Mario Apuzzo (right) has uploaded a copy of the appeal [now deleted] that he filed on May 18 with the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division of the decision in Purpura v. Obama to Scribd.
You may recall that administrative law judge Jeff Masin determined that in New Jersey a presidential candidate doesn’t even have to consent for his name to be on the ballot, much less prove anything, and that as a matter of law there is no requirement that US Presidents have two US citizen parents.
Attorney Apuzzo, who is a strong advocate for the theory that Obama is not eligible because his father wasn’t a US citizen, disagrees and filed the appeal that’s featured below. The appeal includes a copy of the official court transcript in which it cannot be found that Obama’s attorney in any way admitted that the long form birth certificate (LFBC) released by the White House was a forgery and you’ll find the judge lamenting the fact that no one gave him an Obama birth certificate coffee mug (I’m being facetious).
Like Orly Taitz, Apuzzo has adopted the “kitchen sink” strategy of including all sorts of birther theories, adding the Breitbart News article about a pamphlet saying Obama was born in Kenya, and copying the Arpaio Cold Case Posse claims about Selective Service forgery. I have said from the beginning that Apuzzo is about publicity and not about winning. I think this latest filing bears that out. Still he cites six and a half pages of authorities.
Apuzzo misrepresents Judge Masin’s decision when he says:
…we can conclude that the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii
Actually, the judge accepted a Hawaiian birth hypothetically to deal with the claim that Apuzzo made that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he’s not a natural born citizen. If the Judge found Obama was born in Hawaii, then Apuzzo did too because he makes the same hypothetical starting point for argument.
Purpura-Moran v. Obama Brief and Appendix Filed 5-18-12
That photo of Apuzzo reminds me of The Amazing Criswell, a American psychic who appeared in the opening sequence of the schlock science fiction movie, Plan 9 from Outer Space. Perhaps hereinafter I’ll call him”The Amazing Apuzzo.”
Watch the video from Plan 9.
Apuzzo is a zen budhist, he enjoys losing, that’s what he lives for!
I think Apuzzo takes issue in the wording of Judge Marin regarding Obama’s Hawaii Birth. Mario believes based on the wording and context in which Judge Marin writes that he has accepted as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. That simply cannot be true given the record and is ground for reversal appeal. The wording and context of Judge Marin does not suggest he is merely engaging hypothically but appears to make the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii when no fact has been submitted to record on this.
No John, Mario is wrong. Judge Masin only assumed birth in Hawaii for his analysis of the two citizen parent theory. Judges make those type of assumptions all the time in court decisions.
But what is really interesting his Mario’s analysis of St. George Tucker Commentaries. Mario does not quote from Tucker and he provides no footnotes to Tucker’s work to back up his assertions of what Tucker supposedly wrote.
Apuzzo quotes that one line from the decision “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.”
It is clear that Judge Marin did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii. He ruled that the two-parent citizen theory is incorrect, just as every other judge who has ruled on the matter. Here is the full paragraph from the decision, containing that sentence.
“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.”
Love the Criswell comparison.
It sure would be interesting to know who is paying Mario.
Is this your opinion as an attorney?
“Mario believes based on the wording and context . . .”
Do you represent Mario Apuzzo?
More delicious word salad from The Putz.
The Arizona fiasco is ‘resolved’ and then Mario’s begins anew.
Coincidence? or organized tag team? I make report, you decide.
Op-ed: none of these maneuvers ever overlap, how could they be anything other than coordinated?
And Doc, the ‘plot’, such as it is, is definitely worthy of Ed Wood.
Apuzzo filed the appeal May 18.
If Obama can time travel, so can Apuzzo.
Edit: and besides, organization means they can plan ahead. ‘They’ knew when Bennett was going to fold, so they whistled for the next cab off the rank.
I’m not sayin’; I’m just sayin’.
Good point, Gorefan! Here’s an example of why Mario has to paraphrase Tucker instead of quoting him- are you listening, John? Hint: It’s because Mario’s interpretation of what Tucker meant, is inconsistent with what Tucker actually wrote.
Accordingly, Mario could hardly want to emphasize St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 1:App. 316–25, 328—29 wherein Tucker declares:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”
Ironically, Mario’s website prominently attempts to style Mario as “Bocca Della Verita” which means, “The Mouth of Truth”. The misleading crap that he actually expels there proves he is more accurately termed “The Sphincter of Lies”
Oh, Mario! In the name of honesty, consider changing your web site’s slogan to, “Che un sito web povero tessiamo, quando prima si pratica legale per ingannare” which roughly translates to, ” Oh what a poor web site we weave, when first we practice law to deceive.”
Meretricious Mario continues his shameless propaganda on behalf of white extremists. Nothing new here.
Looks like Ole Mario the Putz is jonesing for ANOTHER court to sweetly ask him to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned……
With all due respect to Mr Tucker, he is flat-out wrong. First, the plague is far worse than foreign influence. Not even close. Second, the Constitution does zip to prevent foreign influence-K Street is loaded with lobbyists for foreign governments and corporations. If that doesn’t buy influence, then why are those paying them shelling out all that money?
In his discussion of Dr. Ramsay’s dissertation, Mario fails to point out that dissertation was part of his petition to Congress to overturn the 1788 election of William L. Smith. And that Congress including James Madison and four other signers of the Constitution rejected Dr. Ramsay’s ideas on acquiring citizenship.
Maybe he could use this as his website motto: “The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time-and then shut up.” Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land
Puzzo and Orly are all about publicity. they both are grifters, racists, and liars.
Gorefan,
You are the one who is a liar. Did it ever occur to you that I did not think that the Ramsay-Smith debate was relevant to Ramsay’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” especially in a limited-space appellate brief?
Again, the Ramsay-Smith eligibility debate had nothing to do with “natural born Citizen” which Ramsay defined as those born after July 4, 1776 to citizen parents. Rather, it had all to do with whether Smith was a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years so as to meet the requirements of Article I, Section 2. The only thing Congress decided was whether Ramsay was right or wrong on whether Smith was such a 7-year “citizen,” belonging to the class of the “original” “citizens.” Smith did not have to be nor could he be a “natural born Citizen, for he was born before July 4, 1776. Hence, Congress did not decide whether Ramsay’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was right or wrong, but rather only if his claim that Smith did not deserve to be a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years because he did not show that he adhered to the American Revolution by actually being present in America while the Revolution was occurring or shortly thereafter.
So, again there is no basis to anything that you state here or at any other place on the internet about the correct interpretation of a “natural born Citizen.”
From what I have read from the contemporary literature, this is not the case. At the time of the founding of the country, they considered the new country to be a “successor state” and that allegiances to England were erased and became allegiances to the United States when the colonies became states. The same is the case for someone born in a US Territory that later became a state (e.g. Vice President Charles Curtis).
The words “natural born citizen” are thought to be in the Constitution at the urging of a letter from John Jay to George Washington. Jay suggested that none but a natural born citizen be the commander in chief. Are you so birthered-up that you’d even claim that Jay intended that Washington not be eligible to be commander in chief? (There was nothing about “citizen at the time…” in Jay’s letter.)
By your definition, anyone eligible to become commander and chief was in their early twenties or younger.
Washington was born in Virginia and his father died a British subject. Smith was born in South Carolina and whether that was a former British colony or not was irrelevant. It was part of the United States under the Constitution, and Smith and Washington were a natural born citizens.
I of II
Cite the passage from Dr. Ramsay dissertation where he uses the terrm “natural born citizen”.
When Mr. Apuzzo said “Did it ever occur to you….especially in a limited-space appellate brief?”, he was teasing, right? The whole shooting match is with the article. I counted 158 pages, but I could have nodded off.
II of II
From Dr. Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation:
The following appear to be the only modes of acquiring this distinguishing privilege.
1st. By being parties to the original compact, the declaration of independence.
2d, By taking an oath of fidelity to some one of the United States, agreeably to law.
3d, By tacit consent and acquiescence.
4th. By birth or inheritance,
5th. By adoption.
[skip]
Citizenship is an adventitious character to every adult in the United States.
[skip]
Many persons, hostile to our liberties and independence, might put in their claim to be citizens. All children born in the interval between the peace of Paris, 1763, and the declaration of independence in 1776, within the British posts on our northwestern frontier, now wrongfully held from us, would be citizens. Our East-India trade would be laid open to many adventurers, who have contributed nothing towards the establishment of our liberties: for the natives of this country, born before the revolution, who are now dispersed over the world, might on that principle, fit out ships, make voyages to India, come here and sell their goods, under the character of citizens, from the circumstances of their coming
From Dr. Ramsay’s 1789 petition to Congress:
“that citizenship with the United States is an adventitious character to every person possessing it, who is now thirty years of age ; and that it can, in no case, have been acquired but in one of the following modes:
1st. By birth or inheritance.
2d. By having been a party to the late revolution.
3d. By taking an oath of fidelity to some of the States.
4th. By tacit consent.
5th. By adoption :
and that Mr. Smith cannot have acquired the character of a citizen, in either of these modes”
[skip]
“Our East India trade would be laid open to the numerous natives of this country, who are now dispersed over Europe and the West Indies. If birth and residence within the limits of the United States, before the revolution, conferred the rights of citizenship, persons of the aforesaid description neither done nor hazarded anything for our independence, might trade to the East Indies as citizens of the United States, from the circumstance of their having been born in this country thirty or forty years ago, and, after having glutted our market with extravagant importations, carry the whole profits of their commerce to their present residence in foreign countries
Dr. Ramsay letter to Madison:
Charleston April 4th, 1789
Dear Sir,
Presuming on our ancient acquaintance I take the liberty of soliciting your attention to an affair of mine that is now before your Honorable House. One of the elected federal representatives of this State is, in my opinion, ineligible. This case is in short thus: this gentleman alluded to left Carolina in the year 1770 his parents died about the same time and he was absent from America during the whole of the war and till November, 1783. As in the time of his absence the Revolution took place I contend that in order to his becoming a Citizen of the United States something must have been done previously on his part to show his acquiescence in the new government established without his consent. The lowest test of acquiescence is in my opinion residence in the country. Till he resided under the government of the United States I cannot therefore see how he acquired citizenship. We were all born subjects but you and I were cleared from our allegiance by the restraining act of Parliament passed in December 1775. You and I became citizens by being parties to the Declaration of Independence. By that act a new compact for a new government was form between the then residing and consenting inhabitants of the States. But an absent native neither lost his allegiance by the one nor acquired citizenship by the other. Such continued, subjects while in Europe and under British protection and could become Citizens on their returning and by residence by an oath or by some other move manifesting their acquiescence in the revolution. It is impossible to do justice to the argument in a ____ nor is it necessary to one of your enlightenment and understanding. But as the subject is new I beg your attention to it and if your opinions ____ with mine I shall thank you for supporting my Petition on the subject when the merits of it are discussed before your Honorable House.
I am Sir with great respect and esteem your most obedient and Humble Servant.
David Ramsay
Mario posts a lot but provides little argument… How hard is it to make the argument Mario…
What are the odds that Mario will return with the quotation from Dr. Ramsay’s Dissertation where Ramsay uses the term “natural born citizen”?
And if he cannot find it, what are the odds that he will inform the appeals court that he “inadvertently” mislead them?
On the plus side, he hasn’t mentioned Vattel again.
Mr Apuzzo: here is one more chance for you to publicly deny that your quixotic battle is being financed by white supremacists/right wing extremists.
I just summed up mario’s argument above
Seriously, is there anything Mario isn’t dishonest about. First, Ramsey didn’t define “natural born citizen.” Second, as Gorefan has pointed out, the evidence is clear he wrote his dissertation to influence Congress to overturm his election loss. The argument before Congress was whether native birth alone made Smith a citizen. If it didn’t, then Smith would not have become a citizen until he returned from Europe. Accordingly, Ramsey argued against jus soli and was refuted by Madison himself and obviously rejected by Congress as the only basis of Smith’s early citizenship was his native birth. Congress obviously believed people born in the states were natural born citizens as St. George Tucker told us. Ramsey is clearly a sore loser whose argument was rejected by the father of the Constitution and whose dissertation has never been cited by anyone. Only a birther would think such is relevant authority.
And there go the irony meters….
Amazing the statements one can make when they ignore the fact that there is an ever growing body of law utterly rejecting your arguments….in fact every court and adminstrative body that has addressed the issue has laughed your claims out of the court. No more whining about getting booted on standing. The courts are unanimous in stating the Minor never defined NBC, WKA did, and defined it at as jus soli. But Mario can still pretend to be beligerent and arrogant, and pretend that it is somehow a substitute for actual wisdom. He can also pretend that 30 years of practing DWI and personal injury law somehow makes him a Constitutional scholar of the calibur of Lawrence Tribe. And perhaps that will convince the less informed, or the willfully ignorant. The rest of us just have to chuckle when you get all serious, and try to lecture us.
Dr. Ramsay sent the following letter to Elias Boudinot:
Charleston March 31st 1789
Dear Sir,
Presuming on our ancient friendship I take the liberty of soliciting your attention to an affair of mine that will become before Congress. Those who were opposed to me at a late election urged that I was not a native of South Carolina & that I was a friend to the emancipation of negroes. These pleas were urged to favor the election of another who was absent from America from his 12th to his 26th year that is from 1770 to 1783. I contend that he is constitutionally ineligible as not having been seven years a citizen and have submitted the matter to Congress. By looking into the restraining act of Decr 1775 on which we ground our legal discharge from allegiance you will find that it did not operate on absent natives & that therefore such especially if absent all the time of the war could not be divested of their British allegiance till they returned to their native country. You and I lost our allegiance by that act of Parliament & acquired citizenship by being parties to the Declaration of Independence. I contend that Mr. Smith could neither have lost the one nor acquired the other (especially as his parents died British subjects) until his return here in Novr 1783. You understand the doctrine of allegiance better that I do & the difficulty of divesting a native subject of G. B. of his allegiance. You also know that these who were born before the Union of England & Scotland were not subjects of England till they were naturalized and many other topics that prove citizenship with the U. S. to be an adventitious character to all now 30 years old & only acquirable by their joining in some way or other the U. S. as members of that new political society & by some act of their own. If you think as I do on this matter I will thank you for explaining it to Congress & for placing the merits of the question in a true light.
The enclosed dissertation I sent sometime ago to Mr. Hazard to be printed & offered for sale & a copy to be sent by the printer as from himself to every member of Congress. Mr. Hazard has not answered my letters. I therefore for fear of accidents transmit to you a duplicate requesting that it may now be printed & distributed if not done already.
My petition is now in the hands of Doctor Tucker who will show it to you on asking him. I send you all I have of the papers I printed here on the subject. Mr. Hazard has the whole on both sides. I am with great respect & esteem your friend & very humble sert
David Ramsay
Mr. Boudinot also voted against Dr. Ramsay’s petition.
The relevant date must be no later Apr 30, 1775, not July 4, 1776, otherwise George Washington (1st inauguration on Apr 30, 1789) could not have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years. NB. that the “grandfather clause” does not refer to age or residence. So, the skirmish at “the rude bridge that arched the flood” should be thought of as the birth of our nation, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Breaking News: Per Atty Apuzzo Oral Arguments in NJ Ballot Access Challenge to Obama Appeal Have Been Changed from Telephonic to In-Person
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/breaking-news-per-atty-apuzzo-oral-arguments-in-nj-ballot-access-challenge-to-obama-changed-from-telephonic-to-in-person/
This will be fun! These 3 Judges are going to tear Mario a new one.
i CAN HARDLY WAIT
i ordered more caramel corn
The judges couldn’t believe that there was a licensed attorney in NJ who was that stupid. They had to see it for themselves.
Perhaps the court wants Mario to be able to cut that sanctions check on the spot?
Yay. A delusional birther bigot freak show.
Bring on the sanctions for this bloated, slithering embarrassment to this country and the legal profession.
lol
i wonder if mario passes the birther in birtherstan test
italy grants citizenship to their paisans if your first U.S. born Italian American relative was born before 1940
Breaking News: Taitz v Astrue: Motion for Default Judgment Denied, Motion for Summary Judgment approved….
Another beautiful Friday smack down.
Double Whammy
2012-05-25 – TAITZ v RUEMMLER – USDCDC APPEAL – ORDER
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted.
You can do court proceedings over the phone?
i LOVE FRY-DAYS
That and ‘roasted pig luaus’
Summary Affirmance. even worse a true smackdown. The Court did not even find it necessary to be briefed on the case.
You know, we keep getting fingers pointed at us here in Arizona over this birther mess, but if you ask me, it’s all New Jersey’s fault. Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Joseph Farah, Mike Zullo, Jack Cashill– they’re all from New Jersey. Jerome Corsi lives there. That whole Cold Case mess has a distinct scent of New Jersey lingering in the miasma surrounding it. I think I’m going to start a rumor that Ken Bennett was a missionary there. Maybe Orly originally entered the U.S. through New Jersey. I bet Phil Berg was conceived in New Jersey.
Dr. Conspiracy,
I have been trying to post this comment on John Woodman’s blog for two days but for some reason, it does not go through. Hence, I am posting it here.
John Woodman,
(1) Again, the Ramsay-Smith eligibility debate had nothing to do with “natural born Citizen” which Ramsay defined as those born after July 4, 1776 to citizen parents. Rather, it had all to do with whether Smith was a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years so as to meet the requirements of Article I, Section 2. The only thing Congress decided was whether Ramsay was right or wrong on whether Smith was such a 7-year “citizen,” belonging to the class of the “original” “citizens.” Smith did not have to be nor could he be a “natural born Citizen, for he was born before July 4, 1776. Hence, Congress did not decide whether Ramsay’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was right or wrong, but rather only if his claim that Smith did not deserve to be a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years because he did not show that he adhered to the American Revolution by actually being present in America while the Revolution was occurring or shortly thereafter. So, again you lie about our history.
(2) Your St. George Tucker quote does not show that what is stated in the quote was Tucker’s own position. Rather, Tucker only repeated what some “respectable political writer” said. Also, Obots, in quoting Tucker, always left the beginning part of this quote off which is needed to understand that Tucker was only repeating what some other person believed and not giving his personal position on the matter. Only after I took the Obots to task for this deceit have you now started to include the first part of the quote. So, again you lie about our history.
(3) You continued to misrepresent the clear and plain text of Jefferson’s citizenship law of 1779. I cannot believe that you do not understand that “infants” trumps “all white persons.” You fail to understand that “infants” followed the condition of their “white” parents. Hence, there was no need for Jefferson to require that the “infants” also be “white.” Only if an infant was born to “citizen” parents could that infant be a “citizen” of Virginia. This same principle was adopted by the early Congress when they wrote the naturalization acts and is confirmed by the James McClure case (see No. 4 below). So, again you lie about our history.
(4) John Woodman, I take great pleasure in telling you that the James McClure case, which informs on the early naturalization acts, is the smoking gun in our quest to find the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” The McClure case totally supports my position and totally destroys your thesis that the Founders and Framers used the English common law and a “natural born subject” to define the republic’s new “natural born Citizen.” It is clear from the historical records that the James Madison Administration declared James McClure, who was born in Charleston, South Carolina on April 21, 1785, a “citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in the United States, but rather because his British father naturalized on February 20, 1786, which was months after McClure was born and at which time McClure was also dwelling in the United States. This was the James Madison Administration’s interpretation of the Naturalization Act of 1802 which is consistent with what I have always maintained about the early naturalization acts, i.e., that they also applied to children born in the United States and treated any child born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. Also, it does not matter who wrote the Publius piece. What does matter is what it says and that it explained how the 1802 statute was interpreted. So, again you lie about our history.
What I have noticed about you, John Woodman, is that you cannot state one truth on anything. Everything that you write is your own manipulation of the historical record. It is all lies, pawned off with your self-righteous attitude as some authoritative scholarship.
Fascinating how self delusional Mario appears to be… And projecting…
Speak of the devil, and there he is.
Somebody’s been watching too many TV wrestlers ranting on camera at absent opponents.
Talk about projecting!!!!
I doubt that Mario even understands this. Of course, so far John has been far more accurate than Mario, whose arguments have been consistently rejected by the Courts.
Maddening perhaps…
Mario is no Orly. He was at least on some level, a real attorney for many years, and graduated for a reasonable law school. He’s not monumentously stupid enough to believe the drivel he’s been pushing for the past several years, which just makes it all the more smarmy (way to live up to the stereotype of the sleazeball lawyer!). That is, unless he’s gotten so wrapped up in his own lies that he’s started to believe it.
It’s more of an ego thing I believe… He wants to be right, even when the facts do not support his position. Having lost to a young, relatively inexperienced female attorney who safely could ignore Mario’s musings on two-citizen parents by pointing out that it was totally irrelevant, may not have helped either.
That and being outsmarted on the internet by people who call his bluff and research the issues.
You wouldn’t have these problems in the upper Midwest (and before somebody goes pointing at Andy Martin and Chalice, God Bless.. I am Natural Born Michigander who is temporarily hanging out in Illinois).
Mario… you used the O word that John Woodman asked you to not use on his site. Not only do you not read historical sources correctly, you did not read John’s comment either.
Please cite where Ramsay uses the term natural born citizen. Or did he cite it in the same way Justice Gray did in Wong Kim Ark.
Mario – why did McClure receive a passport from the American Minister in London “confessing him to be a native American citizen”?
Mario
John Woodman just alerted me that for some reason WordPress had flagged your comments as spam. He has fixed it now. I just checked the spam filter at my blog and found one of Doc C’s comments from 5/22 was in there. Sorry Doc. 😆
Well, ain’t that a smart piece of software….
I all fairness, Mario’s worthless arguments are to Law what Spam is to Meat.
This is hilarious. The Obots who call us “Birthers” do not want us calling them Obots.
Mr. Apuzzo: What would you like to be called, as a group?
I am not an “Obot,” whatever that is, and folks who seek to conflate me and others who post here as supporters of President Obama are simply wrong. I did not vote for him in 2008 and will not in 2012.
Gorefan,
You asked: “Cite the passage from Dr. Ramsay dissertation where he uses the term “natural born citizen.”
The unamended Constitution, which was adopted in 1787, includes only two types of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizen” and the “Citizen of the United States.” Ramsay, in 1789, gave us his list of how citizenship is obtained.
Ramsay defined naturalized citizens as follows: he informed that birthright citizenship for those born after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of the citizens.
Since the Constitution called these citizens the “natural born Citizens,” Ramsay therefore defined the “natural born Citizen” in this manner. There was no other “citizen” which Ramsay could have defined other than the “natural born Citizen” when he gave this definition of birthright citizenship. Does not common sense tell you that in Ramsay giving us his exhaustive list, he defined both a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States?”
St. George Tucker also did not use the clause “natural born Citizen” when he defined birthright citizenship. He defined birthright citizenship as a child born to citizen parents. This is the same thing that Ramsay said. There can also be no doubt that he defined a “natural born citizen,” for only that type of citizen who was born after the adoption of the Constitution was eligible to be President.
This shows that it really did not matter what title the Founders and Framers gave to birthright citizenship. What is important is how they defined it. And that definition always contained the requirement for birth to citizen parents. Hence, the whole argument that Vattel did not use the word “natural born Citizen” when he wrote in French, “Le naturels, ou indigenes,” is nothing more than a red herring. The Founders and Framers knew that how Vattel defined “Le naturels, ou indigenes” in their book was a “natural born Citizen.”
And by the way, are you going to tell the American people and the courts that you and your partners have “inadvertently” mislead them by telling them that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a “natural born Citizen” when the term “natural born Citizen” does not appear anywhere in the holding of the Court? I see that you caught on to your own contradiction and now try to cover yourself by joking that Ramsay cited “natural born Citizen” “the same way Justice Gray did in Wong Kim Ark.
So, you’ve taken some time off from ambulance chasing, and stopped by to visit. How’s torts? What’s new in the field of drunk drivers?
“The Obots who call us “Birthers” do not want us calling them Obots.”
You can call me anything you want, except “hey you.”
– “Call me a taxi.”
– “OK. You’re a taxi.”
Won any court cases on that line of thinking, Mario?
The cae of Wong Kim Ark deals with the definition of natural born citizen. The authors understood that by ruling as they did Mr. Wong was eligible to be President. I believe it is covered in the briefs. I’ll defer to the lawyers who post here.
From John Woodman: “Furthermore, even Justice Fuller in the dissent in the case recognized that the majority had found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President.”
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/the-us-supreme-court-established-a-binding-precedent-as-to-who-is-a-natural-born-citizen-in-united-states-v-wong-kim-ark/
One might take your complaint seriously if you didn’t do exactly what you accuse others of doing in re Vattel.
For the record, I ask you again to deny that your legal battle is being funded by extreme right-wing organizations.
I think it is quite clear that Mario who’s prompt to respond to any real or imaginary slight will NOT deny — for the umpteenth time — that he is a paid mouthpiece for some extreme right-wing organization.
I think we have to recognize that Mario is like a mob attorney and treat him with the same respect.
Can there technically be any French (or German or Australian or Belgian) “Obots”? I don’t think so.
Even the dissenting Judge understood that Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a natural born citizen. But I am sure that he did read the ruling. You on the other hand continue to suffer from common reading problems. Nothing uncommon really but quite funny and of course, the courts have rejected your position.
Since the Court observed that there natural-born and natural-ized citizens combined with the fact that WKA could not be natural-ized under US Statute, the fact that he was ruled a citizen leads to a simple and inevitable conclusion.
Glad to be of held my dear Mario.
Any time soon now… But first he will have to deal with the oral arguments in the NJ appeal. I am sure that the Judges will be fascinated by his ‘arguments’. I do urge Mario to bring his check book though.
I beg to disagree. I don;’t think there is any delusion (or maybe just a smidgen) or stupidity at work here. Marion is/was a professional; ambulance chaser who got offered as fat brief by some extreme right-wing people to propagandize their views, just like Wallace Shawn in a famous episode of MURPHY BROWN (except that Shawn eventually breaks down on camera, unable to continue mouthing the vile things he is expected to say).
You wouldn’t accuse Al Capone or John Gotti’s lawyers of being delusional or incompetent, even when they deny the obvious and put forth barely defensible theories about their clients’ activities? The same applies to Mario: he is doing as repulsive job for which I suspect he is handsomely paid a monthly retainer, which beats finding new ambulances to chase.
“What I have noticed about you, John Woodman, is that you cannot state one truth on anything. Everything that you write is your own manipulation of the historical record.”
Perfect projection and immaculate irony from Apoplectic Apuzzo.
Mario: Will you vote for Romney/Rubio or will you go with Obama/Biden on the principle that one citizen parent is better than none?
So if Mario’s pre-school says “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” he means BOTH parents, every single day. Lord help the single parent or even the 2 parent famiy where one has a late meeting because when Mario sees “parents” it means both, never one or more.
It’s a tough choice for Mario. Would he vote for someone whose father was born in another country, purportedly to US citizens, whose grandfather and great-grandfather were bigamists, and who has never shown his BC, or will he stay home?
Mit Romney’s parents were both U.S. citizens when he was born.
I have not seen that Marco Rubio is the Republican candidate for Vice President. I have already stated that Rubio is not a “natural born Citizen,” for while he was born in the U.S., he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. According to the Founders and Framers, early Congress, and many other historical sources which I have cited in my briefs and in my other writings, that fact unquestionably disqualifies him from being an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible for President. There has never been an amendment of that rule, including by the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.
Prove it.
He is the most likely choice, since Romney cannot win without Florida nor without a showing among Hispanics similar to GWB’s, and Rubio is his best shot at that. So, hypothetically, Romney/Rubio vs Obama/Biden, who do you pick? A forthright, honest person answers a simple question.
By the way Mario, here is the 12th amendment: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed:
Note that it says “SHALL be President”, not “might be President” Or “if the Great Apuzzo approves”. Congress is the final authroity and they already spoke on Obama. On Rubio, who knows????
Mario cannot prove US citizenship for the parents of any President or candidate, with the possible exception of George W Bush and John Quincy Adams. Where are birth certificates or passports for Lincoln’s parents or Truman’s or Reagan’s?
In Hollywood, they called Reagan “Dutch”. Therefore, I can only conclude he was born in Holland. Prove different (and no a birth certificate issued 30 years later is not proof, not even close).
I suppose you might get away with a remark like that on your blog, but you could hardly expect anyone here to be that poorly informed. If Obama is “unquestionably” disqualified, then why isn’t your case, Purpura v. Obama, in the win column for the birthers instead of a loss on appeal. Why have at least 4 other judges in similar cases questioned, and decided that the ideas you put forward are “without legal merit?”
If Obama is “unquestionably” disqualified, then why did one of the first important writers on the Constitution, jurist and historian William Rawle say:
If Wong Kim Ark does not inform us, then why did the US Government’s own appellate brief arguing that Ark was not a citizen at all describe the district court ruling as:
Certainly the US Government understood the implications of losing the Wong (which they lost). Their brief said:
“Citizenship by birth” is the important qualification, not parentage.
So please don’t insult me and the others here by trying to pass off obviously false premises. The fact is that you are arguing a fringe view, widely rejected by the legal community.
Once again, Mr. Apuzzo states that the Supreme Court did not change the two citizen parent ule in the cse of Wong Kim Ark.
I agree that whatever rule was in effect did not change as a result of that case, but the case is replete with references to Mr. Wong’s eligibility to be President even though it is quite clear that neither of his parents were citizens. Thereafter, every court which has confronted the question, including courts in which Mr. Apuzzo was present, has read the case to say that one simply needs to be born here to be President.
Interesting use of the word “unquestionably.”
And I concur with Misha’s demand for proof of Gov. Romney’s citizenship, even though I intend to vote for him. The failure of Mr. Apuzzo to demand documentation from white candidates given the furor Mr. Apuzzo and his friends have unleashed about President Obama is racism, plain and simple. Unquestionably.
Both here and at the Fogbow, it’s been suggested that the move from a telephonic hearing to one in open court is a bad sign for the Appellants and Apuzzo in particular.
Would one of the attorneys please flesh this idea out a bit so we non-attorneys understand why this would be the case?
Thanks!
By saying the President is unquestionably disqualified, Apuzzo clearly means that *if* you don’t question his premise, then President Obama is disqualified. If you question it, sure of course, then yeah, the President’s qualified, but Apuzzo just said it’s unquestionable, which means don’t bother trying to question it, because you can’t, because he said so.
Just because the judges are rude and can’t take a hint, that doesn’t mean Apuzzo’s premise is actually questionable. Just ask him. He’ll tell you. Unquestionably, he will tell you.
I have uninformed speculation, but I’ll keep it to myself. If Mr. Apuzzo is reading this, perhaps he knows something he can share, or speculate from a professional standpoint.
Maybe Kerchner finally got tired of him bogarting the anytime minutes off his Jitterbug.
So according to you, Dr. Ramsay’s exhaustive list defines “natural born Citizen” and ” Citizen of the United States” .
:Both his dissertation and petition contain the same list of modes for acquiriing citzenship.
He describes citizenship by “birth or inheritance” in the dissertation:
“None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If the had lived, no one can be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.”
He describes citzenship by “birth or inheritance” in the case of William L, Smith:
“Mr. Smith cannot have acquired the character of a citizen, in either of these modes, seven years ago. He cannot be a citizen by birth or inheritance, for he was born in 1758, in South Carolina, while a British colony; and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence; his birthright and inheritance can, therefore, be no other than that of a British subject; for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born; nor can parents leave to their children any other political character than that which they themselves possessed.”
If by “birth or inheritance” is Dr. Ramsay’s definition of natural born citzen, that definition was explicitly rejected by James Madison, Thomas Fitzsimmons, George Clymer, Daniel Carroll, Nicholas Gilman and 31 other members of Congress.
You would not make a good Birther.
Has anyone seen the defendant’s and AG’s briefs.
Not only is pretty much everything you say a lie, at this point you are pathological. Why would you say the anonymous letter represented to position of the Madison administration when you have no such evidence. Do you think no one will notice you are lying through your teeth. Monroe’s letter only certified his place of birth and said nothing else. The clear implication to any honest persons would thuis be that is the only relevant issue. It is astounding you would claim they thought he was naturalized without evidence. But you can’t seem to help to lie.
The same pretty much goes with the rest of your post. You repeat the same things and can never defend the criticism of them. You just go repeating the same lies. Your interpretation of Jefferson’s statute has been debunked so many time with only the most feeble defense by you, but you keep on saying it. You are lying about St. George Tucker as he clearly approved the the definiton of natural born citizen in the context he cited it and also said the president had to be a native born citizen in an addition of Blackstone where he used native and alien throughout his work in the same sense in England and America. The lies just go on and on.
However, your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark at this point is delusional. When you are shown unambiguous quotes from WKA that you can in no way refute, you simply ignore them and pretend they doen’t count or exist. When you are told it is irrelevant whether Gray called WKA natural born as he clearly defined what a natural born citzien was and it clearly was not dicta. You never respond to this as you simply don’t understand these concepts. Of course, the court did say he was natural born as it said natural born meant “born in the allegaince” and spend many pages explaining that persons such as WKA were born in the allegiance. Of course, we see no court has any trouble reading these plain words of the supreme court. Pretending such authority does not exist is not only dishonest, but could be sanctionable. What are you going to do when such plain statements of the Supreme court refuting everything you say are read to you in court? Lie some more?
“[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States'” and that “[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words…in this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….'[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
“The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
“it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
I can go on and on if you would like. If you can’t admit these statements make clear that natural born subject and citizen mean the same thing, our common law is the same as England and your interpretation of naturalization statutes is wrong, there really is something wrong with you.
\
I haven’t, but would sure like to!
Excellent point
Hey, Mario: Who’s on first?
Yep… As was the two citizen parent rejected in US v Wong Kim Ark, where it was explicitly raised by the Government. Much of the same arguments Mario is raising were raised and rejected by the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.
Mario is re-litigating US v Wong Kim Ark, a solid precedent and it should not come as much of a surprise that Courts have been rejecting his arguments in for instance Ankeny v Daniels or related findings/rulings.
I am sure he will be asked to explain himself during the oral arguments, which he will be attending in person per request of the court, as far as I understand. Good luck Mario. Any comments/predictions?
Nolu Chan has shown that the issue before the Court was the ruling that the lower court had found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen
Undeniable… Contrary to Mario’s ‘suggestions’, both the Government in their briefs and the dissenting Judge all understood that the Court had ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen.
Now what?
Wong Kim Ark, On the Briefs Re Natural Born Citizen
nbc,
What twisted logic you present.
Wong just needed to be a “citizen” not to get deported.
But the district court found that he was a “natural born citizen.”
On appeal Collins said that the district court erred in finding Wong to be a “natural born citizen.”
The Wong dissent said that Wong should not be declared to be a “natural born citizen” because it would not have been fair to the children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who were under the majority’s explanation only naturalized citizens “at birth” under an act of Congress, not “natural born citizens,” and not eligible to be President.
Because Wong needed to be just a “citizen,” and despite the arguments of Collins and the dissent, the Supreme Court was free to find that he was just a “citizen,” and not like the district court did, that he was also a “natural born citizen.” And that is exactly what it did, holding Wong to be under the Fourteenth Amendment a “citizen” from the moment of birth
That Collins and the dissent said the district court erred in finding Wong to be a “natural born citizen” does not through magic convert the Court’s holding that he was a “citizen” into one that he was a “natural born Citizen.”
I see I’ve missed most of the Mario Apuzzo party over here.
Over at my blog I commented this morning on the use of “Obot” versus the use of “birther.” “Birther” is a fairly descriptive and factual term: It’s someone who is concerned about the birth of our current President or future Presidential candidates.
“Obot” carries with it two implied meanings: 1) A supporter of the current President, and 2) one who acts as a “robot,” that is, automatically, according to the preconceived agenda, without regard for the truth, etc.
One term is fairly factual and descriptive, even if it may be used with a derogatory tone. The other implies a particular political orientation and allegiance, and to a certain degree implies motives on the part of the person labeled that may well not exist.
In my own instance, as people who visit my blog well know, I’m not a supporter of Mr. Obama, but I am a supporter of the truth and our history, Constitution and laws. Personally speaking, I am somewhat tired of being labeled an “Obot.” I can’t keep Mr. Apuzzo from labeling me whatever he wants at his own blog, but he ought to respect my wishes as mine. In spite of the fact that Mario has been asked politely to knock of the defamatory labeling (and I recognized in this that there are others who may in fact be Obama supporters who do not appreciate being described as “robots”), he seems almost unable to create a post that does not contain the word “Obot” in it.
Recently I set a filter which I intended to put such posts into moderation. Instead it put them into “spam,” and they did not appear. I’ve changed this now. Mr. Apuzzo’s posts that do not contain the derogatory term will appear immediately. Those that do, will be moderated.
Scientist and nbc,
Scientist: So if Mario’s pre-school says “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” he means BOTH parents, every single day. Lord help the single parent or even the 2 parent family where one has a late meeting because when Mario sees “parents” it means both, never one or more.” Of course, nbc, took this bait hook, line, and sinker.
I am surprised at you, Scientist, being a scientist, that you would put forth such bad logic.
In your school example, of course, the school only needs one parent to pick up the child. The one parent will do the required job, i.e., picking up the child, just nicely.
But with the “natural born Citizen” clause, which is defined as a child born in the country to citizen parents, two U.S. citizen parents are needed to do the job. The reason both are needed is so that the child is born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States which is what the Founders and Framers expected of future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military. In other words, unlike the school pick-up situation, one U.S. citizen parent will not get the job done. And no U.S. citizen parents is that much worst.
This, along with John Woodman’s four-legged creatures and a Frenchman is a European, is another fail in Obot logic.
The courts clearly indicated that there were, under our Constitution only two kinds of citizens: Natural-born and Natural-ized.
The Court approved of the lower court ruling, which you accept as admitting that Wong Kim Ark was natural born, and the dissenting Judge lamented that now Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President.
Understanding the ruling does require one to read and understand its implications my friend. Luckily the Judge in Ankeny v Daniels was able to understand the relevance of US v Wong Kim Ark and reject, once again, your position, as did the dissenting Judge when admitting that under US v Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim Ark was in fact a natural-born citizen. While he disapproved of the findings, he did understand its relevance.
What tangled web we weave…
I guess you have nothing to rebut other than to assert bad logic. When in fact, the observation is quite accurate.
Poor Mario, logic reason, legal precedents, scholarly works, all continue to disagree with his position. While most of his claims were already argued in US v Wong Kim Ark, they were also solidly rejected.
Begging the question once again. Logic is not your strongest suit now is it? So what is? Perhaps if you were to focus on that, you may actually succeed in convincing the Courts?
Until then, the logic and reason, or lack thereof, in your arguments, combined with your innovative interpretations of legal precedents, will continue to haunt your failures.
Note that even Vattel accepts that who is a citizen or not is something Municipal law addresses, and he observes that in England for example, common-law does not agree with Vattel’s interpretation. But even Vattel accepts that a child when gaining the age of majority gets to determine which citizenship to continue.
Mario has been inhaling Orly’s nitrous oxide. Ignore him.
And let’s not forget Vattel’s position
If President Obama would have left the United States with his father, and resided in Kenya with him, and failed to return to the United States when reaching the age of majority there could perhaps been a case made based on international law, that he had rejected his birthright citizenship.
Of course, we know that under today’s precedent, it requires more than this for someone to abandon his birthright citizenship, when born a natural-born/native born citizen.
It is somewhat foolish to deny that the United States gets to decide who are its citizens just because some people believe there exists a better ‘international law’ concept.
ballantine:
You always tell us how you, in citing and quoting English common law, “can go on and on if you would like.”
But you fail to understand that in a soccer game, it does not matter how many home runs you hit.
Convincing people that his client was not blind drunk, when said client ran a red light, and smashed into another car. Casting doubt on any tests for alcohol concentration. Perfecting the definition of contributory negligence. Playing on jurors’ sympathies.
Also, determining who entered the intersection first.
No, but the fact that the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision does.
It must be so sad to believe yourself so right, but yet lose so badly and so consistently.
nbc,
I am not just rearguing Wong Kim Ark. I have presented a great deal of other evidence which was not included by the Government or the dissent. One example is that they failed to argue that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is found right in the early naturalizaiton acts which abrogated the English common law.
Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment trumps any statutes. But that amendment only provides for the status of a ‘citizen,” not a “natural born Citizen.”
Of course, a non-substantive response that cannot refute the clear, unambiguous authority I cited stating you are wrong. Notice that you never even try to refute my citations as they are as clear as can be. Do you not realize you can lose your law license for misstating authority in a court filing? Can you dispute any authority I cited was wrong? No. Can you cite any subsequent Supreme Court case saying it was wrong? No. Can you cite any modern court saying my interpretation is wrong? No. Accordingly, you are simply lying. How many courts have to laugh at you before you realize you are wrong. For rationale people, that point has already occurred. For the delusional, they won’t stop until they are disbarred.
Have you really not read the debates on the 14th Amendment Congress at this point and read that they were just restating the Englisn common law? Are you being ignorant on purpose? If you can’t admit that Wong Kim Ark said the 14th Amendment and the NBC clause meant the same thing, you are just an idiot as has been pointed out over and over and over and over. And, of course, you never even try to refute the quotes from WKA I cite that make such point clear as even you cannot re-write such language to support your delusional interpretation. Seriously, it is just a matter of time before someone files an ethical complaint against you for your misinterpretation of law. If you dispute this, please explain any of the quotes above from WKA that you never have responded to because you can’t. Either you can explain such quotes or you are lying by stating something else is the law. Which is it?
No such evidence is found there, other than a flawed reading and understanding.
Mario, The quote above indicates that you accept the ruling of Wong Kim Ark, and are attempting to convince a court, presumably the Supreme Court, that it was wrongly decided. That is a bona fide position one can take in a courtroom, however, when one does that one has to make clear in one’s own pleadings what the settled law is, what the precedents are, and give a very good reason for changing the law.
It can be done. I’ve done it a few times. But, the way to go about it is to state, from the beginning what controlling precedent is, and that one is attempting to change the law. You have not done that in any of your pleadings (that I’ve read). So you come off to the courts as an idiot. Who will be subject to sanctions. For attempting to mislead the Courts as to what the settled law is.
On the other hand, it is more likely that you are merely deluded and mis-spoke in the above quote.
ROTFL, it shows two paths to citizenship: Birth on Soil (aka natural born) and acquisition afterwards (natural ized)
You really should try to comprehend these distinctions before you make such foolish comments.
And of course, the Court in your own case, fully rejected your position.
and
We thank you for allowing the Court to reaffirm this well understood principle
And rejected Vattel…
Somehow all these judges, including the dissenting Judge in US v Wong Kim Ark all come to the same conclusion that Wong Kim Ark affirmed the lower case finding that, according to the Government’s own brief, Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. Anyone who has followed the arguments and the rulings therein would naturally come to the same discussion.
But it does help to actually read AND comprehend these papers.
Indeed it does… Plus he does appear to have accepted that the lower court found Wong Kim Ark to be natural born
Yes, but also found that under the ruling Wong Kim Ark would be able to run for office of the President.
Interesting blinders…
Mario perhaps loves this kind of punishment because deep down he has convinced himself that he must have been right. The alternative is just unthinkable perhaps? In light of Mario’s shining successes however, the alternative does not appear so unlikely after all. But denial and anger are the first few steps towards acceptance.
And miss out on all the fun. Mario is such a doll… I do not particularly take pleasure in taking candy from infants but in Mario’s case, the rewards are just too sweet.
The courts have repeatedly held that there are only two ways to acquire citizenship in the US, by birth or naturalization. There is no other category created by 14th Amendment. Accordingly, all the courts that have ruled on it disagreed with the “two parent” theory you propose.
An example:
“There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above.”
Hon. Arthur M. Schack, S.C.
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html
We got Strunk to thank for this… A round of hands for Strunk, Apuzzo/Purpura, Ankeny and others who have solidified the findings of US v Wong Kim Ark in legal precedent…
And frivolous… I can’t wait for the NJ Appeal’s Court to grill Mario in person…
Any prediction Mario? Are you bringing your check book?
Don’t you just love John Woodman. He allows one to called him an “anti-birther.” So the word “birther” can be used on his blog. But he will not permit one to call him a “Botox.” Now is that not just grand.
Hey, John, now you know what happens when you censor free and fair speech.
Has Mario addressed the observation by Dr C that
Fascinating how poor reading skills Mario appears to have.
You become Mario’s blog?…
But requesting you to not use Obot hardly constitutes censorship and of course, you should know by now that free speech is not guaranteed when contributing to blogs like John’s.
John however has provided you with far more courtesy and access than you have provided to others.
But I do understand why you have to attack John indirectly as he has, as many others before him, shown you to be without any ‘clothes’.
In fact, John has given you all the opportunity to show your arguments to be without any merits. As to your reading skills, I am not sure what explains your somewhat consistent inability to read and comprehend rulings and statutes but I hope that with the help of others, you can at least come to see your follies.
Of course, it is just icing on the cake to have judges continue to agree with people like John and reject Mario’s arguments as ‘frivolous’ or lacking in merit.
I can’t wait for the oral proceedings in New Jersey… Next week? What do you think Mario were the reasons for the Court to invite you inside their courtroom?
For those who do not follow John’s blog, you should know the following: John has expressed that
Mario may have not fully comprehended the meaning of this statement when calling ‘censorship and free speech’…
Me, I was thinking about moderating any comment with the word “Alinsky” in it.
I said: “But the district court found that he [Wong Kim Ark] was a ‘natural born citizen.’” This is not correct. I knew that the district court never even mentioned the clause “natural born citizen,” but I inadvertently said what I said. Then when I saw nbc trying to get some mileage out of my mistatement, I remembered that the district court never even mentioned the clause
So, the district court found that Wong was a “citizen.” It never even used the clause “natural born citizen.”
On appeal Collins erroneously argued that the district court erred in finding Wong to be a “natural born citizen.” Collins stated the question presented in his brief thus: “The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? 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.”
The district court did not find that Wong was a “natural born citizen.” It only held that he was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Too bad, nbc.
An interesting aside is that when I first started debating birthers in 2008, I used the screen name “Botox.”
And yet everyone involved understood the extent of its ruling as the lower court found that
But, not totally unexpected, the actual ruling appears to be at odds with Mario’s understanding
Then it explains how birth on soil creates ‘citizenship’
The Judge also understood that there are but two sources of citizenship
And the Court totally rejected the Vattel principle, although perhaps being more ‘reasonable’ as lacking in judicial authority.
It helps understanding how the terms citizenship and its two components birth on soil (natural bron) and statute (natural-ized) combine and how this affects the argument.
Fascinating how poor reading skills Mario appears to have.
I guess the New Jersey Attorney General also has poor reading skills.
Only if one does not understand the foundation and reason that led the Court to this conclusion Mario. And of course, ignoring the position of the dissenting Judge and the government brief, which you insist is suddenly erroneous…
You fail to comprehend the arguments presented, and the logic of the ruling when claiming that the Court did not find the Wong Kim Ark to be natural born. By virtue of the logic presented, there is no other conclusion but that by finding WKA to be a citizen, and the fact that he could not become a naturalized citizen, that he was therefor a citizen by birth, born on soil under the jurisdiction of our nation, making him by the common law of England, and the Common Law of the early republic, a natural born citizen.
It’s so simple… Even the courts today comprehend this… And thus have rejected your position with such terms as frivolous or without merit.
Tough isn’t it when reality is so at odds with your deeply held beliefs?
The two are not exclusive no. Are you now rejecting Dr C’s well informed observations because you believe someone else made a similar mistake?
Weird…
Nonsense. Children grow up attached to all kinds of things that their parents were not attached to and often feel no attachment for things their parents care deeply about. My mother adored Italian opera; I can’t stand it. My father was a professional boxer and I couldn’t imagine myself beating somebody to a pulp or being beaten to a pulp.
Attachments, loyalty and allegiance are fleeting my friend. People get married promising to love honor and obey until death. Most of them actually mean it at the time, but half the marriages end in divorce. For $100,000 I could get many people to betray things they claim to love. Make it $100,000,000 and traitors would be lining up around the block.
As for the Founders, Framers, blah, blah, blah, spare me. Their opinions don’t support you and even if they did, they are just opinions, to be considered, yes, but they can never be binding on us. Mind you, here is an opinion from a Founder that I find very wise:
“The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country”- Thomas Jefferson, 1813
The Founders opinions are NOT binding on us and they CANNOT select leaders for our time.
ballantine,
I think you are losing it, threatening me with ethical complaints and losing my law license for my well-documented and historically correct position on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Maybe you need a rest.
I take that as an endorsement of Obama/Biden over Romney/Rubio.
Retired Lawyer,
I did not say that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Rather, I have maintained that it did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just a “citizen” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
ROTFL… Begging the question again. And yet, the arguments have been referred to in Court as lacking in merit or frivolous (Strunk).
Sorry Mario for not taking you too seriously. But I am relying on the Court next week to properly reward you for how ‘well’ you ‘documented’ your ‘position’…
Care to venture a guess as to why they invited you into their court room?
And no Ballantine did not threaten you. There you go again with your problematic reading comprehension. What he said is:
Read before you leap…
Mario, since you are here.
Is your posiition that we have all been wrong about the definition of Natural Born Citizen for the last 100 years or more?
Because we all grew up knowing that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen- have all Americans just been wrong?
Or are you arguing that what I was taught by my conservative civics teacher was an anomaly?
For reference, the District Court’s decision is available here.
The Court cited approvingly the decision in Lynch v. Clarke which very specifically called Lynch a natural born citizen (of alien parents). So the Court did use the phrase (page 388) albeit in the context of the words of another court.
The District Court’s decision was largely based on a previous decision by the Circuit Court in Re: Look Tin Sing, where the phrase also appears.
I would point out that Collins argued the case before the District Court as well as writing for the appeal. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they “erroneously argued.” That’s just your opinion.
Which the Court found to be similar as under the common law, natural born meant born on soil subject to jurisdiction and since WKA was both born on soil and subject to our jurisdiction the conclusion is inescapable.
Good luck making this distinction to the judges next week.
Nbc,
You said: ROTFL, it [the Fourteenth Amendment] shows two paths to citizenship: Birth on Soil (aka natural born) and acquisition afterwards (naturalized).
Begging the question, aren’t we. I guess logic was not your forte.
Yep, and given the context, a rather poor one as well IMHO. Remember that Collins argued that in order to be natural born citizen, one has to be born on soil to two us citizen parents and depended on descent rather than location of birth.
Linda,
You provided the following quote to prove some point:
“There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above.”
Hon. Arthur M. Schack, S.C.
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html
You are a bit behind the learning curve. May I suggest you catch up.
I told you that you should have read and comprehended the ruling before exposing your lack of understanding publicly.
Sorry Mario, if you insist on making yourself look foolish in public, by all means, eat your heart out. I would be the last one to prevent you from exercising your right to do so.
So, Mario where is this legal [statute]. This would be expected you being a lawyer and all.
“The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed:”
US Constitution. 12th Amendment
I told you that you should have read and comprehended the ruling before exposing your lack of understanding publicly.
Sorry Mario, if you insist on making yourself look foolish in public, by all means, eat your heart out. I would be the last one to prevent you from exercising your right to do so.
For those who do want to educate themselves on this topic, let me outline broadly the argument followed by the court
Citing Minor v Happersett and other precedents it concludes
Pursuing the proper definition of the term natural-born, the court observes
Rejecting Mario’s proposition
Observing that the 14th is just declarative
Concluding
Sigh…
Again an ad hominem in order to avoid what I see as the fact that the Courts have found Mario’s principles to be lacking in merit and even frivolous.
Then again, arguing against the consistent findings by Judges, based on US v WKA, may be too hard. We can expect some fun perhaps during the oral examination of Mario’s ‘arguments’…
Haven’t you been paying attention? It’s in Mario’s briefs.
Scientist,
The English common law could never be binding on the Founders and Framers. It could be considered, but it could never be binding on them. Here is an opinion from a Founder that is quite instructive:
“The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country”- Thomas Jefferson, 1813
The English common law is not binding on us and it CANNOT select leaders for our time.
Why provide the link? Yes, there have been legal arguments that state both parents must be born in America, the link provided shows arguments that demonstrate that born parents don’t have to be.
Obama is the sixth president who parents were not born on American soil. The irony of the ruling is that it was harsh. Let us just say that Linda is correct.
Nor can Vattel. It is the VOTERS who choose. They CHOSE Obama in 2008 and that is the end of the story. They may CHOOSE him again in 2012 or not. But neither Vattel nor the English common law nor the Founders have a say.
When one takes a break from all this you tend to lose track. However, thankfully Mario did provide some information on that.
It is not a threat from me, as I am not litigating this. However, since your submission is completely dishonest, don’t whine when the court determines to sanction you. We know you already have experienced begging the 3rd Circuit not to sanction you. I suggest you fine tune those arguments. Perhaps this could be a new specialty for you. Note that when I cite unambiguous authority from the Supreme court saying you are wrong you never make a response, as you cannot. Any attorney has a duty to cite authority contrary from his position. To not point out suchclear authority from the Supreme Court is unehtical. But since you think you are so smart, please tell us why the supreme court statements I cited above don’t matter and don’t require you to recite to the court. Rather you cite a sore loser whose opinion was rejected by Madison and Congress. You cite an anonymous letter that you have no evidence anyone ever agreed to. You cite cases that had nothing to do with citizeneship. When you are sanctioned, don’t say we didn’t warn you.
By the time the Constitution was ratified all 13 states had adopted the English Common law, either by constitution, statute or through judicial fiat.
The sense in which the English Common law is not binding is that after adopting it, we can change it. However, as the courts have pointed out, birth in the country is sufficient to make a natural born citizen, and that rule was never altered. [Temporary exception for the slaves.]
I find it ironic that you would challenge the efficacy of the English Common Law while at the same trying to supplant it with another, a book by the Prussian guy, Vattel.
It is also ironic when you say that the English Common law cannot select leaders for our time, because apparently you don’t want the voters selecting them either.
Confused again?…
The question is not if it is binding but rather what the definition of terms left undefined in the Constitution is. The courts have found consistently that such meanings should be found in common law and the court in US v WKA showed that the common law meaning was birth on soil with minor exceptions.
If Mario had read and understood the briefs filed by the Government, he would have known that they too tried this somewhat foolish argument, ignoring the limited application of common law here.
Reading comprehension…
Well, yes but… You know Mario… Plus it is not relevant that there may not exist a federal common law, just that terms undefined in the Constitution are to be found in common law at the time the constitution was written. And as the Court in WKA showed, the meaning was clear and simple: birth on soil, just like the english common law…
Did he not come close when the Court ruled that his appeal had been frivolous? Perhaps the NJ Court has taken judicial notice of Mario’s past behavior and are inviting him into their court room to explore the extent of this?
I am not a betting person but I have this strong suspicion that the Court has its reasons to suddenly invite Mario inside its courtroom.
sfjeff,
Since “natural born Citizen” is only relevant to running for President and Vice President, for the last 100 years, we have had to talk about what is a “citizen,” not what is a “natural born Citizen.” As Minor explained, it has never been doubted what a “natural born Citizen” is. The doubts have arisen regarding what is a “citizen,” which Minor even told us was not necessary for it to decide. We know that Wong did later on answer that open question.
The problem occurred when the definition of a “natural born Citizen” became buried in history due to non-use and then because of that non-use some conflating a “citizen” with a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment brought some closure to the question of which people born in the United States are to be considered “citizens” from the moment of birth. I say some closure because it introduced some doubts by resorting to the vague “subject to the jurisdiction” clause.
That is not what Minor really said now is it Mario. So why pretend otherwise?
Of course, at best dicta and at worst contradicting Mario’s suggestion that Minor conclusively defined the term natural born.
I am sure the NJ Appeal’s Court may have some questions for Mario. He better rehearse his answers.
To understand Minor it also is important to remember that it stated
Devastating indeed. Citizenship by birth or citizen by statute, the former natural-born the latter natural-ized.
I don’t know how to be any more clear than this. The living, breathing VOTERS decide who gets to be President. Not Vattel, not some dead Supreme Court judges, nor living Supreme Court judges, nor any dead guys in wigs and stockings. Anyone is welcome to read any or all of them, consult them through Ouija boards or mediums, commune with their spirits in any manner they wish, but they don’t get a vote.
Actually not vague at all. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) [emphasis mine]:
I think I should just put this one on “speed dial” as many times as I have to cite it. In addition, I am not the only one who has cited this case. It was cited in WKA.
Mario, if you are going to make a claim, it would help to do due diligence, lest a non-lawyer point out that you are wrong about “subject to the jurisdiction” being vague.
nbc,
I see that you are still making the frivolous argument that Minor did not define a “natural born-citizen” because if first provided the conditions of the term (born in a country to citizen parents) followed by the clause “natural-born citizen” rather than how Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations and all the other U.S. Supreme Court cased defined the clause, i.e. first say “natural-born citizen” and then follow it with the conditions that define it. You really should be sanctioned for espousing such frivolity.
Dr. Conspiracy,
You cannot accept that the Wong Kim Ark district court did not even mention the word “natural born citizen” in its opinion. You are really grasping at straws on what the Wong district court held. That you have got to vacuum all the contents of other decisions into the opinion of the court simply because the court cited to those opinions is a real far stretch and has no basis in how case law is interpreted and applied. This is the type of faulty logical reasoning that you fall into trying to prove that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” rather than just a “citizen” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Northland10,
I can see that you are not a lawyer. You cite Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) which is not relevant to my point.
Whenever nbc loses a debate, he resorts to threatening sanctions. How pathetic.
What is your point? Like every spring, before the advent of electronic ignition, we used to change our car’s points. Also, the plugs and condenser.
The digital computer has changed everything, I tell you.
Nbc,
I guess you are also behind the learning curve. That the states selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by statute does not mean the Founders and Framers adopted it for the national level. The Bill of Rights did selectively bring the English common law into the Constitution. But citizenship is not covered in the Bill of Rights.
When the unamended Constitution was adopted, the only law they adopted for the national level was the Constitution, treaties, Congressional Acts, and the law of nations. This law became the Article III “Laws of the United States” and became binding on the nation through the supremacy clause of Article VI.
Like nbc, when ballantine has lost a debate, he threatens sanctions. I guess they were right when they said that birds of a feather flock together.
In the Alexandra Herald articel why did the American Minister in London issue McClure a US passport “confessing him to be a native American Citizen”?
Remind me.. how many courts have agreed with your opinion?
Another Bird:
You said: “Why provide the link? Yes, there have been legal arguments that state both parents must be born in America, the link provided shows arguments that demonstrate that born parents don’t have to be.
Obama is the sixth president who parents were not born on American soil. The irony of the ruling is that it was harsh. Let us just say that Linda is correct.”
Yes, and some people maintain that the moon is made out of cheese. How dare they.
Some philosopher writing the next text book on logical fallacies should include your example in it under the chapter on straw man arguments.
You are behind the curve. You started losing in 2008 and have lost non-stop since then. In all that time you have failed to learn that the voters, not courts select the President. What a slow learner!!!
gorefan,
The U.S. passport held by James McClure did not provide much protection for him in 1810. The U.S. passport given to James McClure was issued by the American Minister in London. The Minister plenipotentiary of the United States informed the Minister of General Police in France that James McClure was not a U.S. “citizen.” That Minister then informed the French Minister of War about the matter. Based on the reports received, the French Minister of War issued an order on April 12, 1810 ordering that McClure be arrested as an “‘English prisoner of France.’” Accordingly, McClure was arrested at “L’Orient, sent under parole, and “placed under surveillance at Tours” in France.
We can understand why the French officials would not have been impressed with McClure’s U.S. passport. The issuance of the passport is suspect given that McClure had been living in England. His father was by birth an English “natural born subject,” who on February 20, 1786 had naturalized under the laws of the State of South Carolina to become a U.S. “citizen.” McClure remained in the United States only until 1795 when he was sent to England for his education and never returned to the United States. His father had also left the United States and returned to Great Britain. McClure was dispatching cargo ships from England to Peru which commercial trade could benefit England with which France was at war. Under these circumstances, it appears that McClure was using his U.S. citizenship only for commercial advantage, a reality of which David Ramsay had warned in his dissertation of 1789. France would have been interested in imprisoning English subjects who it considered its enemies and especially if they considered them to be overtly or covertly aiding and abetting the British.
McClure could not rely on his U.S. passport for anything. He had to show that he was born in the United States and that his British father naturalized after he was born and that at that time he was dwelling in the United States. So as you can see, the passport was worthless to prove that he was a U.S. citizen.
How can I see anything – I live in the back, along with the Picasso from the back of the store.
It was left to me by my zayde.
Again, Mario can offer no substantive response. Notice he make no legal arguments at all on this thread. When confronted with unambiguous authority from the Supreme Court, he has nothing to say other than to call people names. It is not me that will sanction him, it will be the courts who have no tolerance for lying. I still can beleive he said an anonymous quote he has no evidence was from Madison was probably from Madison. And to even further claim that such was the position of Madison’s administration without any proof. Seriously, what kind of person says such things? There is really something worng with him. Try reading to quote I provided from WKA above. If he can’t admit that they say that natural born subject and citizen mean the same thing and that
his interpretation of naturalization statutes is wrong, he is either a lier or an idiot. Again, I expect no response as he cannot make any response.
Why would you say such a thing? He never showed he was naturalized. The State Department only said he was born in the United States, nothing more. Can you make one post without lying? Again, there is really something wrong with you.
Funny but so far a judge has only ruled your position frivolous, not mine.
Good luck with the sanctions.
That’s how Mario makes his living – by defending the indefensible: drunk drivers.
See this from 60 Minutes – DWI: Is It Murder?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5205158n
As far as I can determine, Mario has never recanted his lie that there was a ban which prevented U.S. citizens from traveling to Pakistan in 1981. When confronted with incontrovertible evidence that no such ban existed, Mario backtracked only far enough to claim that it was a “de facto” ban.
That fact that he continues to lie should surprise no one.
Also from US v Wong Kim Ark when showing that the meaning of the term natural born had to be interpreted as found in common law and how english common law had continued in the context into the laws of the early republic, the Court showed how courts continued to rule that birth on soil grants natural-born citizenship status. No court ever appears to have considered the existence of birth on soil but not natural born as an alternative. There are only two classes of citizens: born on soil (aka natural born under common law principles) or created by statute (natural-ized)
Since Mario has apparently accepted that WKA was born in the allegiance of the United States, as he does accept that the US v WKA court found WKA to be a citizen, the conclusion is but inescapable, once again..
Also, notice how deftly Mario avoids Willard Mitt Romney’s purported unicorn DNA.
Of course, if a unicorn was drunk, Mario would rush to defend it. Psst, Mario – the unicorn’s name is Einhorn. Einhorn Zwiebel.
Gee, maybe I provided it because you have spent your time here telling people one must have two citizen-parents in order to be a natural born citizen? Maybe because this was a court decision where your theory FAILED? Is it just that this wasn’t your most recent theory’s most recent failure? I should have been more up to date? My apologies, please feel free to post a link to your latest crash and burn.
I would also love to read any decision where any court has agreed with your reasoning to decide any one of the Obama birther/ballot challenges. Please post away!
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
Linda,
You provided the following quote to prove some point:
“There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above.”
Hon. Arthur M. Schack, S.C.
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2012/2012-ny-slip-op-50614-u.html
You are a bit behind the learning curve.May I suggest you catch up.
That’s rich. There are “Birther” sites that don’t want commenters to call President Obama “President”.
Boo hoo hoo.
Not me. I wouldn’t mind seeing Scarlett Johanson’s briefs, especially if she was in them, but I absolutely do not want to see the defendant’s and the AG’s briefs, under any circumstance.
Ballantine, having again lost the debate, still wants to sanction me. Ballantine wants me to admit that “natural born subject and citizen mean the same thing.” Now how can I do such a thing when we have Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Indendence and the Constitution, tell us in 1791:
“English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems.
***
I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”
A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
***
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.”
We did not see anything written by Wilson which hints that a “citizen” was supposed to be analogous to a “subject.” Wilson said “rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification.” Here he told us that the people were familiar with the word “citizen” and so they chose it. He also told us that the Framers decided not to use “natural born subject” because they did not want its meaning to have further effect and did not want the people to think that it did. Hence, they chose and used a different phrase, “natural born citizen,” because it was a different phrase which was to have “a new signification.”
Note Wilson refers to Aristotle as a source for defining a “citizen.” Aristotle, in “Politics, Book Three, Part II, writing in 350 B.C.E., gave us his definition of citizenship thus:
“But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’ Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.”
Yes, Aristotle, relied upon by Wilson for a definition of a “citizen,” said that a citizen had parents who were both citizens.
Finally, Wilson then explained who a citizen of Pennsylvania was. First, he defined a naturalized citizen, having resided in Pennsylvania for just two years. But then he described what is a “natural born Citizen,” saying that he was “between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen…”
So, there you have it ballantine. Now sanction me for that.
So just out of curiosity, have you read the political theory of this old Swiss guy, (or French, or Prussian, I’m not quite sure) named Emmerich de Vattel? He said in one of his several volumes:
“And then there are other states such as England in which the mere birth in that country is enough to make the children of a foreigner a citizen”
What I’m wondering is, why don’t you
BirthersObama Opponents cite this Vattel guy, ever? He obviously has an illuminating understanding of the situation.This is fun and all, but are you all happy to be helping Mario rehearse?
There is nothing vague about it what-so-ever.
Keith,
What spirits possessed you to say that I do not cite Vattel? I can understand you saying so ironically, thinking that what you have provided supports your point and not mine. But you are mistaken.
You say that Vattel said:
“And then there are other states such as England in which the mere birth in that country is enough to make the children of a foreigner a citizen”
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have just cut and pasted someone else’s quote which is not correctly presented. Here is the correct quote from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 214, entitled “Naturalisation:”
“Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”
Note that the passage appears under a heading for ‘naturalisation.” Furthermore, Vattel tells us that such a child born in England to alien parents was naturalized. What Vattel was probably referring to was Calvin’s Case (1608) wherein Lord Coke naturalized Calvin to be an English “natural born subject.” Calvin had been born in the King’s dominion to alien parents. Parliament, for political reasons, would not naturalize Calvin. So the English courts did it.
So as you can see, Vattel considered a child born in a country to alien parents who may be declared to be a “subject” from birth to be naturalized as such.
Please know that our early Congress was not so generous with U.S. birthright citizenship as were the English with birthright subjecthood. Congress did not grant U.S. citizenship from birth to a child born in the United States to alien parents. Rather, they allowed that child to become a naturalized “citizen” after birth upon the parents naturalizing, provided the child was dwelling in the United States and the parents naturalized before the child reached the age of majority. After that age, the child had to petitioner for naturalization on his or her own.
Finally, remember that the Founders and Framers disqualified a naturalized citizen from being a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. So, the Founders and Framers disqualified a child born in the United States to alien parents from being President.
Wow, one is a natural born citizen only for the duration of one year… Really Mario, you may want to double check your sources and your reasoning here.
nbc,
Your understanding has failed you here. What Wilson said was that a child born to citizen parents upon reaching the age of majority was considered a citizen of Pennsylvania. This followed, among others, the John Locke philosophy which provided that during minority, a child did not have the capacity to be a citizen, but rather just followed the citizenship of his or her parents and that upon reaching the age of majority could decide what citizenship to accept. This is the same thing that Vattel said in Section 212, except Vattel did not say that infants were not citizens. In any event, it does not really matter because a President has to be at least 35 years old.
Linda,
What a waste of time.
Your usage of the word “naturized” and “naturalization” is disingenuously incorrect.
In the United States there are exactly two, count ’em, two kinds of citizen: natural-born and natural-made (naturalized).
In this context, which is the same as Vattel’s usage, saying an individual is “a natural” is exactly the same as saying the individual is “a citizen”.
That is why the word for making an alien individual into a citizen is “naturalization”.
Playing with words by shifting the definition for different instances while pretending they are in the same context is a bad habit. My jokes about my Australian friends driving on the “wrong” side of the road because they don’t drive on the “right” side of the road wore thin the first time I used it.
My line was a joke and it is debatable whether or not it is funny. Your line is not a joke and there is no question about whether or not it is funny; it is not. The only question is whether you truly don’t understand the difference, or whether you are willfully ignorant.
The spirit of facetiousness.
And Mario somehow forgets
US v Rhodes…
The same judge also lays to rest Mario’s naturalization ‘idea’
Such a bummer
And in Dred Scott
Double ouch
Linda has gotten you cornered again.. No wonder you run. Poor Mario…
The Courts have not looked with much respect towards people making claims similar to the ones you are proposing… That by itself is no surprise to those of us who understand legal precedent and historical development of the concept of citizenship in our nation.
You are right about this one thing at least. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority make citizenship laws about “a child born in the United States” whether to alien parents or not.
Your words that follow are incorrect however.
That is just complete rubbish when applied to “a child born in the United States to alien parents”. I repeat, Congress has no authority to make citizenship law about “a child born in the United States”.
Citizens are either natural-born or natural-made (naturalized). Period. Full-stop. In this context the words “natural” and “citizen” are synonyms. The term of art “natural born” is exactly the same as the words “citizen born” and “naturalized” (natural made) is exactly the same as “citizen made” (citizenized).
“a child born in the United States to alien parents” is a “citizen born” which is exactly “natural born” and the citizenship status of the parents has nothing to do with it unless they are diplomats or part of an invading army.
Furthermore, in America, the only reason for a distinction between a natural born citizen and a natural made citizen is that one is Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency. Since this is the ONLY distinction between one American citizen and another, there is no reason for any other class of citizen to arise.
Your attempt to invent another, third kind of citizen is just plain silly. What would be the point of the existence of such a class? Sure, you can aver that such a class exists just as you can aver that there are classes of born citizens who were born in Maine or Hawai’i. There are born citizens whose parents were both citizens, whose parents included one citizen only, and whose parents were both alien. There is however, no point in the identification of those classes, none what-so-ever, there is no law or process or condition that distinguishes between those classes. And in fact, legally, they have no reality what-so-ever except to distinguish them from naturalized citizens for the purpose of Presidential eligibility, and since the one feature of their class that is common among them all, the fact that they are born citizens is the one feature that distinguishes them from made citizens, there is no need to refer to any other feature such as which state or how many citizen parents.
Sure, as is a child born on US soil to non citizen parents. The child has the right to continue his birthright citizenship if he so chooses. But I still note that you fail to provide any references that would allow us to check your reading comprehension. I am at loss why you quoted Wilson and now are claiming that he meant something different.
And yes, the right to choose is recognized by many, which makes your proposition even more troublesome.
Miller v Albright destroys Mario’s concept as well
So no naturalization of children born on US soil… Sigh… If Mario had done his homework. But now he will have to at least let the NJ Court know of his new found knowledge… The question is, will he?
Ah and Elk v Wilkins
So much relevant precedent. Mario may want to ask for a do-over?
And some icing
Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658 (1946) (emphasis added): “Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’”
Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 680 (1944) (emphasis added). The Court also noted there: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Id. at 673.
Luria v. United States – 231 U.S. 9 (1913): “Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
Mario will face an uphill battle…
People between 21 and 22 can vote even if they have not paid taxes…. Nothing to do with citizenship perse…
it’s about voting….
Your reading comprehension has once again abandoned you… Shame on you Mario…
You then changed your tune and claimed, without any evidence or reference that
That is NOT what Wilson said in the passage you quoted. Hint “in this view”
I’ll make it brief:
I’ve said in the past that Mario is like a mob lawyer, being paid by right-wing extremists to obfuscate, dissemble and, if necessary, LIE.
I hope that reading the above exchange (and Mario’s lack of denials vis vis the above) will remind posters who accuse Mario of being a fool or ignorant that he is no such thing indeed.
A contrario, there is no point in arguing with him because he is arguing in bad faith. You will never get anywhere. Cases in point: Vattel or the Pakistan travel ban, where Mario is unarguably wrong, and still persists in arguing these.
A side note: Mario mentioned Aristotle. Many moons ago, I wrote a post here where I explained the Ancient Greek notion of citizenship. Maybe Dr Conspiracy can link to it. Suffice it to say that Mario is wrong again, and like Vattel, Aristotle does NOT bolster his case.
Regardless, it’s not going to stop him from making a complete ass of himself in court.
This garrulous and galumphing Garden State gadfly is in way too deep to ever admit to lying about history and the law.
And the sad, slithering sac of sycophants on his cesspool of a blog will be crying “Corruption!” soon enough when the losing lawyer lurches and limps along with yet another stunning, litigative loss.
And that is “unquestionable”.
You just took Mario’s beloved Dred Scott and turned it against him. Beautiful.
I am sure Mario will be similarly appreciative 🙂 But yes, Mario can be so much fun… Although sometimes it feels a bit like taking candy…
Yep, Mario will never be able to untangle himself from the web he has woven. That’s the beauty of it. Over the last few years I have observed little ability in Mario to learn from his mistakes.
But, I doubt that anyone really could make a reasonable argument against US v Wong Kim Ark’s findings that would let a court accept Mario’s musings that President Obama is somehow ineligible. The history of birth right citizenship is rich and well documented. Some arm waving and invocation of ‘Vattel’ are not going to impress too many.
The NJ hearing is going to be a lot of fun I predict.
You stated the there were doubts because “subject to the jurisdiction” was vague. If you have forgotten:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins demonstrates that “subject to the jurisdiction” is not vague. Therefore, the doubts you mention were not introduced because they did not resort to a vague clause.
If “the vague ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause” is not relevant to your point, why did you use it?
I also posted on Aristotle and citizenship some time back. Aristotle didn’t hold with citiizenship through either parentage or place of biirth. Rather, citizenship was acquired through acts of participation in society.
“To ask who is a citizen is to ask about the identity or nature of a citizen In Aristotle’s hands, this is to ask who deserves to be a citizen or who merits the political good of citizenship. Aristotle begins his investigation by saying what will not qualify someone for citizenship: not place or location, or the capacity to sue and be sued [Pol. 1275a7-11]; not birth, ancestry, or blood [Pol. 1275b32-34]. Rather, a citizen is one who participates in ruling and judging [Pol. 1275a22-23]; one who rules and is ruled in turn [Pol. 1277b13-16]; one who shares in the judicial and deliberative offices of a polity [Pol. 1275b18-20].6 Place, legal capacity, birth, and parentage – as static qualities and/or markers of status – do not demonstrate desert in Aristotle’s view. What distinguishes the formulations Aristotle approves is their emphasis on activity: “sharing in a constitution,” to use Malcolm Schofield’s phrase, qualifies one for citizenship (Schofield 1999, 141-59).”
http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/psrw/frank032803.pdf
In Aristotle’s view, someone who arrived here and became a participant in society would be a full citizen, with all rights, including holding the highest office. By contrast, someone who was born here of 10 generations of citizens, but chose to be a non-participant in society, would not be a citizen.
So, Aristotle certainly does NOT support Mario. In fact, Aristotle would argue that someone like Kissinger or Albright is far more “eligible” than a doofus born here to ancestors who came on the Mayflower. And that certainly makes more sense than Mario’s nonsense.
Sorry, we have shown over and over that the that is what the Supreme Court and a mountain of early authority has said. You don’t even try to dispute such authority, you just ignore it and keep repeating you are right over and over like a child.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
There is something wrong with you if you cannot understand what that says of all the other quote we present from the Court that you just ignore. And, with Wilson, you of course misrepresent what he said. He never defined natural born citizen, he never said one needed citizen parents and never said the condition of the child followed that of t he parents. He said citizens were persons given the right to vote and participate in the government. In Pennsylvania, he is quoting the suffrage law at the time in which a citizen father is only relevant for one year. He goes on the state:
“I have, on another occasion, traced the description of a citizen in every other state of the Union:’ to your recollection of that investigation, and to the constitutions of the several states, I now refer you.”
This is done on pages 133-137 of his treatise which is simply a list of the suffrage law of all the states and for which parentage is irrelevant under every such state. Hence, according to Wilson, only men were citizens and even someone with a citizen parent was only a citizen if the state law allowed him to vote. Clearly not the mainstream view on the subject, but in no way helpful to you unless you distort what he says.
Wilson also has a whole other section where he speaks of the law of alienage and allegiance which is all directly from Blackstone where he talks of subjects natural born and aliens all defined solely by place of birth. For example:
“But to return to the subject of alienage—an alien, according to the notion commonly received as law, is one born in a strange country and in a foreign society, to which he is presumed to have a natural and a necessary allegiance.”
Whoops. Hence, Wilson’s position appears to be one was born a natural born subject but became a citizen if given the right to vote. Duh.
Again, you cannot find authority that supports you but rather distort authority that actually hurts you. Quite pathetic.
BTW, Wilson, when defining who was a Pennslyvania citizen, said in the footnote that he was citing this sufferage provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution:
“In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector: Provided, that the sons of persons qualified as aforesaid, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall be entitled to vote, although they shall not have paid taxes.”
Hence, if you actually read the provision Wilson said he was referring to when telling us who was a Pennsylvania citizen, a citizen parent only relieves persons between 21 and 22 from the requirement of paying taxes. A child of a citizen over 22 is not eligilbe if he doesn’t pay taxes. Duh. And, Mario thinks this provision contain Vattel’s definition of NBC. Really, really sad.
And according to Wilson, a citizen of the United States is a citizen of a state and here are the persons who are citizens of all the other states according to Wilson:
“By the constitution of New Hampshire, “every male inhabitant, with town privileges, of twenty one years of age, paying for himself a poll tax, has a right to vote, in the town or parish wherein he dwells, in the election of representatives.” r
In Massachusetts, this right is, under the constitution, enjoyed by “every male person, being twenty one years of age, and resident in any particular town in the commonwealth for the space of one year next preceding, having a freehold estate within the same town, of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds.” Every one so qualified may “vote in the choice of a representative for the said town.”‘
The right to choose representatives in Rhode Island is vested in “the freemen of the respective towns or places.” This regulation is specified in the charter of Charles the second. The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations has not assumed a form of government different from that, which is contained in the abovementioned charter.
The qualifications requisite, in the state of Connecticut, to entitle a person to vote at elections, are, maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behaviour, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold, or forty pounds personal estate: if the selectmen of the town certify a person qualified in those respects, he is admitted a freeman, on his taking an oath of fidelity to the state.
It ought to be observed, by the way, that this power to admit persons to be freemen, or to exclude them from being freemen, according to the sentiments which others entertain concerning their conversation and behaviour, is a power of a very extraordinary nature; and is certainly capable of being exercised for very extraordinary purposes.
The constitution of New York ordains, “that every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the state, for six months immediately preceding the day of election, shall, at such election, be entitled to vote for representatives of the said county in assembly; if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings; and been rated and actually paid taxes to the state.
“All inhabitants of New Jersey, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate within that government, and have resided within the county, in which they shall claim a vote, for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entU tied to vote for representatives in assembly.”
The right of suffrage is not specified in the constitution of Delaware; but it is provided, that, in the election of members of the legislature, it “shall remain as exercised by law at present.”
In Maryland, “all freemen above twenty one years of age, having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county, in which they offer to vote, and residing therein; and all freemen having property in the state above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county, in which they offer to vote, one whole year next preceding the election, shall have a right of suffrage in the election of delegates for such county.”
We find, in the constitution of Virginia, no specification of the right of suffrage
it is declared, however, that this right shall remain as it was exercised at the time when that constitution was made.
It is provided by the constitution of North Carolina, “that all freemen of the age of twenty one years, have been inhabitants of any county within the state twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid publick taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the house of commons, for the county in which they reside.” a
According to the constitution of South Carolina, “every free white man, of the age of twenty one years, being’a citizen of the state, and having resided in it two years previous to the day of election, and who has a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot, of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or, not having such freehold or lot, has resided within the election district, in which he offers to give his vote, six months before the election, and has, the preceding year, paid a tax of three shillings sterling towards the support of government, shall have a right to vote for members of the house of representatives for the election district, in which he holds such property, or is so resident.”
I am not possessed of the present constitution of Georgia. By its late constitution, it was provided, that ” all male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty one years, and possessed, in their own right, of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in the state, or being of any mechanick trade, and shall have been a resident six months in the state, shall have a right to vote at all elections forc representatives.”
According to the present constitution of Delaware, ” every white freeman of the. age of twenty one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector.” Art4. s. 1.
By an amendment of the constitution of Maryland, confirmed in the year one thousand eight hundred and two, it is provided that every free white male citizen of the state, and no other, above twenty one years of age, having resided twelve months next preceding the election in the city or county at which he offers to vote, shall have a right of suffrage. Constitutions, p. 174.
The present constitution of Georgia directs that the electors of members of the general assembly shall be citizens and inhabitants of the state, and shall have attained the age of Jwenty one years, and have paid all publick taxes which may have^been required of them, and which they have had an opportunity of paying agreeably to law, fcr the year preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county. Art. 4. s. 1.
In order to complete the view taken of this subject in the text, it will be proper to state the provisions made by the constitutions of the new states admitted into the Union respecting the qualifications of electors.
In Vermont, ” every man of the full age of twenty one years, having resided in the state for the space of one whole year next before the election of representatives, and who is of a quiet and peaceable behaviour, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of the state.—’ You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the state of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most con
foregoing enumeration of the provisions, which have been made, in the several states, concerning the right of suffrage, we are well warranted, I think, in drawing this broad and general inference—that, in the United States, this right is extended to every freeman, who by his residence, has given evidence of his attachment to the country, who, by having property, or by being in a situation to acquire property, possesses a common interest with his fellow citizens; and who is not in such uncomfortable circumstances, as to render him necessarily dependent, for his subsistence, on the will of others.
By the constitution of Tennessee, every freeman of the age of twenty one years and upwards, possessing a freehold in the county wherein he may vote, and being an inhabitant of the state, and every freeman, being an inhabitant of any one county in the state six months immediately preceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for members of the general assembly, for the county ia which he shall reside. Art. 3. s. 1.
The constitution of Kentucky provides, that in all elections for representatives, every free male citizen (negroes, mulattoes, and Indians excepted) who at the time being hath attained to the age of twenty one years, and resided in the state two years, and the county or town in which he offers to vote one year next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector. Art. 2. s. 8.
In the state of Ohie, the rights of electors are enjoyed by all white male inhabitants above the age of twenty one years, having resided in the state one year next preceding the election, and who have paid or are charged with a state or county tax. Cons. Art. 4. ”
Does anyone see a parent citizenship requirement in any state? Of course not. Mario’s arugment get more and more pathetic.
Sure. Unfortunately, this is one of those comments still suffering from issues with character-set conversion when I moved to the new blog.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/de-vattel-reprise/#comment-75038
True, you got me. That was a trick question. I know that there have not been any courts who have ruled in favor of your two citizen-parent theory.
You mention Aristotle, Vattel and Wilson, and the hallowed Minor case, and claim they support your theory. Do you allege there is any proof of your theory in a US court decision post 1900? If so, please be so kind as to post a link.
Most people here have read and understand the decisions of Minor, Wong Kim Ark, Elk, Perkins v Elg, and Lynch v Clark. Same goes for the decisions in all the “birther” suits and ballot challenges, including those in which you were personally involved or which used the same two parent-citizen theory. We know how those were ruled.
(Mis)quoting someone from the 1700s or earlier doesn’t change any of that.
I can’t speak as an attorney but I would guess that the feeling is that the more exposure the judges have to Mario’s argument the worse it will be for him in the end. Of course, we also have not seen the defense opposition brief, which was due on Friday. I am sure Mario has a copy by now and could publish it if he chose.
I can speculate that when the judges saw his almost 60 page brief that included his perverted interpretations of cases like Minor and WKA, poor quality copies of Obama’s high school year book that prove absolutely nothing, and allusions to Arpaio;s joke in Arizona it may have gotten the judges’ attention to the point that they decided that they really needed to get this guy on record answering their questions. What I assure you is that is was not a case that they thought Apuzzo actually had a case with any merit whatsoever.
nbc,
The Obots always scream racism whenever someone cites and quotes Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring)’s Vattelian definition of a “natural born Citizen,” even though his Vattelian definition of a “natural born Citizen” has absolutely nothing to do with race or color. I have shown that the early naturalization acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien themselves and that only upon the naturalization of the parents did their minor children also become naturalized U.S. citizens. This revelation is the smoking gun on the meaning of a ‘natural born Citizen,” i.e., that it also excluded any child born in the United States to alien parents. So the Obots are left with having to show that my interpretation of the early naturalization acts is not correct. So what do they do? They look for comfort in Dred Scott. They provide the following quote from Dred Scott to show that Congress had no power to nauralize anyone born in the United States:
“And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen anyone born in the United States who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.”
Id. 417.
When the Obots want to find support for their position that Congress had no power to naturalize anyone born in the United States so they can overcome my position on the correct interpretation of the early naturalization acts, they cited and quote Dred Scott, which said that Congress could not naturalize blacks who were born in the United States. So when they need racist policy and Dred Scott’s racist findings, they whole heartedly accept them as sound law. But when it comes to Justice Daniel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which has nothing to do with race or color, they reject it as racist.
Apart from their despicable hypocricy, there is no legal basis to the Obot’s position that Congress never had power to naturalize person born in the United States. On Congress’s power to naturalize someone born in the United States who is not a “natural born Citizen,” prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no Constitutional impediment to Congress exercising such power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the plenary power to naturalize anyone who is not a “natural born Citizen.” There is nothing in the Constitution which even remotely suggests that such power may not be exercise over those who may be born in the United States who according to Congress are born with alienage. In fact, Congress exercised that power when it passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. This is well documented by the James Madison Administration which resolved the James McClure citizinshihp case by finding that McClure, who was born in the United States, was deemed a naturalized “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. It again exercised that power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which focused only upon persons born in the United States and therefore expressly covered in its text the citizenship status of persons born in the United States. So Dred Scott’s statement that Congress could not naturalize blacks who were born in the United States has no constitutional basis and neither does the Obots’ position. This means that my interpretation of the early naturalization acts stands not only as constitutionally sound but well-supported by the historical record.
For those persons who are interested in finding out more about Obot hypocrisy, consider this. They say that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President, even though such person, to be a “citizen of the United States,” as an adult has voluntarily taken an oath to be loyal only to the United States and swore off all foreign allegiances. This person would be Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger. But then they also say that a person who is born in the United States to alien parents, who at birth is born with dual or more conflicting allegiances and loyalties to foreign powers and who never takes any oath to be loyal only to the United States and has never swore off all foreign allegiances to foreign powers is eligible to be President. This person would be Barack Hussein Obama (assuming he was born in the United States).
I’m assuming you are a pathological liar.
All your words, Mario, are irrelevant, because the case you are arguing in court is a ballot case and New Jersey law forbids excluding recognized party nominees from the ballot. The simple truth is that the Republicans could nominate Schwarzenegger and the Democrats could nominate Granholm and everyone might agree they are not eligiblle, but the law (which is supposed to mean something to you) requires they be put on the ballot for the voters to pronounce upon and subsequently for the Electoral College and Congress to deal with.
Mr Purpura is free to not vote for Obama, Romney or anyone else as is everyone else in New Jersey, but that is the sole and complete extent of his rights.
I will cite again, because you obviously missed it, the 12th Amendment: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed:”
Shall be the President
Shall be the President
Shall be the President
No qualifiers, no ifs, no buts
Your problem is you don’t understand how to read case law. JusticeDaniel quoted Vattel to show the writers on public law agreed that citizens had equal rights and privleges. Thus, one can say he agreed with Vattel on that, not ther definition of natural born, which had nothing to do with the purpose of the citation. Astounding you don’t understand this law school 101 stuff. Only Justise Curtis defined natural born citizen. In the opinion and your failure to mention that is again incrrdibly dishonest.
The only thing the majority and dissents agreed on was that only the foreign born could be naturalized. And such notion was not overruled by the 14th amendment as its framers repeately acknowlged that such was the law. Hence there is no reason such provision by the majority and dissent cannot still be cited. Of course, Wong Kim Ark confirm this view telling us that children of aliens have always been native born citizens. Sorry, the Supreme Court’s. Opinion counts, not yours. So, have you found anyone other than your anonymous letter that supports your interpretation? Have you found one authorritty that says children of aliens are aliens? Of course not.
This isn’t hypocrisy, for anyone interested in how Mario Apuzzo distorts reality. This is just the Constitution. As such, if he wishes to insist it is hypocrisy, he is just saying the Constitution is hypocritical.
There is no hypocracy. We did not make up the English common law rule. We didn’t tell the founders to adopt such rule. We didn,t tell the supreme cpurt and literally hundreds of legal authorities to say we adopted the English common law. If you don’t like history and what the law is, you can try to change it, not lie about what the courts and scholars have said the law is .
Of course it’s all here in the following State Dept manuals:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
They haven’t actually taken a stand on who is a natural born citizen for Presidential eligibility purposes though. I don’t think this is necessarily important as it’s almost universally accepted that one born in the US other than to diplomats or invading armies is a citizen and a natural born citizen.
It does raise some interesting questions that I’ve posed. There is the possibility of a foreign diplomat being married to a US citizen or maybe a foreign national of another country. I can’t see that a child born to a US citizen parent wouldn’t be considered a US citizen at birth regardless of the status of the other parent. Also – there’s an interesting issue where consular employees (even up to the consul-general) are typically not considered diplomats. They don’t have full diplomatic immunity in the US and are subject to the laws of the US except for official consular duties. Their consular facilities are considered inviolate though, but they don’t have the virtual “get out of jail free card” that diplomats serving in embassies have. The basic premise of the movie Lethal Weapon 2 was that the consular employees of the South African Consul-General of Los Angeles had full diplomatic immunity and a practical license to commit crimes without being arrested. However, this isn’t true. Recently a lower level consular employee at the Consul-General of Japan in San Francisco was arrested and arraigned for allegedly beating up on his wife.
Here are the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. (I wasn’t readily able to find the text for the 1855 act you referenced.) The text of the acts DO NOT say anything about naturalizing a person born in the US. Likewise, the clause you reference in the US Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to naturalize anyone born in the US, nor if it did does it anyway limit that to anyone other than an NBC.
Citizenship in the US may ONLY be acquired by birth or naturalization. That is it. Those born in the US require no naturalization.
Again, there you are, (mis)quoting and (mis)interpreting acts, events, etc., from prior to 1900. You have anything post-1900?
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5596748
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstruction/activism/ps_1866.html
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
Now you get it! You finally understand the only difference between an NBC and a naturalized citizen in the US, which is the ability to become president. Congrats!
He and his wallowing weasels must be longing for the reinstatement of the Dred Scott decision.
if someone insists in banging their head againt a wall, you can advise them not to, tell them it’ll hurt, and hold a cushion in front of their head while they practice. but in the end they’ll just go ahead and do it, and they’ll find out it hurts despite having been advised about it before.
that, pretty much is our mario.
For those interested in knowing about the frivolous nature of the Obot arguments regarding the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” consider this:
They contend that Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) did not give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Treating the clause “natural born Citizen” as if the Founders and Framers gave the clause numerous definitions, they say that because Minor provided the elements of what a “natural-born citizen” is (born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country) before it said that those elements describe a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., A + B = natural-born citizen, the Court did not provide a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” They say that only if the Court would have first stated “natural-born citizen,” and then followed it with the elements of what make up a “natural-born citizen,” would the Court have provided a definition of a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., natural-born citizen=A + B. They make such an argument notwithstanding that Minor told us that historically there had been only one doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen” which means that it does not matter in what sequence Minor placed the constituent elements of birth in the country to citizen parents and the clause defined, “natural-born citizen.”
They also make this argument when, among other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) all used the same elements that the Minor Court used, i.e., birth in the country and birth to citizen parents, in their definition of a “natural born Citizen” and provided no other definition of the clause.
Yes, that’s Mario’s problem: There are people who have actually read and understood these cases. That places Mario at a distinct disadvantave.
You are formally a litigant in a serious case, and yet you use imprecise language and terms that have no legitimate definition for your venue.
Then you use a whole lot of words to basically say that there is no evidence that President Obama’s citizenship is due to any act of naturalization.
You are smart enough to realize that this destroys any case you might otherwise make, but not smart enough to recognize that a lot of the people who you hoped to persuade are smarter than you.
And his crank legal nonsense will get him laughed out of court. Unquestionably.
Mario still has not read US v Wong Kim Ark… I can’t wait for him to make this argument in an actual court…
After all, if, as Mario is suggesting, WKA did not provide another definition of the clause, how come that it found that natural born’s definition, as found in common law, was birth on soil, regardless of the status of the parents.
Who is Mario trying to fool here. Certainly not the judges who, looking at the precedential ruling of US v WKA, rejected Matio’s foolish arguments and adopted the birth on soil as the definition.
Poor Mario… Neither the Courts nor these informed blogs give him the respect, he believes he deserves.
It’s hard to take Mario seriously when he continues to exhibit such poor reading skills, combined with a lack of logic and reason.
Can’t wait for the NJ Court hearing. They invited you to show up in their Court Room, are you bringing your check book my dear friend?
For those interested in knowing about the frivolous nature of Mario Apuzzo’s arguments regarding the definition of a “natural born citizen,” consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
At a minimum, but that has happened before already. So the question now is really, will he have to pay for the entertainment… One can only hope that justice will be served here.
Nothing in there about parents being citizens….
He is properly styled President Barack Hussein Obama, and it is a demonstrated fact supported by the highest standards of evidence possible that he was born in the United States, not an assumption as you assert.
And this of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_Ark
The context of Minor v Happersett is undeniable and destroys any claim by Mario
The court is exploring the definition of ‘who shall be natural-born citizens’ and observes that it certainly includes children born in a country to parents who are citizens, clearly ‘jus soli’ because otherwise it would have included children born to parents who are citizens. So it rejected Mario’s proposition from the start. But then the Court wondered if children born on soil to alien parents would be included as well. If they were found to be citizens, they would of course also be natural born.
The court however does not address the question and focuses on their finding that children born of citizen parents are citizens (and of course natural born as opposed to natural-ized).
There is just no good evidence for Mario’s position and arguments, which is of course why the courts have used harsh words to describe any such attempts to ‘inform’ the court…
Yes, such is the law of our Nation. The mere fact of dual allegiance has never been considered to be a disability to birthright citizenship and President Obama, by continuing to live in the United States has shown that he did not follow his Father. In fact, when his father left the Country, he continued to live with his mother and grand parents., mostly in the United States.
Loyalty to our Nation is not determined by oath but by actions.
Our Nation has since long recognized that children born on our soil have a birth right citizenship which unlike those naturalized provide them with the right to serve as our President once they meet the requirements laid out in the eligibility clause. After all, naturalized persons share the same rights as the native persons, with only one difference, the latter can run for the office of the Presidency. The Courts have been quite explicit here”
Good luck Mario.
These cases involve children born in a ‘foreign nation’, even though that nation shares the same geographic regions. The status of Indians has always been peculiar in our Nation and since the children are not born under US jurisdiction, but rather owing allegiance to their nation, their removal is guided not by US municipal law but rather by International Law.
Understanding this is, is the first necessary step to understand the rulings.
Thus in Waldron v US we learn
As the Court pointed out in Elk v Wilkins
Mario has been confused by cases where the ‘law of nations’ does apply but ignored the cases where common-law of the US takes precedent.
Apples and oranges…
In fact, the court in US v WKA clearly rejected that citizenship is determined by international law and instead found that it was guided by the common law meaning of natural born which meant: birth on soil only.
As Marshall Woodworth observed in his American Law Review paper:
The Minor Court clearly did not accept the Jus Soli interpretation when it focused on the location of birth only. In fact, even the Founding Fathers found it necessary to extend citizenship by statute to children born abroad to US parents, something unnecessary if they had followed the jus soli principle.
Good luck Mario…
As I concluded earlier, Mario may still be fine tuning his ‘arguments’ but so far he has shown no inclination to learn from his mistakes and limited reading comprehension.
This week is going to be a lot of fun. Are the arguments going to be recorded?
I have maintained all along that Justice Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalized Wong “at birth” to be a “citizen of the United States” like Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608) naturalized Calvin from birth to be a “natural born subject” under the English common law. Agreeing with my position, the Birther.org just sent me this precious find:
***************
“Facts of the Case
The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen.
Question
Could the government deny naturalization to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
No. The government could not deny naturalization to anyone born in the United States. To reach this conclusion, Justice Gray’s tedious majority opinion managed to traverse much of western civilization.”
Source: OYEZ.org at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1896/1896_132
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent College of Law is a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court of the United States and its work. It aims to be a complete and authoritative source for all audio recorded in the Court since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. The Project also provides authoritative information on all justices and offers a virtual reality Tour of portions of the Supreme Court building, including the chambers of some of the justices.
This analysis by the Oyez U.S. Supreme Court project correctly recognizes that the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark actually naturalized Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, to be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” and that the Government could not prevent Wong from enjoying that right that he gained by being born in the United States to domiciled alien parents. Note that prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, under all Congressional Acts starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790, a child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and could only become a naturalized “citizen of the United States” upon his or her parents naturalizing if done before reaching the age of majority if he was dwelling in the United States or by his or her own petition if done thereafter. What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did is create automatic naturalization “at birth” for those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They brought the United States back to how Great Britain treated children born in the King’s dominions to alien parents in the 18th Century, as explained by Vattel in his Section 214, entitled, “Naturalisation:” “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 214 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).
The inescapable conclusion from this is that being a “naturalized” citizen “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was an Article II “natural born Citizen,” nor could it have. Rather, it held that he was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth, although in effect a naturalized one “at birth.”
No, it said there was no doubt about about one class and failed to address the doubts on a second class. Didn’t say such doubt had merits or were about a different type of citizenship than natural born citizenship. Spin and distort all you want, but it doesn’t say native children of aliens were not natural born. Only Mario wold try to pretend that a case that expressly avoided addressing the disposive question before us is authority on the question it avoided. But what else does he have?
They also make this argument when, among other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) all used the same elements that the Minor Court used, i.e., birth in the country and birth to citizen parents, in their definition of a “natural born Citizen” and provided no other definition of the clause.
So sad. Mario is still citing Justice Marshall even though such contains a citation to Vattel that has nothing to do with citizenship but domicile. This has been pointed out a hundred times to him and he never responds for even a 1st year law student knows a citation is only relevent with respect to its purpose. A cite on tax law means the author agrees with the point on tax law, not extraneous material that has nothing to do with tax law. When someone has been told he is being dishonest and has no defense to such dishonestly, it is hard to believe he would continue the dishonesty. The same is true with Justice Daniel’s quote which again had noting to do with natural born citizenship or who was born a citizen. Reynolds and Ward were about whether half-breed indians were indians or not and said nothing about who was born a citizen. It is simply a fact that no court has ever said one needs citizen parents to be natural born. Mario will never accept this.
That he keeps saying Wong Kim Ark support him is just sad. Notice we keep quoting provisions from Wong Kim Ark and he never responds as he has no answer to clear unambiguus statements he is wrong. And, of course, he leave out all the post Wong Kim Ark cases such as all the Supreme Court cases that say the President be native born. Or how about:
“The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute” Weedin v. Chin Bow”
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellie
I know, I know, these simply don’t count just like the first 21 pages of Wong Kim Ark don’t count.
Let’s explore some more. This time Ide, Citizenship by birth Another View:
Correctly understanding Minor and others
Observing that there are not unifrom rule of International Law:
Pointing to a foremost work on International Law
For those interested in just a few of the many errors/misunderstandings/misinterpretations (or falsehoods, gasp!) stated by Mr. Apuzzo:
(PART A)
1. The Court in Minor did not “define” NBC.
2. The Court in Minor did not say that there was historically only one doubt free definition of NBC.
3. The “Founders and Framers” did not give numerous definitions for NBC, nor I have seen that claim here. The Founders and Framers did not define it at all (or we wouldn’t be having this discussion) as “natural born” was a common term in use centuries before the Constitution was written. As such, there was no need to define it in the Constitution, as all knew what it meant. Had they chosen to give a novel definition to an existing term, they could have easily done so.
4. The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not say that the Court in Minor defined NBC, nor were they silent on it. They said, as we keep saying, that there are only two types of citizenship in the US, natural born or naturalized. In fact, the Wong Court said of the Court in Minor, following the quote of your favorite line, “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
Note: The Court did not say Eureka! They have a definition!
Speaking of dual and conflicted loyalties, Mario, have you gone to the Italian consulate and renounced the Italian citizenship you were almost certainly born with through your parents and grandparents?
Errors/misstatements/misinterpretations as stated by Mr. Apuzzo
(PART B)
5. The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cites Minor thusly: “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465.”
Please note the Wong Court’s consistency in NOT saying that the Minor Court set forth the holy gail of definitions for NBC.
6. For added fun, the Court in Wong proves that your earlier assertions about naturalizing children born in the US to alien parents is FALSE:
“While, then, the naturalization of the father carries with it that of his minor children, and his declaration of intention relieves them from the preliminary steps for naturalization, and minors are allowed to count part of the residence of their minority on the whole term required, and are relieved from the declaration of intention, the statutes make no provision for formal declaration of election by children born in this country of alien parents on attaining majority.”; and
7. No wonder Mr. Apuzzo doesn’t like the Wong Kim Ark case! The Court also cites Lynche Clark. “That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
In Lynch v Clark, the Court ruled “By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18063999/Lynch-v-Clarke
Btw is Mario still pretending Charles Gordon’s position on WKA is that it stated nothing relevant to the question of eligibility to the office of the President?
Remember that Mario claimed: [Gordon] says Wong had nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen”
In proper context (reading comprehension) it is clear that Gordon’s objections to Wong Kim Ark are not with respect to the status of children born on US soil, but rather how Wong Kim Ark is to be interpreted with respect to foreign born children of US citizens.
As to what Gordon did have to say:
Funny how the paper somewhat disagrees with Mario here. The question is: Did Mario present his foolish position to the Appeal’s Court? Surely the Court will have some fun with this.
I do notice Mario referenced Gordon in a footnote… Hilarious…
Then there is Mario’s appeal to George Tucker who stated
Remember that Mario had “argued” (but failed to provide support) that
Ballantine quickly exposed Mario
Ballantine finishes off with a nice reference
Poor Mario, no respect and no evidence of much of a reading comprehension.
So Oyez got the description of the case wrong in their blurb on their website. Let’s see what judge will overturn actual case law for a botched abstract. Or, for that matter, elevate this blurb to the level of an “analysis,” beyond the most rudimentary sense of the word. While it does state a “conclusion,” there is not really any “analysis” present here.
For anyone who is interested in considering how much of a joke Mario Apuzzo’s attempts to make mountains out of mole hills are.
Wow, you are now citing a law outline on a cite from a 3rd rate law school that looks like it was done by a 1st year student. Why not cite Triube and Olson who cited Wong Kim Ark to state that anyone born on sovereign territory was a natural born citizen. Why not cite the CRS report or the numerous recent cases that cite Wong Kim Ark to say the English rule applies. Why not cite the Heritage Guide to the Constitution or the dozens of modern law reviews that interpret WKA correctly. Why not cite Alexander Morse or Justice Fuller who both realized Justice Gray was saying WKA was natural born. No, you found an outline by some unknown person on the internet. You are pathetic.
Now show me where Justice Gray’s opinion says WKA was naturalized? He doesn’t. What does he say? He says there are 2 types of citizens under the 14th Amendment just like he said there were two types of citizens under the original Constitution in Elk v. Wilkins. From WKA:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside’, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”
For those who cannot read, that means naturalized citizens are different from citizens at birth. DUH! In case some of his readers were stupid, Justice Gary continues:
“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
How can anyone read such a sentence and think that WKA, who is deemed by the Court to be born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is naturalized. No one could unless he is dishonest or stupid. Please explain Mario? Are you dishonest or stupid?
Please show us a single court that ever said a person born on US soil was naturalized. We have been waiting for years. What kind of person keeps repeating claims he cannot support with any authority at all?
Well, in Dred Scott the Court denied that people born on soil could be naturalized… That precedent was continued in more recent rulings, as I have shown.
Oops
The clue no doubt is the word “tedious” that the abstract writer uses. Having found the opinion tedious, the writer perhaps couldn’t even be bothered to read it, properly or at all.
This is the simple that Mario will not accept:
1. The Court says those born here cannot be naturalized.
2. The Court says that “inferior races” cannot be born citizens, thus
3. Dred Scott (or other “inferior races,” generally) cannot be citizens.
Then comes the 14th Amendment which states, all born here are citizens no matter the race, nationality, etc. This effectively overrules 2 and 3, but it does not say anything on whether those born here could be naturalized.
All that is left is 2 types of citizens, born or naturalized.
And the court in Miller v Albright again denied Mario’s thesis
Poor Mario.. I wonder if he will share his new found (or not so new found) knowledge with the Court.
I contacted the site to let them know about the mistake. “Naturalization” according to Black’s Law Dictionary is:
“The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen.”
I’ll let you contact Black’s about that.
As for Minor, here is another possible, simple comparison:
1. FBI searches a house without a warrant and justifiable probable cause.
2. A court tosses out the evidence collected on the warrant and states as their logic:
a. It has never been doubted that the 4th Amendment has always applied to the Federal Government.
b. Some authorities go further and believe that the 4th Amendment applies to the state and local government.
c. Of the first, their have never been doubts, but as to the second, their have been. However, it is not necessary to solve these doubts at this time.
The court is not stating that the 4th Amendment does not apply to the states, it is stating it is not necessary to consider this since their conclusion is only dependent on the first.
In Minor, the Court’s holding was on voting rights and, since their holding would apply to any citizen, even those with 2 citizen parents, it was not necessary to discuss citizenship any further. The used the strictest definition possible, not to define citizenship but to remove doubts on to whom their ruling would apply.
Someone who makes his living defending the indefensible: drunk drivers.
Do you enjoy Strawman arguments that much? There is no hypocrisy here.
Schwarzenegger is ineligible not because ‘Obots’ say he is, or want him to be, or are biased against Austrians or anything like that. Heck, one of my best friends is Austrian, and Ahnold seems like a heck of a guy, and far superior, both politically and intellectually, to any of the other clowns currently available to the Republicans.
Obama is eligible not because ‘Obots’ say he is, or want him to be, or are biased in favor of mixed race intellectuals. Heck, I’ve known quite a few mixed race intellectuals I wouldn’t go near with a ten foot library card, and he is quite hampered by the ‘first black President’ millstone he has to wear around his neck.
No, Schwarznegger is ineligible because the CONSTITUTION says people born in Austria are not eligible.Obama is eligible because the CONSTITUTION says people born in Hawai’i are eligible. End of story.
If you want to campaign for a Constitutional amendment that would allow folks in the Governator’s position to hold the Presidency, then by all means go for it. I’ll even support you, because I don’t think the NBC clause is necessary anymore. However, since the Framers felt it was necessary, and not enough political will to change it has come up in the 220 odd years since it was included, the NBC clause is currently required and you have one hell of a lot of nerve trying to abuse people who support an eligible candidate and ignore an ineligible one.
And the folks who post here aren’t even necessarily Obama supporters. That is why Woodman doesn’t like you to use the term Obot, get it? Most posters, whether they are naturally conservative or naturally liberal, are here because they refuse to allow people like you to get away with lying about the Constitution and the American political system.
There is no hypocrisy in defending the position of the Constitution, but there is in knowingly lying about the Constitution, especially when there is no reason other than soothing your own bruised ego.
There is no doubt in my mind that you are willfully lying about your understanding of the Constitution, the American Political system, and the entire citizenship/ eligibility issue. At this stage in your Quixotic Quest, you have had every opportunity to have learned from your mistakes, and you know the truth of the matter. Therein lies the hypocrisy, Mr. Apuzzo, therein lies the hypocrisy.
Enjoy your day in Court. I hope you find it educational.
Hey, I think you have a winner. Why not use that in your oral presentation of the appeal of Purpura v. Obama. I adapted it for you.
No?
As a practical matter, there is a hierarchy of Consular officials who have diplomatic immunity. Not every foreigner who works in a consular post overseas has ‘full diplomatic immunity’.
Furthermore, if a Consular official with diplomatic immunity is suspected of a serious crime, the US will ask for the Country to revoke the accreditation, thus allowing the prosecution to proceed. Thus, Diplomatic Immunity does not provide an Ambassador absolute protection from responsibility for committing murder, only from harassment.
These ‘international incidents’ are rare, however, most countries are pretty good at vetting their representatives. Non-criminal violations are most often punished by expelling the offending diplomat.
Simple misdemeanors are simply overlooked, ask the New York City Police department how much UN officials owe in parking fines. Now that is how to rort the system. I think we need to get Mario Apuzzo, Esq. on the job here. There has got to be a way for him to combine his lack of Constitutional understanding with a Parking Ticket case.
If you want to use math symbols to describe what is going on, it would be more like:
Minor There is no doubt that (2 + 2) = 4. There is some doubt about whether or not (3 + 1) = 4 or (4 + 0) = 4 but that doesn’t matter to us because Ms. Minor is (2 + 2) so we don’t have to address the (3 + 1) or (4 + 0) issues.
Wong We agree with the California District court that (4 + 0) = 4.
It follows from Wong that (3 + 1) = 4 as well.
And don’t get me started on Legislatures that define ‘pi’ as exactly equal to 3.
Someone has to defend those to make sure that proper justice is served. Lawyers also defend murderers.
Not a very good argument. Of course DUI is a pretty straightforward law practice really, not too challenging I believe but as I said, someone needs to do the job.
Let’s see what a Constitutional Law Professor thinks:
Mr. Choper responded that “natural born” simply meant “not naturalized.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/constitutional-law-scholar-on-natural-born-issue
At the risk of self-promotion, since some might not be aware of it, I’m going to point out that over the past couple of months — ironically, since making an initial attempt to retire from the birther issues and then letting myself get pulled back in — I’ve written about 15 articles on various aspects of the legal and meaning of “natural born citizen,” an index to which can be found here.
This hopefully represents a bit more organized analysis and refutation of a good many of the birther false claims. As far as I’m aware, all of the significant legal arguments made by Mr. Apuzzo and others ought to be covered. All of these arguments are false, and I’ve given hopefully clear reasons as to why this is so.
There’s an article on US v Wong Kim Ark. I could’ve written a great deal more on that case, including an article on Fuller’s dissent which I find to be shockingly ridden with fallacies and even self-contradiction. Many elements of Fuller’s dissent seem so far from Constitutional and historical reality that I was surprised he could find even one other Justice to sign off on it. I am doubly mystified by Justice Harlan’s joining the dissent giving his stance as the lone dissenter in Plessy v Ferguson.
An article on Fuller’s dissent, though, has remained unwritten as it simply was not necessary to show that the birther position on US v Wong Kim Ark is a false one. One simple article was all it took. On the other hand, I wrote a series of five articles on the much less important (in regard to natural born citizenship) Minor v Happersett, since that is what the birthers have made their flagship case.
There’s an article on Elk v Wilkins (inspired by a Tracy Fair claim regarding Chester A Arthur that I hadn’t heard before), three articles on Mario Apuzzo’s claim that American common law gave us the definition of “natural born citizen,” an article on Vattel, and a few articles that are more to do with the historical understanding that the legalities.
Mr. Apuzzo has proven unable to refute, as far as I can tell, any of the main points made. His style is to reassert arguments that have been shown to be false, and confidently claim that they are true, and that he has “won” the debate.
There’s also a list of 18 Apuzzo failures in this comment that some might find interesting.
Just 18? Hmmm Does it include his perspectives on Charles Gordon?
Um… no. I forgot about that one. Although I do seem to recall that I have in the past pointed out that Gordon refutes him as well.
I do apologize for the incompleteness of the list. 😉
And to top all that Mario will find out on Wednesday that the Courts also do not really take his musings seriously. He will be lucky if they let him off without sanctions or calling his actions frivolous.
From WKA….
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
Oops, there goes Marios’ Elk idea
And some more
In State v. Ah Chew (1881), 16 Nevada 50, 58, the Supreme Court of Nevada said: “The Amendments did not confer the right of citizenship upon the Mongolian race, except such as are born within the United States.” In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.
Oh and lets not forget Mario, the court was FULLY aware what the ruling meant, as stated in the opposition……
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
Alas and alack, poor old Mario has no clothes
Bless you
It’s not easy to keep track of Mario’s follies. For a while I tried but I got bored… No real challenge but a lot of work…
Mario made a statement to the effect that home runs don’t count in soccer.
Not a very good analogy.
Better would be that he has lost the game without scoring a point, while the opposition (the Constitution and the truth) have run up a high score on the board. Now the game is over (in terms of the facts, although not, technically speaking, in the courts); and instead of acknowledging reality, Mario maintains that not only is there plenty of time left on the clock, he’s winning by a large margin.
Perhaps Mario is playing the wrong game? Poor guy…
Gesundheit.
Mario is just a guy with a bat and a ball and a football helmet.
Yep, Mario needs to fish or get off the pot.
Leaving the sports theme, but two of my all time favorite mixed metaphors:
Does the pope sh$t in the woods? and
He doesn’t know his elbow from a hole in the ground.
…and is well acquainted with Jack Daniels.
In Major Gaffe, Bachmann Confuses Ass, Hole in Ground
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/06/28/in-major-gaffe-bachmann-confuses-ass-hole-in-ground/
Priceless.
Sorry Doc, I thought we were on the open post!
Ballantine asked: “Please show us a single court that ever said a person born on US soil was naturalized.”
I have something better than a court. I have the 1811 James McClure case which unquestionably shows that according to the James Madison Administration (remember that James Madison is the “Father of the Constitution), a child born in the United States to an alien father (British subject) was not born a “citizen of the United States. Rather, that child, only upon the father naturalizing during his years of minority and the child dwelling in the United States at the time of his father’s naturalization, became a naturalized “citizen of the United States” after his birth.
Hence, without question, James McClure, born in the United States to alien parents, was later naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” after his birth. The early naturalization acts and the James McClure case, as treated by the James Madison Administration, are the smoking gun on what the Founders and Framers intended the “natural born Citizen” clause to mean. They clearly show without doubt that they also excluded from being a “natural born Citizen” any child that was born in the United States to alien parents.
Mario Apuzzo: “Penguins can fly.”
Rational Person: “That’s just stupid. Penguins aren’t built for flying. They’re built for swimming. And there are no known instances of a penguin ever flying, except as cargo on an airplane.”
Mario Apuzzo: “I have here a letter to the editor of a newspaper, dated 1923, from ‘Albert,’ which refers to ‘The Flying Penguin’ which sailed in 1921 from Portsmouth, England to South Africa. ‘Albert’ is obviously Albert Einstein, who knew all about the aerodynamics of penguins. This conclusively proves that penguins DO fly, and in fact, they are the ONLY birds that fly, as no reference was made to any other flying bird.”
Obviously, that is not intended to be an absolute representation, merely a commentary on the quality of Mario’s arguments.
In other words, nothing. Now you are misunderstanding McClure… Fascinating how you continue to move your goalposts.
This is getting so funny… Always the next promissory note but nothing to support the original question.
Your McClure follies have been exposed as such by John Woodman and others Mario. Again…
As Gorefan already explained
and this
Fail…
Sorry Mario but this is just becoming a bit embarrassing to watch…
I understand, I have looked at what is known about McClure and Mario’s comments should invite the Court to award some sanctions for such poorly founded assertions.
I cannot believe that Mario brings up the McClure case. If that is the smoking gun then Mario has been smoking something too strong…
There is nothing to support his much inflated claims. Come on Mario, show that your reading comprehension is not as bad as your musings suggest…
Getting a bit nervous Mario? Wednesday is the day…
So Mario, time to follow up on your foolish position and support it. I have shown several court rulings that contradict your frivolous argument. Time to support it with some references perhaps?
Or have you abandoned the argument but refuse to admit to it? That would make sense given some of your past behaviors.
BOGUS claim. The Court in Wong Kim Ark said:
“While, then, the naturalization of the father carries with it that of his minor children, and his declaration of intention relieves them from the preliminary steps for naturalization, and minors are allowed to count part of the residence of their minority on the whole term required, and are relieved from the declaration of intention, the statutes make no provision for formal declaration of election by children born in this country of alien parents on attaining majority.”
Mario has no evidence to support his claims. There is an article in a newspaper where an anonymous person makes claims that birth on soil does not confer US citizenship although others are mentioned in the article who disagree. Months later, McClure was handed a passport as he was considered a native citizen. Naturalization would not make one a native citizen.
Mario is fantasizing a bit. I believe it is called confirmation bias. If this is his smoking gun.. then he is in a lot of trouble… But we already knew this… And deep down I think Mario does as well..
Linda,
You quote Wong:
“While, then, the naturalization of the father carries with it that of his minor children, and his declaration of intention relieves them from the preliminary steps for naturalization, and minors are allowed to count part of the residence of their minority on the whole term required, and are relieved from the declaration of intention, the statutes make no provision for formal declaration of election by children born in this country of alien parents on attaining majority.”
This quote recognizes the naturalization statutes’ broad application, applying to both children born in and out of the United States and even saying that “naturalization of the father carries with it that of his minor children.” What it adds is that children born in the United States to alien parents did not have to make any declaration of election of U.S. or some other foreign citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. This does not mean that the naturalization statute did not apply to children born in the United States. Rather, the Court is here saying that the statute did not compel “formal declaration of election by children born in this country of alien parents on attaining majority.”
nbc,
I am sorry to tell you that your statements about the John McClure case are lies.
Well done.
Linda said:
“3. The “Founders and Framers” did not give numerous definitions for NBC, nor I have seen that claim here. The Founders and Framers did not define it at all (or we wouldn’t be having this discussion) as “natural born” was a common term in use centuries before the Constitution was written. As such, there was no need to define it in the Constitution, as all knew what it meant. Had they chosen to give a novel definition to an existing term, they could have easily done so.”
Founder and Justice James Wilson does not agree with you. Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, told us in 1791:
“English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems.
***
I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”
A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
***
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.”
We did not see anything written by Wilson which hints that a “citizen” was supposed to be analogous to a “subject.” Wilson said “rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification.” Here he told us that the people were familiar with the word “citizen” and so they chose it. He also told us that the Framers decided not to use “natural born subject” because they did not want its meaning to have further effect and did not want the people to think that it did. Hence, they chose and used a different phrase, “natural born citizen,” because it was a different phrase which was to have “a new signification.”
Feel free to show that this is the case my dear friend. I have looked at the case and none of your claims hold water.
But I do understand that when asked to support your case you often refuse to provide any more references or evidence.
Good luck on Wednesday when the Court gets to explore your musings.
And there goes Mario again, repeating his non-sensical claims. He cannot even make an original argument or go beyond quote mining. Mario is going around and around in circles, nervously chasing his tail.. No worries Mario, this will all be over in a few days, unless you expect to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Hilarious… Mario… You are a riot and I cam sure that the Court may come to appreciate you, if they have a sense of humor. If not… Well, there is always the check book.
Good luck Mario, we will be awaiting the dismissal with baited breath… As to potential issues like sanctions, well one can hope that justice is served here.
Well, at least you have become accustomed to having your case dismissed.
His b.s. on Minor alone is enough to make any sane jurist double over with laughter.
My opinion exactly.
And since Mario wouldn’t be doing ant of this unless he was handsomely (presumably) paid, then the next step is to ask who is bankrolling his battle.
Why can’t you stop lying. What kind of person keeps saying the Madison administration agreed with the anonymous letter when he has no evidence at all that such is the case and, in fact, the evidence points to place of birth being the only criteria. Why not try providing any evidence. You can’t, so you will just keep lying.
And you are going to keep lying aoubt Wilson as well. As I pointed out above in great detail, there is nothing Wilson said that remotely supports you. He said a citizen was someone with the right to vote. The provisions on Pennsylvania law you are quoting was from the Pennsylvania sufferage law which is in a footnote to the language you cite. It said parenbtage was only relevant to relieve one from the obligation of paying taxes if one parents did for those from 21 to 22.
“In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age oftwenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before theelection, and within that time paid a State or county tax, which shall havebeen assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rightsof an elector: Provided, That the sons of persons qualified asaforesaid, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall beentitled to vote, although they shall not have paid taxes.”
Are you really so stupid to not understand this? And Wilson surveys the citienship (i.e., voting) requirements of each state as I quoted above and no others said parentage was relevant in any manner. Again, it is simply lying to suggest Wilson though parentage was relevant to citizenship at all. Can you really not help yourself. You can’t make a substantive reponse to this, as wilson is clear as can be, so you will just keep reposting the same post over and over in an effort to really convince veryone how stupid you are.
Are champerty, barratry & maintenance crimes in NJ?
Folks: Do NOT listen to Mario, ballantine, nbc, Doc or any of the so-called “experts”. As I stated here many moons ago, the answer is simple: natural born citizen = citizen born naturally. This article decribes, in all the gory details (literally), the entire process.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/magazine/ina-may-gaskin-and-the-battle-for-at-home-births.html?ref=magazine
Of course, it is very unlikely that any of the current candidates are natural born citiizens, nor are any of the recent Presidents. So, the clause has to be considered suspended until one of the babies in the article reaches 35.
By which standard, Barack Obama Sr was a citizen of Hawaii, since he resided there for >2 years and undoubtedly at various times bought goods that were subject to state sales tax. He was later a citizen of Massachusetts.
So, according to James Wilson, Founder and Supreme Court Justice, Barack Obama, Jr. was the son of 2 citizens.
Game, set and match….
Often? I have never seen him provide anything to back up this claim, because there is no evidence to back up his claim. The Madison administration ceritied his citizenship only by stating his place of birth. To claim it said he was naturalized is delusional. All he can do is repeat his claim over and over. Another instance of Mario saying something stupid, being called on it and then doubling down on stupid rather than admitting he is wrong. We have seen it over and over. We saw it with his claims on travel ban to Pakistan, Jefferson’s statute, the self-serving paper from Ramsey and his misrepresentation of case after case. It will be the same with his Wilson claim as there is no ambiguity in the Pennsylvania law he is citing or the law of the other states he cites. Does’t matter as he will just double down.
Thanks, Dave.
Scientist,
Unfortunately for you, it does not work that easy. With the ratification of the Constitution, the states gave to the central government the exclusive power and right to naturalize persons. So Hawaii did not nor could it naturalize Obama Sr. under its own naturalization statute, let alone with a naturalization statute of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
El Putzo doesn’t realize when his chain is being pulled.
ballantine,
You tell us that Minor v. Happersett was all about voting and not at all about citizenship. Similarly, now you tell us that Supreme Court Justice James Wilson’s explanation on citizenship, in which he tells us that the Founders and Framers specifically did not choose the familiar clause “natural born subject” so as not to confuse the people and have to inform them that the clause would have a different meaning and so they choose a different clause, i.e., “natural born citizen,” with which the people were already familiar and which conveyed to the people a different meaning for who would be given the right to be elected President, was not about citizenship at all, but only about voting.
You also leave out that he said that a “citizen” not naturalized was an adult who was the cihld of a citizen.
Are you really that pathetic?
It does not say that an alien father’s naturalization applies to children born in the US, as children born in the US need no naturalization. It should be clear what the Court meant as it went on to say:
“That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
In Lynch v Clark, the Court ruled “The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18063999/Lynch-v-Clarke
Unfortunately for YOU, then Wilson’s statements regarding Pennsylvania citizenship are irrelevant to anything being discussed here.
By the way, are you an Italian citizen? I will keep asking until you repond…
Wilson does agree with me. They didn’t use “natural born subject” because they didn’t want the people to believe they were still subjects. They used “natural born citizen”, keeping the term “natural born”, which the people understan, but replacing subject with citizen, recognizing the change in status of the people to citizens.
ballantine,
Correction:
He also ignores that fact that Wilson said that a “citizen” was also a child who had reached the age of majority and who was the child of a “citizen.”
You don’t have to take his word, or anyone else’s, as the Court said in speaking of Minor “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
Please note the Court did not call it a citizenship case, or a landmark case that defined NBC, they didn’t even call Minor an NBC, but called her a citizen.
Because, he is correct and you are lying (or a really bad lawyer). Do you need a refreshing on holding?
The decision was about voting rights and the discussion of citizenship was to illustrate the scope of their decision (applied to all). Your followers may swallow your made up story about history, but we do not.
You have already admitted that Wilson’s thoughts on Pennsylvania citizenship are irrelvant to US citiizenship. In fact, Brian Wilson’s thoughts on how he wishes they all could be California girls are more on point.
I wonder if Apuzzo and Corsi have considered that one of the results of the TeaTardParty’s agenda to erase the 20th century would be that Italians wouldn’t be considered White People.
Of course that is not what Wilson said. You are referring to where Wilson was pointing out the PA’s sufferage ruled allowed someone between the ages of 21 and 22 could vote even if thet didn’tsatisfy the obligation to pay taxes if their parents were citizens. If over 22, parentage was irrelevant to such right and as Wilson points out, was irrelvant in every other state. Look at the footnote of the language you are citing as if points to the actual sufferage provision which I quoted and in no way supports your delusion.
Yes, Wilson thought “subject” and “citizen” were different in that ctizens were people who had the right to vote. He never said citizen had to have citizen parents. Rather, he said US citizens were citizens of tthe states and tokld us state by state who were citizens. No one required citizen parents. And he never defined natural born citizen. He did define “alien” solely as one of foreign birth. Do you ever tire of doubling down on stupid?
It seems to me that Mario has likely seen instances in his legal practice where people who were guilty as sin continued to assert their innocence unrelentingly and with as much apparent conviction as those who were genuinely innocent — and were given the benefit of a doubt as a result.
In this case, however, we have four video cameras and eight eyewitnesses, three of whom know Mario personally, all of whom swear they saw him practicing law while under the influence, and none of his eighteen different alibis hold water. Therefore the only rational conclusion is that in addition to PLWUI, he is guilty of perjury as well.
Thomas Brown, the champion of American apple pie, joins the ranks of what I call a despicable Obot.
Linda,
You insist that Minor was all about voting and nothing about citizenship. On the contrary, in several cases that cited Minor, they recognized Minor as a case defining citizenship in the United States. In one case, the Court said that
“this court [Minor] held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since.”
In Re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).
The other case is Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark also shows that Minor is not a case only about voting rights. Wong Kim Ark confirmed that Minor was a case about citizenship and not just about women’s right to vote. It cited and quoted Minor’s exact definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Here is what Wong Kim Ark said about the Minor decision as it relates to who may be “citizens” and who may be “natural-born citizens:”
“The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
Wong Kim Ark, 679-81. Note that for the Minor Court to concluded that Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” it first defined a ‘natural-born citizen” and then found that she was a “natural-born citizen.”
So we can see that, apart from the many other cases that may have cited Minor v. Happesett as a citizenship case, Wong Kim Ark said that Minor decided the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” Again, in referring to Minor’s addressing the question of her citizenship, it said “[t]he decision in that case.” It said that Minor answered the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” in the affirmative, although it held that such citizenship status did not give her the right to vote. So there should not be any question that, even as the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark instructs, Minor was a case not only about a woman’s right to vote, but as much a case about citizenship. Wong Kim Ark itself told us that Minor resolved a question about citizenship. Therefore, Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it gave in the context of resolving the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” is one of the holdings of the case and binding precedent.
Ballantine has more than once destroyed your claims and arguments with detailed references to legal and scholarly research. No wonder you think he be pathetic.
But then again, Ballantine does not have to resort to quote mining and poorly informed claims that are based on reading comprehension problems.
As I said, good luck on Wednesday my friend, let’s hope the Court is in a good mood.
This was all about voting… In context you should have realized that Wilson used a very specific definition which allowed a child born to a citizen, when reaching the age of 21 or 22 to vote without paying taxes.
Your reading comprehension skills are incredibly poor and when people correct you, you are unable to accept their corrections.
Good luck explaining that to the Court my friend. The time is ticking away and all you have are some quote mined, irrelevant statements like McClure?… And you call it a smoking gun?…
Come on Mario, at least pretend that you are putting some effort in all of this. Your clients deserve at least that.
Other than the fact that the Court in Minor never claimed to give a comprehensive definition but merely observed that there was little doubt that Virginia was a natural born citizen and that whether or not children born to alien parents were natural born was something they did not have to address.
The Court in WKA explored the full meaning of NBC and found it to mean born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents.
Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension understands this. Surely the judges who have ruled President Obama natural born based on his birth on US soil correctly understood US v Wong Kim Ark. I guess in Mario’s limited world, all these judges, scholars all must be wrong. But then one may ask oneself, why would Mario have to resort to quote mining? Charles Gordon was Mario’s latest victim and Wilson was a victim or Mario’s clear inability to comprehend the meaning of his statement that a child born to a citizen and between the ages 21 and 22 who has not paid taxes yet, is a citizen in the sense that he is allowed to vote. Then there is McClure whose case has been misunderstood by Mario to such an extent that he is now unable to accept the corrections. There is NOTHING so far in the McClure case that supports Mario’s suggestions and the mere fact that the US Minister in Britain gave him a passport because of his native birth, lays to rest any foolishness on Mario’s part but no, Mario insists that this shows somehow that McClure became a citizen months after he was born even though all courts agree that a child born on US soil cannot be naturalized.
Such ignorance, such follies…
Keep digging Mario… It’s a long way to the NJ Court…
Yes, that’s what Wilson did say… But Mario is now unable to accept his mistake and he’d rather continue down a path which, like so many of the other paths he has chosen, will result in him looking rather foolish if he were to make this argument in open court. It’s already bad enough that he misrepresented Gordon’s position in his amicus brief for Tisdale, but the Court will be looking forward this time to hear Mario make his ‘case’ orally. There must be a reason why they decided to invite him to join them in their court room… His position on Minor alone should be sufficient to earn him some laughter. Courts have not only rejected Mario’s position but used some strong language to describe the arguments… I can only venture to guess how the Court in NJ will react.
Mario himself quoted Wilson and include the between 21 and 22 years statement, which caused me to question him about whether or not he had properly understood Wilson. When I finally found the reference, the context was clear and it revealed that, once again, Mario’s poor reading comprehension had tricked him.
I found it quite hilarious because I too have come to the conclusion that whenever Mario makes a claims X, the context in which the claim was made, will quickly reveal that the original claim made was NOT(X). So far, this simple formula, has accurately predicted quite a few instances, the latest two involve Wilson and McClure.
Fascinating… Such a simple formula captures so much of the ‘noise’ in Mario’s ‘arguments’. And it does help explain why Mario has become quite reluctant to provide the necessary references to his claims that would allow one to verify the accuracy.
Linda,
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844) is only a state law case on inheritance rights in New York. It does not control on the constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Lynch recognized the existence of the early naturalization statutes. But it chose, without reasonable explanation, to ignore them as applicable to children born in the United States. The reasoning that the court gave for its interpretation of those statutes has no merit. Lynch was not able to come to grips with the early naturalization acts.
There the court said regarding the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804 that even though Congress did not say that the clause regarding the children born to aliens becoming naturalized when their parents so naturalize applied only to children born abroad, the general language chosen by Congress was over inclusive and not necessary. Hence, the court simply ignored what Congress wrote. I guess Lynch court knew better than Congress what language it should have chosen.
The Lynch court even went further. It said that the meaning of the text of these earlier naturalization statutes relating to children would be decided by how Congress dealt with widows in citizenship statutes in 1804. The Lynch court justified its finding that the naturalization statutes meant to apply only to children born abroad by arguing that Congress in 1804 did not distinguish between U.S. citizen widows and alien widows so therefore there should not be a distinction between children born in the U.S. and children born abroad. The court continued that it should be presumed that these earlier Congresses were referring only to children born abroad just like the 1804 Congress meant to refer only to alien widows who would also have been born abroad. But on what reasoned basis are we to bind Congress in 1790, 1795, and 1802 when addressing children with what Congress did in 1804 for widows? Additionally, the Lynch court failed to address the doctrine in 1804 that wives took on the same citizenship as their husbands. The old doctrine of unity of husband and wife provided that whatever citizenship the husband had, his wife had. If the husband was an alien, the wife would also be an alien. And if the husband was a U.S. citizen, his wife would also be a U.S. citizen. There was therefore no need for Congress to distinguish in its statutes between U.S. citizen widows and alien widows, for a widow simply had the same citizenship status of her deceased husband. So the Lynch court gave a completely invalid argument for how it interpreted the early naturalization statues passed by Congress. And now you, following in the footsteps of the Lynch court, give a completely invalid argument for how to interpret Jefferson’s citizenship statutes.
The Lynch decision could have had force within New York to resolve the inheritance issue with which the court was faced, but it surely was not any binding authority on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”
Furthermore, the Lynch decision was even overruled by the New York legislature. At that time, New York did not have any statute that defined citizenship and so the court applied the old English common law. The New York Legislature in 1860 overruled Lynch:
Political Code of the State of New York (1860)
Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:
1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.
Lynch’s parents were “transient aliens.” Hence, under this statute, Lynch would not have been a citizen of New York. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a person was a citizen of the United States only if he or she were first a citizen of a State. If the children of transient aliens were not even considered citizens of a state, they surely would not have been considered “natural born” Citizens of the United States.
Finally, Lynch’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen was also overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which said that a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. Lynch had said that parental citizenship was not relevant. The last time that I looked, the U.S. Supreme Court trumps a state court decision. So it looks like Vattel was right and Lynch was wrong.
“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” – Tisdale v. Obama, Eastern District of Virginia.
“Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise.” Allen v. Arizonia Democratic Party.
nbc,
All you can do is continue with your little sophomoric remarks. You have no substance behind you, my friend.
ROTFL.. And yet in order to find out if a Lynch was a citizen, the court observed the existence of two kinds, just like US v WKA: born on soil (natural-born) and natural-ized. By virtue of her birth on soil, even though her parents were there only on a temporary sojourn, the court found her to be a citizen by birth (aka natural born citizen).
The NY legislature may have overruled the findings in Lynch but that has little impact on Lynch’s Federal Citizenship. Poor Mario…
And Lynch shows the foundation of citizenship continued to be based on jus soli, not Mario’s international law based jus sanguinis.
It may not have been binding but it has been the foundation to show how natural born was a concept found in common law and since the definition of NBC was left undefined in the Constitution, the courts have found that its meaning is to be found in common law of the days, which clearly was based on English Common Law.
Poor Mario there is still no Founder who support his position and we all know Madison’s position to be contrary…. The mere fact that the founders found it necessary to pass a statute extending citizenship to children born abroad to US citizens, indicates that they too did not believe in jus sainguinis being the common law….
So clear.
Bold faced lie indeed.
All parties had already conceded that Virginia Minor was a citizen, and the Court itself stated the question before it as follows:
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
Every significant point Mario has made about Minor has been clearly refuted. I myself wrote a total of five articles on the case. And yet he does what he always does, which is to continue reasserting things shown to be false, without having been able to refute the demonstration that they are false.
All this does is further establish Mr. Apuzzo’s reputation.
Northland10,
Tisdale in on appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
An Arizona decision is not binding in New Jersey.
He is, which is why your question is being ignored.
Sef or is that Sefth,
You said that I do not realize when my chain is being pulled.
So you admit that what Scientist wrote is utter idiocy.
Well then, show me the recent court rulings that have agreed with you so far.
misha,
Mr. Obama, are you a “natural born Citizen?”
He is not, which is why he has ignored the question.
Does Willard Mitt Romney have unicorn DNA?
Oh Really?
It appears he took and oath stating his is qualified and thus, NBC (though, why it says Arizona on a Virginia form, I am not sure, unless it is used in multiple places and somebody forgot to change the state name).
Mr. Apuzzo, President Obama, has not ignored the question, you ignored the answer.
John Woodman,
Your reading comprehension fails to capture the fact that in Minor the parties conceded that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the Court did not accept that concession. The Court only stated what the question was as presented to it by the parties. The Court did not say that that was the question that it was going to address. Rather, the Court sought to prove on its own that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be a “natural-born citizen” and therefore a “citizen” and it did just that. It showed that since the Founding, under “common law,” with which the Framers were well familiar and which we know given the Court’s inclusion of citizen parents in its citizenship formula could only have been American “common law” and not English “common law,” any child that was born in a county to citizen parents was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen.”
Northland10,
The question is whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” not whether he is “qualified.” Given that people like you think that a “citizen’ has the same meaning as a “natural born Citizen,” telling me that he said he is “qualified” without him telling me that he is a “natural born Citizen” does not help.
Furthermore, please provide for me one quote or citation from any source over the life of Mr. Obama wherein he as unequivocally said that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Hey silly troll.. read again:
The US constitutional requirements are, 35 years of age or more, resident 14 years, and NBC. Are you saying, by only stating he fulfilled the requirements he did not state he was NBC? Are you going to claim next that he is not old enough because he did not state he was older than 35?
Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you make omissions like this? Sorry, I am not the foolish posters like MichaelN on your site who willfully neglect ” For if enemies should come into the realm” from the Calvin Case.
Furthermore, please provide for me one quote or citation from any source over the life of Willard Mitt Romney wherein he has unequivocally said that he does not have unicorn DNA, and is therefore an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
And furthermore, please provide for me one quote or citation from any source over the life of Glenn Beck wherein he has unequivocally said that he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990.
The Court only stated what the question was as presented to it by the parties. The Court did not say that that was the question that it was going to address.
Still, citizenship wasn’t the central question in Minor. It WAS the central question in Wong Kim Ark, and you ignore what that case had to say about citizenship (using the phrase “natural born” literally dozens of times) and insist that the binding precedent set in WKA doesn’t count.
It showed that since the Founding, under “common law,” with which the Framers were well familiar and which we know given the Court’s inclusion of citizen parents in its citizenship formula could only have been American “common law” and not English “common law,” any child that was born in a county to citizen parents was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen.”
You’ve produced no evidence whatsoever to establish that the English common law was not (at the least) included in the Minor Court’s mention of that phrase; and have no answer to the analysis in three entire articles I wrote that show decisively that there’s no basis whatsoever for your claim that the definition of “natural born citizen” came from “American common law” or the “Law of Nations” — which never once mentioned that term or any term like it.
Qoting Wilson’s irrelevant statements on Pennsylvania citizenship was idiocy.
In his declaration for candidacy filed in Arizona in 2008 he not only said he was qualified to be President, but swore to it. If you believe that being qualified for President doesn’t require being a natural born citiizen then what is the point of your court case, your web site or you?
In fact, let’s simply agree that being a natural born citizen is irrelevant to presidential qualifications and go on our ways.
Are you an Italian citiizen?
mario,
i cannot help but find bemusing your refusal to face the facts that your constitution and law supports the position opposed to yours. this has been shown time and time again during the last nearly 4 years in many courts and by numerous constitutional scholars, but still you refuse to come to terms with the huge monolith of support under the law and constitution staring you in the face and continue to wave minor around like some kind of religeous relic hoping to change what is established by some miracle.
sorry old chap, but the law doesn’t work that way as you should realise considering your chosen profession.
the bottom line – in my laymans opinion, take a jar of vaseline along to your next case, as i suspect you will need it.
I’ll leave you to Smith v. Alabama (1888) for the concept of American Common Law. Here’s two quotes from the opinion.
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.”
“There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
So, no common law of the United States that is distinct from the Common Law of England. And the Constitution is framed in the language of English Common Law, and are to be read in the light of its history. Point, set, match.
So Mario, looking forward to when, not if, when the court acts the SAME as last time and requires you AGAIN to grovel and whine when they slap you with an order to show cause why you should not be sanctioned.
You remember that one don’t you Mario, one of your finest moments in failure, Kerchner v Obama.
Trouble is, dont think the court will be as lenient this time will they?
Remember the order…?
================================
On July 2, 2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Appellants’counsel to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant toF.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal.
In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-pagestatement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive.
His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing.
However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause.
No one here has ever said that, I would appreciate it if you would not continue to make such false statements. It only serves to get people irritated and to tarnish your already slim reputation in this community.
The Tea Party Is a Religious Movement:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/08/17/the-tea-party-is-a-religious-movement?s_cid=rss:scott-galupo:the-tea-party-is-a-religious-movement
Nothing quite replaces actually watching Mr. Apuzzo in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=1&feature=plcp
Start listening to Mr. Apuzzo about 7:08, to about 9:00:
“…The Law Of Nations” actually became adopted by the United States on a national level, became actual Common Law, and that is why Minor says that the Common Law defines a natural born citizen”
So this is what Mr. Apuzzo says is the Common Law of the United States:
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.html
Well now. If I was feeling alone and blue, and didn’t know what to do, if I had a Mario Apuzzo doll that could make proclamations like that whenever I pulled its string I think I might just perk right up. I’d pay a dollar or two for something like that.
What an amazing piece of dodging my question. You wrote a whole paragraph and never answered it once. Truly you are the epitemy of a bad lawyer.
I will ask my question again.
Question #1:
Is your posiition that we have all been wrong about the definition of Natural Born Citizen for the last 100 years or more?
Because we all grew up knowing that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen- have all Americans just been wrong?
Question #2:Or are you arguing that what I was taught by my conservative civics teacher was an anomaly?
And new Question #3: When did you ‘realize’ that Natural Born Citizen required two parent citizens?
It is truly astonishing the degree to which Mr. Apuzzo will go to twist words. This is one of his classics:
As Minor explained, it has never been doubted what a “natural born Citizen” is.
He thus takes a statement that there was never any doubt that a person who had both qualifications A and B was a natural born citizen, and twists it to claim that it says that a natural born citizen is ONLY someone who has both qualifications A and B, if a person ONLY has qualification A or qualification B that person is absolutely NOT a natural born citizen, and there has never been any doubt about that.
I have never seen anyone match the stereotype of a lying lawyer to this degree.
And Question #4: If it is true that citizen parents are required to be a natural-born citizens, and there are only 2 types of citizens: NBC & naturalized, why is it that a birth certificate proving birth in the U.S. is totally adequate to prove citizenship. No one is ever asked to provide proof that their parents were citizens, or their parents, or their parents … Please provide evidence of even a single individual who was born in the U.S. under jurisdiction who was naturalized.
I might add that he does the above without being able to show any real authority from all of history that agrees with him, and directly against quotations from literally dozens of legal authorities (including the US Supreme Court) and hundreds of other books and educational authorities which directly refute his claim.
Here’s the ultimate falacy, its called denying the antecedent. In logical terms it’s the following:
IF A, then B.
NOT A
THEREFORE NOT B.
Now, substitute the following:
A: Queen Elizabeth is an American Citizen
B: Queen Elizabeth is a Human Being
So, if Queen Elizabeth, then she is a human being (obviously true, since all American Citizens are human beings).
Queen Elizabeth is not an American Citizen. (also true)
Therefore Queen Elizabeth is not a human being. (I knew there was something fishy about her)
Logical fallacy 101.
Now, take it with a different set.
A: Barack Obama was born to 2 citizen parents.
B: Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
If Barack Obama was born to 2 citizen parents, then he is a Natural Born Citizen.
Barack Obama was not born to 2 citizen parents.
Therefore Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Same logical fallacy. The second is the crux of the argument that Mario Apuzzo is making. The first shows why it’s a logical fallacy.
The New York Legal Observer describes this case as “Alienage—Citizenship by Birth in the United States, Though of Alien Parents Temporarily Residing Here” It is not described as an inheritance case. At the time in NY, one had to be a citizen in order to inherit property. This was a citizenship case, as no one disputed Lynch was otherwise an heir.
“In conclusion, I find no doubt but that Julia Lynch was a citizen of the United States when Thomas Lynch died.”…
http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA236#v=onepage&q&f=false
Contrast that with Minor decision. The Court ruled that the Constitution did not give anyone the right to vote, so prohibitions against women voting were not unconstitutional.
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we
Affirm the judgment.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html
A Supreme Court case would of course overrule a state court, but Minor declined to rule on birthright citizenship (“for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”) and WKA quotes the Lynch case in supports of its decision.
I ask you again, do you base your two-parent theory on anything from the 20th century or later?
If he doesn’t keep up the lies and smears, he won’t get paid.
The Urban Dictionary has an interesting list of entries for the term “paid liar” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paid%20liar There’s probably room to add El Putzo, Esq.
Wow, you don’t even realize what Minor said. That she was a native born citizen was conceded in the original pleadings and listed as a stipulated fact of the case. No one ever said below or in the Supreme court that she was a 14th Amendment citizen. Minor’s argument if you actually did some research was that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and that such citizenship granted her the right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause. Waite responded that women had always been citizens, that such citizenship had never included the privilege of voting and hence citizenship under the 14th Amendment did not include the privilege to vote. Such is the rationale of the case for someone who can read case law. The discussion of natural born citizenship was one of five different examples offered to show that women had always been citizens. He wasn’t talking about Virginia Minor as he never called her natural born and the status of her parents were not even in the record. Did you not notice that Waite goes on page after page providing other examples of women always being citizens that in no way apply to Minor such as the homestead act and naturalization acts? Since women always being citizens was central to his argument, one can say such point was part of the holding. However, as Waite says himself, he did not need to address the parentage issue the establish women were always citizens and he expressly stated he would not address such issue. Any such discussion is dicta to the extent he actually said anything. However, he did not address the issue. Accordingly, it is simply a lie to say Waite said one needed citizen parents to be an NBC, that it was never doubted what a natural born citizen was or that the doubts he was referring to was about a citizenship other than natural born citizenship. Such is why no one has ever cited Minor on the issues of whether children of aliens were natural born as he expressly declined to address such issue.
Now try going back and read all the clear, unambiguous quotes provided from Wong Kim Ark and later cases and try to learn something. And, Justice Gray did approvingly cite Lynch v. Clark which talked about US citizenship, not New York citizenship, which means the supreme court agreed with its analysis. Duh.
dunstvangeet,
There is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders and Framers only had one in mind. There has always just been one in our history. Hence, I am not denying any antecedent. The conditions born in the country to citizens parents are both necessary and sufficient constituent conditions. They are of the “if and only if” quality.
Hence, the fallacy is yours not mine in how you interpret the Founders’ and Framers’ intent in including the “natural born Citizen” clause as part of presidential eligibility and in how you read Minor.
Simply stated, the clause does not have all these definitions just floating around and to be found whenever it may be politically convenient to find a new one and apply it for a desired result.
2008
Humans have opposable thumbs.
Lemurs have opposable thumbs.
Therefore, you are a lemur.
And Birther Queen Taitz. Solid company of pandering, nut ball bigots and hucksters.
Sefth,
I see that you have educated yourself well in the nature of your employment.
Ain’t English fun! He has no comprehension, whatsoever.
It’s got to be an act. No one can possibly be this stupid or willfully ignorant. And really bad acting at that. But the real fun will be the ass kicking he’ll get again in court where they won’t suffer the fool.
Unquestionably.
Au contraire, he is the epitome of an excellent DWI lawyer.
As it was not in the beginning, neither now, nor ever shall be…
Amen.
I can’t help but notice the quotes you provided referencing the Court in Minor failed to use the term “natural born citizen” or credit the Court with defining that term, so I remain unconvinced.
Do you have any court decision from the 20th century that supports your two-parent theory?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You insist that Minor was all about voting and nothing about citizenship. On the contrary, in several cases that cited Minor, they recognized Minor as a case defining citizenship in the United States. In one case, the Court said that…
I wonder if there is a performance clause in his contract.
Of course not. It was invented in 2008 by Leo Donofrio.
Here’s what I would like to see – A state pass a personhood law. Then, a pregnant woman alone in her car drives in the HOV lane. She is stopped, and given a summons.
Then, her lawyer would say with a straight face, ‘Your Honor, my client was not alone in her car. She is pregnant, and therefore the car had two occupants.’
The lawyer would be Mario.
How does your Black’s Law Dictionary define “natural born citizen”? Mine says “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” Not a word about who their parents are!
Of, course, this is all ridiculous. I have never read or even heard about anyone demanding the BC’s or naturalization records of the parents of our presidents, which of course would be necessary if what you claim had merit. In fact, prior to 2008, I don’t know of any candidate who published his BC, much less those of his parents.
Did you use a ouija board to contact them? Because none of them ever wrote a damn thing on the subject. At the last seance I attended someone mentioned your name to James Madison. I can’t print his response, but it involved you and an equine animal.
Probably. And since he proudly debases himself peddling birther bigot b.s., his standards and limits must be pretty close to non-existent.
I wonder if Mario bills his clients for the time he spends here. I also wonder if he banks offshore, like Romney.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/image27.png ?
He hears special voices that even a Reagan appointed, conservative Supreme Court Justice apparently can’t.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.
– US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)
Seamus: ‘I bark at Banclays.’
Now in Philly: “Barclays is committed to meeting the needs of wealthy clients and those aspiring to become wealthier.”
1735 Market St # 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 http://www.barclayswealth.com/
Any bets on what his excuse will be when he inevitably loses again? The reaction of the birther bigots in the peanut gallery is far too predictable.
I should have bought more cheese futures. There is going to be a serious shortage with all of the whine from the Birthers.
New entry in Black’s Law:
Mario Apuzzo– see fraud, shyster, demagogue, charlatan, perjurer, vexatious litigant, court jester, prevaricator
Mario may consider this as preparation time but it’s a two edged sword as he, at least ethically has to inform the court of any errors in his arguments, and since people have pointed out some quite outrageous ones, one can but hope that Mario takes his duty to the court seriously.
Of course, the mere fact that Mario is still arguing the Minor case as being precedential, is sufficient for a Court to find his arguments not only frivolous but also sanctionable.
Already one judge has expressed his concerns in a case involving Strunk
Writing about Mario’s musings the Judge observed that
And of course Mario did misrepresent the Judge in saying that he had accepted Obama to be born in Hawaii, when the Judge only assumed this when ruling on Mario’s novel but meritless arguments about who is a natural born citizen.
Mario’s reading comprehension once again shows itself to be atrocious. But that should not be an excuse when people have clearly pointed out to Mario that he was wrong. I wonder to what extent the Court will be amused by this.
President Obama signed a sworn letter to the Arizona Secretary of State that he was a Natural Born Citizen. Similarly, the Department of Health has concluded that President Obama by virtue of his birth is a natural born citizen as well.
The Judge in your own case has accepted that, assuming President Obama is born on US soil, he indeed is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his father. Thus while he may not have ruled on the issue of the location of birth, he has fully rejected your foolish argument. And he has not been the only judge to do so either.
It looks like the gang here is spent. Just a lot of worthless chatter now. Looks like we are done here.
Actually, you are denying the antecedent if you are using Minor to argue. Minor said, “If someone is born to citizen parents in the United States, they are a Natural Born Citizen.”
Then you’re using that to state that because Barack Obama was not born to citizen parents, he’s not a Natural Born citizen. It’s a classic case of denying the antecedent.
IF A, then B.
NOT A
THEREFORE NOT B.
If Queen Elizabeth is an American Citizen, then she is a Human Being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American Citizen
Therefore Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.
Classic case of denying the antecedent.
Not to mention that the Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no American Common Law that is different from the Common Law of England at the time of the Revolution. Therefore, the “common law” cannot be referring to something in American Common Law, that is not in English Common Law.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court also said that terms in the constitution were constructed in the terminology of English Common Law. Therefore, why would the founders take a phrase that isn’t actually found in Vattel’s writing (the original translation that put “Natural Born” in there happened 2 years after the Constitution was written), and redefine it to mean the exact opposite without explicitly saying so in the constitution. Your secret meanings of the constitution hold no water with any court.
Like I said, Point, Set, Match.
Have fun in court, Mario. All the words you traded here won’t help you there.