoke in Minor and WKA defining NBC. Everyone but you and a handful of malcontents have agreed as to what the meaning is. It does not take another Supreme Court decision to re-affirm what everyone else agrees with what the law is. The smacking down all the other courts give you is more than sufficient.

    And again, it doesn’t matter what other misguided and deluded Americans think. The role of the judiciary isn’t to measure public opinion, and even if it was, you would still lose.

  426. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A bank robber has robbed 10 banks and gotten away with it. Based on your logic, I am entitled to conclude that it is legal to rob banks.

    Yes, of course it’s legal to rob banks. Just ask the CEOs of Bear Sterns, Citi, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, UBS, AIG or any of a dozen other banksters. Are any of them in jail?

    But as for NBC clause, where are the court decisions? What is the enforcement mechanism? What agency is charged with enforcement?

    Sorry but it fails the test of being an enforceable law It is at best a guideline to be considered by the voters, which they did and they decided Obama was an NBC. Tey are in effect a jury, and your “ideas” to the contary don’t trump their conclusions, which are based on a sound consideration of the facts (as juries are charged with doing). Nor do Trump’s “ideas” trump the voter jury’s conclusions.

    The jury has spoken. Twice. You lose, counsellor.

  427. avatar
    sfjeff December 3, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    Exactly-

    Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    Per the Indiana Court of Appeals:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

  428. avatar
    bovril December 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Here Putzie, Putzie, Putzie

    Why oh why have you gotten in bed with mad old Orly? Does she fill your sad masochistic tendencies as a dominatrix?

    You do know just how badly she is going to treat you, spanks for the naughty boy is just the beginning, ask her other” helpers”, Leah Lax would be happy to let you know just how badly it will all end.

    It really is sad, the signs were all on the wall for all too see particularly after the threats of sanction then the abject failure and loss to a very junior associate and the squealing for “Please sir, can I have some more”.

    Sad, transparent and truly shameless.

  429. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Many Americans agree with you and many agree with me

    I doubt even 1% agree with you. Meanwhile, at least 53% believe Obama should be President and even most of the 47% who voted for Rmoney believe Obama is eligible, they just preferred the other guy.

  430. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    nbc: Mario day dreams: On the contrary, I have demonstrated through historical and U.S. Supreme Court cases that my position is correct.ROTFL… Yes, you mean you have tried to argue why you believe that your position is correct even though history, precedent and recent court cases all have come to reject your position.Lovely legacy… Who was it during WKA that tried to argue the same arguments you raised and lost? George Collins.. Remember his ‘legacy’ What again did Holmes ‘argue’?

    You are mischaracterizing Wong Kim Ark. The issue there was whether Wong was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to avoid deportation, not whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  431. avatar
    sfjeff December 3, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett (1875) held: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Minor at 167-68. So the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defined who at common law, after the original citizens came into being, were not only the “citizens” but also the “natural-born citizens.” That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expanded who were the “citizens” by also including children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

    Hmmmm did I miss something there?

    Where did the court ‘define’ Natural born citizen?

  432. avatar
    Sudoku December 3, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    Which is it? You can’t even keep your story straight here.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What you have done is take my position and convert it into a statement of extreme, i.e., “therefore it must be correct.” I never said that. What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are correct. I have no regrets. I am not pretending to be correct. I am correct.

    Maybe you are confused. That is exactly what the Court in Minor said:

    “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

  433. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    nbc: Just rejected by the courts as ‘academic’ or as “[t[he petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”Ouch… The courts so far have, like others, not been very impressed by your attempts.

    New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Masin said that he did not have time to address the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Whatever he said about the clause is hardly of any value.

  434. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    nbc: Poor analogy. You have filed your case in several courts which rejected the argument. There is no evidence of a crime, no reasoned argument as to why the Courts, including WKA were wrong in rejecting the arguments raised on appeal, or why we should take your position seriously. Sure, there is a miniscule probability that you are correct in your interpretation but so far, you are doing a poor job when the issue is heard in court. The Courts all reject your musings as being at odds with US v WKA where the Government had raised many of the similar ‘arguments’ which were rejected outright.

    Like I have been saying all along, when the Obots have no answer to the “natural born Citizen” argument, the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

  435. avatar
    sfjeff December 3, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    Is there any court case which declares someone a “14th Amendment” citizen?

    Is there any court case which declares that the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens with ‘seperate but equal’ rights?

    Is there any case that declares anything other than what we all know.

    All citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.

    We become citizens either at birth(natural born citizens) or by naturalization.

    Has any citizen ever become a citizen any other way?

    A naturalized citizen has all the benefits and responsibilities of a natural born citizen except he cannot vote- and I believe his citizenship can be stripped by Congress.

  436. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    donna: Mario:Donna,Where have you been all this time? Did you not know that the U.S. Supreme Court did that already a very long time ago?per favore mario, translate this into english pour moi:“j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique”grazie mille

    Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.

  437. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    JoZeppy: No Mario, you are not. The Supreme Court is not required to correct one deluded attorney’s wrong interpretation of case law. Particularly when every lower court has come to the exact same conclusion. The Supreme Court spoke in Minor and WKA defining NBC. Everyone but you and a handful of malcontents have agreed as to what the meaning is. It does not take another Supreme Court decision to re-affirm what everyone else agrees with what the law is. The smacking down all the other courts give you is more than sufficient.And again, it doesn’t matter what other misguided and deluded Americans think. The role of the judiciary isn’t to measure public opinion, and even if it was, you would still lose.

    Too bad that you cannot live with not having a U.S. Supreme Court decision in your favor. The reality is that it does not exist. Get over it.

  438. avatar
    sfjeff December 3, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have been saying all along, when the Obots have no answer to the “natural born Citizen” argument, the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

    And what makes those lower courts wrong- and you right?

    What makes your analysis ‘correct’ and that of the Indiana Court of Appeals ‘incorrect’?

    What are your legal gravitas that should be considered superior to that of the Apellete Justices of Indiana?

    Have you been a U.S. Superior Court Judge? An Appellete Court Judge?

    Have you taught Constitutional law at any of the top 5 law schools in the U.S.?

    What is your gravitas that makes you think your analysis is superior to every court that has decided otherwise?

  439. avatar
    Sudoku December 3, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    Really? Looks like he took some time to me.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Administrative Law Judge Masin said that he did not have time to address the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Whatever he said is hardly of any value.

    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 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the
    thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark,Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born”and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . 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 childwas born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, theCourt also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).

    All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person 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 isthe common law of this country, as well as of England.

    The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated

    We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle ofthe 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 [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution. [Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462].

    The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Arkeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.

    Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed 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 his father.

  440. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

    Actually, your pal Strunk has had his cases tossed by the Supreme Court in Kings County (that’s what we call them in NY)….

    So all your DWI clients who were convicted by lower courts are not guilty unless the NJ or US Supreme Court hears their cases? That’s ridiculous.

    Now, again, where is any court case in which someone was denied the right to run for or serve as President based on their not being an NBC? Since there are no such cases, the clause does not exist as enforceable law.

  441. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Scientist: Yes, of course it’s legal to rob banks. Just ask the CEOs of Bear Sterns, Citi, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, UBS, AIG or any of a dozen other banksters. Are any of them in jail?But as for NBC clause, where are the court decisions? What is the enforcement mechanism? What agency is charged with enforcement? Sorry but it fails the test of being an enforceable law It is at best a guideline to be considered by the voters, which they did and they decided Obama was an NBC. Tey are in effect a jury, and your “ideas” to the contary don’t trump their conclusions, which are based on a sound consideration of the facts (as juries are charged with doing). Nor do Trump’s “ideas” trump the voter jury’s conclusions.The jury has spoken. Twice. You lose, counsellor.

    The Founders and Framers gave to the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts the judicial power and the constitutional duty that comes with it to interpret and apply the Constitution. They did not give it to the voting public. So while the American public may have voted (almost 50/50 split), it surely did not decide any constitutional issue let alone decide the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

  442. avatar
    donna December 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    mario: Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.

    lol

    a 1st YEAR french student could translate that phrase correctly

    i need no “french waiter”

  443. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Founders and Framers

    owned slaves (many of them). So I would sooner put my faith in the voters of today (virtually none of whom own slaves) over those guys. Sorry, but I am right and you know it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: gave to the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts the judicial power and the constitutional duty that comes with it to interpret and apply the Constitution.

    So, by your own statement, ALL courts can interpret and apply the Constitution, including Ankeny, NJ (Purpura), Vermont and the various federal courts that have rejected your nonsense. And their interpretations are law unless and until they are overturned.

  444. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    I just want to make sure everybody caught that-Mario said that lower courts interpret and apply the Constitution.

  445. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: They did not give it to the voting public. So while the American public may have voted (almost 50/50 split), it surely did not decide any constitutional issue let alone decide the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

    My ears continue to ring …. seem to have the sound of exploding irony meter in them.

  446. avatar
    Paper December 3, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    But I for one have indeed shown your argument to be incorrect, as have others here. In this thread and elsewhere.

    Your reading of Minor alone is untenable, baldly and demonstrably false, and irredeemably a failure. Your argument is incorrect at the basic level of understanding English, before we even get to law and reasoning.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    …I never said that.What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

  447. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    donna: mario: Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.lola 1st YEAR french student could translate that phrase correctly i need no “french waiter”

    donna,

    I think you are out of your league here.

  448. avatar
    misha marinsky December 3, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.

    Bonsoir, monsieur. I am going to serve you zee punch in ze nose, et zee kick in ze knee. For zee dessert, you will have ze mousse au chocolat.

  449. avatar
    misha marinsky December 3, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: donna, I think you are out of your league here.

    You are out of your league trying to pass yourself off as a Constitutional attorney.

    Svetlana Auerbach is out of her league trying to pass herself off as a lawyer and dentist.

  450. avatar
    donna December 3, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    mario:

    donna,

    I think you are out of your league here.

    HARDLY – i created the phrase to prove a point

    but i anxiously await your translation – perhaps your french maid could assist you

  451. avatar
    misha marinsky December 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    donna: perhaps your french mistress could assist you

    FIFY

  452. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Sudoku: Really? Looks like he took some time to me.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 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, thethrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark,Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born”and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . 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 childwas born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, theCourt also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person 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 isthe common law of this country, as well as of England. The Wong Kim Ark Court then statedWe find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle ofthe 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 [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution. [Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462].The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Arkeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed 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 his father.

    New Jersey Administrative Law Judge relies upon the state law cases of Ankeny and Farrar which relied upon Wong Kim Ark. He did not address my numerous historical and legal sources and Acts of Congress which defined a “natural born Citizen.” He did not address my argument that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined a “natural born Citizen.” He did not address my argument in which I showed that Wong Kim Ark decided that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.

    He states that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) discussed at great length what “natural born” means under the English common law. But Wong was discussing an English “natural born subject” under English common law, not an Article II “natural born Citizen” which did not even exist in English common law. Furthermore, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor that the Framers defined an American “natural born Citizen” under common law which by the definition the Court provided of the clause (born in a country to “citizen” parents and that “there have been doubts” whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents was even a “citizen”) we know could not have been the English common law, but rather was American common law which had its basis in the law of nations.

    He cited the Justice Story minority opinion in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor which advocated the English common law jus soli rule rather than citing to the Court’s majority opinion which rejected the English common law jus soli rule and rather adopted the law of nation jus sanguinis rule.

    He cites Rhodes which said in dicta “all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” But the decision did not define what “born in the allegiance of the United States” means. Hence, the decision did not provide any definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Then he says: “Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue.” So, again, he did not provide his own analysis and rather relies upon other courts and agencies without naming them. In any event, those other courts and agencies themselves did not like, Judge Masin, adequately address the issue of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and their decisions are not dispositive.

  453. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    sfjeff: And what makes those lower courts wrong- and you right? What makes your analysis ‘correct’ and that of the Indiana Court of Appeals ‘incorrect’?What are your legal gravitas that should be considered superior to that of the Apellete Justices of Indiana? Have you been a U.S. Superior Court Judge? An Appellete Court Judge? Have you taught Constitutional law at any of the top 5 law schools in the U.S.?What is your gravitas that makes you think your analysis is superior to every court that has decided otherwise?

    How about reading comprehension and logic.

  454. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    sfjeff: Is there any court case which declares someone a “14th Amendment” citizen?Is there any court case which declares that the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens with ‘seperate but equal’ rights?Is there any case that declares anything other than what we all know.All citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.We become citizens either at birth(natural born citizens) or by naturalization. Has any citizen ever become a citizen any other way?A naturalized citizen has all the benefits and responsibilities of a natural born citizen except he cannot vote- and I believe his citizenship can be stripped by Congress.

    I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

  455. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    So …… “citizens of the United States.” are a subset of “U.S. citizens.”

    Right ….

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How about reading comprehension and logic.

    Yes, how about them? LOL

    How do you keep this up for so long?

    … and still no comment on Coleman?

    … or explanation for the late blooming of your interest in this subject?

    Perhaps you stumble upon some golden tablets in mid-2008. How fortuitous and timely, right?

  456. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Scientist: I just want to make sure everybody caught that-Mario said that lower courts interpret and apply the Constitution.

    Of course they do. And the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

  457. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    No, my friend. “Natural born citizen” specifies no particular country. They do not have to be US citizens at all. You should take a class in English grammar.

    Now, do you have a court ruling in which anyone was barred from being President based on what type of citizen they were? There is no such ruling in over 220 years. Even the most obscure statutes would be expected to have a few cases in that length of time. We can only concude that it is not within the powers of the courts to decide such questions.

  458. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    JPotter: My ears continue to ring …. seem to have the sound of exploding irony meter in them.

    Take it to the bank that whenever an Obot irony meter goes off, truth has been spoken.

  459. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Of course they do. And the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

    Where the Supreme Court is silent the lower court rulngs are the law. So the law is that Obama is eligible.

    Also, I am not sure the Supreme Court is truly the final arbiter. There are world bodies like the Internatonal Court in the Hague as well as the Galactic Court. Beyond that, there is the Universal Court, though they haven’t heard a case from this solar system in a few billion years.

  460. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Take it to the bank that whenever an Obot irony meter goes off, truth has been spoken.

    Yes, the Truth According to The Putz … “No one is allowed to make up definitions …. except me!!!”

    Don’t run too far with that, you’ll wind up restrained.

  461. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Too bad that you cannot live with not having a U.S. Supreme Court decision in your favor. The reality is that it does not exist. Get over it.

    I do have a U.S. Supreme Court decision in my favor. It’s Wong Kim Ark. For some reason you think you’re entitled to a second U.S. Supreme Court decision saying what the rest of the legal community has long understood WKA to mean. Sorry, you’re just not that special. Just because hacks like you and Orly can’t accept reality, and having your arguments labeled as “lacking legal merit” isn’t clear enough for you, doesn’t mean the US Supreme Court has to give you a remedial law class in the form of another decision to get you up to speed with the rest of the legal community.

    Get over it.

  462. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Scientist: Where the Supreme Court is silent the lower court rulngs are the law. So the law is that Obama is eligible.

    Better yet, they haven’t been silent. They have yet to find a birfer appeal that merits a hearing. *ba-da-bing!*

    Getting left out in the cold by the Court …. is a decision by the Court. They decided to leave you there. They are telling you (birfers collectively) you aren’t worth their time, because whatever lower court(s) you have harrassed dispatched you appropriately, and they would have done the same.

  463. avatar
    BillTheCat December 3, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    All that matters to the world and reality is that Mario and his failed theory have failed in court, and will always fail in court – any court. Too bad, so sad.

  464. avatar
    Scientist December 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    JPotter: Getting left out in the cold by the Court …. is a decision by the Court. They decided to leave you there. They are telling you (birfers collectively) you aren’t worth their time, because whatever lower court(s) you have harrassed dispatched you appropriately, and they would have done the same.

    And I guarantee that if Mario took his crap to the Galactic Court, the Klingon Justices would ream him out. He would have phaser burns on his behind.

  465. avatar
    JoZeppy December 3, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, again, he did not provide his own analysis and rather relies upon other courts and agencies without naming them. In any event, those other courts and agencies themselves did not like, Judge Masin, adequately address the issue of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and their decisions are not dispositive.

    I’m sorry he didn’t say your arguments were garbage in way you felt appropriate, but when you throw garbage at the court, you’re hardly entitled to a deep discussion of your arguments. He said they were trash, and you’re fighting well established law. Reading what he wrote, he gave far more consideration than you deserved. He doesn’t need to discuss every crack-pot theory of yours. In fact, he could have just written your arugments are frivolous and lack and legal merit and just stopped ther. Be greatful he wrote as much as he did.

  466. avatar
    Paper December 3, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

    But that is where your arguments fail first, last and foremost.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How about reading comprehension and logic.

  467. avatar
    Northland10 December 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    So a natural born Citizen is not a citizen of the United States? Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

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

  468. avatar
    donna December 3, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Northland: Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    and mario told me i was out of my league

  469. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Scientist: Where the Supreme Court is silent the lower court rulngs are the law. So the law is that Obama is eligible. Also, I am not sure the Supreme Court is truly the final arbiter. There are world bodies like the Internatonal Court in the Hague as well as the Galactic Court. Beyond that, there is the Universal Court, though they haven’t heard a case from this solar system in a few billion years.

    I’m sure that you also have a court in your basement.

  470. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    JoZeppy: I do have a U.S. Supreme Court decision in my favor. It’s Wong Kim Ark. For some reason you think you’re entitled to a second U.S. Supreme Court decision saying what the rest of the legal community has long understood WKA to mean. Sorry, you’re just not that special. Just because hacks like you and Orly can’t accept reality, and having your arguments labeled as “lacking legal merit” isn’t clear enough for you, doesn’t mean the US Supreme Court has to give you a remedial law class in the form of another decision to get you up to speed with the rest of the legal community.Get over it.

    I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

  471. avatar
    Reality Check December 3, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    :lol; Apuzzo-logic is a wonder to behold.

    donna:
    Northland: Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    and mario told me i was out of my league

  472. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    JPotter: Better yet, they haven’t been silent. They have yet to find a birfer appeal that merits a hearing. *ba-da-bing!*Getting left out in the cold by the Court …. is a decision by the Court. They decided to leave you there. They are telling you (birfers collectively) you aren’t worth their time, because whatever lower court(s) you have harrassed dispatched you appropriately, and they would have done the same.

    Too bad for your history book that the high courts deny to take cases for a host of reasons which include pure policy.

  473. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Too bad for your history book that the high courts deny to take cases for a host of reasons which include pure policy.

    Now we’re getting to the good stuff—conspiracy! Please, Mario, list the reasons.

    Perhaps you might also entertain us with a list of …. what’s changed. What’s new. What either has not the court heard? or what circumstances have changed that might move the courts to change their minds? Why should the courts roll back 120 years and change its mind?

  474. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    BillTheCat: All that matters to the world and reality is that Mario and his failed theory have failed in court, and will always fail in court – any court. Too bad, so sad.

    Stop your cliches. If you must use them at least use them properly. Why should you be “so sad.”

  475. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’m sure that you also have a court in your basement.

    I have a court …. yard. Perhaps I will don my robes and adjudicate disputes amongst the nieghborhood children LOL

  476. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Scientist: And I guarantee that if Mario took his crap to the Galactic Court, the Klingon Justices would ream him out. He would have phaser burns on his behind.

    No, you are wrong. Spock would be the judge and I would win hands down.

  477. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    JoZeppy: I’m sorry he didn’t say your arguments were garbage in way you felt appropriate, but when you throw garbage at the court, you’re hardly entitled to a deep discussion of your arguments. He said they were trash, and you’re fighting well established law. Reading what he wrote, he gave far more consideration than you deserved. He doesn’t need to discuss every crack-pot theory of yours. In fact, he could have just written your arugments are frivolous and lack and legal merit and just stopped ther. Be greatful he wrote as much as he did.

    Poor JoZeppy, trying to rewrite the court’s decision to fit his little sophomoric world.

  478. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    Northland10: Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    Darn that pesky logic / (VERY BASIC) set theory / grammar!

    English is a flexible language, can be confusing to the simpleminded / overly-literal. Open it up to other linguistic conventions … what would Mario make of:

    “The citizens United States”

    or

    “UnitedStatescitizens”

    ?

  479. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Northland10: So a natural born Citizen is not a citizen of the United States? Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    I guess you never learned common sense playing in the sandbox. Someone can be President but not Congressman?

  480. avatar
    Northland10 December 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

    Which is a good thing, since that chair is already taken.

  481. avatar
    Northland10 December 3, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    JoZeppy: I’m sorry he didn’t say your arguments were garbage in way you felt appropriate, but when you throw garbage at the court, you’re hardly entitled to a deep discussion of your arguments. He said they were trash,

    In middle school chemistry, we had the “sludge test” where we had to identify its makeup. Unfortunately for Mario, the courts see no need to separate poop into its component parts.

  482. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 3, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    I was somewhat confused by what Mr. Apuzzo said across several comments. What I understood him to say was that Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen.” In another place he said that Minor didn’t determine the citizenship status of citizens with alien parents; Wong decided that.

    In my world, a definition divides the universe between things that fit the definition and things that don’t fit the definition. If otherwise it wouldn’t be, well, definitive. If Minor doesn’t cover every citizen’s claim to being a “natural born citizen” then I would not call it a definition.

    So the best light I can put on this is that he is saying that Minor defines the citizenship status of people who are born in the United States to citizen parents (and we can quibble as to how many that is): they are natural born citizens; Minor does not define the status of persons who are not born in the United States or have alien parents (however many).

    I personally don’t think that Minor is dicta in this area if for no other reason than the Court said is was not necessary to solve the issue of persons with alien parents, implying to me that it was necessary to solve the issue of persons with citizen parents, i.e., Ms. Minor.

    If that’s that all Apuzzo is saying, then I would agree with him, but I think it would be misleading to say that Minor defines “natural born citizen” and saying that would imply the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

    That leaves us agreeing, I think that US v. Wong defines the status of persons born in the United States to alien parents (of some number) except the usual suspects (invading armies, diplomats). When I look at Wong, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Wong and folks like him are natural born citizens, and this is now the courts looked at it in the 8 cases since 2008 that directly address the question, most citing Ankeny.

    The most recent decision was in the Paige case in Vermont where Judge Bent described Apuzzo argument as originalist, and said that Apuzzo was trying to distinguish US v. Wong from the present question. Apuzzo here, however, says that Wong decides the question, only in the opposite direction from how Judge Bent reads it. It’s a free country, and Apuzzo can read the case any way he wants, but how he reads it doesn’t matter until he convinces a judge or enough people to influence an election.

    JPotter: Yes, the Truth According to The Putz … “No one is allowed to make up definitions …. except me!!!

  483. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    Northland10: So a natural born Citizen is not a citizen of the United States? Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 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.”

    Just think, those who are 36 years old or older or have been residing in the United States for 15 years or more are also not eligible to be President.

  484. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    Fixed it for you:

    We have citizens of the United States. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.

    Also:

    We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.

    Simple yes?

    The phrase “U.S. Citizens” and the phrase “citizens of the United States” are exactly equivalent ways of referring to the “set of all American Citizens, born or naturalized”.

    Hey look Mario! I invented another kind of citizen: “American Citizens”. Maybe you could get Orly to write you a “umpeenteh amended whatzit” and you could bring one or more of your cases back to life!

  485. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Just think, those who are 36 years old or older or have been residing in the United States for 15 years or more are also not eligible to be President.

    So, you are now arguing that:

    1) the set of people that have ‘attained 35 years’ includes those who are 36 years old, and
    2) the set of people that have ‘resided in the United States for 15 years’ includes those who have resided in the United States for 16 years, and
    3) the set of people who are “citizens of the United States” does not include everyone who is a “U.S. Citizen”

    Is that correct?

  486. avatar
    JPotter December 3, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Just think, those who are 36 years old or older or have been residing in the United States for 15 years or more are also not eligible to be President.

    Mario, you’re not very good at this game! Try harder! Or perhaps less hard.

    You’re asserting that once aged beyond 35, a person has no longer ‘attained’ the age of 35 years? Was it detained from them on their 36th birthday? Did that age wander off on its own, unloved, no longer wanted? Where do all the ages go?

    With absolutely no indication of a maximum on the residency requirement, how does anyone who can document any length of residency > 14yrs unable to show 14yrs? The writer clearly sets a minimum; an odd thing to do had they intended a maximum or, as you suggest, an exact figure. Maybe they just forgot.

    The Framers are here with me now. They have unanimously voted on their response to your manglings: “Yougottabefuggin’kiddin’me.” I think they mean it. Do you know how hard it was to get these guys to all agree on anything? No, no, of course you don’t. Loaded up to the gills with Barton-esque fairy tales, you’d never recognize the hard stuff.

  487. avatar
    Reality Check December 3, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When I look at Wong, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Wong and folks like him are natural born citizens, and this is now the courts looked at it in the 8 cases since 2008 that directly address the question, most citing Ankeny.

    That is how the contemporary scholars viewed Wong also. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/

    (Check out what William Damon Guthrie wrote about WKA months after the decsion:

    The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.)

    Apuzzo has no counter for this. He just says Guthrie was wrong.

  488. avatar
    Daniel December 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.”

    The funny thing is that this is just another case of shifting goal posts for Mario and his flea circus. Of course if it ever did get as far as a State Supreme Court, and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….

    “There does not exist any U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””

    Then, of course if a birther case did somehow make it to the SCOTUS and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….

    “There does not exist any United Federation of Planets Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””

  489. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 11:38 pm #

    Keith: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”Fixed it for you:We have citizens of the United States. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.Also:We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.Simple yes?The phrase “U.S. Citizens” and the phrase “citizens of the United States” are exactly equivalent ways of referring to the “set of all American Citizens, born or naturalized”.Hey look Mario! I invented another kind of citizen: “American Citizens”. Maybe you could get Orly to write you a “umpeenteh amended whatzit” and you could bring one or more of your cases back to life!

    I think you have some dry cleaning to pick up.

  490. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    JPotter: Mario, you’re not very good at this game! Try harder! Or perhaps less hard.You’re asserting that once aged beyond 35, a person has no longer ‘attained’ the age of 35 years? Was it detained from them on their 36th birthday? Did that age wander off on its own, unloved, no longer wanted? Where do all the ages go?With absolutely no indication of a maximum on the residency requirement, how does anyone who can document any length of residency > 14yrs unable to show 14yrs? The writer clearly sets a minimum; an odd thing to do had they intended a maximum or, as you suggest, an exact figure. Maybe they just forgot.The Framers are here with me now. They have unanimously voted on their response to your manglings: “Yougottabefuggin’kiddin’me.” I think they mean it. Do you know how hard it was to get these guys to all agree on anything? No, no, of course you don’t. Loaded up to the gills with Barton-esque fairy tales, you’d never recognize the hard stuff.

    What a fool. You do not even recognized when you have been had.

  491. avatar
    Daniel December 3, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What a fool.You do not even recognized when you have been had.

    As opposed to Mario…. who cannot, nay WILL not, recognize when he has lost.

  492. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    Reality Check: That is how the contemporary scholars viewed Wong also. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/(Check out what William Damon Guthrie wrote about WKA months after the decsion:Apuzzo has no counter for this. He just says Guthrie was wrong.

    (Check out what William Damon Guthrie wrote about WKA months after the decsion:

    The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.)

    Of course Guthrie is wrong. First he says that the Court held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Then he gives us his personal opinion as to what the “effect” of the Wong decision is and jumps to making Wong eligible to be President (hence a “natural born Citizen”). Well, Mr. Guthrie should have read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 before telling us what the effect of the Wong decision is.

  493. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 3, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    Daniel: The funny thing is that this is just another case of shifting goal posts for Mario and his flea circus. Of course if it ever did get as far as a State Supreme Court, and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….“There does not exist any U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””Then, of course if a birther case did somehow make it to the SCOTUS and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….“There does not exist any United Federation of Planets Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””

    You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

  494. avatar
    Saint James December 4, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    I’ve read all posts but haven’t anything on Mario Apuzzo addressing his encounter with Alexandra Hill. My impression is that Mario was put in an embarrassing predicament when he encountered Ms. Hill in court?

  495. avatar
    Dave B. December 4, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    Saint James: My impression is that Mario was put in an embarrassing predicament when he encountered Ms. Hill in court?

    You got that right. Of course, Mario finds himself in an embarrassing predicament when he encounters his own shadow in court.

  496. avatar
    Dave B. December 4, 2012 at 12:09 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

    Well, duh. How’s that reality thing working out for you, Mario?

  497. avatar
    JPotter December 4, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

    Wow. Another gem for the “Irons by Mario” collection. I’m going to start quoting this one. If I was unfortunate enough to live in Jersey, I might seek a signed copy. If I send a SASE, and say, 5 bucks to cover costs, can you return an 8″ x 10″ with this slogan on it in gold sharpie?

  498. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 4, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I was somewhat confused by what Mr. Apuzzo said across several comments. What I understood him to say was that Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen.” In another place he said that Minor didn’t determine the citizenship status of citizens with alien parents; Wong decided that.In my world, a definition divides the universe between things that fit the definition and things that don’t fit the definition. If otherwise it wouldn’t be, well, definitive. If Minor doesn’t cover every citizen’s claim to being a “natural born citizen” then I would not call it a definition.So the best light I can put on this is that he is saying that Minor defines the citizenship status of people who are born in the United States to citizen parents (and we can quibble as to how many that is): they are natural born citizens; Minor does not define the status of persons who are not born in the United States or have alien parents (however many).I personally don’t think that Minor is dicta in this area if for no other reason than the Court said is was not necessary to solve the issue of persons with alien parents, implying to me that it was necessary to solve the issue of persons with citizen parents, i.e., Ms. Minor.If that’s that all Apuzzo is saying, then I would agree with him, but I think it would be misleading to say that Minor defines “natural born citizen” and saying that would imply the fallacy of denying the antecedent.That leaves us agreeing, I think that US v. Wong defines the status of persons born in the United States to alien parents (of some number) except the usual suspects (invading armies, diplomats). When I look at Wong, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Wong and folks like him are natural born citizens, and this is now the courts looked at it in the 8 cases since 2008 that directly address the question, most citing Ankeny.The most recent decision was in the Paige case in Vermont where Judge Bent described Apuzzo argument as originalist, and said that Apuzzo was trying to distinguish US v. Wong from the present question. Apuzzo here, however, says that Wong decides the question, only in the opposite direction from how Judge Bent reads it. It’s a free country, and Apuzzo can read the case any way he wants, but how he reads it doesn’t matter until he convinces a judge or enough people to influence an election.

    You said: “If Minor doesn’t cover every citizen’s claim to being a “natural born citizen” then I would not call it a definition.” This statement shows that you have properly understood neither the Minor nor Wong Kim Ark decision.

    According to the historical record and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Minor confirmed that ancient definition which it said existed at common law with which the Framers were familiar.

    Minor explained that all the children it defined as “citizens” at common law were also “natives or natural-born citizens” at common law. It provided the conditions which made these children “natural-born citizens.” Those conditions were birth in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country at the time of their birth. Minor did not say that any other conditions existed which made any other child a “natural-born citizen.” Hence, at common law only the children born in the United States of the “original citizens” could be “natural born Citizens” and their U.S.-born children, and so on. What Minor did, however, do is state that “some authorities” maintained that children “born within the jurisdiction” were “citizens,” regardless of the citizenship of their parents, adding that “there have been doubts” whether such a position was correct. The Court’s use of the expression “born within the jurisdiction” signaled that the Court was referring to the new Fourteenth Amendment. Given that Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, it was not necessary for the Court to examine whether she would have to gain her “citizen” status under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than by being born in the United States to “citizen” parents. But given how a “natural-born citizen” had always been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court or any one of its Justices and the Court having just confirmed that definition, we know that in referring to this other potential class of “citizen,” the Court was only using the term “citizen” to show “membership of a nation, and nothing more” (Id. at 166) and not to state that such a person could be a “natural-born citizen.”

    A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 (Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan dissenting). The issue there was whether Wong was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to avoid deportation, not whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong did not make a claim that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, his only claim was that he was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of having been born in the United States and being born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” So, the Court was not faced with any issue involving the question of whether Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, in both the question presented and its holding, the Court used the clause “citizen of the United States” and did not use “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong, while born in the country, was not born to “citizen” parents, and so he could not be declared a “citizen” as Minor had done to Virginia Minor by showing that he was a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, Wong would have to be shown to be a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment and its new and ambiguous “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Wong Kim Ark added to the “citizens” at common law by using the English common law to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. To find that Wong was a “citizen,” Wong found that being born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was sufficient to make Wong a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. Wong Kim Ark did not require “citizen parents” for “citizen” status under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rath, it gave great controlling effect to being just born in the country. The Court said that by virtue of being born in the country Wong was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child of citizen parents. Hence, the Court recognized that while Wong was a “citizen,” he was not a “natural born Citizen.” So, Wong Kim Ark added to the “citizens” by birth, not to the “natural born Citizens” by birth which issue was not before it and which it did not address other than to confirm Minor’s definition of the clause. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not change the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” under the common law which according to Minor the Framers relied upon when inserting that clause into the Constitution. The inescapable conclusion is that today the “natural born Citizens” are still the “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

    So you are wrong in saying that Minor did not give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen” because it did not address a claim of someone like Wong who as you incorrectly state made a claim to also being a “natural born Citizen.” Wong made no such claim and Wong Kim Ark resolved no such claim.

    Finally, your statement is fallacious for another more fundamental reason. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is self-explanatory and self-executing and does not lose its universal application simply because someone like Wong does not meet it.

  499. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 4, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    Saint James: I’ve read all posts but haven’t anything on Mario Apuzzo addressing his encounter with Alexandra Hill. My impression is that Mario was put in an embarrassing predicament when he encountered Ms. Hill in court?

    Do you have anything intelligent to say or is that the maximum dose of your IQ level?

  500. avatar
    Daniel December 4, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

    The reality which I face, but which you cannot seem to, is that you have lost every time.

    Just let that sink in a moment. You lost. You lost. You lost. Has a rather nice ring to it.

    I doubt you’d be here at all if you’d won. But you are here. desperately trying to get someone to believe what you failed to convince the legal system of, every time you’ve tried, with ZERO success.

    If what I say sounds like whining to you, it’s probably due to your complete and utter unfamiliarity with the sound of success.

  501. avatar
    Saint James December 4, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: According to the historical record and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

    Please direct to the historical record and case law of the US supreme court.

  502. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 4, 2012 at 12:47 am #

    Hey, Mario.

    U.S. Territory is not considered to be “In the United States” for purposes of the Constitution. For instance, Puerto Rico has seperate codes securing their citizenship that if it was “in the United States” they would not need to have.

    What do you think. Do you think someone who was born in a U.S. Territory is a Natural Born Citizen? If not, then how did Charles Curtis become Vice President of the United States when the Constitution clearly spells out that you need to be a Natural Born Citizen to be Vice President.

  503. avatar
    Saint James December 4, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you have anything intelligent to say or is that the maximum dose of your IQ level?

    I simply asked a question…it was not even directed at you MR. MARIO APUZZO. My impression (based on what I’ve read so far.) of your encounter with Ms. Hill is that you were put in an embarrassing predicament.However, I wanted to know from objective observers how you squirmed in court. You’re free to to put in your version of that situation or at least defend yourself. MR. MARIO APUZZO if you don’t want that situation discussed, you simply can write that you refuse to discuss it for obvious reasons but there is not a need to insult me and question my intelligence! I DESERVE AN APOLOGY FROM YOU as I don’t want to question your IQ!

  504. avatar
    Dave B. December 4, 2012 at 1:10 am #

    Saint James: My impression (based on what I’ve read so far.) of your encounter with Ms. Hill is that you were put in an embarrassing predicament.However, I wanted to know from objective observers how you squirmed in court.

    A picture, or in this case a video, is worth a thousand words. Here are parts 1, 2, and 3:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=69&feature=plcp
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_4k
    (one of my favorite parts is at about 27:00 minutes, when Nick Purpura lets Mario have it)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_w0

  505. avatar
    Saint James December 4, 2012 at 1:24 am #

    Dave B.: You got that right. Of course, Mario finds himself in an embarrassing predicament when he encounters his own shadow in court.

    Please direct me to where I can read or at least post the court trancript between MR. MARIO APUZZO and Ms. Alexandra Hill. It has been repeatedly posted that he was put in an embarrasing (my impression)predicament by Ms. Hill. …YOU DON’T NEED TO ANSWER THIS MR. APUZZO

  506. avatar
    Dave B. December 4, 2012 at 1:33 am #

    Saint James: Please direct me to where I can read or at least post the court trancript between MR. MARIO APUZZO and Ms. Alexandra Hill. It has been repeatedly posted that he was put in an embarrasing (my impression)predicament by Ms. Hill.

    I’ve posted links to the videos of the hearing. In all fairness, nobody can put Mario in an embarrassing predicament like Mario can.

  507. avatar
    Saint James December 4, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    Dave B.: A picture, or in this case a video, is worth a thousand words. Here are parts 1, 2, and 3:

    Thanks Dave, now I’ll know what this mario apuzzo is all about!

  508. avatar
    Dave B. December 4, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    Saint James: Thanks Dave, now I’ll know what this mario apuzzo is all about!

    You’re very welcome! Keyboard-courage Mario is hardly recognizable in Courthouse Mario, though.

  509. avatar
    misha marinsky December 4, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    Saint James: Please direct to the historical record and case law of the US supreme court.

    There isn’t any, of course. Mario and his ilk are making this requirement from whole cloth.

    Mario’s epitaph will read “He devoted his life to determining who entered the intersection first.”

  510. avatar
    nbc December 4, 2012 at 2:18 am #

    Saint James: Please direct to the historical record and case law of the US supreme court.

    Do not confuse Mario… He is in his own dream world right now… Wondering why reality does not match up with his expectations.

  511. avatar
    JoZeppy December 4, 2012 at 2:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

    Well, I think we can all rest much better knowing that.

  512. avatar
    JoZeppy December 4, 2012 at 2:50 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoZeppy, trying to rewrite the court’s decision to fit his little sophomoric world.

    You do this projecting this quite often. The whole of the reputable legal community is with me on this point. You’re the quack that can’t accept reality despite being repeatedly smaked down by the courts. You can say “but, but, but, they didn’t say my arguments were frivolous in the right way, so I’m still really, really right!” all you want, it doesn’t wipe away the shame.

    Is it really that painful to realize that contrary to what you dreamed your career would be when first appyling, you ended up a hack DWI attorney trying to repackage other people’s junk law theories? I think I would just rather just give up the practice of law than be the joke of the legal community.

  513. avatar
    Arthur December 4, 2012 at 2:51 am #

    Dave B.: ’ve posted links to the videos of the hearing. In all