I notice that you from time to time cite favorably from the US Supreme Court Decision in Dred Scott v Sandford and you have said that the US Supreme Court Decision in United States v Wong Kim Ark is “bad law”.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts?
If you chose to respond, could you begin your comments with “Yes.” or “No.” before launching into the explanation?
[Mr. Apuzzo, flinging abuse, declined to answer this question and hereby wins the inaugural Obama Conspiracy Theories Shoe Bang Award.]
Isn’t Dred Scot pretty much universily panned as the worst decision ever. Generally, conservatives place it even worse than Roe.
Another thing, Orly’s clients may have a malpractice claim brewing. Every first year knows to shepardize cases to determine if they are still good law. Failure to do so leads to relying on cases in briefs that are not accurate reflections of the law.
Orly cited multiple cases that have been overturned or otherwise abrogated.
Additionally, when is Mario getting before the Supreme Court? I ask because they are the only ones with the authority to overturn a prior Supreme Court case.
Off the top of my head, didn’t Sanford end up as a lunatic locked up in a criminal asylum or something like that?
Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu. Those are the big three worst decisions ever. Other biggies – Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization), Lochner v. New York(government can’t interfere with “right to contract”).
Dred Scott, however, is the only one that led to a civil war.
Dred Scott, however, is the only one that led to a civil war.
Which is what is so disturbing about Lincoln. His writing is often sprinkled with romantic allusions to the Civil War, and the name of his “company” is the CSA’s motto.
I’m fast losing all faith in you. Your question is riduculous. You have hit bottom. Maybe you have spent yourself. You have become irrelevant. You better redeem yourself or else your readers will start to realize how much of a charlatan and demogogue you are.
Ha…yep Mario couldn’t answer a yes or no question.
You better redeem yourself or else your readers will start to realize how much of a charlatan and demogogue you are.
Perhaps one day Apuzzo will write something that is not ironic.
Is that a yes, or no?
Which parts of Dred Scott are still good law, Mario?
Please cite sources.
Now that’s irony for you. Dr C, once again has hit the nail on its head and exposed yet another weakness in your claims.
Charlatan and demogogue (sic)… Wow, Dr C must be right on target with his questions.
I got a question to the birthers. If Indonesia decides to grant citizenship to every person born (starting tomorrow) at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, DC, are those people natural born citizens?
They would effectively have dual citizenship.
“You better redeem yourself or else your readers will start to realize how much of a charlatan and demogogue you are.”
Are you serious? That has to be the most ironic statement I have read since Agnew.
It’s not an academic question. Israel already does.
True, the law of return. Guess, I am not natural born myself.
No one is seriously arguing that Dred Scott is still good law after the adoption of the 13th and 14th Amendments..are they?
Mario is trying to be disingenous. He is attempting to use a phrase from what is considered the worst Supreme Court decision ever to support his point regarding de Vattel. Since the Dred Scott decision was basically overturned with the 13th and 14th amendments, the ruling and any supporting reasoning is not going to helpful. Especially since Mario is trying to claim that there is a third class of citizen, ones that are born here but not “natural born” citizens. There is no case law or rulings to support that theory.
Additionally Mario is kind of like Leo. For instance Leo’s new theory is from the so called correspondence from TerriK, in which he claims that the state of HI said that President Obama’s COLB was altered and that Dr. Fukino is guilty of misdirection.
Dr. Fukino’s statement that President Obama was born in Hawaii is pretty specific. Along the same lines that Mario knows that there is no actual case law that supports that the founders intended to require that both parents had to be citizens in order for someone to be considered a “natural born citizen”.
Think about it. At the time of the founding fathers, women did not have any rights. So at best they would have indended to require only the father to be a US citizen, not both parents. Especially if they were using de Vattel as Mario claims. In other words all you would have is a requirement that one parent be a citizen, not both. And as Lupin pointed out that is what De Vattel is saying. So since President Obama’s mother was a citizen, then he is a natural born citizen. That is using Mario’s reasoning.
It’s not even the decision of Scott v. Sanford…
Scott v. Sanford generally left Citizenship requirements upto the states. It was then determined that Scott, in Missouri, was not a citizen. He therefore did not have standing to sue.
He’s quoting a concurring opinion written by Daniel, which stated that because his parents weren’t citizens, Scott wasn’t a citizen. Concurring Opinions are not legally binding, just like dissenting opinions are not legally binding. It’s one man’s opinion.
The example I use is a case with a 9-0 decision. 8 members of the court reach the decision because of reason A. The other member of the court reaches the decision because of reason B. Do you really think that the court meant to make reason B legally binding?
I would say Donofrio’s latest claim is stupid, but we’re talking about birfers, so that’s redundant. Basically:
1. Because Fukino said “vital records,” there must be something else besides the birth certificate, and therefore Obama has an altered (or “amended”) birth certificate.
2. Hawaii denied TerryK’s information request, saying privacy interests were implicated. But she (and Donofrio) think you can request information about the documents that create the privacy interest, as if that somehow isn’t the exact same request.
…if this suit is ever filed, the Hawaii court will rule the DoH correctly asserted the privacy interests in denying the information request. Worse case scenario is that Hawaii clarifies Fukino meant “birth certificate” when she said “vital records.”
This, by the way, is why I voted to “Like” Mario’s comment. If everybody votes “Dislike,” all that will do is hide Mario’s post from view.
And why do we want to hide the fact that Mario is unwilling to say that Dred Scott was a bad Supreme Court decision?
Mr. Donofrio has the rather reprehensible habit of assassinating the character of anyone who comes in his way, whether it is Chester A. Arthur, the US Supreme Court, Dr. Fukino or Dr. Conspiracy.
Touched a nerve, did I?
(I wonder if Mario will be throwing a shoe at me, or perhaps he will just pound the shoe on the table.)
Since we are giving out awards, your get the Self Proclaimed Buffoon With a Hat Award.
Wow, as well reasoned a response as I have ever seen from our pal Mario.
” as if that somehow isn’t the exact same request.”
Actually, it’s not the exact same request. Perhaps you missed the point of his post, you might want to read it again. 🙂
Hint–Hint: Index data is not the same as the actual BC or COLB – I thought that was a pretty clear statement.
“Hawaii clarifies Fukino meant “birth certificate” when she said “vital records.”
What makes you so sure that is what she meant? Are you somehow implying that Fukino was incapable of clearly saying what she meant when she made the statement? I’m guessing it was pre-written for her and approved by many before her statement was released. The wording was too carefully chosen not to state exactly what was intended. Now – if they decide later, when they realize they didn’t look at it from all angles and it wasn’t exactly what *should* have been said – that’s a whole nother story.
Something I had thought of prior to his post, but hadn’t given it much thought: how is something protected under privacy laws when Obama himself published it publicly. I agree that nothing will come of it; however, the OL’s will make for some interesting debate. And afterall, isn’t that exactly what this has become – entertainment?
I imagine that this particular argument will go the way of all of Donofrio’s previous arguments.
How do privacy laws protect something Obama has already put into the public? Did I miss something? I thought you guys were still insisting he had not released his long form birth certificate.
Hint-hint, Sally: If a data point on document 1 is private information, it is private information on other documents or index data.
DrC is a buffoon? Oh, the irony.
Still pushing the idea that the Defendent must prove his case?
Index data is not the same as the actual BC or COLB
“Index data” (“name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public”) is even less informative. You really need to file a lawsuit to find out that Hawaii issued a birth certificate for a male named Barack Obama?
What makes you so sure that is what she meant?
Because a birth certificate is the only type of vital record that Hawaii would have.
Are you somehow implying that Fukino was incapable of clearly saying what she meant when she made the statement?
I’m explicitly stating birthers have an incredible ability to read into plainly worded statements something that is not there.
how is something protected under privacy laws when Obama himself published it publicly.
A waiver must be explicit, that’s how.
Unfortunately Leo is still on this one issue…And now Phil over at tROSL is pushing Leo’s case. And in an open letter to Orly…Interesting read…
Actually the “Index data” has already been published.
In the local newspapers.
In a column titled Births.
Pehaps Mr. Apuzzo did not understand the shoe award. It refers back to the saying: “When the law’s against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, pound the table.” His “non answer” seemed very much to be pounding on the table. The preceding remark, however, was not clever in any way I can see.
I am old enough to remember seeing TV coverage of Mr. Khrushchev pounding his fists on the table at the UN. The pounding of the shoe seems not to have been caught in a photograph.
As I understand it, there is Hawaiian law (FOIA) where a citizen can demand the data used by the government makes a decision or a declaration. Since Fukino declared Obama born in Hawaii, they think they can get the document Fukino relied upon. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that there is no exclusion for this kind of situation built into the statute, at best we have a conflicting law FOIA vs Vital Statistics legislation. I am certain that the latter would prevail.
At least one doesn’t have to deal with standing with FOIA cases.
I think you mean “demagogue” with an “a.”
A “demogogue” might be a follower of Demogorgon:
Somehow I think yiu’re projecting.
The World According To Bedsheet Mario:
It might be easier to actually define who Mario would consider to be a NBC in his twisted world.
Basically one would start by excluding everyone whose parents (one parent) is a foreigner or a dual citizen.
That leaves you with only parents who are both US citizens.
Then one would have to review every country’s citizenship laws in order to exclude every child whose parentage might possibly lead to a dual citizenship claim, so that would exclude Jewish, Italian, Greek, Irish, Mexican, etc., ancestries.
At the end of the day, we would discover that there are only six people eligible to become President, but the fact that they live in remote isolation in the Appalachian and dribble a lot might be a problem.
(Or perhaps not, considering your last President.)
In one of the earlier threads (when I mentioned the “American Empire” en passant) Mario dropped not-so-subtle hints that I must be something like Joe Stalin in drags, and very likely unpatriotic (which, in my case, would mean being anti-French, but I get the point).
Having posted on liberal blogs such as Daily Kos, Steve Gilliard’s NewsBlog and the much-regretted Whiskey Bar since 2003, I cannot emphasize enough how repellent the tactic of smearing political opponents to the Bush-Cheney Administration with the brush of treason has been.
“We” liberals were called “traitors” my Malkin, O’Reilly, Pam Atlas and all the kooks on the right who blindly followed Bush.
In my opinion, the true American patriots have been folks like Glenn Greenwald, Markos Moulitsas, Steve Gilliard, etc, not those who have tolerated, even encouraged, the various unlawful actions of the US Government.
Mario Apuzzo’s conspicuous silence during those dark days for the rule of law and the US consitution, at the very least, brands him as a hypocrite.
But we now have a situation where the tables are turned.
Apuzzo is casting doubts on the legitimacy of a sitting US President during a time of war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States (according to his political friends).
So why should Apuzzo not be branded a traitor?
Shouldn’t the dispositions of the arguably unconstitutional Patriot Act not be applied to him as well as Jose Padilla?
Let me clear: as far as I’m concerned, Mario can continue to spout his venom and nonsense as much as he wants — that’s what your First amendment is designed to protect. I think he will eventually receive his just deserts.
But I would like to know how Apuzzo reconciles his silence of the last 8 years with his treasonous actions of today.
Donofrio’s opening statement is rather hilarious:
“The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino …”
No, this ridicule is ENTIRELY due to the fact that your notions, concepts and ideas are utterly, well, ridiculous.
Let me make it clearer: if I see a clown walking down the street reading Hamlet and I laugh out loud, it is not “largely” due to Shakespeare, but to the fact that I’m looking at a clown.
“The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii.”
Here is a hint: take off the clown shoes, the red nose, etc. and the ridicule might stop.
Once again, the logic fails.
Assuming for argument’s sake that Dr. C is a “buffoon,” how could he be a “Self-Proclaimed” buffoon, since he never admitted to being a buffon in the first place? (AFAIK)
Sometimes one wonders if Mario isn’t a “Self-Proclaimed Lawyer”…
I don’t know if this has been posted before, but anyway:
No, that is a fair descripton of W. I still can’t believe a dimwit like him got as far as he did.
Remember during his first term, when he had bruises on his face, and said he choked on a pretzel? I’ll stick my neck out, and say he was drunk.
Does anyone know if Glenn Beck is sober this week, and off the junk? Glenn Beck has never denied involvment in any crime, when he was in the vicinity. Coincidence? A simple denial is all it takes, like “I had nothing to do with a rape and murder in 1990.” Why the silence?
While walking the dog (Shmoo) in the verdant fields nearby, another thought occurred to me.
Let’s consider the hypothetical case of one Draco Malfoy, born in the USA, whose parents trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower and is unambiguously a pure blood wiz…, er, “natural-born citizen” without any pesky dual allegiances.
Now Draco is running for president, but, as it happens, the year previous, he married his fetching young intern, Mademoiselle Marie Apuzette from Trouduc, Normandy.
By the simple fact of marrying Mlle Apuzette, a French citizen, Draco is now entitled to apply for, and be granted, French citizenship.
(Unless he is a criminal but let’s not quibble.)
Woe is he! Draco now bears the shameful stigma of the dreaded dual allegiances! What shall we do? What shall we do?
The answer is obvious: not only must we screen the parentage of our alleged “natural-born citizen” (as I described in a previous post), but we must also FORBID their marrying any non-citizens, dual nationals, or perhaps even Jewish people, just to be on the safe side.
Dual allegiances cannot be tolerated. They must be rooted out and exterm… er, that’s all.
That’s just beautiful. I’m green with envy.
Actually, not. The birth announcements at the time just said ” a son”, but did mention the names of the parents and the address where the mother was staying. All Leo is going to get is:
-Barack Hussein Obama II
I would not suprise if on receipt of that info, they would again start to speculate who the father was (notwithstanding the tell-tale “II” of course): Malcolm X or that other communist guy.
Frank Marshall Davis. But actually, Obama’s real father is Sidney Poitier. Or is it Darth Vader?
Paul: did you see this?
Amusingly, there is a fairly popular young adult book in France, having to do with growing up a lesbian, girls’ gangs, rape, etc, entitled LA BANDE DE BECK, ie: BECK’S GANG.
Who could have known?
Lupin, you are correct. I have never proclaimed myself a buffoon. I like to think of myself as a gadfly on occasion. But buffoon? No.
On the other hand, I try not to take myself too seriously; the evidence of this is the hat.
The hat came early on. I referenced in this article:
The purpose of the hat is to create a “character”, the Dr. Conspiracy persona, a brand, if you will. (Originally, the articles were written under the spicy name “admin”.) The inspiration for the name came from “Dr. Science”. Both and I and Dr. Science just have Masters degrees.
[Caution: The Doctor Science web site, and it’s parent organization, the Ducks Breath Mystery Theater, are under Google malware alerts as of today.]
The old farts here remember that one of the whispering points against JFK in the 1960 election was that, as a Catholic, he possessed dual allegiances.
Yes, I do remember.
The same thing happened with Hoover: ‘If Mr. Hoover’s opponent is elected, the Pope will be president!’
The Constitution requires a person to have lived in the States for 14 years, but it doesn’t say consecutive or cumulative. Hoover and Eisenhower lived in the States for 14 years, but they were cumulative.
The Catholic Justice Taney jESUIT coadjuditor was right in his decision in Scott. Howevere, failed to say the following:
48. As a point of germane historical reference and so that the parties herein have an understanding of the basis for the argument, Declarant asserts that the reason for converting every Sovereign American into a corporate fiction dates back to the Principal of Law under the King. The King is a Sovereign Monarch and dictator, who by his authority, creates the laws that govern his subjects. He is the Source of Law and therefore the law cannot be enforced against him. In America, the Source of Law is the Sovereign People and therefore no laws can be enforced against the Source, except for those specifically agreed to or defined by the original Constitution. Those laws are defined as Theft, Assault and Criminal Mischief; but since the Colonists never voted on the Constitution, none of these offenses are enforceable against a living Sovereign. They are enforceable however against a corporation or corporate fiction.
49. All of our governments are corporations and are responsible for the creation of about 800 thousand laws called statutes, which are designed to control the Sovereign people of America. Just like the King; these statutes cannot be enforced against the Source of Law, which are the living, breathing, flesh and blood Sovereign people.
50. All of the Agents in power beginning with the King, the Vatican, the Founding Fathers and now our presumed public officials, wanted to obtain power and control over America and the Constitution pretty much prohibited them from achieving those ends. So they began to devise ways to change the Sovereign Americans into [a corporate fiction]. These Agents also decided and reasoned that they cannot educate the masses, without exposing their treachery, and so our private and public education must be controlled.
51. One thing the Founding Fathers did not know, that because of the huge debt accumulated during the Crusades was that all of the English King’s lands and all future acquisitions such as the AMERICAS, had been given and pledged by King John to Pope Innocent III and the Holy Roman Church, by the Treaty of 1213. After that fact was proven to the Founding Fathers; King George and representatives from the Vatican; decided to use the Constitutional draft created by the Founding Fathers, to further their plan to control the Colonists. Control attained by bringing the Colonists to their knees in debt. Any way you read it, the Constitution was never written with the intent of benefitting the American people.
52. Surreptitiously, King George infiltrated the Colonies and their feudal attempt to form a new government, using spy’s’ composed of English lawyers and English aristocrats, loyal to him. The spy’s assignment was to infiltrate the new government; carry out the plan to defeat the Colonists through debt and establish regular reports to the King. The Church also had their appointed representative in place to protect and insure that their interest is being observed. Much of the loans received from the French, went into the pockets of the Founding Fathers.
53. The Founding Fathers eventually conceded to King George and the Holy Roman Church’s demands, by and through the intervention and persuasiveness of the Kings spy’s. Ironically, the common denominator or glue that eventually bound King George, the Founding Fathers, the English lawyers and English aristocrats together was a secret society set up in 1776 in coordination with Frederick the Great of Prussia and the Jesuits called the “Illuminati.”
54. The sovereign states had been abolished in 1790 by the adoption of Article 1 of the Statutes at Large, which converted all the sovereign states into federal districts and gave the federal government lawful jurisdiction everywhere. In consideration of the fact that the federal government is a corporation and that corporations can lawfully own other corporations; and all the American subjects to be educated have admitted under penalty of perjury that they are corporations; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the corporate federal government.
55. On August 4, 1790; Article ONE of the U. S. Statutes at Large, pages 138 – 178, abolished the States of the Republic and created Federal Districts. In the same year the former States of the Republic reorganized as Corporations and their legislatures wrote new State Constitutions, absent defined boundaries, which they presented to the people of each State for a vote. Why this time? Because the new State Constitutions fraudulently made the people “Citizens” of the new Corporate States.
56. A Citizen is also defined by law as a “corporate fiction.” The people were bound to the Corporate State and the States were bound to the Corporate United States and fraudulently obligated all of us to pay the debts of the Federal Government owed to the King. This was necessary because the United States was officially bankrupt on January 1, 1788 and the politician’s (our Founding Fathers) who benefitted the most by these Revolutionary loans, required a guarantee to present to the King. Absent that guarantee, they were personally obligated to repay the debts.
57. The Constitution of the United States was written in secret by the Founding Fathers and was never presented to the Colonists for a vote. Surely, any document as important as this demanded the approval of the people it governed. Well, it wasn’t presented for a vote because the Constitution wasn’t created for “We the People,” it was created by and for the Founding Fathers, their family, heirs and their posterity. The Constitution is a business plan and any reference contained within it that appears to be the safeguard of a Right’ is there because none of the Founding Fathers trusted each other. The safeguards were intended to prevent any one or group of them from cutting out the others.
58. However, the Business Plan setup in 1788 had a 70 year debt repayment cycle that came due in 1859, again in 1929 leading to the various emergency powers implemented under the trustee administrator FDR who put teeth in Executive fiat orders that with passage of another 70 years recently in 1999 has again converted the abysmal bankruptcy into the prohibited 6th level of the ponzi scheme in conflict with the holding of the US Supreme Court in the Amway case.
Try that on for size.
Must be a full moon….
Wow…National Treasure III is coming out?
Nope, Mr Strunk has filed quite a few of these kind of lawsuits. None of them seem to go anywhere really. He also has a FOIA request against Obama’s records which he is now trying to modify into a three judge panel hearing or Quo Warranto.
The Judge ordered halt in discovery until further order IIRC and nothing much since then has happened.
I once got something like that on my blog. I just deleted it, after showing my wife. I told her it sounds like schizophrenia.
One can self proclaim through one’s own actions, for as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. You have got to start hanging out with people of greater intellectual prowess.
After I read this I was laughing. You talk about we being at war. Does our putative President know that we are?
Actually, legally we are not at war, Mario Apuzzo. We haven’t been actually at war since WWII. Only Congress can declare war, and they haven’t declared war since WWII.
It’s one of the many problems that I have with Congress, on both sides of the isle.
You are truly Caption Irony.
Oh Mario, stop you’re killing me with your irony
I hope you keep laughing all the way to your disbarment.
I didn’t say you’re at war; your side of the political camp did, ad nauseam I might add.
And I note you still don’t explain why you shouldn’t be labeled a “traitor.”
On name calling…
Mario Apuzzo: One can self proclaim through one’s own actions
So you are saying that I proclaimed myself a buffoon because I displayed a photo of myself in a cowboy hat? And perhaps you believe that I proclaimed myself a poltroon for not publishing my name?
Certainly when I read your discourse, “mountebank” comes to mind.
Well, concurring opinions can be binding in some circumstances. Check out the Marks rule (what happens when the Supreme Court fails to have a majority opinion in a case).
But yeah, the concurrence in Dred Scott would have no precedence or binding value on future courts.
Also, there’s an irony in citing a case used to justify the legality of slavery to oppose the first black President of the United States.
It is an interesting story. Dred Scott’s owner died and his ownership passed to his widow who married an abolitionist. The abolitionist husband would have freed Scott, but wanted a test case to affirm the freedom of all slaves in Scott’s condition. He thought the case would have been a slam dunk based on clear legal precedents, but he did not take into account the hardening of anti-black sentiment in the middle of the 19th century.
Since arguing that Scott was a slave was against his principles, the fellow sold Scott to a relative, Sanford, who actually brought the suit. The case is erroneously named “Sandford” in the court documents.