Birthers drop non-racist pretense

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

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

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

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Birthers, Racism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

906 Responses to Birthers drop non-racist pretense

  1. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

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

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

  2. nbc says:

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

  3. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

  5. Sean says:

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

  6. Dr. Conspiracy,

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

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

  7. Scientist says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mario, you owe me another screen and keyboard.

    Go help with the hurricane clean-up.

  9. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

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

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

  10. JPotter says:

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

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

    (cue Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps)

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

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

  12. Dave B. says:

    Mario,

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

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

    So who’s cutting your hair these days?

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

    Watch this and weep:

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

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

  14. JPotter says:

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

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

  15. Sudoku says:

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

    smh

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

  17. Sudoku says:

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

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

  18. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

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

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

  19. bovril says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A shout out to Mario and “Monckton.”

  21. Dave B. says:

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

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

  22. roadburner says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

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

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

    oh putzo, you are SUCH a card!

  23. Dave B. says:

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

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

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

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

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

  26. Dave B. says:

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

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

  27. roadburner says:

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

    y’know, it’s something different to what you think.

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

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

    we luvs ya putzo!

  28. US Citizen says:

    No ambulances to chase?

  29. Oh, how the haters hate. What a pity.

    Warning! This is not a Hate Free Zone.

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

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

    Take a bow.

  31. Paper says:

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

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Warning!This is not a Hate Free Zone.

  32. misha,

    Have a position.

    Camouflage and run.

    Those in the know will see.

    History becomes my witness.

  33. Rickey says:

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

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

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

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

  34. Paper says:

    True enough, to your argument’s detriment.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    History becomes my witness.

  35. Hey Rickey,

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

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

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

  36. Dave B. says:

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

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

    Hennessy highball, not history.

  38. Rickey says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

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

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

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

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

  40. misha marinsky: Hennessy highball, not history.

    A zombie is probably more appropriate.

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

    That you are.

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

    Yes.

  43. misha marinsky: That you are.

    But you are the one drinking, not me.

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

    Eggnog, and coffee with Kahluah.

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

  45. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

    I’m very sorry if this offends.

  46. Me thinks the Puzzo doth protest too much.

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

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

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

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

  48. JPotter says:

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

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

  49. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

  51. Lupin says:

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

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

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

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

  52. bovril says:

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

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

    100% racist not necessarily.

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

  53. Pastor Charmley says:

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

  54. Lupin says:

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

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

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

  55. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  56. Dr. Conspiracy and Coterie,

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

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

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

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

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

  57. Bob says:

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

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

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

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

  58. Dave B. says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  59. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

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

  60. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

  61. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  65. Bob says:

    Birthers are too stupid to understand that Birtherism foments racism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  67. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank God you have not blamed me for climate change.

  70. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

  72. Sudoku says:

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

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

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

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

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

  73. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  75. Fazil Iskander,

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

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

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

  76. Fazil Iskander says:

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

    Maybe the question is too personal for you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Fazil Iskander,

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

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

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

  77. Rickey says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mario, STFU.

    Thank you.

  79. Keith says:

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

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

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

    Yes, and water is wet.

    This is the missing link Mario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  80. misha marinsky: Mario, STFU.Thank you.

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

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

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

  82. Keith,

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

    Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

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

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

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

  84. Keith, be gentle. Apuzzo is one quarter black.

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

  85. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

  86. Daniel says:

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

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

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

    Fool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  90. US Citizen says:

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

  91. Rickey says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Keith,

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

    Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

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

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

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

  92. Sudoku says:

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

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

  93. Keith says:

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

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

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

  94. Fazil Iskander says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  97. Forsooth says:

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

  98. Rickey,

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

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

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

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

    (Apuzzo hates these direct questions.)

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

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

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

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

    Some reading comprehension would be appreciated.

  102. JPotter says:

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

    Are you suggesting they ‘foment’ racism?

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

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

  104. JPotter says:

    Mario,

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

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

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

    Deflection will not help you.

  106. JPotter: Are you suggesting they ‘foment’ racism?

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

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

    You continue to be a fool.

  108. Paper says:

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

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

  109. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Fazil Iskander,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  110. JPotter says:

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

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

  111. JPotter says:

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

    And that explains your inability to express them?

  112. Rickey says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Rickey,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Like I said, you have very low standards.

  114. Sam the Centipede says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  115. Keith,

    You write so much and say so little.

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

  116. Keith says:

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

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

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

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

    No, I didn’t.

    Reading comprehension would be appreciated.

    Indeed.

  117. Keith says:

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

    Sorry.

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

  118. Rickey,

    Stop being a phony.

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

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

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

  119. JPotter: And that explains your inability to express them?

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

  120. Rickey says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

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

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

  121. Dave B. says:

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

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

    If you said anything worthwhile, I would respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No, all Denialists are bigots.

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

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

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

    If you said anything worthwhile, I would not ridicule.

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

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

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

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

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

    Try it sometime.

  130. Dave B. says:

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

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

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

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

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

  131. Dave B. says:

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

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

  132. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Stop being a phony.

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

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

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

  133. Dave B.: Are you drinking enough water?

    Jack Daniels for breakfast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  137. I knew you wouldn’t answer the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  140. Paper says:

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

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

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

  141. Dave B. says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  143. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    You write so much and say so little.

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

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

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

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

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

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

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

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

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

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

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

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

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

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

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

    A little reading comprehension would be appreciated.

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

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

  144. Keith says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Your complaint is pedantic and without merit.

    And vexatious.

  145. Keith says:

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

    Try it sometime.

    Or just read some of bovril’s comments.

  146. Keith says:

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

    Yes he is.

  147. JPotter says:

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

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

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

  148. JPotter,

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

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

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

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

  151. JoZeppy says:

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

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

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

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

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

  155. Dave B. says:

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

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

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

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

    Pajama bandits

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

    I was a paid Internet troll

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

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

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

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

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

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

    AMA

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

  157. Sudoku says:

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

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

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

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

    Which is it?

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

  158. Sudoku says:

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

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

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

    I see that you are working the night shift.

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

  160. Dave B. says:

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

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

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Pajama bandits

    A person identified as “AMA”

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

  161. Sudoku says:

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

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

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

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

  163. Sudoku says:

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

    Fraud!

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

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

  164. Dave B. says:

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

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

  165. Dave B. says:

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

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

  166. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    JPotter,

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

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

  167. JPotter says:

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

    😉

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

  168. JoZeppy says:

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

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

  169. JoZeppy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  171. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  173. Paper says:

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

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

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

  174. Keith says:

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

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

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

  175. Keith says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  176. Keith says:

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

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

  177. Rickey says:

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

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

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

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

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

  178. Keith says:

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

  179. JPotter says:

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

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

  180. bovril says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  181. Lupin says:

    In re Mario, there are two issues:

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

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

  182. dunstvangeet says:

    Mario, you talk about logical fallacies.

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

    If A, then B
    Not A
    Therefore Not B.

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

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

  183. Lupin says:

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

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

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

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

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

  184. Sam the Centipede says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Please, stop drivelling, start thinking.

  185. The Magic M says:

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

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

    Checkmate.

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

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

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

  187. Scientist says:

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

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

  188. bovril says:

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

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

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

    Please define “racist.”

  190. Dave B. says:

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

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

  191. The Magic M says:

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

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

  192. JPotter says:

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

    Yep.

  193. JPotter says:

    JPotter: Yep.

    …. but these would not be them.

  194. Keith,

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

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

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

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

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

  196. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

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

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

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

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

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

  197. Dave B. says:

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

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

  198. Daniel says:

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

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

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

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

  199. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Fool.

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

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

  200. Rickey says:

    Keith:

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

    When I was in the Navy my nickname was Univac.

    I wonder what Mario’s nickname was.

  201. Rickey says:

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

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

  202. Keith says:

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

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

    MOMMY! Daniel’s being mean to me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

  203. Daniel says:

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

    MOMMY! Daniel’s being mean to me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Stop being a birther……… 😛

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

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

  205. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

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

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

  206. Rickey says:

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

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

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

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

  208. JPotter says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  211. The Magic M says:

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

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

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

    Way to go:

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

  212. gorefan says:

    The Magic M: Sheldon Cooper

    You might enjoy this site.

    http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/

  213. gorefan says:

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

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

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

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

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

  214. Dave B. says:

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

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

  215. Keith says:

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

    There was a whole series of threads on ATS about disinformation trolls conspiracy.

    The site is specifically and openly a honey-pot for conspiracy theorist cranks of all kinds. (Somebody has to give advice about notifying the authorities about your neighbor that is a gray skin alien don’t they?) It can be fun picking at the scabs over there sometimes, but I come away with the idea that 90% of the posters (minimum) are 12 years old.

  216. The Magic M says:

    gorefan: You might enjoy this site.

    http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/

    Thx! 🙂

  217. roadburner says:

    JPotter: He doesn’t leave his wit at the door, does he?

    no, he just crosses the threshold with half of it.

  218. JPotter says:

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

    LOL! Mario citing the same foolery as Corsi did at WND, and on the same day. And passing it off as genuine. Drinking from the same well?

    roadburner: no, he just crosses the threshold with half of it.

    Ah, thanks for that observation. Let’s see …. calculator …. half of nothing … that’s …. ummm …. zero …. divided by …. two …..

    P.S … If I remember correctly, that Google search turned up 9500 hits for Mario’s exact handle here, since 2009. That’s a lot of banter.

  219. Daniel says:

    WEll Corsi and Mario ARE two peas in a pod….

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

    For a response to your comment, see my new article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html.

    I hope the explosions that your wrote about in your graduate work in mathematics were explosions of soda pop and not of real bombs.

  221. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I hope the explosions that your wrote about…explosions of soda pop and not of real bombs.

    I hope those explosions of your drunk clients smashing into others, did not cause suffering.

    I’m not linking the Bob Simon 60 Minutes story, because you won’t click on it.

    Just to remind you, a drunk insurance salesman hit another car head-on, killed the driver and decapitated an 8 year old girl.

    It’s right up your alley. Enjoy slumming.

  222. Lani says:

    Regular posters are very kind and patient with trolls. I’m not sure it’s worth the effort, but I admire your calm perseverance.

  223. Lupin says:

    While Mario’s legal theories have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, and are of no interest anymore, I find Mario himself, and his “practice” (whatever that means in this case) an endless source of interest. He is not important enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant a 60 Minutes-type exposé, but I’d certainly love to read a good piece of investigative journalism on him.

  224. bovril says:

    Lupin

    My only quibble is you describe The Toads inane blather as “theories”.

    In the real world….(courtesy of the AAAS)

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

    Evolution is good to go, plate tectonics is good to go, Mario’s inane, fact free, hate and ethanol fuelled free association drivel doesn’t get past crank musings at best…. 😎

  225. Scientist says:

    bovril-In science the word “theory” has a precise meaning, as you describe. Mario’s blatherings certainly don’t meet that standard. However, the law uses that term more loosely. Attorneys are commonly said to have “a theory of the case”. That can be something as non-sensical as “the 42 eyewitnesses who saw my client kill that guy were all mistaken” or “natural born citizen requires 2 citizen parents (not just 1, but 2, where no legal case has ever established that use of the plural excludes the singular)”. Both are “theories” of a legal case and both are equally ridiculous.

  226. bovril says:

    What, are we positing that The Toad has in fact made up shit to create a fantasy “theory” with the intellectual validity and heft of Phlogiston theory…!!!

    Say it’s not true…… 😎

  227. The Magic M says:

    Scientist: That can be something as non-sensical as “the 42 eyewitnesses who saw my client kill that guy were all mistaken”

    Though he could wrap it into “prove that my client doesn’t have an identical twin that nobody has ever heard of”. 😉

  228. Lupin says:

    I’ll happily withdraw the word “theory(ies)” (in re Mario’s) and replace it with “lucubrations”.

  229. Scientist says:

    bovril: What, are we positing that The Toad has in fact made up $h!t to create a fantasy “theory” with the intellectual validity and heft of Phlogiston theory…!!!

    Certainly not! Phlogiston theory was far more respectable in its day than Mario’s nonsense is today. It accounted for the facts known at the time and was open, as any scientifc theory must be, to empirical falsification. Once Lavoisier found oxygen, phlogiston faded away.

    By contrast, Mario has had a whole passel of empirical falsifications delivered by courts throughout the land. Rather, than say, “I was wrong”, he persists in his errors.

  230. MN-Skeptic says:

    Mario is to logic as Glenn Beck is to art.

  231. Majority Will says:

    misha marinsky: I hope those explosions of your drunk clients smashing into others, did not cause suffering.

    I’m not linking the Bob Simon 60 Minutes story, because you won’t click on it.

    Just to remind you, a drunk insurance salesman hit another car head-on, killed the driver and decapitated an 8 year old girl.

    It’s right up your alley. Enjoy slumming.

    I understand your need to bash the delusional birther troll as well as your disgust of the horrors of drunk driving.

    However, don’t lose sight of the fact that everyone in this country, regardless of circumstance, is entitled to legal counsel, a fair trial and the assumption of innocence before being proven guilty or not guilty in a court of law.

    To demean the profession of defense attorney or blame them for their clients’ alleged crimes by association is just as offensive as those who demand that the President has the responsibility to prove his vital records aren’t fraudulent.

    “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” – Moses Maimonides

  232. Neither.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion_point

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I hope the explosions that your wrote about in your graduate work in mathematics were explosions of soda pop and not of real bombs.

  233. I am pleased that you chose to waste your time writing the article rather than doing something more destructive.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: For a response to your comment, see my new article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at

  234. Dave B. says:

    Mario was just putting a little weekend in his week last night when he showed up here.

  235. bovril says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: Neither.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion_point

    Ohhhhh, I was hoping to find that Doc C was in fact a classic RWNJ boogeyman, the “bomb throwing” anarchist of Ye Olde Skool… 😎

    If it helps fuel Mendax Mendax Mario’s paranoia, the military did spent oodles and oodles of money showing and training me in how to make things that go !!!!BANG!!!!

    Ahhhhhh the stuff they encouraged you to know and be able to do in the run up to the end of the Cold War

    Lets not forget the Warsaw Pact, Russian Hordes, theatre tactical nuclear strikes, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare, tanks thundering through the mists of the Fulda Gap, the Able Archer near miss…..simpler times…… 😎

  236. JPotter says:

    Lupin: He is not important enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant a 60 Minutes-type exposé,

    Ach, if only we could resurrect the 1980s version of Mike Wallace …. !

    Dr. Conspiracy: I am pleased that you chose to waste your time writing the article rather than doing something more destructive.

    You just made the QotD on your own site! 😀

    bovril: tanks thundering through the mists of the Fulda Gap,

    Used to dream of flying a Warthog to glory over a freefire orgy of destruction in Central Europe. Had it ever happened it would have been a regreattable tragedy …. but what a show. The dream lives on in simulation …. some of the fun, none of the sorrow. Well, a little guilt over time ‘wasted’. 😛

  237. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

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

    Being a Notary would be so COOL! You could write stuff like “So-and-so is an butt munch, and then notarize it! Of course, I’d probably be stripped of my status as a Notary in all of five minutes, for grossly abusing my power to notarize all sorts of absurd things.

  238. Sudoku says:

    Hey Misha, you got a shout out over at Mario’s place. He seems to be having pout that no one is paying attention to his latest dreck re-rehash, and goes on to quote deaths tolls for Stalin and Mao. Really.

    “The only responses that I have so far received to this article at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog are sophomoric personal attacks against me by Dr. Conspiracy and his sycophantic Obot contingent (probably paid trolls).

    What is rather disturbing is that there is a commentator there by the name of misha marinsky, who admits to being a communist….”

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=9003883837857408749

    misha marinsky: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Stop being a phony.

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

  239. Paper says:

    Mario Apuzzo, sorry for not responding to your post/article about logic. I read it, and thought of responding, but it really just comes down to this: incorrect.

    I thought you might be bored hearing the same basic reality over and over again, without any sign on your part that you will adjust to reality, but to give you feedback, your logic is meaningless because your premise is incorrect. The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already).

    Until you change your premise, your logic is irrelevant, and there is no need to discuss it.

  240. Sudoku: What is rather disturbing is that there is a commentator there by the name of misha marinsky, who admits to being a communist….”

    Youser!

  241. Majority Will: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” – Moses Maimonides

    First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.

    Our Constitution holds innocent until proven guilty, but Mario and his ilk have declared Obama and his supporters guilty, and then placed the burden of innocence on our side.

    Mario is a criminal defense lawyer, who is not in the league of Oscar Goodman. Plus, he is a hypocrite, a liar and a rabble rouser. That is why he has earned my contempt.

    I want to repeat Bob Simon’s “60 Minutes” report, and the suffering caused by drunk drivers:

    DWI Deaths: Is It Murder? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4694666.html

  242. Majority Will says:

    misha marinsky: First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.

    Our Constitution holds innocent until proven guilty, but Mario and his ilk have declared Obama and his supporters guilty, and then placed the burden of innocence on our side.

    Mario is a criminal defense lawyer, who is not in the league of Oscar Goodman. Plus, he is a hypocrite, a liar and a rabble rouser. That is why he has earned my contempt.

    I want to repeat Bob Simon’s “60 Minutes” report, and the suffering caused by drunk drivers:

    DWI Deaths: Is It Murder?http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4694666.html

    You either missed my point or ignored it entirely. 😡

    “First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.”

    Are you trying to one up me on knowing Jewish scholars? Really?

  243. Majority Will says:

    Sudoku: He seems to be having pout that no one is paying attention to his latest dreck re-rehash, and goes on to quote deaths tolls for Stalin and Mao. Really.

    It’s nothing but sad and pathetic hit whoring for his cesspool of blog.

  244. Majority Will: You either missed my point or ignored it entirely.

    “First, my grandfather – עליו השלום – in whose house I grew up in, was a Talmudic scholar.”

    Are you trying to one up me on knowing Jewish scholars? Really?

    I agree with you. Did I really come across as petulant?! I apologize.

    Too much coffee. Oops.

    Time for a break. I’m going to walk Angel.

  245. Sudoku says:

    You are right. I thought Mario had hit bottom, but he continues to sink, lower and lower.

    Majority Will: It’s nothing but sad and pathetic hit whoring for his cesspool of blog.

  246. Majority Will says:

    misha marinsky: I agree with you. Did I really come across as petulant?! I apologize.

    Too much coffee. Oops.

    Time for a break. I’m going to walk Angel.

    Apology accepted. Thanks.

  247. Majority Will says:

    Sudoku:
    You are right.I thought Mario had hit bottom, but he continues to sink, lower and lower.

    And the putz will probably continue to get more desperate for attention as time marches on and people care less and less about his bigotry and mental illness.

  248. Paper: Mario Apuzzo, sorry for not responding to your post/article about logic. I read it, and thought of responding, but it really just comes down to this: incorrect. I thought you might be bored hearing the same basic reality over and over again, without any sign on your part that you will adjust to reality, but to give you feedback, your logic is meaningless because your premise is incorrect. The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already). Until you change your premise, your logic is irrelevant, and there is no need to discuss it.

    You do not argue that my logic does not follow from my premise. Rather, you argue that my premise is incorrect and therefore my logic is not relevant.

    But your argument is nothing but another logical fallacy called begging the question.

    I have demonstrated through historical and legal sources why my premise, i.e., the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” is correct and yours incorrect.

    You have failed to demonstrate how your definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct and mine is wrong.

    The best that you can do is argue that any child who is a “born citizen” is a “natural born Citizen” which argument I have shown is a tautology and suffers from the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hence, you have not properly defined a “natural born Citizen.”

    You said: “The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already).” Here, you conflate a “natural born Citizen” with a “citizen of the United States.” The citizenship of parents is not relevant for those who are born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which the Fourteenth Amendment defines as “citizens of the United States.” But the citizenship of parents is very relevant for anyone born in the United States who wants to be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” because according to the prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Hence, my logic which follows from my correct premise is also correct.

    You have proven absolutely nothing with your reply other than to show that you have no valid reply. You are therefore the one who needs a reality check, not I.

  249. Dave B. says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have demonstrated through historical and legal sources why my premise, i.e., the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” is correct and yours incorrect.

    How’s that been working out for you, Mario?

  250. Thomas Brown says:

    I love the smell of garlic in the afternoon.

    It smells like failure.

  251. Dave B.: How’s that been working out for you, Mario?

    It has been working our for me just great. You and your sophomore team have not been able to demonstrate that I am wrong and you are correct.

  252. Dave B. says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It has been working our for me just great.

    Reeeeee-ally?

  253. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: according to the prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Since no legal ruling has ever said that “parents” means both rather than one or both, that describes Barack Obama to a tee (as the Vermont judge noted).

    “parents must pick up children by 5 PM” doesn’t mean both must show up.

    “parents must sign permission slip” only 1 is required. If both parents must sign, it must explicitly say so. That is the law, sir. I have signed plenty of school forms in my day (legal documents, FYI) and those that required both parents to sign said so explicitly. If you wish to argue, cite a court case to the contrary, not a bunch of your hand waving.

  254. Dave B. says:

    Scientist: If you wish to argue, cite a court case to the contrary, not a bunch of your hand waving.

    Careful now, you start bringing actual court cases into Mario’s dreamworld, you might bring back this memory:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=69&feature=plcp
    I think he just wants to put that one behind him.

  255. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have failed to demonstrate how your definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct and mine is wrong.

    LOL!

    Instead of going around the junior high civics material again, perhaps a simpler test. Which “definition” best reflects the history American Presidential elections? Your super-sekrit, extra-special preferred one, or the understanding the country actually operates on?

    Which Presidents have been asked to ‘certify’ the citizenship status of their parents? That is, before a court or Congress?

  256. Majority Will says:

    And of course, as predicted . . . this pathetic putz and puerile prince of “lalalalalalala, I can’t hear you” drips on.

    Are there no bridges to guard in the dense jungles of New Jersey?

  257. misha marinsky: I agree with you. Did I really come across as petulant?!

    Majority Will: Apology accepted. Thanks.

    Every Thursday night, a rabbi in a shtetl held informal court. The Rebbetzin always stood behind him.

    A couple came in, and she told her side of the dispute. The rabbi replied, “You’re right.”

    Her husband quickly said, “Wait, rabbi. You haven’t heard MY side.”

    “OK, go ahead.”

    He told his side of the dispute. The rabbi replied, “You’re right.”

    The Rebbetzin then said, “Husband – she can’t be right and he can’t be right. They both can’t be right.”

    The rabbi turned to her and said, “You know, you’re right too.”

  258. Scientist: Since no legal ruling has ever said that “parents” means both rather than one or both, that describes Barack Obama to a tee (as the Vermont judge noted). “parents must pick up children by 5 PM” doesn’t mean both must show up.“parents must sign permission slip” only 1 is required. If both parents must sign, it must explicitly say so. That is the law, sir. I have signed plenty of school forms in my day (legal documents, FYI) and those that required both parents to sign said so explicitly. If you wish to argue, cite a court case to the contrary, not a bunch of your hand waving.

    At the Founding, a husband and wife had only one citizenship, that of the husband. Hence, “parents” meant both husband and wife with the same citizenship, that of the husband. That Congress in 1922 granted to women the right to have their own citizenship did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

  259. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

    A crank belief, which has been thoroughly discredited – as you well know.

  260. Mario, simply repeating that you are right when every significant court case in recorded history contradicts you does not make your statements true. It simply makes you sound like a bullshitter who lives in a weird parallel universe that the legal system does not recognize.

  261. roadburner says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: .That Congress in 1922 granted to women the right to have their own citizenship did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

    oh wow! you seem to have discovered something new!

    great, finally, any. day. now.

    hold on….hasn’t this 2 parent stuff been in court before? and the result was what?

    oh yes, a fail every time.

    c’mon putzo, if you want to win a birfoon case, regurgitating the same crap every time gets you nowhere. the law and the constitution disagrees with you, hence why you keep losing.

    all you’re achieving is just a longer list of fails.

  262. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It has been working our for me just great. You and your sophomore team have not been able to demonstrate that I am wrong and you are correct.

    Only in a world where we ingore the fact that every court who heard your argument has dismissed them as frivolous and without merit….besides that minor fact, yeah, working out just spiffy.

  263. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: At the Founding, a husband and wife had only one citizenship, that of the husband. Hence, “parents” meant both husband and wife with the same citizenship, that of the husband. That Congress in 1922 granted to women the right to have their own citizenship did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause which still requires “citizen” parents (in the plural).

    Where is a court case saying that you must have “citizen” parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen? Again, I don’t care about your opinion or opinions, only the opinions of judges (or even one judge). You do know what a court case is, sir?

  264. JoZeppy: Only in a world where we ingore the fact that every court who heard your argument has dismissed them as frivolous and without merit….besides that minor fact, yeah, working out just spiffy.

    What a total failure. The sophomores here cannot demonstrate they are correct so they just point to what some lower court did nor did not do, all in light of there being no U.S. Supreme Court case agreeing with them.

  265. Scientist: Where is a court case saying that you must have “citizen” parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen? Again, I don’t care about your opinion or opinions, only the opinions of judges (or even one judge). You do know what a court case is, sir?

    I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural). You are the one who cannot cite one U.S. Supreme Court case which says that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents.

  266. Graham Shevlin: Mario, simply repeating that you are right when every significant court case in recorded history contradicts you does not make your statements true. It simply makes you sound like a bullshitter who lives in a weird parallel universe that the legal system does not recognize.

    You are quite a B.S.er.

  267. I along with a number of judges, administrative, superior court, state appeals, federal district and appeals, seem to have found it in US v. Wong.

    Why you cannot see it, you will have to explain for yourself.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural). You are the one who cannot cite one U.S. Supreme Court case which says that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents.

  268. Thomas Brown says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are quite a B.S.er.

    May be. But you’re the actual BS.

  269. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural).

    No, you have never quoted any. Even your beloved Minor does not state that parents means both. Nowhere does it say that.

    I think I have been more than fair in offering a bipartsian compromise of 1 citizen parent, especiallysince courts have told you clearly that 0 are required. Compromises are the essence of the law-Supreme Court rulings generally are decided by compromise to get the necessary votes.

    1 is the final offer. Take it or leave it.

  270. There is quite a bit of substantive argument here and elsewhere that proves our side is correct. You have consistently ignored these arguments, choosing rather to double down on the ones you have made and that the courts have rejected.

    Just because you won’t admit defeat doesn’t mean that you are not defeated. That’s your problem, not mine.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have demonstrated through historical and legal sources why my premise, i.e., the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” is correct and yours incorrect.

  271. Thomas Brown: May be. But you’re the actual BS.

    I am happy to see you like garlic and I do hope that you do more than just smell it. Actually, I definitely recommend for you that you consume heavy doses. It will significantly enhance blood flow to your brain and thereby improve brain function.

  272. Northland10 says:

    Minor fact?

    JoZeppy: Only in a world where we ingore the fact that every court who heard your argument has dismissed them as frivolous and without merit….besides that minor fact, yeah, working out just spiffy.

  273. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What a total failure. The sophomores here cannot demonstrate they are correct so they just point to what some lower court did nor did not do, all in light of there being no U.S. Supreme Court case agreeing with them.

    Utter B.S. Mario, and you know it. We don’t need a SCOTUS case. Anyone who remotely paid attention in their first year of law school know that. Everyone but you and a handful of crackpots understand that Minor never defined NBC. Everyone but you and a handful of crackpots understand that WKA held that a person born on US soil is NBC. Every court you and your cohorts argued otherwise before dismissed your arguments as having no merit and Minor and WKA mean exactly what everyone but you and your merry band of nutters seems to think. That means to the reality based world, we are dealing with well settled law. That means SCOTUS will never grant you cert because they don’t waste their time with well settled law. It’s so well settled that every respondent has waived the right to respond and not a single Justice has ever asked for a response.

    No one here needs to demonstrate jack. The courts have clearly done all the work for us. Again, for those of us working in the reality based world, the courts are the final arbiters of what the law is. When one’s arguments are universally met with rejection, and very often described as lacking any merit, wholly unsupported in law, and frivolous, there isn’t any reason to debate the finer points fantasies.

    But you can continue to pretend that the lack of a SCOTUS decision on a birther case really means something, knowing full well that the Court will never take up one of your nutter cases. You may even convince a couple of rubes to hit the paypal button in the vain hopes that just maybe this time the Court will grant cert. But for the rest of us, it’s not working. You’re just another snake oil salesman trying to sell your magic elixir out of the back of your wagon.

    Keep trying Mario…keep laying on the false bravado…I’m sure everyone who graduates from Temple is proud to share the same degree as you.

  274. Dr. Conspiracy: I along with a number of judges, administrative, superior court, state appeals, federal district and appeals, seem to have found it in US v. Wong.Why you cannot see it, you will have to explain for yourself.

    Since you concede that the only case that you rely upon is Wong Kim Ark, please provide the holding of the Court which supports your thesis that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. I need an actual quote of the holding and not what your interpretation of some language is.

  275. Poor JoeZeppy, he takes the high ground but in the end he really cannot demonstrate the merits of his arguments and so he just repeats the same old story line about how the courts have decided it all already.

  276. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Since you concede that the only case that you rely upon is Wong Kim Ark, please provide the holding of the Court which supports your thesis that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. I need an actual quote of the holding and not what your interpretation of some language is.

    And I would like a quote from a Supreme Court holding that says that you need 2 citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. I would also like any Supreme Court holding that ever held any individual could not be President (or could be for that matter).

  277. Paper says:

    You have incorrectly misquoted and selectively misread various sentences. Your basic understanding of the English sentences is incorrect, never mind the history.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have cited and quoted several U.S. Supreme Court cases which call for “citizen” parents (plural).

  278. Paper says:

    Indeed.

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Just because you [Mario Apuzzo] won’t admit defeat doesn’t mean that you are not defeated. That’s your problem, not mine.

  279. Scientist says:

    Come on Mario, show me any court that has ever ruled you need 2 citizen parents to be President. It doesn’t have to be the Supreme Court, Traffic Court will do.

  280. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoeZeppy, he takes the high ground but in the end he really cannot demonstrate the merits of his arguments and so he just repeats the same old story line about how the courts have decided it all already.

    Arguing the “merits” of your position is much akin to arguing who would win in a fight between the Predator and the Alien, Jason v. Freddie, Hulk v. Wolverine. It may be fun for some (even to the point of making a movie…well, not in your case), but it still comes down to the fact that you’re arguing fantasy that has no basis in reality. And as for the courts having decided it already….well, fact of the matter is they have. The whole point of bring a suit, and arguing before a court is to convince them you are right. Something you and your kin have universally failed to do. So the fact that you have a 100% failure rate isn’t some minor technicality to sweep aside, it’s a complete and crushing defeat of your arguments. The courts are the final word on the law, and they have said you’re full of bunk. What more can any person here, even if that person was Lawrence Tribe, add to the discussion when the courts have been so clear and unambiguous?

  281. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What a total failure.The sophomores here cannot demonstrate they are correct so they just point to what some lower court did nor did not do, all in light of there being no U.S. Supreme Court case agreeing with them.

    This is the crux of the Government’s argument in Wong Kim Ark:

    For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply -with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

    The government in its appeal argued specifically that if this ‘obnoxious’ Chinese kid were considered to be a citizen, then he must be a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President.

    The Supreme Court held that indeed he was a citizen. Therefore, by the Government’s own logic he was a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President.

    Wong Kim Ark had ZERO citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the number of citizen parents was irrelevant to an individual who was born in the United States.

    The issue is settled for persons born in the United States. Period. You pretend to not understand this all you want, but you will not change the facts by denying them. You can continue to argue the Government’s case in WKA, that obnoxious Chinese (or more to the point in today’s environment, obnoxious Latinos) shouldn’t be allowed to be citizens, that is your right, but it is more than abundantly clear that there is no court that will listen to you. You would have better luck campaigning for a Constitutional Amendment.

    Where the issue is not settled, IMO, is for those persons born OUTSIDE the United States. If you want to make a name for yourself, that is the kind of case you should be pursuing. Is John McCain a natural born citizen? This is a question vital to the security of the Constitution. With the number of American military forces overseas, and more and more women serving alongside men in combat zones all over the world, there is going to be a baby boom of foreign born citizens wanting to run for President in the next 30 to 40 years. We had better get this settled now.

    Of course, my opinion is that McCain is NBC, but I acknowledge that there is an actual controversy about it.

    There is no controversy about Wong Kim Ark or Barack Obama, and your attempts to invent multiple classes of ‘born citizens’ is, to put it plainly, a farce.

    The Supreme Court answered that question in no uncertain terms:

  282. JPotter says:

    Keith: There is no controversy about Wong Kim Ark or Barack Obama, and your attempts to invent multiple classes of ‘born citizens’ is, to put it plainly, a farce.

    Here, here, well-stated, well-written post, from start to finish. Hats off, sir.

  283. JoZeppy: Arguing the “merits” of your position is much akin to arguing who would win in a fight between the Predator and the Alien, Jason v. Freddie, Hulk v. Wolverine. It may be fun for some (even to the point of making a movie…well, not in your case), but it still comes down to the fact that you’re arguing fantasy that has no basis in reality. And as for the courts having decided it already….well, fact of the matter is they have. The whole point of bring a suit, and arguing before a court is to convince them you are right. Something you and your kin have universally failed to do. So the fact that you have a 100% failure rate isn’t some minor technicality to sweep aside, it’s a complete and crushing defeat of your arguments. The courts are the final word on the law, and they have said you’re full of bunk. What more can any person here, even if that person was Lawrence Tribe, add to the discussion when the courts have been so clear and unambiguous?

    Poor JoeZeppy, he just has no where to go. So he just keeps repeating how some lower courts have decided it all already. Too bad that he does not have his own argument which shows that he is correct.

  284. Keith: This is the crux of the Government’s argument in Wong Kim Ark:The government in its appeal argued specifically that if this ‘obnoxious’ Chinese kid were considered to be a citizen, then he must be a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President.The Supreme Court held that indeed he was a citizen. Therefore, by the Government’s own logic he was a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible to be President. Wong Kim Ark had ZERO citizen parents. The Supreme Court held that the number of citizen parents was irrelevant to an individual who was born in the United States.The issue is settled for persons born in the United States. Period. You pretend to not understand this all you want, but you will not change the facts by denying them. You can continue to argue the Government’s case in WKA, that obnoxious Chinese (or more to the point in today’s environment, obnoxious Latinos) shouldn’t be allowed to be citizens, that is your right, but it is more than abundantly clear that there is no court that will listen to you. You would have better luck campaigning for a Constitutional Amendment.Where the issue is not settled, IMO, is for those persons born OUTSIDE the United States. If you want to make a name for yourself, that is the kind of case you should be pursuing. Is John McCain a natural born citizen? This is a question vital to the security of the Constitution. With the number of American military forces overseas, and more and more women serving alongside men in combat zones all over the world, there is going to be a baby boom of foreign born citizens wanting to run for President in the next 30 to 40 years. We had better get this settled now.Of course, my opinion is that McCain is NBC, but I acknowledge that there is an actual controversy about it. There is no controversy about Wong Kim Ark or Barack Obama, and your attempts to invent multiple classes of ‘born citizens’ is, to put it plainly, a farce. The Supreme Court answered that question in no uncertain terms:

    There are several problems with your argument.

    The holding of a U.S. Supreme Court case does not come for the argument of the parties in the case. That you must resort to the argument of counsel rather than the holding of the Wong Kim Ark decision speaks volumes.

    I am not arguing that Wong was not a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, I am arguing that he was not a “natural born Citizen” The Court in Wong knew the difference, stated that difference, and held that he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth which is the same citizenship status that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizens parents have and which you say raises a question regarding whether they are “natural born Citizens.” So do not try to inflame the argument with your race baiting.

  285. Keith says:

    A few questions to ponder:

    Is a “round circle” different than a “circle”?
    Is “black ebony” darker than “ebony”?
    Is a “legless snake” skinner than a “snake”?
    Is it better to “successfully complete a marathon” than to “complete a marathon”?
    Is a “deadly fatal accident” more tragic than a “fatal accident”?
    Is a “natural born citizen” more of a citizen than a “born citizen”?

  286. Sudoku says:

    Only in Mario-land does your “own argument” trump court rulings.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoeZeppy, he just has no where to go. So he just keeps repeating how some lower courts have decided it all already. Too bad that he does not have his own argument which shows that he is correct.

  287. Dave B. says:

    Poor

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: in the end he really cannot demonstrate the merits of his arguments and so he just repeats the same old story line about how the courts have decided it all already.

    …in cases where it wasn’t even at issue. So remind me again, Mario– not that I want to dredge up unpleasant old memories for you or anything– what’s your scorecard on this one? You really shouldn’t feel too bad about Alexandra Hill beating you like a dirty rug in New Jersey– an empty chair could’ve beaten the case you showed up with. It’s not your fault your case was so weak. Oh, wait, that was entirely your fault. Sorry!

  288. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Court in Wong knew the difference, stated that difference, and held that he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth which is the same citizenship status that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizens parents have and which you say raises a question regarding whether they are “natural born Citizens.”

    And not satisfied with beating the dead horse of birther arguments, for an encore, Mario whips out the “14th Amendment Citizenship” argument that courts have been calling frivolous since tax protesters and white supremecists first whipped them out 20 years ago. What could be next in the Mario parade of long debunked junk law? Perhaps something about the gold fringe on the flag? Maybe something about the Federal Government being a corporation, and not legitimate? Heck go for broke and whip out the New World Order with a side of black helicopters!

  289. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoeZeppy, he just has no where to go. So he just keeps repeating how some lower courts have decided it all already. Too bad that he does not have his own argument which shows that he is correct.

    Ummm…..I don’t know how to break this to you…..but the argument of, “every single court in the country that has heard this argument has ruled the exact same way” and actually being truthful when saying that, will win 99 out of a 100 times (and that one time will be when the SCOTUS reverses itself).

    I don’t need “my own argument” to show I am correct. I have every court that has had to deal with your ilk behind me. And all of your denials and false bravado can’t change that.

    but hey, now you’re teaming up with Orly….I’m sure that will be something to put in the Temple Law Alumni magazine.

  290. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Since you concede that the only case that you rely upon is Wong Kim Ark, please provide the holding of the Court which supports your thesis that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents. I need an actual quote of the holding and not what your interpretation of some language is.

    I think the Indiana Court of Appeals states it very succinctly- now grant you I am not a highly respected and trained lawyer like yourself but I believe the Appellate Court Justices of Indiana have some gravitas in this matter:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    Regardless of your dancing around about the Supreme Court not ruling- actual competant legal experts have stated their opinion here.

    And no competant legal expert supports your wacky theory

  291. Northland10 says:

    Keith:
    A few questions to ponder:

    Is a “round circle” different than a “circle”?
    Is “black ebony” darker than “ebony”?
    Is a “legless snake” skinner than a “snake”?
    Is it better to “successfully complete a marathon” than to “complete a marathon”?
    Is a “deadly fatal accident” more tragic than a “fatal accident”?
    Is a “natural born citizen” more of a citizen than a “born citizen”?

    Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

  292. Scientist says:

    Mario-Where is any holding by the Supreme Court that says they have the power to overturn an election? You seem to believe they have unlimited power. Wisely, the Justices are more modest regarding their non-magical abilities.

    When somene is elected President and confirmed by Congress, then, by definition, they meet the requirements to be President. We hold that truth to be self-evident.

  293. Dave B. says:

    Northland10: Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

    Now see, I’d been wondering about that. I’d thought there might be the barest glimmer of a chance that our Mario Apuzzo, Esq. here was just somebody trying to make the real Mario look like even more of a lackwit dullard than he is. It appears I misunderestimated him.

  294. I read Apuzzo’s stuff from time to time, but I haven’t seen it. He writes so much it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, if there were really a case on point, I’m sure I would have heard about it by now.

    Scientist: Where is a court case saying that you must have “citizen” parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen?

  295. That’s the fallacy of false equivalence. Saying that two people are both “citizens at birth” is not necessarily the same thing as their having the same status vis-a-vis eligibility to be President. Come on, that is a standard logical fallacy. At least you could try to be more inventive.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not arguing that Wong was not a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, I am arguing that he was not a “natural born Citizen” The Court in Wong knew the difference, stated that difference, and held that he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth which is the same citizenship status that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizens parents have and which you say raises a question regarding whether they are “natural born Citizens.” So do not try to inflame the argument with your race baiting

  296. I think that Mario is saying that the Supreme Court has not addressed the question of presidential eligibility, and therefore he could well remain in denial for the rest of his life. Even if the Supreme Court did layout a very clear definition of NBC, say in a case involving a foreign-born candidate, Mario could still say that they refused to address each and every argument that he made in his own failed cases.

    The essence of birtherism is denial. I don’t see how Mario could ever achieve clarity, nor how one could actually argue with such a person, any more than with a sign on a fence post.

    JoZeppy: And as for the courts having decided it already….well, fact of the matter is they have. The whole point of bring a suit, and arguing before a court is to convince them you are right. Something you and your kin have universally failed to do. So the fact that you have a 100% failure rate isn’t some minor technicality to sweep aside, it’s a complete and crushing defeat of your arguments. The courts are the final word on the law, and they have said you’re full of bunk. What more can any person here, even if that person was Lawrence Tribe, add to the discussion when the courts have been so clear and unambiguous?

  297. Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom videos from the Purpura case with the mean-spirited mountebank that posts here. Who knows, maybe it’s really Kerchner posting here under Apuzzo’s name.

    Northland10: Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

  298. Scientist says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think that Mario is saying that the Supreme Court has not addressed the question of presidential eligibility

    In the law, one always starts with a presumption, a default position. Innocent, until proven guilty, for example. On presidential eligibility, the only possible presumption or default position is that someone elected by the people, validated by Congress, and sitting in the White House is eligible until ruled otherwise. If the presumption or default were that they were ineligible until the Supreme Court ruled them eligible, then none of the 44 were eligible.

  299. Paper says:

    We’ve been around this point before. You are making something up and claiming it is real; it is not. Your distinction and parsing of words is meritless. You have nothing that demonstrates parentage of children born here matters to NBC, despite your claims. Misreading, misquoting and making stuff up is meritless.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    You said:“The citizenship of parents is irrelevant for all children born in America (barring the extremely few exceptions endlessly pointed out already).”Here, you conflate a “natural born Citizen” with a “citizen of the United States.” The citizenship of parents is not relevant for those who are born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which the Fourteenth Amendment defines as “citizens of the United States.”But the citizenship of parents is very relevant for anyone born in the United States who wants to be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” because according to the prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” one must be born in the country to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

  300. Dr. Conspiracy: Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom videos from the Purpura case with the mean-spirited mountebank that posts here. Who knows, maybe it’s really Kerchner posting here under Apuzzo’s name.

    You can pretend all you want, but I know that you are as phony as a three dollar bill.

  301. Keith: A few questions to ponder:Is a “round circle” different than a “circle”?Is “black ebony” darker than “ebony”?Is a “legless snake” skinner than a “snake”?Is it better to “successfully complete a marathon” than to “complete a marathon”?Is a “deadly fatal accident” more tragic than a “fatal accident”?Is a “natural born citizen” more of a citizen than a “born citizen”?

    Your point does not work. You give various examples of redundancies and then throw “natural born Citizen” among the mix to try to prove that “natural born Citizen” is also a redundancy of “born citizen.” But there is a fundamental problem with your argument. The Founders and Framers chose “natural born Citizen” and not “born citizen” for a purpose. They did not want to give Congress the power to change its meaning as it may wish at any given time. Hence, unlike how they potentially foresaw the loose and ever changing “citizen of the United States,” they put a “natural born Citizen” beyond Congress’s naturalization powers to alter. Also, the former had a greater allegiance requirement than did the latter. So, “natural born Citizen,” is not a redundancy of “born citizen,” for there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen,” and a “born citizen.”

    I have long argued that the Obots want to erase that pesky “natural” out of “natural born Citizen” and you have just proven my point.

  302. Dr. Conspiracy: Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom

    Mario is not the mouse that roared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, “natural born Citizen,” is not a redundancy of “born citizen,” for there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen,” and a “born citizen.”

    Do you really believe anyone here thinks you are sane?

    BTW, I read your comment that I am a communist. “Communist” and “Glenn Beck” each have nine letters. Coincidence?

  303. Dr. Conspiracy: At least you could try to be more inventive.

    He’s plenty inventive when defending a DWI client.

  304. Dave B. says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well, you would never equate that little mouse in the courtroom videos from the Purpura case with the mean-spirited mountebank that posts here.

    That’s a truly remarkable transformation, isn’t it? I wonder what Nick Purpura was thinking while his attorney was getting his head handed to him in that hearing. Mario, how did that hearing turn out again? What was it Judge Masin said about your position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen”?

  305. Dave B,

    We all felt real good in that court room like we are feeling right now taking pleasure in me handing you and your Obot buddies your heads with everyone of your lame comments.

  306. Dr. Conspiracy: That’s the fallacy of false equivalence. Saying that two people are both “citizens at birth” is not necessarily the same thing as their having the same status vis-a-vis eligibility to be President. Come on, that is a standard logical fallacy. At least you could try to be more inventive.

    Making stuff up are we? Where do you get your constitutional distinction between a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment and a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under a Congressional statute, such that the former is eligible to be President and the latter is not?

  307. Dave B. says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We all felt real good in that court room like we are feeling right now

    And then what happened?
    What good is a lawyer who gets his plow cleaned in court and thinks he can make up for it by posting the same lame arguments on the internet (with some exceptionally inane banter thrown in for good measure)? Are you familiar with the quaint expression “where the rubber meets the road”? And what exactly was it that Judge Masin said about your position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen”?

  308. Poor Dave B, when he is on his own debating on the internet he thinks he is in some other place in some other time where the current arguments were not even addressed in the first place. He surely can’t fight is own battles but expects others to do so for him from some other time and place. Poor soul.

  309. Dave B. says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Dave B, when he is on his own debating on the internet he thinks he is in some other place in some other time where the current arguments were not even addressed in the first place.

    Huh?

  310. Paper says:

    Incorrect yet again. You are misreading the word natural-born. Your interpretations of the language are flawed.

    Natural in this configuration means integral to birth, that it is inherently part of one’s nature at birth, inalienable even. Do a search on any term involving “natural-born.” Natural born musician, natural born kisser, natural born leader. It goes on and on. Used over and over in the language. We don’t just say Birn kisser, born leader. We add emphasis and a distinction of natural, as inseparable from and inherent to one’s nature.

    The reason why there is some question about citizens born citizens but abroad is because their citizenship at birth depends upon laws that change. I may argue that once an individual is born a citizen, no matter where, that they are natural-born, but regardless, all citizens born here are natural-born. Their citizenship is inherent, inalienable and natural. (As akin to natural rights that are not dependent upon law.) congress can do nothing about their citizenship. They can, however, impact citizenship of those born abroad, at least George they are born.

    Citizenship of those born here is not changeable, despite your assertion. *All* such citizens are beyond Congress and its naturalization powers.

    Your distinction is spurious.

    Indeed, rather than erasing “natural,” I myself embrace it. The word “natural” highlights your error, as there have never been any citizens born here whose citizenship was alienable. Parentage has not had any impact on that inalienability.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Your point does not work.You give various examples of redundancies and then throw “natural born Citizen” among the mix to try to prove that “natural born Citizen” is also a redundancy of “born citizen.”But there is a fundamental problem with your argument.The Founders and Framers chose “natural born Citizen” and not “born citizen” for a purpose.They did not want to give Congress the power to change its meaning as it may wish at any given time.Hence, unlike how they potentially foresaw the loose and ever changing “citizen of the United States,” they put a “natural born Citizen” beyond Congress’s naturalization powers to alter.Also, the former had a greater allegiance requirement than did the latter.So, “natural born Citizen,” is not a redundancy of “born citizen,” for there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen,” and a “born citizen.”

    I have long argued that the Obots want to erase that pesky “natural” out of “natural born Citizen”and you have just proven my point.

  311. JPotter says:

    BAD KITTY FOR PRESIDENT

    Finally! A civics text les birfers can relate to!

    Bad kitty, irritated to no end by the encroachment of Stray Cats into her neighborhood, decides to run for President of the Neighborhood Cat Club …. so she can decree that all Stray Cats be thrown into an active volcano.

    In the end … well, you’ll just have to read it for yourself.

    In the back, right there in the glossary, is a definition of “native-born citizen”. The Putz may find it instructive.

  312. Paper says:

    Despite all your continual digs at various commenters, your assertions about citizenship remain meritless. Your various dominance games are irrelevant.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    [random boilerplate insult, taunt]

  313. Dave B. says:

    Paper: Your various dominance games are irrelevant.

    Not to mention singularly inept!

  314. JPotter says:

    Northland10: Is Mario-Apuzzo: Esq a “real” person?

    I have pondered the shape of his melon. It ain’t natural.

  315. Sudoku says:

    Clearly, Mario needs Doc and the commenters here to fulfill his….life? Arguments? Existence?

    I don’t know for sure, but whatever it is, Mario needs Doc.

  316. Keith says:

    Paper: The reason why there is some question about citizens born citizens but abroad is because their citizenship at birth depends upon laws that change. I may argue that once an individual is born a citizen, no matter where, that they are natural-born, but regardless, all citizens born here are natural-born. Their citizenship is inherent, inalienable and natural. (As akin to natural rights that are not dependent upon law.) congress can do nothing about their citizenship. They can, however, impact citizenship of those born abroad, at least George they are born.

    Spot on. Well said.

  317. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: he was only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”

    I can’t believe he went there. Talk about giving the game away. Thanks for confirming the sources of your “intellectual property.”

  318. Sudoku says:

    Intellectual? I love it! You are such a card!

    JPotter: I can’t believe he went there. Talk about giving the game away. Thanks for confirming the sources of your “intellectual property.”

  319. LW says:

    JoZeppy: What could be next in the Mario parade of long debunked junk law?

    I’m hoping for “signing contracts with red crayon,” myself.

  320. bovril says:

    There’s a name for someone who gets beaten again and again and who’s only response is “please sir can I have some more….”

    So, Mendax Mario, since you have never, ever won a birthers case in life and in point of fact each and ever of your” arguments” have all been rejected by the courts throughout the USA, how do equate your fails with ” winning”?

    Seriously, every single one of your asinine theories has been shown to be ineffective, illogical, fact free, without standing or basis in law or the constitution.

    You have no supporting case law that is accepted as what you want it to be

    Your ideas are in fact so value free that the court threatened you with sanctions.

    So, either you

    Are a pathological liar
    Suffering from battered wife syndrome
    An intellectual, ethical and moral vacuum
    A poorly closeted masochist
    Some or all of the above

    What did your last psychological evaluation state?

  321. Lupin says:

    bovril: So, either you

    Are a pathological liar
    Suffering from battered wife syndrome
    An intellectual, ethical and moral vacuum
    A poorly closeted masochist
    Some or all of the above

    This is really the crux of the matter.

    Mario’s legal lucubrations are the equivalent of the French taunts of King Arthur in MONTY PYTHON & THE HOLY GRAIL (“We already have one,” “I fart in your general direction,’ etc.) and therefore of no interest whatsoever.

    I’ve been saying lately that the paradigm of this new century is “Idiots or liars?”

    Is Mario a delusional fool, the suit & tie equivalent of the guy standing on a soap box on Hyde Park Corner in London haranguing about the Freemason conspiracy and the End of the World? Or is he a crafty, meretricious, ethics-free sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

    I wish I could figure it out.

  322. Dave B. says:

    Lupin: Is Mario a delusional fool, the suit & tie equivalent of the guy standing on a soap box on Hyde Park Corner in London haranguing about the Freemason conspiracy and the End of the World? Or is he a crafty, meretricious, ethics-free sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

    Or is he an ethics-free delusional fool sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

  323. Paper says:

    He suffers a worse judgement than having his character scrutinized: his arguments are meritless no matter how he contorts them.

    He clearly cares nothing about how people think of his character. Good enough. He doesn’t care, I don’t care. No need to play distracting power games that are meaningless.

    Because in terms of real power, or just in terms of what he demonstrably cares about, his arguments, those arguments, unfortunately for his case, are meritless.

    Dave B.: Or is he an ethics-free delusional fool sock puppet propagandist for the right wing?

  324. Paper: Incorrect yet again. You are misreading the word natural-born. Your interpretations of the language are flawed.Natural in this configuration means integral to birth, that it is inherently part of one’s nature at birth, inalienable even. Do a search on any term involving “natural-born.” Natural born musician, natural born kisser, natural born leader. It goes on and on. Used over and over in the language. We don’t just say Birn kisser, born leader. We add emphasis and a distinction of natural, as inseparable from and inherent to one’s nature.The reason why there is some question about citizens born citizens but abroad is because their citizenship at birth depends upon laws that change. I may argue that once an individual is born a citizen, no matter where, that they are natural-born, but regardless, all citizens born here are natural-born. Their citizenship is inherent, inalienable and natural. (As akin to natural rights that are not dependent upon law.) congress can do nothing about their citizenship. They can, however, impact citizenship of those born abroad, at least George they are born. Citizenship of those born here is not changeable, despite your assertion. *All* such citizens are beyond Congress and its naturalization powers.Your distinction is spurious.Indeed, rather than erasing “natural,” I myself embrace it. The word “natural” highlights your error, as there have never been any citizens born here whose citizenship was alienable. Parentage has not had any impact on that inalienability.

    You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen” under Article II, being “natural born,” enjoys absolute immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers. A “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment also enjoys immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers, but only to the extent that it may be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress cannot under Section 5 of that amendment enforce what a “citizen of the United States” is by defining what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. In any event, that both classes of born “citizens,” who are both born on U.S. soil, enjoy that immunity does not mean that the two citizenship statuses are constitutionally equivalent.

  325. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”

    Oh, look who’s back! Hard to conflate an entity with itself. Hey, could you please comment on Coleman’s commentary on “The Idiocy of ‘Instant’ Citizenship”? If you need help finding it, just ask. Go ahead, feign unfamiliarity.

  326. JPotter: Oh, look who’s back! Hard to conflate an entity with itself. Hey, could you please comment on Coleman’s commentary on “The Idiocy of ‘Instant’ Citizenship”? If you need help finding it, just ask. Go ahead, feign unfamiliarity.

    You believe that it is “[h]ard to conflate an entity with itself.” So you actual admit that you do not see a difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    Additionally, are you saying that anyone to whom Congress may offer “instant citizenship” is an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

  327. Ah so Mario Apuzzo is back. I wanted to congratulate him on working with Orly Taitz. The partnership of the two worst attorneys in the entire country should make for much amusement. I completely approve of the marriage.

  328. And you are begging the question by assuming a definition of natural born citizen which is rejected by most legal scholars.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen” under Article II, being “natural born,” enjoys absolute immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers.

  329. nbc says:

    How many courts have now explicitly rejected Mario’s musings? The last one called it at best an interesting academic exercise

    Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.

    And this court…

    Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.

    Mario is getting exactly the respect his arguments deserve 🙂

  330. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you actual admit that you do not see a difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    I do see the difference. “Citizen of the United States” specifies one particular country-the US. “Natural born Citizen” does not. So, under Article II you could be a natural born citizen of the Netherlands, or Thailand or Bolivia and that would be OK.

    You should try to present this more clearly so that judges understand this point.

  331. Reality Check: Ah so Mario Apuzzo is back. I wanted to congratulate him on working with Orly Taitz. The partnership of the two worst attorneys in the entire country should make for much amusement. I completely approve of the marriage.

    Professor, you are the one who is back. Do you not have some exams to correct?

  332. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you actual admit that you do not see a difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.

    Unless they are from Mars, there is no difference.

    You and your ilk are stuck with Obama, just like we had to put up with Shrub.

  333. Dr. Conspiracy: And you are begging the question by assuming a definition of natural born citizen which is rejected by most legal scholars.

    I am not begging anything. I have demonstrated why my position is correct, something which you have not done.

  334. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you not have some exams to correct?

    Do you not have the town drunk to defend?

  335. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have demonstrated why my position is correct.

    Only to the other asylum inmates.

  336. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not begging anything.

    You beg juries to acquit clients who are a danger to the commonweal.

  337. Scientist: So, under Article II you could be a natural born citizen of the Netherlands, or Thailand or Bolivia and that would be OK.

    Or Mars – just like Mario.

  338. nbc: How many courts have now explicitly rejected Mario’s musings? The last one called it at best an interesting academic exerciseAnd this court…Mario is getting exactly the respect his arguments deserve

    Saying an argument is “academic only” without addressing it does not demonstrate that the argument is wrong.

    Simply saying an argument is “without merit” without showing how does not demonstrate how the argument is without merit.

  339. misha marinsky: Do you not have the town drunk to defend?

    Do you not have some poor peasant or some member of the intelligentsia to kill?

  340. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not begging anything. I have demonstrated why my position is correct, something which you have not done.

    I agree your position is “correct”. “Natural born ciitizen” and “citizen of the United States” are indeed different, since “”natual born citizen” does not specify any particular country.

    That is what you have been arguing, but in 4 years you never said so clearly, as I just did.

    I also agree with you that Barack Obama should be not be on the 2016 ballot.

  341. Paper says:

    This is your error. Your made-up definition is meritless.

    I noted the inalienability of citizenship to point out that that is the natural (and key) sense of the word “natural” in this usage. Not born of two citizen parents. Just merely on the level of basic English. A natural born musician, for example, may or may not have musician parents.

    To play your game, moreover, I just note that even if there were such a distinction as you would invent, it would remain merely a distinction between two different kinds of natural born citizenship, where the distinction is as meaningless as that between natural born citizens born in different states. It matters not what state you are born in; it matters not who your parents are.

    In terms of the exceptions, you will note as well that children of diplomats and others not subject to our jurisdiction were not natural born citizens even before the 14th Amendment.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are again conflating and confounding an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”A “natural born Citizen” under Article II, being “natural born,” enjoys absolute immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers.A “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment also enjoys immunity from Congress’s naturalization powers, but only to the extent that it may be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress cannot under Section 5 of that amendment enforce what a “citizen of the United States” is by defining what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.In any event, that both classes of born “citizens,” who are both born on U.S. soil, enjoy that immunity does not mean that the two citizenship statuses are constitutionally equivalent.

  342. misha marinsky: Only to the other asylum inmates.

    I’m sure you know a lot about asylums.

  343. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you not have some poor peasant or some member of the intelligentsia to kill?

    Huh? Did you mean some poor pheasant?

  344. Paper: This is your error. Your made-up definition is meritless.I noted the inalienability of citizenship to point out that that is the natural (and key) sense of the word “natural” in this usage. Not born of two citizen parents. Just merely on the level of basic English. A natural born musician, for example, may or may not have musician parents.To play your game, moreover, I just note that even if there were such a distinction as you would invent, it would remain merely a distinction between two different kinds of natural born citizenship, where the distinction is as meaningless as that between natural born citizens born in different states. It matters not what state you are born in; it matters not who your parents are. In terms of the exceptions, you will note as well that children of diplomats and others not subject to our jurisdiction were not natural born citizens even before the 14th Amendment.

    Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

  345. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’m sure you know a lot about asylums.

    My grandmother died in Gowanda State Hospital. She was saved by being hidden in a trunk in an attic, and went mad from it.

  346. misha marinsky: Huh? Did you mean some poor pheasant?

    No, your kind killed peasants, not pheasants.

  347. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Additionally, are you saying that anyone to whom Congress may offer “instant citizenship” is an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

    No, I am asking you to comment on a specific article by a specific writer. I know specifics are hard for you, but you might like this one. Need help finding it, if we pretend you are unfamiliar?

  348. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    QotD!

    Got to get an extinguisher going in the metering room …. !

  349. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: No, your kind killed peasants, not pheasants.

    Considering the kibbutzim did everything they could for Arab civil rights, I doubt it.

  350. misha marinsky: My grandmother died in Gowanda State Hospital. She was saved by being hidden in a trunk in an attic, and went mad from it.

    I can see that your grandmother’s harrowing experience has had a psychological effect on you.

  351. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    Yes it does. Unless everyone agrees on a definition arguments are meaningless. Try arguing whether “glafrithy” is good or bad. It’s absurd unless you first define what “glafrithy” means.

  352. JPotter: No, I am asking you to comment on a specific article by a specific writer. I know specifics are hard for you, but you might like this one. Need help finding it, if we pretend you are unfamiliar?

    Provide the article link. I will read it and give you my thoughts.

  353. Paper says:

    Incorrect, you have not.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not begging anything.I have demonstrated why my position is correct…

  354. Paper: Incorrect, you have not.

    So, we can agree that you have one position and I have another.

  355. Paper says:

    Exactly. Which is why your argument is a failure.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

  356. Paper: Exactly. Which is why your argument is a failure.

    It is my opinion that I have demonstrated my argument to be correct. It is also my opinion that you have not demonstrated that your argument is correct. So, I can say the same thing that you say about my argument, that your argument is a failure.

  357. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Provide the article link.I will read it and give you my thoughts.

    Well, it’s from 1999. Was published for Kindle in 2010. You can preview Coleman’s musings on Constitutional matters at Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Should-United-States-Constitution-Rights/dp/1893157032/ref=tmm_hrd_title_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1354492121&sr=8-1

    The section on “instant citizenship” starts on p. 34. Use the search feature to jump tight to it.

  358. Paper says:

    Yes. The difference is yours is a failure. I do not mean defeat. Not admitting defeat is even admirable in some contexts. You’ve got that down cold. But failure is different. Failure persists, until you let it go.

    Despite your assertions, you have done nothing but merely make up your own definition. You have not demonstrated your position as being correct, no matter how much you say you have.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, we can agree that you have one position and I have another.

  359. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, we can agree that you have one position and I have another.

    And yours has been rejected by various courts already…. His, not so much…

    ROTFL….

    The difference between wishful thinking on your part and a well reasoned analysis of the history and relevant court cases by et al

  360. Scientist: Yes it does. Unless everyone agrees on a definition arguments are meaningless. Try arguing whether “glafrithy” is good or bad. It’s absurd unless you first define what “glafrithy” means.

    Minor v. Happersett (1875) held:

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

    Minor at 167-68. So the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defined who at common law, after the original citizens came into being, were not only the “citizens” but also the “natural-born citizens.” That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expanded who were the “citizens” by also including children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

  361. nbc says:

    Saying an argument is “academic only” without addressing it does not demonstrate that the argument is wrong.

    No it does not but anyone can figure out where you went wrong. So the Court believes that it need not spell out the obvious…

    Again, you have little more on your side than an appeal to your personal opinion.

    Good luck with that one my friend.

    And good luck hooking up with Orly. The two of you deserve each other.

  362. nbc says:

    Happersett states that it need not address the status of children born to foreigners. Wong Kim Ark did.

    Still pretending not to understand? Fascinating denial my friend. Does it not hurt to be remembered for your ill fated position on Natural Born Citizenship?

    In official court cases nonetheless…

    Priceless

  363. nbc: Happersett states that it need not address the status of children born to foreigners. Wong Kim Ark did.Still pretending not to understand? Fascinating denial my friend. Does it not hurt to be remembered for your ill fated position on Natural Born Citizenship?In official court cases nonetheless…Priceless

    You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation and what they wrote in the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility. I cannot say that you and your Gang of Five can say the same.

  364. nbc: And yours has been rejected by various courts already…. His, not so much…ROTFL….The difference between wishful thinking on your part and a well reasoned analysis of the history and relevant court cases by et al

    Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any state Supreme Court has demonstrated my argument to be incorrect.

  365. Paper says:

    And here you go, proving once again that you indeed do make up your own definition.

    Again…

    Minor, extremely clearly, points to one tree in the forest and says that tree is a tree; the rest of the forest may be full of trees, too, but we don’t have to worry about that here and now. It is sufficient here to say maple trees are clearly trees.

    Minor does *not* define trees as maple trees. Minor does not *define* natural born citizenship. It just points to one class as being clearly included.

    Your argument, thus, has no merit. Demonstrably.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett (1875) held:

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

    Minor at 167-68. So the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defined who at common law, after the original citizens came into being, were not only the “citizens” but also the “natural-born citizens.”That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expanded who were the “citizens” by also including children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

  366. Paper: And here you go, proving once again that you indeed do make up your own definition. Again…Minor, extremely clearly, points to one tree in the forest and says that tree is a tree; the rest of the forest may be full of trees, too, but we don’t have to worry about that here and now. It is sufficient here to say maple trees are clearly trees. Minor does *not* define trees as maple trees. Minor does not *define* natural born citizenship. It just points to one class as being clearly included.Your argument, thus, has no merit. Demonstrably.

    You really are dense. A “natural born Citizen” does not have subsets like animals, trees, plants, cars, etc. There is only one “natural born Citizen” and Minor defined one.

  367. Paper says:

    But we have.

    And others have.

    Your failures are basic and obvious. They cannot survive attention much less scrutiny. They will persist in whatever venue.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any state Supreme Court has demonstrated my argument to be incorrect.

  368. Paper says:

    Insults. Yawn.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You really are dense.A “natural born Citizen” does not have subsets like animals, trees, plants, cars, etc.There is only one “natural born Citizen” and Minor defined one.

  369. Paper says:

    Clearly and obviously, this is incorrect.

    But even by your own style of analysis, Minor only says that they themselves are “citizens.” It doesn’t say they are “natural-born citizens.”

    Never mind the beginning of the paragraph. Just as you ignore how Minor clearly qualifies its statement about only speaking to a *part* of the definition and specifically says not the whole definition.

    You are failing at basic English, never mind legal analysis. You will never be able to sneak around this point.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You really are dense.A “natural born Citizen” does not have subsets like animals, trees, plants, cars, etc.There is only one “natural born Citizen” and Minor defined one.

  370. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There is only one “natural born Citizen”

    Uh-oh … who ya gonna go with …. assuming you mean there was one one NBC, ever?

    Nah, that would be silly, right? Surely you mean that there is only one natural born citizen at a time. And how do we know who it is? Because they’ve been inaugurated as President! If tehy weren’t NBC, that would be impossible!

    Hmm, oh, shucky-darn, those pesky Vice-Presidents. SO, like, there’s only one NBC at a time, and a standby just in case? Should the current NBC meet an untimely demise, the mantle of NBC-ship transfers, mystically, through the totem of bible, in the hands of a representative of the Constitutional-priest caste, the Federal judiciary?

    Think of LBJ on the plane in Dallas while watching this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5sQBXvSLfQ

    Man, that’s just beautiful Mario. Thanks for opening my eyes.

  371. Paper says:

    But even in Minor they didn’t become natural born citizens. They merely became “citizens.” By your own way of reading. I mean, they talk about natural born citizenship, but then in the end just say:

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

    See? “Citizens.” Just like you type it. Citizens. Children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves “citizens.”

    The court’s just saying we can talk about natural born citizens, but you know what, no need, it’s sufficient that they are citizens, we don’t need to worry about whether or not they are natural born.

    I mean, that is how you analyze things.

    Never mind that this paragraph, and the rest of Minr, makes no sense linguistically if you do not “conflate” (to use your term) or use citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have just called them “citizens” in that last sentence of the paragraph, and elsewhere there.

    What, you say? But it is understood they meant natural born? Exactly. Thus ends your 14th Amendment citizen distinction, which never existed anyway.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it.Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

  372. bovril says:

    Mendax Mario,

    One is curious, other than pure masochistic self abuse, why oh why do you persist in this sad little set of lies and particularly on sites such as this where your normal Stalinist censoring is not in effect?

    Your pathetic ideas and personal opinions have all been laughed out of court on multiple occasions, you have teetered on formal sanctions repeatedly, are regarded as a laughably inept pretend lawyer and has had each of your voluminous and fact free diatribes picked
    apart as the nonsense they are.

    You lose to very junior associates, the entire thesis of your nonsense bears no resemblance to the legal framework in this country and is profoundly anti constitutional.

    You and you fellow traveler ilk have posited junk legal theory which is and has been rejected on every occasion it has entered the courts

    To cap it all you are now getting into bed with truly the worst lawyer in the Western world. You are aware of her profoundly insane methods and how she will turn on her supporters at the drop of a hat?

    I do trust you can cast your mind back to your days at Temple and remember as a putative officer of the court that there are ethical canons and requirements if, when acting as co- counsel, you are aware of the unethical actions of your partner in crime.

    I would suggest you have a look at the current mad old Orly v Leah Lax cat fight if I were you.

    This is the first and only piece of friendly advice I will ever give you Mario, i personally find you a nasty childish piece of work but even you I would not wish to be seen in the company of that woman.

  373. Lupin says:

    bovril: One is curious, other than pure masochistic self abuse, why oh why do you persist in this sad little set of lies and particularly on sites such as this where your normal Stalinist censoring is not in effect?

    Indeed. As I said it boils down to “idiot or liar”?

    My money is on “liar” but I could be wrong.

    ps: FWIW I think Atrios first coined the “idiot or liar” meme.

  374. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    That is a fatuous argument. They didn’t ‘go on’ to become anything. They always were.

    Yes they are “Citizens”, and the kind of “Citizens” they are is “Natural Born Citizens”. That is the only possibility, since the only other option is “Naturalized Citizens” and they are demonstrably not that.

    The Governments argument in WKA even specifically said that if WKA was found to be a Citizen, then he would, in fact, be a natural born citizen, eligible to be President. They used that argument because that was the only possible outcome: IF (WKA = ‘citizen’ of any kind) THEN (WKA = ‘natural born citizen’).That was the whole point of the case – it was the intention of Congress that the Chinese Exclusion acts were meant to exclude Chinese from citizenship so how could WKA be allowed to be a citizen and eligible to be President to boot?

    The Government recognized this fact, because unlike you, it understood that “Naturalized” means “Made Natural”, and the opposite of “Made Natural” is “Born Natural”. Thus you can be made a citizen, or you can be born a citizen, period.

    The two citizenship categories are “Natural Made Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”. That’s all there is to it Mario.

    As the saying goes, you are welcome to your own opinion, but you are not welcome to your own facts.

    You cannot and will not succeed in using President Obama as a stalking horse to promote your nationalist fantasy of creating wedges between Americans in order to cling to the your old comfortable status quo faux-utopia. America rejected the ideas behind the Chinese Exclusion Act, and it will not return to it.

    That ship has sailed, Mario. Live with it.

  375. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it.Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation and what they wrote in the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility.I cannot say that you and your Gang of Five can say the same.

    You can always tell when moron Marion has lost a case really, Really REALLY bad in the courts. He comes here and tries to convince us of the foolishness he could nerve manage to convince a court of.

    Of course he’s got as much chance of convincing sane people to adopt his insanity as he does of winning a court case. Kind of makes you wonder why he wastes his time?

  376. bovril says:

    So,

    Mendax Mario start his drivel at 20:00 on this Sunday night, then we had a batch over an 8 hour period the previous Saturday etc etc.

    Looking at the time lines, it appears we have a combination of Mario as “Nobby no mates” and sad loner syndrome, possibly fuelled by the consumption of TV Dinner for one and alcohol alone at home.

    My God, we’re the closest Mario has to friends !!!

    It all becomes clearer now, the poor chap is a shut in, limited social interactions, limited to no social life, day consumed by repetitive, compulsive, value free OCD behaviour, only substantial interaction is virtual.

    If I had a heart I would suggest we should call the Division of Addictions and Mental Health Planning for Middlesex County or the Middlesex County of Social Sercices Adult Protective Servioces section and ask them to look in on Mario.

  377. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation

    It is long past time that everyone on both sides stopped bowing and scraping before those deeply flawed “Founders and Framers”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html?src=me&ref=general

    Those alive today would do much better to act like grown ups and decide for themselves what works in today’s world rather than delegating that task to a bunch of dead guys who had their own problems while they were alive.

  378. Scientist: It is long past time that everyone on both sides stopped bowing and scraping before those deeply flawed “Founders and Framers”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html

    I read the article before you linked to it.

    They had feet of clay, just like everyone else.

  379. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I can see that your grandmother’s harrowing experience has had a psychological effect on you.

    The blood of your clients’ victims, is on your hands.

  380. Lupin says:

    Keith: You cannot and will not succeed in using President Obama as a stalking horse to promote your nationalist fantasy of creating wedges between Americans in order to cling to the your old comfortable status quo faux-utopia. America rejected the ideas behind the Chinese Exclusion Act, and it will not return to it.

    Bravo!!!!!!!!!

  381. Lupin says:

    bovril: It all becomes clearer now, the poor chap is a shut in, limited social interactions, limited to no social life, day consumed by repetitive, compulsive, value free OCD behaviour, only substantial interaction is virtual.

    I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

  382. Northland10 says:

    Given his timing here and elsewhere, I have wondered the same.

    I will grant Mario one thing. If he is intent on others understanding the concept of citizenship in a historical sense he has succeeded. Partly, in response to his statements, I have learned a great deal. I have learned how wrong he is but I still learned.

    Lupin: I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

  383. bovril says:

    Well, its plain that he never ACTUALLY learns anything and his “arguments” are identical to the ones he’s used over at least the last 2-3 years.

    The only thing he’s added is an every expanding corpus of copy ‘n paste snippets of nonsense that he believes supports his guano insane personal beliefs, even though they have all been pulled apart on innumerable occassions.

    Basically he has a personal conclusion and everything must be made to support the conclusion….

    Nicholas Chauvin anyone…. 😎

  384. JPotter says:

    Lupin: I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

    Use random people online to prepare for facing a live judge?

    Great tactical plan. Cheap, and you get what you paid for.

    I think he likes it here (online in general that is, not just OCT) because he’s allowed to ramble on forever, and can say what’s on his mind. In court, he can be objected to, silenced, and is on a clock. And he dare not pipe in with his classic one-line, wannabe-zingers, that we’ve all come to know and love here. Despite the repetition.

    I do have to apologize tho. I made a crack about the # of hits Mario’s handle pulls up here. Silly me, every time Google indexes OCT, it picks up the recent comments on the current version of every article is crawls. It’s a lot of boorishness, only the keeper of the database could quantify it.

  385. Keith says:

    Lupin: I have occasionally wondered if he uses you guys to rehearse his arguments.

    I have directly called him out on it a couple of times.

  386. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any state Supreme Court has demonstrated my argument to be incorrect.

    No…but they surely didn’t feel the need to disagree with the lower courts that determined your arguments have “no merit.”

    The end result is still the same. No court in the United States accepts your theories.

  387. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It is my opinion that I have demonstrated my argument to be correct. It is also my opinion that you have not demonstrated that your argument is correct. So, I can say the same thing that you say about my argument, that your argument is a failure.

    Ignoring the little details that no court has ever cited to Minor as the definition of Natural Born Citizenship, no court has every held that Wong was anything but a Natural Born Citizenship, and no court has ever held that the 14th Amendment created some new kind of citizen, and in fact has directly rejected that notion when argued by tax protesters and white supremicists.

    Besides those minor details, and any objective measure of what the actual law is, sure.

    If you are so confident in your theories Mario, why haven’t you published them in a respected law journal, like real legal scholars?

  388. JoZeppy: No…but they surely didn’t feel the need to disagree with the lower courts that determined your arguments have “no merit.”The end result is still the same. No court in the United States accepts your theories.

    You guys just love fallacious reasoning. To feel the need to disagree with a proposition is one thing, whether that proposition is correct is another.

  389. The Magic M says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys just love fallacious reasoning.

    Hey ambulance chaser, can I sue you for my irony meters blown up by that last comment? Can I get Orly to represent me pro hack shite?

  390. JoZeppy: Ignoring the little details that no court has ever cited to Minor as the definition of Natural Born Citizenship, no court has every held that Wong was anything but a Natural Born Citizenship, and no court has ever held that the 14th Amendment created some new kind of citizen, and in fact has directly rejected that notion when argued by tax protesters and white supremicists.Besides those minor details, and any objective measure of what the actual law is, sure.If you are so confident in your theories Mario, why haven’t you published them in a respected law journal, like real legal scholars?

    Come on! Your logic continues to seriously fail. No court has ever ruled that the United States landed on the moon, so therefore we did not land on the moon. Please, please.

    Also, spare me of your tax protesters and white supremacists. Sure, just set them up, easily dispose of them, and declare victory.

  391. Lupin says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys just love fallacious reasoning.

    Which reminds me: have you denied the charges that you are somehow connected to the Ku Klux Klan following your appearance on the Momma E radio show just 4 days after the Klan’s national membership director?

  392. bovril says:

    Come on Mendax Mario, tell us the REAL reason you have jumped into the bed of thistles that is Mad Old Orly World.

  393. donna says:

    Lupin:

    perhaps you can get mario to issue the correct translation of the french “les parents”

  394. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys just love fallacious reasoning. To feel the need to disagree with a proposition is one thing, whether that proposition is correct is another.

    In our legal system, the courts are the final arbiters of what the law is. You in fact try to prove your proposition by citing to the opinions of the courts. The fact that no court has ever cited to those same opnions for the propositions you make, and in fact have said that doing so constitutes a frivolous argument says something. Just because your mommy may have told you that your opinion is equally valid to everyone elses doesn’t make it so. Sometimes, you are flat wrong, and to call you out on your bat ass crazy theories that have been universially rejected by the courts is a perfectly fine thing to do.

  395. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Come on! Your logic continues to seriously fail. No court has ever ruled that the United States landed on the moon, so therefore we did not land on the moon. Please, please.

    As far as I know, the question has never been before a court. However, the courts have addressed the question of natural born citizenship many times…and any guesses how they have ruled each and every time….speaking of logic continuing to serious fail.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Also, spare me of your tax protesters and white supremacists. Sure, just set them up, easily dispose of them, and declare victory.

    Perhaps if you don’t want to be lumped in with them, you shouldn’t adopt their 14th Amendment Citizenship argument that the courts have been rejecting for decades. Seriously Mario, you’re not even original enough to come up with your own junk law arguments, all you do is steal the frivolous arguments of others. For all your bluster, one would think you came up with these arguments yourself rather than cribbing from other hacks and rejects.

  396. Thomas Brown says:

    Fascinating how Mario “Serial Failure” Apuzzo pays scant attention to all the other articles, but seems obsessed with the one on Birther Racism.

    Hit a little close to home, eh, Mario?

  397. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it.Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    I have no regrets about my taking a stand on the truth about what the Founders and Framers wanted for our nation and what they wrote in the Constitution regarding presidential eligibility.I cannot say that you and your Gang of Five can say the same.

    The Court in WKA is quite clear that such children became citizens and natural born citizens by virtue of their birth on soil. They spent all this time to outline the meaning of the term ‘natural born’… Perhaps you must have missed it. The other courts however did not miss this..

    Of course you have no regrets, as it is too late to undo these follies. You have only one choice now, pretending to be correct even though history, legal precedent and recent court rulings all show your argument to be ‘academic’ at best, academic and wrong.

    As I said, you and Orly would make for a lovely couple.

  398. dunstvangeet says:

    Hey, Mario…

    Look at your fallacious argument…

    Argument from ignorance – A informal fallacy where one asserts that something is true because it has not proven to be false.

    Again, you lecturing someone on fallacious argument is amusing.

  399. Thomas Brown says:

    It’s a fun passtime to spot the informal fallacies in Birther arguments… (try and collect them all!)

    The garbage argument that Mario uses the most, and the least tenable in court, is:

    Assuming Facts Not In Evidence. (c.f. the Pakistan Travel Ban, etc.)

  400. dunstvangeet says:

    Shifting the Burden (c.f. Obama must prove that he’s a Natural Born Citizen to my satisfaction. I don’t have to prove that he’s not.)

    There’s also the formal fallacies in Birther Arguments.

    Denying the Antecedant (c.f. If you’re born to 2 citizen parents on American Soil, then you’re a Natural Born Citizen. Obama is not born to 2 citizen parents on American Soil, therefore Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.)

  401. donna: Lupin:perhaps you can get mario to issue the correct translation of the french “les parents”

    Donna,

    Where have you been all this time? Did you not know that the U.S. Supreme Court did that already a very long time ago?

  402. JoZeppy: In our legal system, the courts are the final arbiters of what the law is. You in fact try to prove your proposition by citing to the opinions of the courts. The fact that no court has ever cited to those same opnions for the propositions you make, and in fact have said that doing so constitutes a frivolous argument says something. Just because your mommy may have told you that your opinion is equally valid to everyone elses doesn’t make it so. Sometimes, you are flat wrong, and to call you out on your bat ass crazy theories that have been universially rejected by the courts is a perfectly fine thing to do.

    You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

  403. JoZeppy: As far as I know, the question has never been before a court. However, the courts have addressed the question of natural born citizenship many times…and any guesses how they have ruled each and every time….speaking of logic continuing to serious fail.Perhaps if you don’t want to be lumped in with them, you shouldn’t adopt their 14th Amendment Citizenship argument that the courts have been rejecting for decades. Seriously Mario, you’re not even original enough to come up with your own junk law arguments, all you do is steal the frivolous arguments of others. For all your bluster, one would think you came up with these arguments yourself rather than cribbing from other hacks and rejects.

    You are a liar and a fraud.

  404. Thomas Brown: Fascinating how Mario “Serial Failure” Apuzzo pays scant attention to all the other articles, but seems obsessed with the one on Birther Racism.Hit a little close to home, eh, Mario?

    I see that you did not take my advice and eat enough of that garlic that you have just been smelling

  405. nbc,

    You said: “The Court in WKA is quite clear that such children became citizens and natural born citizens by virtue of their birth on soil.”

    Making stuff up. The Court said that by virtue of being born in the country Wong was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child of citizen parents.

    You are correct. I have no regrets. I am not pretending to be correct. I am correct.

  406. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am correct.

    And the entire legal system fails to agree with you because … ? You have special knowledge / insight? The entire country is in a conspiracy against you and your ‘truth’?

    Any thoughts on Coleman yet?

  407. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    And???? You say that like it somehow only the State or US Supreme Court opinions have any precidential value. You don’t have any cases on any level saying your arguments are correct, but have several (including the courts of appeals) saying your arguments are fivolous. And while I don’t know what the law is in every state that has regarding access to appeals to the highest court, I can guarentee you the SCOTUS will never hear your arguments. You and I both know that. Why? Because every single other court that has heard your arguments not only disagreed with you, but said your arguments have no merit what so ever, and the Supreme Court doesn’t take cases correctly decided on well established law.

    But you can hide behind the meaningless statement that no supreme court, state of US, has said your arguments are incorrect. That may mean something in super Mario-land, but for those of us in the reality based community, it’s pretty meaningless.

  408. dunstvangeet says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    So, you’re entire argument is “Nobody has proven my argument is incorrect, therefore it must be correct.”

    Look up the fallacy of: Argument from Ignorance.

  409. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a liar and a fraud.

    Project much?

  410. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not pretending to be correct. I am correct.

    And yet the court labeled your arguments “without legal merit.”

    It must take an unbelievable amount of effort (or alcohol) to this disjointed from reality.

    At least Orly has the excuse of being a genuinely poor excuse of a lawyer with a mail order JD.

  411. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    I say the natural born citizen clause is superceded by the 12th, 14th and 20th amendments and is unenforceable. Do you have any State or US Supreme Court case in which someone was barred from running for or serving as President because they were not a natural born citizen?

    You do not. Therefore, I am correct. The clause is dead. Deceased. Gone to meet its maker. It is an ex clause (but not a Santa clause).

  412. Jim says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not have any State or U.S. Supreme Court case that says my arguments are incorrect.

    Well, none that you can understand I guess. EVERY case you’ve either argued this point, or used your argument has found you’re arguments are without merit…which means incorrect.

  413. JoZeppy: And yet the court labeled your arguments “without legal merit.”It must take an unbelievable amount of effort (or alcohol) to this disjointed from reality.At least Orly has the excuse of being a genuinely poor excuse of a lawyer with a mail order JD.

    There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.” What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

  414. JPotter: And the entire legal system fails to agree with you because … ? You have special knowledge / insight? The entire country is in a conspiracy against you and your ‘truth’?Any thoughts on Coleman yet?

    I did not see the link that you were supposed to send me.

  415. Jim says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.”What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

    There is no provision in the Constitution and no
    controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

  416. JoZeppy: And???? You say that like it somehow only the State or US Supreme Court opinions have any precidential value. You don’t have any cases on any level saying your arguments are correct, but have several (including the courts of appeals) saying your arguments are fivolous. And while I don’t know what the law is in every state that has regarding access to appeals to the highest court, I can guarentee you the SCOTUS will never hear your arguments. You and I both know that. Why? Because every single other court that has heard your arguments not only disagreed with you, but said your arguments have no merit what so ever, and the Supreme Court doesn’t take cases correctly decided on well established law. But you can hide behind the meaningless statement that no supreme court, state of US, has said your arguments are incorrect. That may mean something in super Mario-land, but for those of us in the reality based community, it’s pretty meaningless.

    You are free to interpret the lack of a Supreme Court decision one way and I am free to interpret another.

    Many Americans agree with you and many agree with me.

  417. dunstvangeet: So, you’re entire argument is “Nobody has proven my argument is incorrect, therefore it must be correct.”Look up the fallacy of: Argument from Ignorance.

    The straw man fallacy is all yours, my friend. What you have done is take my position and convert it into a statement of extreme, i.e., “therefore it must be correct.” I never said that. What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

  418. Scientist: I say the natural born citizen clause is superceded by the 12th, 14th and 20th amendments and is unenforceable. Do you have any State or US Supreme Court case in which someone was barred from running for or serving as President because they were not a natural born citizen? You do not. Therefore, I am correct. The clause is dead. Deceased. Gone to meet its maker. It is an ex clause (but not a Santa clause).

    A bank robber has robbed 10 banks and gotten away with it. Based on your logic, I am entitled to conclude that it is legal to rob banks.

  419. nbc says:

    Mario day dreams: On the contrary, I have demonstrated through historical and U.S. Supreme Court cases that my position is correct.

    ROTFL… Yes, you mean you have tried to argue why you believe that your position is correct even though history, precedent and recent court cases all have come to reject your position.

    Lovely legacy… Who was it during WKA that tried to argue the same arguments you raised and lost? George Collins.. Remember his ‘legacy’ 🙂

    The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    What again did Holmes ‘argue’?

    And this court did in Minor v. Happersett (21 Wall., 167) look to the common law to ascertain from its nomenclature who were meant by “natural-born citizens,” and they found just what the Government is contending for here, that “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

  420. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

    Just rejected by the courts as ‘academic’ or as “[t[he petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”

    Ouch… The courts so far have, like others, not been very impressed by your attempts.

  421. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.” What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

    Yet… But of course, it is doubtful that given the lack of merit of your arguments, a Supreme Court would take the case.

    As to ‘Americans who conclude’, you do realize that this is a logical fallacy. As far as legal scholars, legal precedent and recent court rulings, they all reject your argument. As did the Court in US v WKA.

  422. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.” What’s more, there are many Americans who have concluded that my arguments have merit.

    As I have said many times, the lack of Supreme Court decisions, state or federal, does not mean there is no case law on the subject, nor does it lessen the fact that your arguments have been call lacking legal merit by other courts. Fact of the matter is the US Surpeme Court has refused to hear your arguments on a few instances. Not only did they not grant you cert, they didn’t even ask for a respondent’s brief. Might have something to do with the fact that every lower court came to the exact same conclusion.

    The fact that many Americans agree with you is even more meaningless. Many Americans believe there is no legal obligation to pay Federal income tax. Their misguided beliefs don’t protect them when the IRS come knocking on their door. How many legal scholars agree with you? Why have you failed to publish your opinions in a journal of law of any sort?

  423. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A bank robber has robbed 10 banks and gotten away with it. Based on your logic, I am entitled to conclude that it is legal to rob banks.

    Poor analogy. You have filed your case in several courts which rejected the argument. There is no evidence of a crime, no reasoned argument as to why the Courts, including WKA were wrong in rejecting the arguments raised on appeal, or why we should take your position seriously. Sure, there is a miniscule probability that you are correct in your interpretation but so far, you are doing a poor job when the issue is heard in court. The Courts all reject your musings as being at odds with US v WKA where the Government had raised many of the similar ‘arguments’ which were rejected outright.

  424. donna says:

    Mario:

    Donna,

    Where have you been all this time? Did you not know that the U.S. Supreme Court did that already a very long time ago?

    per favore mario, translate this into english pour moi:

    “j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique”

    grazie mille

  425. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are free to interpret the lack of a Supreme Court decision one way and I am free to interpret another. Many Americans agree with you and many agree with me.

    No Mario, you are not. The Supreme Court is not required to correct one deluded attorney’s wrong interpretation of case law. Particularly when every lower court has come to the exact same conclusion. The Supreme Court spoke in Minor and WKA defining NBC. Everyone but you and a handful of malcontents have agreed as to what the meaning is. It does not take another Supreme Court decision to re-affirm what everyone else agrees with what the law is. The smacking down all the other courts give you is more than sufficient.

    And again, it doesn’t matter what other misguided and deluded Americans think. The role of the judiciary isn’t to measure public opinion, and even if it was, you would still lose.

  426. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A bank robber has robbed 10 banks and gotten away with it. Based on your logic, I am entitled to conclude that it is legal to rob banks.

    Yes, of course it’s legal to rob banks. Just ask the CEOs of Bear Sterns, Citi, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, UBS, AIG or any of a dozen other banksters. Are any of them in jail?

    But as for NBC clause, where are the court decisions? What is the enforcement mechanism? What agency is charged with enforcement?

    Sorry but it fails the test of being an enforceable law It is at best a guideline to be considered by the voters, which they did and they decided Obama was an NBC. Tey are in effect a jury, and your “ideas” to the contary don’t trump their conclusions, which are based on a sound consideration of the facts (as juries are charged with doing). Nor do Trump’s “ideas” trump the voter jury’s conclusions.

    The jury has spoken. Twice. You lose, counsellor.

  427. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    Exactly-

    Simply because you disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not change that definition.

    Per the Indiana Court of Appeals:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

  428. bovril says:

    Here Putzie, Putzie, Putzie

    Why oh why have you gotten in bed with mad old Orly? Does she fill your sad masochistic tendencies as a dominatrix?

    You do know just how badly she is going to treat you, spanks for the naughty boy is just the beginning, ask her other” helpers”, Leah Lax would be happy to let you know just how badly it will all end.

    It really is sad, the signs were all on the wall for all too see particularly after the threats of sanction then the abject failure and loss to a very junior associate and the squealing for “Please sir, can I have some more”.

    Sad, transparent and truly shameless.

  429. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Many Americans agree with you and many agree with me

    I doubt even 1% agree with you. Meanwhile, at least 53% believe Obama should be President and even most of the 47% who voted for Rmoney believe Obama is eligible, they just preferred the other guy.

  430. nbc: Mario day dreams: On the contrary, I have demonstrated through historical and U.S. Supreme Court cases that my position is correct.ROTFL… Yes, you mean you have tried to argue why you believe that your position is correct even though history, precedent and recent court cases all have come to reject your position.Lovely legacy… Who was it during WKA that tried to argue the same arguments you raised and lost? George Collins.. Remember his ‘legacy’ What again did Holmes ‘argue’?

    You are mischaracterizing Wong Kim Ark. The issue there was whether Wong was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to avoid deportation, not whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  431. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett (1875) held: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Minor at 167-68. So the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court defined who at common law, after the original citizens came into being, were not only the “citizens” but also the “natural-born citizens.” That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expanded who were the “citizens” by also including children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

    Hmmmm did I miss something there?

    Where did the court ‘define’ Natural born citizen?

  432. Sudoku says:

    Which is it? You can’t even keep your story straight here.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What you have done is take my position and convert it into a statement of extreme, i.e., “therefore it must be correct.” I never said that. What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are correct. I have no regrets. I am not pretending to be correct. I am correct.

    Maybe you are confused. That is exactly what the Court in Minor said:

    “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

  433. nbc: Just rejected by the courts as ‘academic’ or as “[t[he petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”Ouch… The courts so far have, like others, not been very impressed by your attempts.

    New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Masin said that he did not have time to address the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Whatever he said about the clause is hardly of any value.

  434. nbc: Poor analogy. You have filed your case in several courts which rejected the argument. There is no evidence of a crime, no reasoned argument as to why the Courts, including WKA were wrong in rejecting the arguments raised on appeal, or why we should take your position seriously. Sure, there is a miniscule probability that you are correct in your interpretation but so far, you are doing a poor job when the issue is heard in court. The Courts all reject your musings as being at odds with US v WKA where the Government had raised many of the similar ‘arguments’ which were rejected outright.

    Like I have been saying all along, when the Obots have no answer to the “natural born Citizen” argument, the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

  435. sfjeff says:

    Is there any court case which declares someone a “14th Amendment” citizen?

    Is there any court case which declares that the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens with ‘seperate but equal’ rights?

    Is there any case that declares anything other than what we all know.

    All citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.

    We become citizens either at birth(natural born citizens) or by naturalization.

    Has any citizen ever become a citizen any other way?

    A naturalized citizen has all the benefits and responsibilities of a natural born citizen except he cannot vote- and I believe his citizenship can be stripped by Congress.

  436. donna: Mario:Donna,Where have you been all this time? Did you not know that the U.S. Supreme Court did that already a very long time ago?per favore mario, translate this into english pour moi:“j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique”grazie mille

    Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.

  437. JoZeppy: No Mario, you are not. The Supreme Court is not required to correct one deluded attorney’s wrong interpretation of case law. Particularly when every lower court has come to the exact same conclusion. The Supreme Court spoke in Minor and WKA defining NBC. Everyone but you and a handful of malcontents have agreed as to what the meaning is. It does not take another Supreme Court decision to re-affirm what everyone else agrees with what the law is. The smacking down all the other courts give you is more than sufficient.And again, it doesn’t matter what other misguided and deluded Americans think. The role of the judiciary isn’t to measure public opinion, and even if it was, you would still lose.

    Too bad that you cannot live with not having a U.S. Supreme Court decision in your favor. The reality is that it does not exist. Get over it.

  438. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have been saying all along, when the Obots have no answer to the “natural born Citizen” argument, the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

    And what makes those lower courts wrong- and you right?

    What makes your analysis ‘correct’ and that of the Indiana Court of Appeals ‘incorrect’?

    What are your legal gravitas that should be considered superior to that of the Apellete Justices of Indiana?

    Have you been a U.S. Superior Court Judge? An Appellete Court Judge?

    Have you taught Constitutional law at any of the top 5 law schools in the U.S.?

    What is your gravitas that makes you think your analysis is superior to every court that has decided otherwise?

  439. Sudoku says:

    Really? Looks like he took some time to me.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Administrative Law Judge Masin said that he did not have time to address the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Whatever he said is hardly of any value.

    It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the
    thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark,Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born”and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the childwas born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, theCourt also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).

    All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it isthe common law of this country, as well as of England.

    The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated

    We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle ofthe common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution. [Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462].

    The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Arkeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.

    Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

  440. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

    Actually, your pal Strunk has had his cases tossed by the Supreme Court in Kings County (that’s what we call them in NY)….

    So all your DWI clients who were convicted by lower courts are not guilty unless the NJ or US Supreme Court hears their cases? That’s ridiculous.

    Now, again, where is any court case in which someone was denied the right to run for or serve as President based on their not being an NBC? Since there are no such cases, the clause does not exist as enforceable law.

  441. Scientist: Yes, of course it’s legal to rob banks. Just ask the CEOs of Bear Sterns, Citi, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, UBS, AIG or any of a dozen other banksters. Are any of them in jail?But as for NBC clause, where are the court decisions? What is the enforcement mechanism? What agency is charged with enforcement? Sorry but it fails the test of being an enforceable law It is at best a guideline to be considered by the voters, which they did and they decided Obama was an NBC. Tey are in effect a jury, and your “ideas” to the contary don’t trump their conclusions, which are based on a sound consideration of the facts (as juries are charged with doing). Nor do Trump’s “ideas” trump the voter jury’s conclusions.The jury has spoken. Twice. You lose, counsellor.

    The Founders and Framers gave to the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts the judicial power and the constitutional duty that comes with it to interpret and apply the Constitution. They did not give it to the voting public. So while the American public may have voted (almost 50/50 split), it surely did not decide any constitutional issue let alone decide the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

  442. donna says:

    mario: Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.

    lol

    a 1st YEAR french student could translate that phrase correctly

    i need no “french waiter”

  443. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Founders and Framers

    owned slaves (many of them). So I would sooner put my faith in the voters of today (virtually none of whom own slaves) over those guys. Sorry, but I am right and you know it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: gave to the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts the judicial power and the constitutional duty that comes with it to interpret and apply the Constitution.

    So, by your own statement, ALL courts can interpret and apply the Constitution, including Ankeny, NJ (Purpura), Vermont and the various federal courts that have rejected your nonsense. And their interpretations are law unless and until they are overturned.

  444. Scientist says:

    I just want to make sure everybody caught that-Mario said that lower courts interpret and apply the Constitution.

  445. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: They did not give it to the voting public. So while the American public may have voted (almost 50/50 split), it surely did not decide any constitutional issue let alone decide the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

    My ears continue to ring …. seem to have the sound of exploding irony meter in them.

  446. Paper says:

    But I for one have indeed shown your argument to be incorrect, as have others here. In this thread and elsewhere.

    Your reading of Minor alone is untenable, baldly and demonstrably false, and irredeemably a failure. Your argument is incorrect at the basic level of understanding English, before we even get to law and reasoning.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    …I never said that.What I have said is that my argument has not been shown to be incorrect.

  447. donna: mario: Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.lola 1st YEAR french student could translate that phrase correctly i need no “french waiter”

    donna,

    I think you are out of your league here.

  448. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you can find a French waiter who can help you out.

    Bonsoir, monsieur. I am going to serve you zee punch in ze nose, et zee kick in ze knee. For zee dessert, you will have ze mousse au chocolat.

  449. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: donna, I think you are out of your league here.

    You are out of your league trying to pass yourself off as a Constitutional attorney.

    Svetlana Auerbach is out of her league trying to pass herself off as a lawyer and dentist.

  450. donna says:

    mario:

    donna,

    I think you are out of your league here.

    HARDLY – i created the phrase to prove a point

    but i anxiously await your translation – perhaps your french maid could assist you

  451. donna: perhaps your french mistress could assist you

    FIFY

  452. Sudoku: Really? Looks like he took some time to me.It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, thethrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark,Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born”and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the childwas born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, theCourt also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it isthe common law of this country, as well as of England. The Wong Kim Ark Court then statedWe find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle ofthe common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution. [Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462].The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Arkeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

    New Jersey Administrative Law Judge relies upon the state law cases of Ankeny and Farrar which relied upon Wong Kim Ark. He did not address my numerous historical and legal sources and Acts of Congress which defined a “natural born Citizen.” He did not address my argument that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined a “natural born Citizen.” He did not address my argument in which I showed that Wong Kim Ark decided that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.

    He states that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) discussed at great length what “natural born” means under the English common law. But Wong was discussing an English “natural born subject” under English common law, not an Article II “natural born Citizen” which did not even exist in English common law. Furthermore, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Minor that the Framers defined an American “natural born Citizen” under common law which by the definition the Court provided of the clause (born in a country to “citizen” parents and that “there have been doubts” whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents was even a “citizen”) we know could not have been the English common law, but rather was American common law which had its basis in the law of nations.

    He cited the Justice Story minority opinion in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor which advocated the English common law jus soli rule rather than citing to the Court’s majority opinion which rejected the English common law jus soli rule and rather adopted the law of nation jus sanguinis rule.

    He cites Rhodes which said in dicta “all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” But the decision did not define what “born in the allegiance of the United States” means. Hence, the decision did not provide any definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Then he says: “Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue.” So, again, he did not provide his own analysis and rather relies upon other courts and agencies without naming them. In any event, those other courts and agencies themselves did not like, Judge Masin, adequately address the issue of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and their decisions are not dispositive.

  453. sfjeff: And what makes those lower courts wrong- and you right? What makes your analysis ‘correct’ and that of the Indiana Court of Appeals ‘incorrect’?What are your legal gravitas that should be considered superior to that of the Apellete Justices of Indiana? Have you been a U.S. Superior Court Judge? An Appellete Court Judge? Have you taught Constitutional law at any of the top 5 law schools in the U.S.?What is your gravitas that makes you think your analysis is superior to every court that has decided otherwise?

    How about reading comprehension and logic.

  454. sfjeff: Is there any court case which declares someone a “14th Amendment” citizen?Is there any court case which declares that the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens with ‘seperate but equal’ rights?Is there any case that declares anything other than what we all know.All citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.We become citizens either at birth(natural born citizens) or by naturalization. Has any citizen ever become a citizen any other way?A naturalized citizen has all the benefits and responsibilities of a natural born citizen except he cannot vote- and I believe his citizenship can be stripped by Congress.

    I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

  455. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    So …… “citizens of the United States.” are a subset of “U.S. citizens.”

    Right ….

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How about reading comprehension and logic.

    Yes, how about them? LOL

    How do you keep this up for so long?

    … and still no comment on Coleman?

    … or explanation for the late blooming of your interest in this subject?

    Perhaps you stumble upon some golden tablets in mid-2008. How fortuitous and timely, right?

  456. Scientist: I just want to make sure everybody caught that-Mario said that lower courts interpret and apply the Constitution.

    Of course they do. And the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

  457. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    No, my friend. “Natural born citizen” specifies no particular country. They do not have to be US citizens at all. You should take a class in English grammar.

    Now, do you have a court ruling in which anyone was barred from being President based on what type of citizen they were? There is no such ruling in over 220 years. Even the most obscure statutes would be expected to have a few cases in that length of time. We can only concude that it is not within the powers of the courts to decide such questions.

  458. JPotter: My ears continue to ring …. seem to have the sound of exploding irony meter in them.

    Take it to the bank that whenever an Obot irony meter goes off, truth has been spoken.

  459. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Of course they do. And the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter.

    Where the Supreme Court is silent the lower court rulngs are the law. So the law is that Obama is eligible.

    Also, I am not sure the Supreme Court is truly the final arbiter. There are world bodies like the Internatonal Court in the Hague as well as the Galactic Court. Beyond that, there is the Universal Court, though they haven’t heard a case from this solar system in a few billion years.

  460. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Take it to the bank that whenever an Obot irony meter goes off, truth has been spoken.

    Yes, the Truth According to The Putz … “No one is allowed to make up definitions …. except me!!!”

    Don’t run too far with that, you’ll wind up restrained.

  461. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Too bad that you cannot live with not having a U.S. Supreme Court decision in your favor. The reality is that it does not exist. Get over it.

    I do have a U.S. Supreme Court decision in my favor. It’s Wong Kim Ark. For some reason you think you’re entitled to a second U.S. Supreme Court decision saying what the rest of the legal community has long understood WKA to mean. Sorry, you’re just not that special. Just because hacks like you and Orly can’t accept reality, and having your arguments labeled as “lacking legal merit” isn’t clear enough for you, doesn’t mean the US Supreme Court has to give you a remedial law class in the form of another decision to get you up to speed with the rest of the legal community.

    Get over it.

  462. JPotter says:

    Scientist: Where the Supreme Court is silent the lower court rulngs are the law. So the law is that Obama is eligible.

    Better yet, they haven’t been silent. They have yet to find a birfer appeal that merits a hearing. *ba-da-bing!*

    Getting left out in the cold by the Court …. is a decision by the Court. They decided to leave you there. They are telling you (birfers collectively) you aren’t worth their time, because whatever lower court(s) you have harrassed dispatched you appropriately, and they would have done the same.

  463. BillTheCat says:

    All that matters to the world and reality is that Mario and his failed theory have failed in court, and will always fail in court – any court. Too bad, so sad.

  464. Scientist says:

    JPotter: Getting left out in the cold by the Court …. is a decision by the Court. They decided to leave you there. They are telling you (birfers collectively) you aren’t worth their time, because whatever lower court(s) you have harrassed dispatched you appropriately, and they would have done the same.

    And I guarantee that if Mario took his crap to the Galactic Court, the Klingon Justices would ream him out. He would have phaser burns on his behind.

  465. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, again, he did not provide his own analysis and rather relies upon other courts and agencies without naming them. In any event, those other courts and agencies themselves did not like, Judge Masin, adequately address the issue of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and their decisions are not dispositive.

    I’m sorry he didn’t say your arguments were garbage in way you felt appropriate, but when you throw garbage at the court, you’re hardly entitled to a deep discussion of your arguments. He said they were trash, and you’re fighting well established law. Reading what he wrote, he gave far more consideration than you deserved. He doesn’t need to discuss every crack-pot theory of yours. In fact, he could have just written your arugments are frivolous and lack and legal merit and just stopped ther. Be greatful he wrote as much as he did.

  466. Paper says:

    But that is where your arguments fail first, last and foremost.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How about reading comprehension and logic.

  467. Northland10 says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    So a natural born Citizen is not a citizen of the United States? Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

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

  468. donna says:

    Northland: Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    and mario told me i was out of my league

  469. Scientist: Where the Supreme Court is silent the lower court rulngs are the law. So the law is that Obama is eligible. Also, I am not sure the Supreme Court is truly the final arbiter. There are world bodies like the Internatonal Court in the Hague as well as the Galactic Court. Beyond that, there is the Universal Court, though they haven’t heard a case from this solar system in a few billion years.

    I’m sure that you also have a court in your basement.

  470. JoZeppy: I do have a U.S. Supreme Court decision in my favor. It’s Wong Kim Ark. For some reason you think you’re entitled to a second U.S. Supreme Court decision saying what the rest of the legal community has long understood WKA to mean. Sorry, you’re just not that special. Just because hacks like you and Orly can’t accept reality, and having your arguments labeled as “lacking legal merit” isn’t clear enough for you, doesn’t mean the US Supreme Court has to give you a remedial law class in the form of another decision to get you up to speed with the rest of the legal community.Get over it.

    I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

  471. :lol; Apuzzo-logic is a wonder to behold.

    donna:
    Northland: Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    and mario told me i was out of my league

  472. JPotter: Better yet, they haven’t been silent. They have yet to find a birfer appeal that merits a hearing. *ba-da-bing!*Getting left out in the cold by the Court …. is a decision by the Court. They decided to leave you there. They are telling you (birfers collectively) you aren’t worth their time, because whatever lower court(s) you have harrassed dispatched you appropriately, and they would have done the same.

    Too bad for your history book that the high courts deny to take cases for a host of reasons which include pure policy.

  473. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Too bad for your history book that the high courts deny to take cases for a host of reasons which include pure policy.

    Now we’re getting to the good stuff—conspiracy! Please, Mario, list the reasons.

    Perhaps you might also entertain us with a list of …. what’s changed. What’s new. What either has not the court heard? or what circumstances have changed that might move the courts to change their minds? Why should the courts roll back 120 years and change its mind?

  474. BillTheCat: All that matters to the world and reality is that Mario and his failed theory have failed in court, and will always fail in court – any court. Too bad, so sad.

    Stop your cliches. If you must use them at least use them properly. Why should you be “so sad.”

  475. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’m sure that you also have a court in your basement.

    I have a court …. yard. Perhaps I will don my robes and adjudicate disputes amongst the nieghborhood children LOL

  476. Scientist: And I guarantee that if Mario took his crap to the Galactic Court, the Klingon Justices would ream him out. He would have phaser burns on his behind.

    No, you are wrong. Spock would be the judge and I would win hands down.

  477. JoZeppy: I’m sorry he didn’t say your arguments were garbage in way you felt appropriate, but when you throw garbage at the court, you’re hardly entitled to a deep discussion of your arguments. He said they were trash, and you’re fighting well established law. Reading what he wrote, he gave far more consideration than you deserved. He doesn’t need to discuss every crack-pot theory of yours. In fact, he could have just written your arugments are frivolous and lack and legal merit and just stopped ther. Be greatful he wrote as much as he did.

    Poor JoZeppy, trying to rewrite the court’s decision to fit his little sophomoric world.

  478. JPotter says:

    Northland10: Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    Darn that pesky logic / (VERY BASIC) set theory / grammar!

    English is a flexible language, can be confusing to the simpleminded / overly-literal. Open it up to other linguistic conventions … what would Mario make of:

    “The citizens United States”

    or

    “UnitedStatescitizens”

    ?

  479. Northland10: So a natural born Citizen is not a citizen of the United States? Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    I guess you never learned common sense playing in the sandbox. Someone can be President but not Congressman?

  480. Northland10 says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

    Which is a good thing, since that chair is already taken.

  481. Northland10 says:

    JoZeppy: I’m sorry he didn’t say your arguments were garbage in way you felt appropriate, but when you throw garbage at the court, you’re hardly entitled to a deep discussion of your arguments. He said they were trash,

    In middle school chemistry, we had the “sludge test” where we had to identify its makeup. Unfortunately for Mario, the courts see no need to separate poop into its component parts.

  482. I was somewhat confused by what Mr. Apuzzo said across several comments. What I understood him to say was that Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen.” In another place he said that Minor didn’t determine the citizenship status of citizens with alien parents; Wong decided that.

    In my world, a definition divides the universe between things that fit the definition and things that don’t fit the definition. If otherwise it wouldn’t be, well, definitive. If Minor doesn’t cover every citizen’s claim to being a “natural born citizen” then I would not call it a definition.

    So the best light I can put on this is that he is saying that Minor defines the citizenship status of people who are born in the United States to citizen parents (and we can quibble as to how many that is): they are natural born citizens; Minor does not define the status of persons who are not born in the United States or have alien parents (however many).

    I personally don’t think that Minor is dicta in this area if for no other reason than the Court said is was not necessary to solve the issue of persons with alien parents, implying to me that it was necessary to solve the issue of persons with citizen parents, i.e., Ms. Minor.

    If that’s that all Apuzzo is saying, then I would agree with him, but I think it would be misleading to say that Minor defines “natural born citizen” and saying that would imply the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

    That leaves us agreeing, I think that US v. Wong defines the status of persons born in the United States to alien parents (of some number) except the usual suspects (invading armies, diplomats). When I look at Wong, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Wong and folks like him are natural born citizens, and this is now the courts looked at it in the 8 cases since 2008 that directly address the question, most citing Ankeny.

    The most recent decision was in the Paige case in Vermont where Judge Bent described Apuzzo argument as originalist, and said that Apuzzo was trying to distinguish US v. Wong from the present question. Apuzzo here, however, says that Wong decides the question, only in the opposite direction from how Judge Bent reads it. It’s a free country, and Apuzzo can read the case any way he wants, but how he reads it doesn’t matter until he convinces a judge or enough people to influence an election.

    JPotter: Yes, the Truth According to The Putz … “No one is allowed to make up definitions …. except me!!!

  483. Northland10: So a natural born Citizen is not a citizen of the United States? Well crap. I now find out I can be elected President but I cannot be a congressman.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    Just think, those who are 36 years old or older or have been residing in the United States for 15 years or more are also not eligible to be President.

  484. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    Fixed it for you:

    We have citizens of the United States. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.

    Also:

    We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.

    Simple yes?

    The phrase “U.S. Citizens” and the phrase “citizens of the United States” are exactly equivalent ways of referring to the “set of all American Citizens, born or naturalized”.

    Hey look Mario! I invented another kind of citizen: “American Citizens”. Maybe you could get Orly to write you a “umpeenteh amended whatzit” and you could bring one or more of your cases back to life!

  485. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Just think, those who are 36 years old or older or have been residing in the United States for 15 years or more are also not eligible to be President.

    So, you are now arguing that:

    1) the set of people that have ‘attained 35 years’ includes those who are 36 years old, and
    2) the set of people that have ‘resided in the United States for 15 years’ includes those who have resided in the United States for 16 years, and
    3) the set of people who are “citizens of the United States” does not include everyone who is a “U.S. Citizen”

    Is that correct?

  486. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Just think, those who are 36 years old or older or have been residing in the United States for 15 years or more are also not eligible to be President.

    Mario, you’re not very good at this game! Try harder! Or perhaps less hard.

    You’re asserting that once aged beyond 35, a person has no longer ‘attained’ the age of 35 years? Was it detained from them on their 36th birthday? Did that age wander off on its own, unloved, no longer wanted? Where do all the ages go?

    With absolutely no indication of a maximum on the residency requirement, how does anyone who can document any length of residency > 14yrs unable to show 14yrs? The writer clearly sets a minimum; an odd thing to do had they intended a maximum or, as you suggest, an exact figure. Maybe they just forgot.

    The Framers are here with me now. They have unanimously voted on their response to your manglings: “Yougottabefuggin’kiddin’me.” I think they mean it. Do you know how hard it was to get these guys to all agree on anything? No, no, of course you don’t. Loaded up to the gills with Barton-esque fairy tales, you’d never recognize the hard stuff.

  487. Dr. Conspiracy: When I look at Wong, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Wong and folks like him are natural born citizens, and this is now the courts looked at it in the 8 cases since 2008 that directly address the question, most citing Ankeny.

    That is how the contemporary scholars viewed Wong also. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/

    (Check out what William Damon Guthrie wrote about WKA months after the decsion:

    The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.)

    Apuzzo has no counter for this. He just says Guthrie was wrong.

  488. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There does not exist any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.”

    The funny thing is that this is just another case of shifting goal posts for Mario and his flea circus. Of course if it ever did get as far as a State Supreme Court, and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….

    “There does not exist any U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””

    Then, of course if a birther case did somehow make it to the SCOTUS and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….

    “There does not exist any United Federation of Planets Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””

  489. Keith: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”Fixed it for you:We have citizens of the United States. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.Also:We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “naturalized Citizens”.Simple yes?The phrase “U.S. Citizens” and the phrase “citizens of the United States” are exactly equivalent ways of referring to the “set of all American Citizens, born or naturalized”.Hey look Mario! I invented another kind of citizen: “American Citizens”. Maybe you could get Orly to write you a “umpeenteh amended whatzit” and you could bring one or more of your cases back to life!

    I think you have some dry cleaning to pick up.

  490. JPotter: Mario, you’re not very good at this game! Try harder! Or perhaps less hard.You’re asserting that once aged beyond 35, a person has no longer ‘attained’ the age of 35 years? Was it detained from them on their 36th birthday? Did that age wander off on its own, unloved, no longer wanted? Where do all the ages go?With absolutely no indication of a maximum on the residency requirement, how does anyone who can document any length of residency > 14yrs unable to show 14yrs? The writer clearly sets a minimum; an odd thing to do had they intended a maximum or, as you suggest, an exact figure. Maybe they just forgot.The Framers are here with me now. They have unanimously voted on their response to your manglings: “Yougottabefuggin’kiddin’me.” I think they mean it. Do you know how hard it was to get these guys to all agree on anything? No, no, of course you don’t. Loaded up to the gills with Barton-esque fairy tales, you’d never recognize the hard stuff.

    What a fool. You do not even recognized when you have been had.

  491. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What a fool.You do not even recognized when you have been had.

    As opposed to Mario…. who cannot, nay WILL not, recognize when he has lost.

  492. Reality Check: That is how the contemporary scholars viewed Wong also. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/(Check out what William Damon Guthrie wrote about WKA months after the decsion:Apuzzo has no counter for this. He just says Guthrie was wrong.

    (Check out what William Damon Guthrie wrote about WKA months after the decsion:

    The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.)

    Of course Guthrie is wrong. First he says that the Court held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Then he gives us his personal opinion as to what the “effect” of the Wong decision is and jumps to making Wong eligible to be President (hence a “natural born Citizen”). Well, Mr. Guthrie should have read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 before telling us what the effect of the Wong decision is.

  493. Daniel: The funny thing is that this is just another case of shifting goal posts for Mario and his flea circus. Of course if it ever did get as far as a State Supreme Court, and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….“There does not exist any U.S. Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””Then, of course if a birther case did somehow make it to the SCOTUS and the birthers lost, as they, of course, would, the next iteration of Mario excuses for failure would be….“There does not exist any United Federation of Planets Supreme Court decision that says that my arguments are “without legal merit.””

    You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

  494. Saint James says:

    I’ve read all posts but haven’t anything on Mario Apuzzo addressing his encounter with Alexandra Hill. My impression is that Mario was put in an embarrassing predicament when he encountered Ms. Hill in court?

  495. Dave B. says:

    Saint James: My impression is that Mario was put in an embarrassing predicament when he encountered Ms. Hill in court?

    You got that right. Of course, Mario finds himself in an embarrassing predicament when he encounters his own shadow in court.

  496. Dave B. says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

    Well, duh. How’s that reality thing working out for you, Mario?

  497. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

    Wow. Another gem for the “Irons by Mario” collection. I’m going to start quoting this one. If I was unfortunate enough to live in Jersey, I might seek a signed copy. If I send a SASE, and say, 5 bucks to cover costs, can you return an 8″ x 10″ with this slogan on it in gold sharpie?

  498. Dr. Conspiracy: I was somewhat confused by what Mr. Apuzzo said across several comments. What I understood him to say was that Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen.” In another place he said that Minor didn’t determine the citizenship status of citizens with alien parents; Wong decided that.In my world, a definition divides the universe between things that fit the definition and things that don’t fit the definition. If otherwise it wouldn’t be, well, definitive. If Minor doesn’t cover every citizen’s claim to being a “natural born citizen” then I would not call it a definition.So the best light I can put on this is that he is saying that Minor defines the citizenship status of people who are born in the United States to citizen parents (and we can quibble as to how many that is): they are natural born citizens; Minor does not define the status of persons who are not born in the United States or have alien parents (however many).I personally don’t think that Minor is dicta in this area if for no other reason than the Court said is was not necessary to solve the issue of persons with alien parents, implying to me that it was necessary to solve the issue of persons with citizen parents, i.e., Ms. Minor.If that’s that all Apuzzo is saying, then I would agree with him, but I think it would be misleading to say that Minor defines “natural born citizen” and saying that would imply the fallacy of denying the antecedent.That leaves us agreeing, I think that US v. Wong defines the status of persons born in the United States to alien parents (of some number) except the usual suspects (invading armies, diplomats). When I look at Wong, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Wong and folks like him are natural born citizens, and this is now the courts looked at it in the 8 cases since 2008 that directly address the question, most citing Ankeny.The most recent decision was in the Paige case in Vermont where Judge Bent described Apuzzo argument as originalist, and said that Apuzzo was trying to distinguish US v. Wong from the present question. Apuzzo here, however, says that Wong decides the question, only in the opposite direction from how Judge Bent reads it. It’s a free country, and Apuzzo can read the case any way he wants, but how he reads it doesn’t matter until he convinces a judge or enough people to influence an election.

    You said: “If Minor doesn’t cover every citizen’s claim to being a “natural born citizen” then I would not call it a definition.” This statement shows that you have properly understood neither the Minor nor Wong Kim Ark decision.

    According to the historical record and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Minor confirmed that ancient definition which it said existed at common law with which the Framers were familiar.

    Minor explained that all the children it defined as “citizens” at common law were also “natives or natural-born citizens” at common law. It provided the conditions which made these children “natural-born citizens.” Those conditions were birth in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country at the time of their birth. Minor did not say that any other conditions existed which made any other child a “natural-born citizen.” Hence, at common law only the children born in the United States of the “original citizens” could be “natural born Citizens” and their U.S.-born children, and so on. What Minor did, however, do is state that “some authorities” maintained that children “born within the jurisdiction” were “citizens,” regardless of the citizenship of their parents, adding that “there have been doubts” whether such a position was correct. The Court’s use of the expression “born within the jurisdiction” signaled that the Court was referring to the new Fourteenth Amendment. Given that Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, it was not necessary for the Court to examine whether she would have to gain her “citizen” status under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than by being born in the United States to “citizen” parents. But given how a “natural-born citizen” had always been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court or any one of its Justices and the Court having just confirmed that definition, we know that in referring to this other potential class of “citizen,” the Court was only using the term “citizen” to show “membership of a nation, and nothing more” (Id. at 166) and not to state that such a person could be a “natural-born citizen.”

    A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 (Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan dissenting). The issue there was whether Wong was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to avoid deportation, not whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong did not make a claim that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, his only claim was that he was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of having been born in the United States and being born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” So, the Court was not faced with any issue involving the question of whether Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, in both the question presented and its holding, the Court used the clause “citizen of the United States” and did not use “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong, while born in the country, was not born to “citizen” parents, and so he could not be declared a “citizen” as Minor had done to Virginia Minor by showing that he was a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, Wong would have to be shown to be a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment and its new and ambiguous “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Wong Kim Ark added to the “citizens” at common law by using the English common law to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. To find that Wong was a “citizen,” Wong found that being born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was sufficient to make Wong a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. Wong Kim Ark did not require “citizen parents” for “citizen” status under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rath, it gave great controlling effect to being just born in the country. The Court said that by virtue of being born in the country Wong was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child of citizen parents. Hence, the Court recognized that while Wong was a “citizen,” he was not a “natural born Citizen.” So, Wong Kim Ark added to the “citizens” by birth, not to the “natural born Citizens” by birth which issue was not before it and which it did not address other than to confirm Minor’s definition of the clause. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not change the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” under the common law which according to Minor the Framers relied upon when inserting that clause into the Constitution. The inescapable conclusion is that today the “natural born Citizens” are still the “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

    So you are wrong in saying that Minor did not give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen” because it did not address a claim of someone like Wong who as you incorrectly state made a claim to also being a “natural born Citizen.” Wong made no such claim and Wong Kim Ark resolved no such claim.

    Finally, your statement is fallacious for another more fundamental reason. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is self-explanatory and self-executing and does not lose its universal application simply because someone like Wong does not meet it.

  499. Saint James: I’ve read all posts but haven’t anything on Mario Apuzzo addressing his encounter with Alexandra Hill. My impression is that Mario was put in an embarrassing predicament when he encountered Ms. Hill in court?

    Do you have anything intelligent to say or is that the maximum dose of your IQ level?

  500. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You can whine all you want but it does not change the reality with which you are faced.

    The reality which I face, but which you cannot seem to, is that you have lost every time.

    Just let that sink in a moment. You lost. You lost. You lost. Has a rather nice ring to it.

    I doubt you’d be here at all if you’d won. But you are here. desperately trying to get someone to believe what you failed to convince the legal system of, every time you’ve tried, with ZERO success.

    If what I say sounds like whining to you, it’s probably due to your complete and utter unfamiliarity with the sound of success.

  501. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: According to the historical record and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

    Please direct to the historical record and case law of the US supreme court.

  502. dunstvangeet says:

    Hey, Mario.

    U.S. Territory is not considered to be “In the United States” for purposes of the Constitution. For instance, Puerto Rico has seperate codes securing their citizenship that if it was “in the United States” they would not need to have.

    What do you think. Do you think someone who was born in a U.S. Territory is a Natural Born Citizen? If not, then how did Charles Curtis become Vice President of the United States when the Constitution clearly spells out that you need to be a Natural Born Citizen to be Vice President.

  503. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you have anything intelligent to say or is that the maximum dose of your IQ level?

    I simply asked a question…it was not even directed at you MR. MARIO APUZZO. My impression (based on what I’ve read so far.) of your encounter with Ms. Hill is that you were put in an embarrassing predicament.However, I wanted to know from objective observers how you squirmed in court. You’re free to to put in your version of that situation or at least defend yourself. MR. MARIO APUZZO if you don’t want that situation discussed, you simply can write that you refuse to discuss it for obvious reasons but there is not a need to insult me and question my intelligence! I DESERVE AN APOLOGY FROM YOU as I don’t want to question your IQ!

  504. Dave B. says:

    Saint James: My impression (based on what I’ve read so far.) of your encounter with Ms. Hill is that you were put in an embarrassing predicament.However, I wanted to know from objective observers how you squirmed in court.

    A picture, or in this case a video, is worth a thousand words. Here are parts 1, 2, and 3:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=69&feature=plcp
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_4k
    (one of my favorite parts is at about 27:00 minutes, when Nick Purpura lets Mario have it)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_w0

  505. Saint James says:

    Dave B.: You got that right. Of course, Mario finds himself in an embarrassing predicament when he encounters his own shadow in court.

    Please direct me to where I can read or at least post the court trancript between MR. MARIO APUZZO and Ms. Alexandra Hill. It has been repeatedly posted that he was put in an embarrasing (my impression)predicament by Ms. Hill. …YOU DON’T NEED TO ANSWER THIS MR. APUZZO

  506. Dave B. says:

    Saint James: Please direct me to where I can read or at least post the court trancript between MR. MARIO APUZZO and Ms. Alexandra Hill. It has been repeatedly posted that he was put in an embarrasing (my impression)predicament by Ms. Hill.

    I’ve posted links to the videos of the hearing. In all fairness, nobody can put Mario in an embarrassing predicament like Mario can.

  507. Saint James says:

    Dave B.: A picture, or in this case a video, is worth a thousand words. Here are parts 1, 2, and 3:

    Thanks Dave, now I’ll know what this mario apuzzo is all about!

  508. Dave B. says:

    Saint James: Thanks Dave, now I’ll know what this mario apuzzo is all about!

    You’re very welcome! Keyboard-courage Mario is hardly recognizable in Courthouse Mario, though.

  509. Saint James: Please direct to the historical record and case law of the US supreme court.

    There isn’t any, of course. Mario and his ilk are making this requirement from whole cloth.

    Mario’s epitaph will read “He devoted his life to determining who entered the intersection first.”

  510. nbc says:

    Saint James: Please direct to the historical record and case law of the US supreme court.

    Do not confuse Mario… He is in his own dream world right now… Wondering why reality does not match up with his expectations.

  511. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

    Well, I think we can all rest much better knowing that.

  512. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JoZeppy, trying to rewrite the court’s decision to fit his little sophomoric world.

    You do this projecting this quite often. The whole of the reputable legal community is with me on this point. You’re the quack that can’t accept reality despite being repeatedly smaked down by the courts. You can say “but, but, but, they didn’t say my arguments were frivolous in the right way, so I’m still really, really right!” all you want, it doesn’t wipe away the shame.

    Is it really that painful to realize that contrary to what you dreamed your career would be when first appyling, you ended up a hack DWI attorney trying to repackage other people’s junk law theories? I think I would just rather just give up the practice of law than be the joke of the legal community.

  513. Arthur says:

    Dave B.: ’ve posted links to the videos of the hearing. In all fairness, nobody can put Mario in an embarrassing predicament like Mario can.

    I have to agree with you on that. Given the fact that Mario has devoted years of his life to pushing his unconventional arguments about presidential eligibility and citizenship on this and other web sites, I expected his presentation to the judge to be concise, polished, and poised. It wasn’t. In fact, he seemed to be improvising on a topic with which he was only marginally familiar. Mario’s obviously better suited to blogging and leaving comments than he is at making oral arguments.

  514. Lupin says:

    One will never say it enough: Mario is a proven liar and perjurer, who barely avoided sanctions by groveling and backpedaling.

    His legal lucubrations have been dismissed by every court and legal scholar in the land.

    The only thing left to discuss is why is he doing this & who is behind him.

  515. JoZeppy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: According to the historical record and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Minor confirmed that ancient definition which it said existed at common law with which the Framers were familiar.

    And yet every court presented with this exact same argument has flatly rejected it, and said just the opposite. Does it take a great deal of alcohol to be this disconnected with reality, or do you sit naked rocking back and forth in the shower repeating to your self “Minor defined NBC to have two citizen parents” over and over?

  516. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I think you have some dry cleaning to pick up.

    Kind of you to remind me, but I did that yesterday. Thanks anyway.

  517. Keith says:

    Dave B.: You’re very welcome!Keyboard-courage Mario is hardly recognizable in Courthouse Mario, though.

    That’s why he rehearses here. He thinks that someday he’ll actually be asked to talk about some of this stuff live, and since its all so convoluted he needs the practice to keep it all in mind.

    Of course he’ll be laughed out of court every time before he gets that far, so this ‘discussion’ is really the zenith of his academic/legal/pundit career.

  518. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Too bad for your history book that the high courts deny to take cases for a host of reasons which include pure policy.

    The reasons behind a higher court’s decision not to take a case are immaterial. The result is that the lower court decision stands and has force of law. That is true whether the lower court case involves the President or a drunk driver in New Jersey. Your DWI clients don’t magically become not guilty if you were to file for cert with the US Supreme Court and they reject it, Too bad for you and them but fortunate for the rest of us who have to share the road.

  519. Saint James says:

    Dave B.: A picture, or in this case a video, is worth a thousand words. Here are parts 1, 2, and 3:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=69&feature=plcp
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_4k
    (one of my favorite parts is at about 27:00 minutes, when Nick Purpura lets Mario have it)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_w0

    so Mr Mario Apuzzo is quite different when he is infront of a judge than when he is blogging. What’s funny was when the judge told him that “a document that’s photocopied is somebody else’s and not an evidence. Now I know why he ignored any reference with his encounter with Ms. Hill. It was not about Miss Hill per se but it was all about how he presented his case in court. He kept going and going like an energezer bunny. I will not comment on his attire though (unless explicitly asked). I’ve not heard him throw insults like he does here (He knew better). I’d like to see Mario team up with Orly though…it will be fun to watch!

  520. Saint James says:

    misha marinsky: Mario’s epitaph will read “He devoted his life to determining who entered the intersection first.”

    That’s if he was/is a great DWI attorney. But how can he be great if he’s an alcoholic himself? MARIO APUZZO will not even be remembered as a footnote in history. To Mario…Sorry fat guy, you insulted me first!

  521. The Magic M says:

    JoZeppy: Is it really that painful to realize that contrary to what you dreamed your career would be when first appyling, you ended up a hack DWI attorney trying to repackage other people’s junk law theories? I think I would just rather just give up the practice of law than be the joke of the legal community.

    That’s the reason he’s still clinging to Vattelism – his refusal to accept the failure of his dreams makes him think this is the only way he will ever be important or have a meaningful life: to one day be the one whose picture is in all the history books because “he brought down the usurper back in those Dark Ages when non-whites were still allowed to vote”.

    He can’t let go because then he would have nothing left. What else shall he do, write a book about a boy who goes to magic school? Who would want to read something like that?

  522. bovril says:

    So Putzie,

    Still dodging the question, why have you taken even more leave of your senses and teamed up with the Madame of Merde?

    Plainly you have as we hear not one squeak of your usual self righteous denial.

    So, pain, pleasure or both?

    As an aside,

    Do tell, which ACTUAL court case has in the last 100 years ruled in a manner favourable to your personal and unsupported theory on citizenship?

    In point if fact can you show ANY court case which identifies and lays out your magical 3rd class of citizen, you know the NBC that isn’t an NBC?

    I mean, you keep on saying that this class is an inherent “natural” item, so surely somewhere a court has agreed in some case, or the SC has stated….something…..somewhere..?

    Now stop being all pouty, I know it stung when I called you out on your hasty and wholly unsupported theory that I, the one only “bovril”, is in fact another ebil poker with sharp sticks “Whiskey” who it seems has bearded the poor Mendax elsewhere.

    After all, you simply made your usual wild assed guess and assumed facts not in evidence, just like all the rest of your pretend lawyering.

  523. Daniel: The reality which I face, but which you cannot seem to, is that you have lost every time.Just let that sink in a moment. You lost. You lost. You lost. Has a rather nice ring to it.I doubt you’d be here at all if you’d won. But you are here. desperately trying to get someone to believe what you failed to convince the legal system of, every time you’ve tried, with ZERO success.If what I say sounds like whining to you, it’s probably due to your complete and utter unfamiliarity with the sound of success.

    The question of what is a “natural born Citizen” is still an open debate. The decisions of a handful of lower courts have far from brought this matter to a close. I realize that you rather think that the matter is over, but that is not the reality. Your whining is in wanting to cut off debate and declare victory. But that is not the deal. We are still in the court of public opinion. So stop your whining.

  524. Northland10 says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I guess you never learned common sense playing in the sandbox. Someone can be President but not Congressman?

    You said up thread that a US Citizen is EITHER a natural born Citizen OR a citizen of the United States. That is a duality, one or the other. Eligibility for President is NBC (or citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution). Eligibility for Congress is citizen of the United States. If these are either/or citizenship, as you stated, then a natural born Citizen, such as myself is not eligible for Congress.

    What say you?

  525. I said in February of 2009:

    Apuzzo’s argument has already been rejected by the Supreme Court in Wong. He’s trying to re-try Wong in the “court” of public opinion.

    Nothing has changed in the nearly 4 years since I wrote that regarding the Kerchner case.

    You might say that the debate is still open about any number of things where some holdouts voice a minority opinion against a fairly broad consensus; however, we don’t govern that way. The argument that wins in court gets implemented. There was the possibility that your argument might have influenced the 2012 election, but it didn’t.

    So as far as affecting what happens in the real world the debate is over unless some person not born of two US citizen parents runs for president in the future; however, with two historical precedents behind us (Obama and Arthur), making a change would be even more difficult than it is now.

    In a real debate there is someone to judge which side won. Apuzzo lost in court on multiple occasions and on appeal. The “court of public opinion” gave its ruling on November 6. As far as I am concerned, the debate is over. Your refusal to admit defeat is your problem, not mine.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The question of what is a “natural born Citizen” is still an open debate. The decisions of a handful of lower courts have far from brought this matter to a close. I realize that you rather think that the matter is over, but that is not the reality. Your whining is in wanting to cut off debate and declare victory. But that is not the deal. We are still in the court of public opinion. So stop your whining.

  526. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We are still in the court of public opinion

    Wow! Last night you claimed that the opinions of the public were irrelevant. I suppose morning coffee fuels different Apuzzoisms than evening whisky.

    The court of public opinion has spoken now twice (+1 more for Chester Arthur)-born in the US with one citizen parent = President. If you like you can still argue born in the US with 0 citizen parents and born outside the US wth 1 or 2. You can fight that battle in the 2016 GOP primaries when Rubio, Jindal and Cruz and Santorum square off to see which one gets to lose to Hillary. It will be a hoot to see a GOP field full of candidates that birthers think are ineligible

  527. bovril says:

    Now now Doc,

    Next you’ll be saying that Mario is in abject denial about this (as in many many other elements of his sad and futile life)…….

  528. The debate was OVER as far as Apuzzo is concerned the day he refused to own up to making a totally false statement about a travel ban to Pakistan in a court filing. He’s never debated anything; he just talks.

    bovril: Next you’ll be saying that Mario is in abject denial about this (as in many many other elements of his sad and futile life)…….

  529. dunstvangeet: Hey, Mario.U.S. Territory is not considered to be “In the United States” for purposes of the Constitution. For instance, Puerto Rico has seperate codes securing their citizenship that if it was “in the United States” they would not need to have.What do you think. Do you think someone who was born in a U.S. Territory is a Natural Born Citizen? If not, then how did Charles Curtis become Vice President of the United States when the Constitution clearly spells out that you need to be a Natural Born Citizen to be Vice President.

    You ask the question whether Charles Curtis, the nation’s 31st Vice President, was a “natural born Citizen.” The question comes up because the Twelfth Amendment extends Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’s “natural born Citizen” requirement that applies to the President, to the Vice-President, meaning that no person except a “natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to the Office of Vice-President of the United States.

    A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Apart from having to be born to citizen parents, the other requirement is birth in a country. The American common law definition does not say that one must be born “in the United States” in any strict geographical sense. Rather, the definition uses the word “country.” Charles Curtis was born in January 1860 in Topeka, Kansas Territory when it was not yet a U.S. state which occurred in January 1861. At that time his parents were both U.S. citizens. Curtis satisfies the two-U.S. citizen parents requirement. The issue is whether he was born in the country known as the United States of America.

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “country” as: “The territory occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory. In the primary meaning, ‘country’ denotes the population, the nation, the state, or the government, having possession and dominion over a territory.” Black’s Law Dictionary 316 (5th ed. 1979). In January 1860 when Curtis was born, the United States occupied the Kansas Territory. That means that Kansas Territory was part of the country or dominion called the United States of America. The United States, being a country, extended its possessions and dominion to include Kansas Territory, thereby making that territory part of the country of the United States. In fact, Congress even passed laws that effected the territory’s sovereignty. The power and dominion that the United States had over that territory is evidence by the fact that it became a U.S. state in January 1861. Anybody born in that territory to U.S. citizen parents could owe allegiance to no country other than the United States. Additionally, when Curtis was just one-year old, he was already living in the United States on the same land in which he was born. Hence, Curtis was born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Curtis, being born in the country to U.S. “citizen” parents was a “natural born Citizen” and constitutionally eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be the 31st Vice President of the United States.

  530. Scientist says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: however, with two historical precedents behind us (Obama and Arthur), making a change would be even more difficult than it is now.

    Mario has done his part to make that precedent all the stronger. Arthur’s parentage was never subject to litigation or even much discussion, nor was that of John Fremont, the Republican nominee in 1856, whose father was a French citizen. By their insistence on litigating the matter ad naseum, Mario and his ilk have established in court what previously had been custom and practice, that 2 citizen parents are not necessary to be President.

    Nice work, Mario!!!

  531. Don’t be silly. If such historical record and case law existed, the courts would have recognized it and legal scholars would endorse your opinion. The opposite is true.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 written by the first Congress made it clear with it equates citizen at birth with natural born citizen. The British passed a similar law in 1730 equating subject at birth with natural born subject.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: According to the historical record and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Minor confirmed that ancient definition which it said existed at common law with which the Framers were familiar.

  532. Saint James: I simply asked a question…it was not even directed at you MR. MARIO APUZZO. My impression (based on what I’ve read so far.) of your encounter with Ms. Hill is that you were put in an embarrassing predicament.However, I wanted to know from objective observers how you squirmed in court. You’re free to to put in your version of that situation or at least defend yourself. MR. MARIO APUZZO if you don’t want that situation discussed, you simply can write that you refuse to discuss it for obvious reasons but there is not a need to insult me and question my intelligence! I DESERVE AN APOLOGY FROM YOU as I don’t want to question your IQ!

    You IQ is so low that you do not realize that your little innocence game is insulting not only to Ms. Hill but also to her law firm.

  533. Dave B.: A picture, or in this case a video, is worth a thousand words. Here are parts 1, 2, and 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc&list=UUvNcV_vN3BWeFKG1HwL5-tw&index=69&feature=plcphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_4k(one of my favorite parts is at about 27:00 minutes, when Nick Purpura lets Mario have it)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_w0

    Yes, what a pleasure to hear the court rule that even Mickey Mouse could run for President of the United States and that Obama’s April 2011 alleged birth certificate that he posted on the White House web page was not evidence to be considered by the State of New Jersey and that Obama presented absolutely no other evidence on the question of whether Obama produced any evidence at all to the State as to who he is and where he was born. So be sure to read all about it.

  534. JoZeppy: You do this projecting this quite often. The whole of the reputable legal community is with me on this point. You’re the quack that can’t accept reality despite being repeatedly smaked down by the courts. You can say “but, but, but, they didn’t say my arguments were frivolous in the right way, so I’m still really, really right!” all you want, it doesn’t wipe away the shame.Is it really that painful to realize that contrary to what you dreamed your career would be when first appyling, you ended up a hack DWI attorney trying to repackage other people’s junk law theories? I think I would just rather just give up the practice of law than be the joke of the legal community.

    Poor Joey boy, he still thinks the game is over. Just wants to call it quits, go home, and think he won.

  535. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We are still in the court of public opinion.

    In the court of public opinion, only your looks count – and I don’t like your looks.

  536. Scientist: The reasons behind a higher court’s decision not to take a case are immaterial. The result is that the lower court decision stands and has force of law. That is true whether the lower court case involves the President or a drunk driver in New Jersey. Your DWI clients don’t magically become not guilty if you were to file for cert with the US Supreme Court and they reject it, Too bad for you and them but fortunate for the rest of us who have to share the road.

    You keep telling us that being a “natural born Citizen” is a political question. But then you want to forget about all the Americans that are interested in this issue. So which way do you want it, Scientist?

  537. Saint James: That’s if he was/is a great DWI attorney. But how can he be great if he’s an alcoholic himself? MARIO APUZZO will not even be remembered as a footnote in history. To Mario…Sorry fat guy, you insulted me first!

    St. James, my friend, I think you have hit the bad by stating to the public that I am an “alcoholic.” I recommend that you retract that statement, good buddy.

  538. bovril says:

    Sorry Putzie,

    In a strange way you are quite accidently correct, the game isn’t over, the problem is there NEVER WAS A GAME outside of the vacuous echo chamber that passes for your mind.

    There has never been nor, unless there is a Constitutional Amendment, ever will be a question, supported by the law or facts that President Obama is and remains an NBC and is and remains President.

    Sucks to be you and always wrong doesn’t it Putzie.

  539. donna says:

    Scientist : Mario and his ilk have established in court what previously had been custom and practice, that 2 citizen parents are not necessary to be President.

    Nice work, Mario!!!

    AGREED – IF the supremes were ever to grant cert to a birther-like case (& i can’t think of a reason), i can’t fathom any other decision other than a finding that we have 2 types of citizens …. naturalized & natural born and that this issue was adjudicated and decided as settled law in ______ v obama/?, etc, etc, etc from 2008 – ? – can anyone imagine the supremes saying all of those cases were wrongly decided?

    next question ….. since birthers are generally republicans, will they question the natural born citizen status of rubio, jindal, etc with as much vigor? if so, then i suggest birthers quash their hopes now ….. openly & to every tea party, etc group …. on the op-ed pages of every publication including the WSJ …… perhaps a press conference with arpaio and his posse, taitz, kalyman, mario, etc lest birthers be forever labeled “racists”, political, etc and not “patriots” but a fringe group aimed specifically at President Obama who was twice elected

  540. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep telling us that being a “natural born Citizen” is a political question. But then you want to forget about all the Americans that are interested in this issue. So which way do you want it, Scientist?

    Political questions are decided by majority rule and specifically a majority of those who get off their butts and vote The fact that you can come up with a few thousand or even a few million in a nation of over 300 million who buy some ridiculous argument carries no weight. What carries weight is that 51% of actual voters believed Obama is a natural born citizen and even among the 47% who voted for Rmoney and the 2% who voted for 3rd party candidates very few share your view (most simply preferred their guy and even among birthers, the born in Kenya crew sigificantly outnumbers the Vatellists).

  541. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep telling us that being a “natural born Citizen” is a political question. But then you want to forget about all the Americans that are interested in this issue. So which way do you want it, Scientist?

    Can anyone provide an English translation of this post? It doesn’t even begin to make sense.

  542. bovril says:

    @JP

    Fairly simple, when passed through the patent pending Mario’s Mendax-Atron…..

    “There’s a n**ger Democrat in OUR WHITEHOUSE and IT’S WRONG!!!!!! OMG! make it go away, lie, cheat, steal, piss on the Constitution.WHATEVER….MAKE THE SCARY BLACK MAN GO AWAY”

    I trust this has been of some use…. 😎

  543. Good grief, Mario. You went to law school. Surely you know what a “political question” is.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep telling us that being a “natural born Citizen” is a political question. But then you want to forget about all the Americans that are interested in this issue.

  544. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: sfjeff: And what makes those lower courts wrong- and you right? What makes your analysis ‘correct’ and that of the Indiana Court of Appeals ‘incorrect’?What are your legal gravitas that should be considered superior to that of the Apellete Justices of Indiana? Have you been a U.S. Superior Court Judge? An Appellete Court Judge? Have you taught Constitutional law at any of the top 5 law schools in the U.S.?What is your gravitas that makes you think your analysis is superior to every court that has decided otherwise?

    So you only argument is that your reading comprehension is better than all of the Appellete Court Judges in Indiana?

    And you base this upon what- your concept that you are right and they are wrong? LOL.

  545. dunstvangeet says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You ask the question whether Charles Curtis, the nation’s 31st Vice President, was a “natural born Citizen.”The question comes up because the Twelfth Amendment extends Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’s “natural born Citizen” requirement that applies to the President, to the Vice-President, meaning that no person except a “natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to the Office of Vice-President of the United States.

    Yep, Vice Presidents must be eligible to hold the office of the Presidency, therefore they also must be Natural Born Citizens. Charles Curtis was not born in the United States, therefore Charles Curtis is not a Natural Born Citizen, according to you.

    A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).Apart from having to be born to citizen parents, the other requirement is birth in a country. The American common law definition does not say that one must be born “in the United States” in any strict geographical sense. Rather, the definition uses the word “country.”

    Hate to tell you this, but “born in the United States” and “born in the Country are synomyns. Oh, and before I forget, which Court said this line: “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England…”? I’ll give you a hint. It’s the court that you continually say has not ruled against you. (Smith v. Alabama) Your entire argument that there is a common law distinct from the common law of England has been rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States, and been rejected by the Court for the last 160+ years.

    Charles Curtis was born in January 1860 in Topeka, Kansas Territory when it was not yet a U.S. state which occurred in January 1861.

    Yep, and not in the United States. Territories are not in the country, according to the Constitution.

    At that time his parents were both U.S. citizens.Curtis satisfies the two-U.S. citizen parents requirement.

    There is actually some debate on whether or not his mother was a citizen of the United States. His mother was 3/4ths American Indian, which up until the 1910s generally did not have citizenship, and were in fact barred in many cases from ever having citizenship within the United States because they still belonged to their own nations. Curtis also owed alliegance to the Kaw, Osage and Pottowattame nations. He had citizenship within those nations as well as the United States.

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “country” as:“The territory occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory.In the primary meaning, ‘country’ denotes the population, the nation, the state, or the government, having possession and dominion over a territory.”Black’s Law Dictionary 316 (5th ed. 1979).

    This is amusing. Do me a favor, use Black’s Law Dictionary and look up the following: Natural Born Citizen. I think you’ll find in Black’s Law Dictionary that it says, “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” Nothing about parantage in Black’s Law Dictionary. Either Black’s Law Dictionary is right on its definitions, or its wrong. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that Black’s Law Dictionary is right for this definition, and then completely reject it out of hand in the other definitions

    In January 1860 when Curtis was born, the United States occupied the Kansas Territory.That means that Kansas Territory was part of the country or dominion called the United States of America.

    Actually, no it doesn’t. The United States occupies Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. These are recognized U.S. Territories, and have such representation as such in Congress of the United States. However, birth in two of those (Northern Mariana and American Samoa) does not guarentee you citizenship at birth. And the other three require different provisions of U.S. Law to grant them citizenship. If mere occupation of the land meant that you were in the United States, then 8 USC 1402 through 8 USC 1408 would be unneccessary, and 8 USC 1408 would actually directly contradict what 8 USC 1401 and the Constitution says.

    The United States, being a country, extended its possessions and dominion to include Kansas Territory, thereby making that territory part of the country of the United States.In fact, Congress even passed laws that effected the territory’s sovereignty.The power and dominion that the United States had over that territory is evidence by the fact that it became a U.S. state in January 1861.

    Anything that happened after Curtis’s birth is irrelevant. The United States passes laws that affect the sovereignity of Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Yet, according to the Constitution, none of those are in the country.

    Anybody born in that territory to U.S. citizen parents could owe allegiance to no country other than the United States.

    Charles Curtis was born with allegience to 3 other nations.

    Additionally, when Curtis was just one-year old, he was already living in the United States on the same land in which he was born.

    Doesn’t matter. According to you, you cannot grant natural-born citizenship retroactively. So therefore the fact that the territory became part of the United States later on is immaterial.

    Hence, Curtis was born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.

    People born in American Samoa are born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. However, that doesn’t mean that they are born in the country, and therefore citizens of the United States.

  546. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not know why you fret so much. It is rather simple. We have U.S. citizens. They are either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.”

    All citizens are ‘citizens of the United States’- that is self evident.

    Citizens of the United States are either natural born citizens(citizens at birth) or naturalized citizens(citizens by law).

  547. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not have to get over anything. I am not the one who wants to be the legitimate President, now and in the future.

    Good thing we already have a legitimate President then who is a Natural Born Citizen.

  548. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: St. James, my friend,I think you have hit the bad by stating to the public that I am an “alcoholic.”I recommend that you retract that statement, good buddy.

    So? You’ve stated I am sympathetic to war crimes. No apology, either.

    For the record, I was active in SVdeP, the Catholic Peace Movement and the Berigan brothers, in college. The Jesuits got hold of me when I was 17, and it stuck for life – and I’m Jewish.

    I personally knew people who helped shelter the Catonsville Nine:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catonsville_Nine

  549. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The question of what is a “natural born Citizen” is still an open debate. The decisions of a handful of lower courts have far from brought this matter to a close. I realize that you rather think that the matter is over, but that is not the reality. Your whining is in wanting to cut off debate and declare victory. But that is not the deal. We are still in the court of public opinion. So stop your whining.

    Still an open debate?

    Barack Obama just won his second election. Every court has rejected your arguments. There is not a single congressman who has stated he will object to Barack Obama’s confirmation based upon your new definition of NBC.

    There is no ‘open debate’. By all practical measure the issue is well and settled.

  550. J.D. Reed says:

    Mario, the court of public opinion, AKA the popular vote, has already decided in Obama’s favor by a margin of something like 5 million.

    You lose.
    As usual.

  551. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Oh this is a fun game so Mario’s inequivelent answer on Charles Curtis doesn’t fit birther reasoning. Okay so do you consider Tom Vilsack to be a natural born citizen Mario?

  552. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: St. James, my friend,I think you have hit the bad by stating to the public that I am an “alcoholic.”I recommend that you retract that statement, good buddy.

    Considering your track record in court I doubt he has anything to fear if he doesn’t retract his comment. But also one only has to point to the insulting comments you’ve made here to show your lack of character. In order for it to be character assassination you actually have to have some character to assassinate and you, sir, do not.

  553. Arthur says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: St. James, my friend, I think you have hit the bad by stating to the public that I am an “alcoholic.” I recommend that you retract that statement, good buddy.

    St. James didn’t assert that Mario was an alcoholic, he was simply posing a question: “That’s if he was/is a great DWI attorney. But how can he be great if he’s an alcoholic himself?”

    I’m sure that despite St. James inquiry, Mario’s reputation among New Jersey’s lawyers and judges will continue to be right where it belongs.

  554. sfjeff: All citizens are ‘citizens of the United States’- that is self evident. Citizens of the United States are either natural born citizens(citizens at birth) or naturalized citizens(citizens by law).

    You keep posting the same comment over and over regarding the different types of citizens in the United States. Your confusion lies in confounding how one becomes a “citizen” with what type of “citizen” that person becomes.

    As I have said numerous times, there are only two groups of citizens in the Constitution and Acts of Congress. They are “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.”

    There are only two means by which these citizens are created. One is birth and the other is naturalization after birth.

    One who becomes a citizen by birth becomes either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.” One who becomes a citizen by naturalization after birth can only become a “citizen of the United States.”

    As to those that are born citizens, whether one becomes a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” is determined by whether one was born in the country to parents who were its citizens or not. If one can demonstrate that one’s birth circumstances satisfy both factors, i.e., birth in the country to citizen parents, one is a “natural born Citizen.” If one cannot, then one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.”

    This all means that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he still was not born to a U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot satisfy both conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” However, under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), he was born a citizen and therefore he is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.” The bottom line is that Obama, if born in Hawaii, can be a Fourteenth Amendment or Sec. 1401(a) “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  555. Paper says:

    As you have said erroneously many times. Your error has been shown to you multiple times.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    As I have said numerous times…

  556. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The bottom line is that Obama, if born in Hawaii, can be a Fourteenth Amendment or Sec. 1401(a) “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    It’s called lithium. Look into it.

  557. Majority Will says:

    JPotter: Can anyone provide an English translation of this post? It doesn’t even begin to make sense.

    I don’t speak “Sambuca”.

  558. Arthur: But how can he be great if he’s an alcoholic himself?

    Joseph Farah molests ruminants?

  559. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The bottom line is that Obama, if born in Hawaii, can be a Fourteenth Amendment or Sec. 1401(a) “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Rather than argue the same old tack, let’s try this: If Obama is not a natural born citizen and yet he is clearly President, then it follows that you do not have to be a natural born citizen in order to be President. And if you check the Constitution, what do you find? Lo and behold nowhere does it say you must be a natural born citizen to BE President. No, no such words appear. It has some mealy-mouthed stuff about being eligible for the office, but not a word about being President. So you have been wasting your time, because even if you proved your cockamamie theory, Obama would still BE President.

  560. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Your confusion lies in confounding how one becomes a “citizen” with what type of “citizen” that person becomes.

    I understand that the Stanford Law Review will be taking submissions (online) for volume 66 beginning in February, 2013. And of course there is the Temple Law Review – make your submission here

    http://law.bepress.com/cgi/submit_lawreview.cgi?a=templelr

  561. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Daniel

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The question of what is a “natural born Citizen” is still an open debate.The decisions of a handful of lower courts have far from brought this matter to a close.I realize that you rather think that the matter is over, but that is not the reality.Your whining is in wanting to cut off debate and declare victory.But that is not the deal.We are still in the court of public opinion.So stop your whining.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The question of what is a “natural born Citizen” is still an open debate.The decisions of a handful of lower courts have far from brought this matter to a close.I realize that you rather think that the matter is over, but that is not the reality.Your whining is in wanting to cut off debate and declare victory.But that is not the deal.We are still in the court of public opinion.So stop your whining.

    Oh there’s definately whining going on in this thread, but it’s not the people who’ve been on the winning side of the last 150+ court actions, including yours. People who win, don’t whine. It’s the people who lose who lose, who whine. And the loser here is…. oh yeah, it’s you.

    And you need to remember when citing your imaginary precedent delusion that you are right unless some higher court tells you are wrong, which is always the on higher than the last court you lost in……. After the SCOTUS, comes the Supreme Court of the Galactic Federation of Planets.

    The court of public opinion isn’t really on that list at all. Wouldn’t really matter anyways since the court of public opinion is very much set against you, as evidence by both the usual turnout at any birther gathering, which never manage to be bigger than a dozen, and the fact that Obama won, again. Of course even most of the people who voted against Obama, myself included, don’t buy into your delusions either, but that’s just icing on the cake.

  562. donna says:

    seriously? do you read what you post?

    “There are only two groups of citizens in the Constitution and Acts of Congress. They are “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.”

    ” One is birth and the other is naturalization after birth. ”

    so since obama WASN’T naturalized “after birth”, since there was no reason to, THEN he was “natural born”

    there is no sub-set of “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth” and on the other side “naturalized”

    this is how your assertion would look

    us citizens

    a) “natural born Citizen” born in the us to 2 american parents (btw, not the correct english translation of “les parents” in this context)

    b) “citizen of the United States.”

    1. naturalized

    2. born in the us

    you are therefore creating a separate class of americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the presidency (and vp)

    do you really think that’s what the drafters meant?

    if so, i strongly suggest that you conference with rubio & jindal, e subito, mario

    on 11/18 rubio gave a speech for Iowa Governor Terry Brandstadt’s birthday party – “Every four years it is traditionally the first presidential caucus in the country and viewed until then as a litmus test for possible candidates.”

    and tonight, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are speaking at the Jack Kemp Foundation award dinner labeled the “2016 GOP kick-off event ”

    two of the 3 do not belong to your “separate class” of american citizens

    in the voeltz lawsuit, klayman was asked by the judge “what if the father dies before the child is born (not born to 2 american parents at the time of birth)?” and “what about kids born due to in vitro fertilization (by a sperm donor or surrogate)?”

    what about the children born due to rape (30,000/yr) whose father is unknown?

    what about those adopted in closed adoptions?

    your “separate class” is eliminating more and more qualified americans

    pazzo, loco, fou, mario

  563. Sudoku says:

    Gee, Mario, if that were true, it would certainly be of vital importance to our country, as would be proof that one is eligible for the presidency. So, tell me, why isn’t parents’ citizenship on birth certificates?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: As to those that are born citizens, whether one becomes a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” is determined by whether one was born in the country to parents who were its citizens or not. If one can demonstrate that one’s birth circumstances satisfy both factors, i.e., birth in the country to citizen parents, one is a “natural born Citizen.” If one cannot, then one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.”

  564. Sudoku says:

    What about Spiro Agnew? His father was not a citizen when he was born. Are you saying he was not NBC and was not eligible for office, too?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You ask the question whether Charles Curtis, the nation’s 31st Vice President, was a “natural born Citizen.” The question comes up because the Twelfth Amendment extends Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’s “natural born Citizen” requirement that applies to the President, to the Vice-President, meaning that no person except a “natural born Citizen” shall be eligible to the Office of Vice-President of the United States.

  565. Yoda says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, I now know far more than I ever thought I would or cared to know about natural born citizenship and every case discussed. I can state emphatically that there is no legal support anywhere, not in statutes, not in the Constitution, and not in any case law ever decided in this Country that remotely supports your opinion. In fact, Minor says the exact opposite of what you think it does, even though it is dicta anyway. I am not going into chapter and verse at the moment, but I challenge you, mano a mano, to a debate about the legal definition of natural born citizenship on any neutral website of your choosing. I have given this challenge to Orly Taitz, who refused to debate me. I have given this challenge to Leo D’Onofrio, who likewise refused to debate me.

    What do you say? Straight legal analysis, mine vs. yours. No insults, nothing but the law. Are you up for it?

  566. Majority Will says:

    gorefan: I understand that the Stanford Law Review will be taking submissions (online) for volume 66 beginning in February, 2013. And of course there is the Temple Law Review – make your submission here

    http://law.bepress.com/cgi/submit_lawreview.cgi?a=templelr

    That’s funny! Does the Temple Law Review have a lampoon section for submissions from delusional and bigoted twits?

  567. Sudoku: What about Spiro Agnew?His father was not a citizen when he was born.Are you saying he was not NBC and was not eligible for office, too?

    I wish he was not eligible. Oh, well.

  568. Majority Will: I don’t speak “Sambuca”.

    I do. Great drink.

  569. Yoda: Mr. Apuzzo, I now know far more than I ever thought I would or cared to know about natural born citizenship and every case discussed. I can state emphatically that there is no legal support anywhere, not in statutes, not in the Constitution, and not in any case law ever decided in this Country that remotely supports your opinion. In fact, Minor says the exact opposite of what you think it does, even though it is dicta anyway. I am not going into chapter and verse at the moment, but I challenge you, mano a mano, to a debate about the legal definition of natural born citizenship on any neutral website of your choosing. I have given this challenge to Orly Taitz, who refused to debate me. I have given this challenge to Leo D’Onofrio, who likewise refused to debate me. What do you say? Straight legal analysis, mine vs. yours. No insults, nothing but the law. Are you up for it?

    Give me more details about the forum, etc. and I will give you my answer.

  570. ASK Esq says:

    Sudoku: What about Spiro Agnew? His father was not a citizen when he was born. Are you saying he was not NBC and was not eligible for office, too?

    In all fairness, I believe this has been debunked. I could be wrong, and it certainly doesn’t matter, but I don’t think this is correct.

  571. ASK Esq: In all fairness, I believe this has been debunked. I could be wrong, and it certainly doesn’t matter, but I don’t think this is correct.

    From http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html

    And like Barack Obama, Agnew’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Agnew was born. To evidence this, I offer the Agnew family’s entry in the 1920 U.S. Census (see lines 72-75), where just three lines above the entry for one-year-old Spiro Agnew, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is clearly listed as “Alien”:

  572. Sudoku says:

    I read it some time ago at Barackryphal. I haven’t seen a retraction, but maybe I missed it.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html

    ASK Esq: In all fairness, I believe this has been debunked. I could be wrong, and it certainly doesn’t matter, but I don’t think this is correct.

  573. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Give me more details about the forum, etc. and I will give you my answer.

    I have a couple of thoughts, we can go live on Reality Check radio, or I can create a group on facebook where only you and I are members, so no outside comments. When we are done we can open the group to anyone who wants to give input.

  574. donna: seriously? do you read what you post?“There are only two groups of citizens in the Constitution and Acts of Congress. They are “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.” ” One is birth and the other is naturalization after birth. ”so since obama WASN’T naturalized “after birth”, since there was no reason to, THEN he was “natural born”there is no sub-set of “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth” and on the other side “naturalized”this is how your assertion would lookus citizensa) “natural born Citizen” born in the us to 2 american parents (btw, not the correct english translation of “les parents” in this context)b) “citizen of the United States.” 1. naturalized2. born in the us you are therefore creating a separate class of americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the presidency (and vp) do you really think that’s what the drafters meant? if so, i strongly suggest that you conference with rubio & jindal, e subito, marioon 11/18 rubio gave a speech for Iowa Governor Terry Brandstadt’s birthday party – “Every four years it is traditionally the first presidential caucus in the country and viewed until then as a litmus test for possible candidates.”and tonight, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are speaking at the Jack Kemp Foundation award dinner labeled the “2016 GOP kick-off event ”two of the 3 do not belong to your “separate class” of american citizens in the voeltz lawsuit, klayman was asked by the judge “what if the father dies before the child is born (not born to 2 american parents at the time of birth)?” and “what about kids born due to in vitro fertilization (by a sperm donor or surrogate)?”what about the children born due to rape (30,000/yr) whose father is unknown?what about those adopted in closed adoptions?your “separate class” is eliminating more and more qualified americanspazzo, loco, fou, mario

    You said: “[Y]ou are therefore creating a separate class of americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the presidency (and vp)

    do you really think that’s what the drafters meant?”

    Have you read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5? It says: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    So, the Founders and Framers told us the following:

    1. For those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one except a “natural born Citizen” could be President. Hence, if anybody was born after the Constitution was adopted and he was only a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen,” he was not eligible for the Office of President.

    2. A grandfathered “citizen of the United States” or a “natural born Citizen” who was 35 years old or older and a 14-year resident qualified to be President, but one who was less than 35 years old did not.

    3. A grandfathered “citizen of the United States” or a “natural born Citizen” who was a resident of the United States for 14 years or more and at least 35 years old qualified to be President, but one who was a resident for less than 14 years did not.

    So, do you still believe that the “drafters” did not create a separate class of Americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the Office of President?

  575. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, do you still believe that the “drafters” did not create a separate class of Americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the Office of President?

    What about the drunk Martians?

  576. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: For those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one except a “natural born Citizen” could be President.

    Stop lying! Nowhere does it say such a thing.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, if anybody was born after the Constitution was adopted and he was only a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen,” he was not eligible for the Office of President

    “Eligible for the Office” and being President are 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Can you read?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: qualified to be President

    Now you’re onto yet a 3rd thing, “qualified”. Does someone have to have been a Senator or a Governor? Many people would say so.

    You don’t seem to understand how language works, Eligible, being, qualified are 3 different things.

  577. Yoda says:

    When you have to create the fiction of another class of individuals to make your argument work, you have already lost. As the Supreme Court stated in WKA, there are only two classes of citizens–citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. We know from Minor that the SCOTUS equated citizens at birth with NBC.

    So, do you still believe that the “drafters” did not create a separate class of Americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the Office of President?

  578. misha marinsky: war cri

    I see that you are attempting to defend the depraved acts of your mentors. They were not war crimes. They were the murder of their own people for the purpose of imposing communism upon those who were not murdered.

  579. Yoda: When you have to create the fiction of another class of individuals to make your argument work, you have already lost. As the Supreme Court stated in WKA, there are only two classes of citizens–citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. We know from Minor that the SCOTUS equated citizens at birth with NBC.So, do you still believe that the “drafters” did not create a separate class of Americans for the sole purpose of qualifying for the Office of President?

    So you want to start the debate early. Maybe you want a little practice. You will need it.

    As to those who are born citizens, simply being born a citizen could not possibly be a sufficient causal condition to become a “natural born Citizen,” for the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” Stated differently, to accept being born a citizen as the sufficient causal factor to be a “natural born Citizen” would write out of the clause the word “natural.” To argue that a “natural born Citizen” is any born citizen would also constitute a tautology, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.” This all means that there must be a specific definition of the clause “natural born Citizen” which when satisfied allows one to be accepted as a “natural born Citizen.” There is, indeed, such a definition. Whether one becomes a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” is determined by whether one was born in the country to parents who were its citizens or not. If one can demonstrate that one’s birth circumstances satisfy both factors, i.e., birth in the country to citizen parents, one is a “natural born Citizen.” If one cannot, then one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.” See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

  580. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you want to start the debate early.Maybe you want a little practice.You will need it.

    As to those who are born citizens, simply being born a citizen could not possibly be a sufficient causal condition to become a “natural born Citizen,” for the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.”Stated differently, to accept being born a citizen as the sufficient causal factor to be a “natural born Citizen” would write out of the clause the word “natural.”To argue that a “natural born Citizen” is any born citizen would also constitute a tautology, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.”This all means that there must be a specific definition of the clause “natural born Citizen” which when satisfied allows one to be accepted as a “natural born Citizen.”There is, indeed, such a definition.Whether one becomes a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” is determined by whether one was born in the country to parents who were its citizens or not.If one can demonstrate that one’s birth circumstances satisfy both factors, i.e., birth in the country to citizen parents, one is a “natural born Citizen.”If one cannot, then one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.”See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

    Son, you are not in my league. Is that claptrap something YOU wrote? No wonder you get laughed out of Court. It does not come from any case law and is completely false. You clearly do not understand either WKA or Minor. In Minor, the Court stated that the children of citizen parents (which does not necessarily refer to two citizen parents) were citizens themselves upon their birth. The next sentence starts with the word THESE. You have mistakenly assumed that THESE refers to the children of citizen parents. It doesn’t. It refers to citizens at birth. The rest of that sentence says that they (citizens at birth) are natives or natural born citizens. Therefore, although it was dicta, SCOTUS clearly stated that citizens at birth are natural born citizens.

    Oh, this will be fun. You are no competition.

  581. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I see that you are attempting to defend the depraved acts of your mentors.

    Woody Allen and Mel Brooks are depraved?

  582. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: They were the murder of their own people for the purpose of imposing communism upon those who were not murdered.

    You and Orly were Mussolini’s base.

  583. Yoda says:

    And why do you ignore the fact that the Court in WKA stated that there are only two kinds of citizens–citizens at birth and naturalized citizens?

  584. Mario Apuzzo said:

    Of course Guthrie is wrong. First he says that the Court held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Unlike Mario Apuzzo Guthrie actually won cases. He won one of the most important cases in the decade of the 1890’s when he was able to get the court to declare an income tax passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This eventually led to the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 to render the decision moot.

  585. Paper says:

    Yes, many times. It does not say what you purport. Your reading is a non-starter.

    Your insistence on your error will get you nowhere. At best, you will lead astray some small fraction of a percent of people already wanting to believe such things. In the wide world, of public opinion or in actual courts, your reading will always be recognized for the fabrication it is.

    You can rinse and repeat all you wish. Your parsing is flat out meritless. There was and is no such specific class of “citizen” as you define it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Have you read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?

  586. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: As to those who are born citizens, simply being born a citizen could not possibly be a sufficient causal condition to become a “natural born Citizen,” for the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” Stated differently, to accept being born a citizen as the sufficient causal factor to be a “natural born Citizen” would write out of the clause the word “natural.” To argue that a “natural born Citizen” is any born citizen would also constitute a tautology, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.”

    Zach Boren, linebacker at Ohio State is called a “natural born tackler”. http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2012/10/26/gameday/cover-boren.html

    It turns out his father was in fact a linebacker, but I am almost positive his mother never was.

  587. Yoda says:

    Mario–what is the difference between a native citizen and a natural born citizen?

  588. donna says:

    Mario: Have you read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?

    of course i have

    and minor and wong as well as your pleadings and the decisions and on and on

    your contortions to prove your assertions are so convoluted that they give me a headache

    but i would like to know what you are doing about rubio, jindal etc as i posted

    to wit:

    if so, i strongly suggest that you conference with rubio & jindal, e subito, mario

    on 11/18 rubio gave a speech for Iowa Governor Terry Brandstadt’s birthday party – “Every four years it is traditionally the first presidential caucus in the country and viewed until then as a litmus test for possible candidates.”

    and tonight, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are speaking at the Jack Kemp Foundation award dinner labeled the “2016 GOP kick-off event”

    two of the 3 do not belong to your “separate class” of american citizens

    in the voeltz lawsuit, klayman was asked by the judge “what if the father dies before the child is born (not born to 2 american parents at the time of birth)?” and “what about kids born due to in vitro fertilization (by a sperm donor or surrogate)?”

    what about the children born due to rape (30,000/yr) whose fathers are unknown?

    what about those adopted in closed adoptions?

    your “separate class” is eliminating more and more qualified americans

    pazzo, loco, fou, mario

  589. Scientist says:

    Here is another one:

    http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120806/ARTICLES/120809804?p=1&tc=pg

    Panthers rookie Kuechly is a natural born defender

    Luke Kuechly was born to play football.

    And not a word about his parents. I really doubt his mother was ever in the NFL.

    So, natural born = born

    Simple.

  590. James M says:

    donna:

    and tonight, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are speaking at the Jack Kemp Foundation award dinner labeled the “2016 GOP kick-off event”

    two of the 3 do not belong to your “separate class” of american citizens

    When and how did you confirm Mr. Ryan’s birthplace and the citizenship of his parents?

  591. donna says:

    James M:

    hmmm

    good question – actually i didn’t nor did the birther police – from information and belief, i can only confirm the info regarding rubio & bojangles & in birtherstan they are ineligible

  592. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You IQ is so low that you do not realize that your little innocence game is insulting not only to Ms. Hill but also to her law firm.

    LOL, I saw those three videos mario, it’s a revelation to me that Orly is not the only one with an IQ zero. I’d really want to see you team up with Orly for intertainment purposes. Aren’t you even embarrassed to flaunt how incompetent you are? You lost big time.

  593. Scientist: Here is another one:http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120806/ARTICLES/120809804?p=1&tc=pgPanthers rookie Kuechly is a natural born defenderLuke Kuechly was born to play football.And not a word about his parents. I really doubt his mother was ever in the NFL.So, natural born = bornSimple.

    Now if Einstein said natural born = born, I could believe it. But coming from you, Scientist, I have grave doubts.

  594. Scientist: Zach Boren, linebacker at Ohio State is called a “natural born tackler”. http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2012/10/26/gameday/cover-boren.htmlIt turns out his father was in fact a linebacker, but I am almost positive his mother never was.

    Now, I could see some 2nd grader making such a statement. But not you, Scientist.

  595. Saint James: LOL, I saw those three videos mario, it’s a revelation to me that Orly is not the only one with an IQ zero. I’d really want to see you team up with Orly for intertainment purposes. Aren’t you even embarrassed to flaunt how incompetent you are? You lost big time.

    You are a funny guy. You just keep trying here but just keep losing here.

  596. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a funny guy.You just keep trying here but just keep losing here.

    How many of your birther cases have you won Mario?

  597. Yoda: Son, you are not in my league. Is that claptrap something YOU wrote? No wonder you get laughed out of Court. It does not come from any case law and is completely false. You clearly do not understand either WKA or Minor. In Minor, the Court stated that the children of citizen parents (which does not necessarily refer to two citizen parents) were citizens themselves upon their birth. The next sentence starts with the word THESE. You have mistakenly assumed that THESE refers to the children of citizen parents. It doesn’t. It refers to citizens at birth. The rest of that sentence says that they (citizens at birth) are natives or natural born citizens. Therefore, although it was dicta, SCOTUS clearly stated that citizens at birth are natural born citizens. Oh, this will be fun. You are no competition.

    I apologize to you. I did not know that you were my elder by so many years.

    Still, what a corn trap you are. I’m going to ask my cousin Vinny if I can borrow his bellhop suit so that I can come appropriately dressed for our debate.

  598. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I apologize to you.I did not know that you were my elder by so many years.

    Still, what a corn trap you are.I’m going to ask my cousin Vinnie if I can borrow his bellhop suit so that I can come appropriately dressed for our debate.

    Way to address the substantive nature of my post, son. By the way, you have not accepted my challenge yet. Judging by your first attempt at posting about the legal issues I can understand why you are so scared.

  599. Yoda says:

    Come on Mario–what is the difference between a native and natural born citizen? That should be incredibly easy for you. I threw you a softball question.

  600. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a funny guy.You just keep trying here but just keep losing here.

    Whether he loses to you here is a matter of opinion. However, whether you lose in court, is a matter of record.

  601. Daniel: Whether he loses to you here is a matter of opinion. However, whether you lose in court, is a matter of record.

    What a card. And I thought they called it the “opinion” of the court. LOL

  602. Yoda: Way to address the substantive nature of my post, son. By the way, you have not accepted my challenge yet. Judging by your first attempt at posting about the legal issues I can understand why you are so scared.

    Grandfather, that is a hilarious interpretation of Minor given that Minor held:

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

    Minor, at 167-68

    You said that “These” refers to “citizens at birth” and not to “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” You then conclude that Minor informs in dicta that “citizens at birth are natural born citizens.” What a joke. “Citizens at birth” does not appear anywhere in the passage, and especially not before the Court’s use of “These.” Clearly, “These” could not refer to something that does not exist in the passage.

    The correct reading of “These” is that it refers to “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” who the Court said became upon their birth like their parents “citizens also.” So “These” refers to those “children” who became “citizens” by being “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” And it was these citizen children, “born in a country of parents who were its citizens,” who the Court called “natives or natural-born citizens.”

    What you fail to understand is that “citizens at birth” does not exist in some undefined vacuum in Minor as you would like us to believe. Rather, the Court explained that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” become upon their birth “citizens” also. Of course, we can conclude that those citizen children were “citizens at birth,” for that is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” But it was not being “citizens at birth” that was sufficient to make them “natural-born citizens,” for such a definition is tautological and therefore no definition at all. Rather, it was being “born in a country of parents who were its citizens” that did so. It is this latter phrase that gives meaning and definition to “citizen at birth” within what Minor described as the context of defining a “natural-born citizen.” On the other hand, your argument that a “natural born Citizen” is any “citizen at birth” is nothing but a tautology with no definition and a fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

    Things do not look too good for you in these pre-debate warm ups.

  603. Dr Kenneth Noisewater: How many of your birther cases have you won Mario?

    What’s the matter, cat’s got your tongue?

  604. Reality Check: Mario Apuzzo said:Unlike Mario Apuzzo Guthrie actually won cases. He won one of the most important cases in the decade of the 1890′s when he was able to get the court to declare an income tax passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This eventually led to the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 to render the decision moot.

    That Mr. Guthrie was given the opportunity to present a case in court on some other subject matter which he just happened to win does not equate with him being correct on his interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark decision.

  605. Yoda says:

    Actually that was not a holding at all son, that is dicta. They teach that in the first year of law school. And you obviously have a major reading comprehension problem “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. This means citizens at birth. Clearly the expression is there son,

    Again, the next sentence starts with THESE (meaning citizens at birth) were natives or natural born citizens, The court therefore equated citizens at birth and natural born citizens.

    By the way son, how was it a holding if Minor was a voting rights case? And you never answered my question, what is the difference between a native and natural born citizen? when you answer that question correctly you will begin to realize how wrong you are.

    By the way, when a court uses terms as synonyms it does not mean it is tautological. You should learn the difference.

    Your conclusion contains false assumptions, not the least of which is meaning of the word THESE.

    Answer my question–what is the difference between native and natural born citizens?

  606. Yoda says:

    By the way, tautological means that you are using the word or term to define itself. Defining natural born citizens as all citizens at birth is not tautological because we then have to look at who is defined as a citizen at birth. I am impressed by the depth of your commitment to your flawed argument, which is really based on the false belief that your improper understanding of dicta is a binding precedent.

    Tell me Marion, where in that passage did the Court state that only the children of two citizen parents born on US soil are NBC? While you are at it son, can it not be said that ten child in one room, each with at least one citizen parents is a roomful of children with citizen parents? And since that is true, what is the basis for your conclusion that parents refers to two parents?

  607. Yoda: Actually that was not a holding at all son, that is dicta. They teach that in the first year of law school. And you obviously have a major reading comprehension problem “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. This means citizens at birth. Clearly the expression is there son, Again, the next sentence starts with THESE (meaning citizens at birth) were natives or natural born citizens, The court therefore equated citizens at birth and natural born citizens. By the way son, how was it a holding if Minor was a voting rights case? And you never answered my question, what is the difference between a native and natural born citizen? when you answer that question correctly you will begin to realize how wrong you are.By the way, when a court uses terms as synonyms it does not mean it is tautological. You should learn the difference.Your conclusion contains false assumptions, not the least of which is meaning of the word THESE. Answer my question–what is the difference between native and natural born citizens?

    Pop, your “citizen at birth” baloney is just that. Nice try, just making stuff up. Anybody with a little sense can read the simple Minor passage and see the hogwash you have presented.

    Also, Pop, you think you have some secret weapon in this thing about “what is the difference between native and natural born citizens.” That is old hat. At common law with which the Framers were familiar, there was no difference.

    By the way, I called my cousin Vinny. He said I can borrow his bellhop suit for our debate.

  608. Yoda says:

    Very legal argument–calling something you can’t dispute hogwash.

    Yes, you are correct. There is no difference between a native citizen and a natural born citizen. so you recognize that two different terms can mean the same thing. And how is a native citizen defined?

  609. Yoda says:

    And son, explain to me why, if my citizen at birth argument is baloney, every court that has ever touched the issue has come to the same conclusion?

    And why have you turned dicta into binding precedent?

  610. Yoda says:

    I told you boy, you are way out of your league. Come on son, Answer these simple questions.

  611. Yoda: By the way, tautological means that you are using the word or term to define itself. Defining natural born citizens as all citizens at birth is not tautological because we then have to look at who is defined as a citizen at birth. I am impressed by the depth of your commitment to your flawed argument, which is really based on the false belief that your improper understanding of dicta is a binding precedent.Tell me Marion, where in that passage did the Court state that only the children of two citizen parents born on US soil are NBC? While you are at it son, can it not be said that ten child in one room, each with at least one citizen parents is a roomful of children with citizen parents? And since that is true, what is the basis for your conclusion that parents refers to two parents?

    Hey Pop (please forgive me if you are a woman), this statement by you is a real gem: “Defining natural born citizens as all citizens at birth is not tautological because we then have to look at who is defined as a citizen at birth.” You are so full of yourself that you do not even realize that you have just admitted that I am correct. Indeed, you have admitted that “citizens at birth” is not a definition at all because we still “have to look at who is defind as a citizen at birth.” You are a piece work, my friend.

    I am having some real doubts about our debate. You already lost everything. There is nothing left to debate. I am going to call my cousin Vinny again and tell him that I will not be needing his bellhop suit. But I will surely thank him for his generous offer.

  612. Yoda says:

    I am not your friend and you just proved once again that you have a reading comprehension problem. Lost? Son, you are showing more ignorance with each post. I see you running away like the punk child you are. You ain’t in my league boy. You don’t know the difference between dicta and a holding, you haven’t been able to answer most of my questions and your best legal argument “nu uh”.

  613. Yoda says:

    Come on son, answer my questions

  614. Yoda says:

    You are right though, it is not much of a debate since you know so little about basic legal principles.

  615. Yoda says:

    You can run along now son. It was fun kicking your ignorant arrogant ass.

  616. Poor Pop, what a desperate man/woman. What pleasure it is to see truth prevail.

  617. Yoda says:

    How many questions were you unable to answer? So many. It’s funny that my argument wins every time, but you call ME desperate? Let me give you some advice son. It is one thing to ignorant, It is another thing to be arrogant. But being arrogant about your own ignorance is a bad combination. When you couple that with what is an obvious propensity for delusions, and you can start to understand why you lose every case.

  618. nbc says:

    Hilarious. Mario continues to claim ‘victory’ despite his clear losses in Court which rejected many of his musings as academic or lacking in legal merit. Mario is however not deterred by his lack of success, and insists that all these courts must have been wrong. Needless to say, the Court in WKA faced many of the same arguments raised by Mario and rejected them.

    Funny dude… Cannot accept defeat and cannot accept that from now on Mario will be linked to the failed ‘Vattel’ birthers.

  619. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are mischaracterizing Wong Kim Ark. The issue there was whether Wong was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to avoid deportation, not whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Again not understanding WKA. Since the 14th Amendment had not created any new citizenship, the Court had to look at the Constitution which recognized citizens and natural born citizens and the right of congress to write uniform laws of naturalization. As such, the Court was faced with the fact that WKA could not be a citizen under the naturalization clause as such was forbidden by law. But if WKA could be a citizen under the natural born citizen clause, then he would indeed be a US citizen.
    The court renders its verdict after explaining how a child of any parents, with minor exceptions, if born on US soil, is indeed a natural born citizen and thus a citizen of the US.

    Still struggling with the clear ruling I notice.

    No worries. I expect no progress in your personal education as you are too emotionally invested and the inevitable bias has caused you to reject common sense, the same common sense the courts applied and which you insist, should be rejected.

    Watch out for them windmills my friend…

  620. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have been saying all along, when the Obots have no answer to the “natural born Citizen” argument, the best they can do is point to some court which as I have also said is not any State Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court

    Well, WKA disagress with you and is cited by these lower Courts. Sorry Mario… Still nothing but wishful thinking that Scotus would take you ‘academic’ claims more seriously than the lower courts. Given that various courts have come to the same conclusion, I should not get my hopes up too much. The issue is no longer of interest to the Courts.

    How many losses does that make now Mario? Quite a legacy to be proud of, I am sure…

  621. nbc says:

    Yoda: When you couple that with what is an obvious propensity for delusions, and you can start to understand why you lose every case.

    It’s just that the rest of the world must be crazy, the alternative is unthinkable..

  622. bovril says:

    It becomes more and more apparent that Mendax Mario is moving into distinct self harming routines and habits.

    In addition to his obvious masochistic tendencies it becomes plain that he only gains gratification and validation via humiliation. This combined with his narcissistic self aggrandisation, emotionally stunted social interactions as well as attention seeking behaviour has led to a noxious swathe of pathologies that needs urgent professional attention

    The escalation in this self destructive behaviour is plain with his new attachment to another and even more profoundly disturbed individual in Mad Old Orly.

    The problem is, as is plainly and repeatedly evidenced, MOO is a vindictive, abusive, unforgiving, verbally (at least written) violent individual who has no compunction in abusing the damaged. Leah Lax et-al passim.

    Mario needs to grasp that self abuse on this scale will lead not just to further psychological damage but if he engages in her Birfoon Pretend Lawyer Games will reap the whirlwind of the accrued animus she has built up.

    Based on the current escalating state of play in the legal arena, another 4K costs to MOO, 10K+ to Sibley, Grand Oceanic Admiral of the Seas Fitzpatrick more jail time etc, we can expect that Mario, if tied (figuratively or actually) to MOO will be sanctioned equally badly moving forward.

    Personally I can’t think of someone (other than Orly) who more richly deserves to be sanctioned into penury but I was brought up to at least attempt once to temper my schadenfreude per idiot.

    So, Mario, wake up, smell the coffee, seek help and cut down on the morning grappa.

    Right, that’s done, now I get to revel in his slow and inexorable downward spiral………. 😎

    p.s. Mario, how many case have you or the rest of the Birther crew won again..?

  623. The Magic M says:

    bovril: The problem is, as is plainly and repeatedly evidenced, MOO is a vindictive, abusive, unforgiving, verbally (at least written) violent individual who has no compunction in abusing the damaged. Leah Lax et-al passim.

    Well, if Mario and Orly eventually battle one another in court, that’d be something to buy popcorn for. Lots of. And it would reimburse me for the cost of all the destroyed irony meters.

  624. Lupin says:

    And again (after this new shovelful of drivel) the question is begged:

    Mario Apuzzo: Idiot or Liar?

    Should we take a poll? I vote “Liar” myself. Nobody can be that idiotic.

  625. Northland10 says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep posting the same comment over and over regarding the different types of citizens in the United States.Your confusion lies in confounding how one becomes a “citizen” with what type of “citizen” that person becomes.

    As I have said numerous times, there are only two groups of citizens in the Constitution and Acts of Congress.They are “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.”

    (snip)

    One who becomes a citizen by birth becomes either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.”

    Mario, you keep posting the same comment over and over regarding the different types of citizens in the United States. Yet, you have not explained something.

    You have stated repeatedly that there are 2 types of citizens and you are EITHER one OR the other. Article I, Section 2 states the qualification to Congress is a citizen of the United States. Eligibility for President is a natural born Citizen. By your either-or definition, a natural born Citizen is not eligible for Congress. How do you justify this?

    On a related note, there were African-Americans serving in Congress in less than 7 years after the 14th amendment. If the 14th amendment created another type of citizenship, how could they be eligible?

  626. Lupin says:

    I’ll explain why I say “Liar”.

    We’ve seen in your recent presidential election yet again the efforts made by the GOP, especially in Florida, to disenfranchise voters, especially non-white voters.

    Unlike the Shadow I don’t know what lurks within the hearts of men; but I go by the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck” principle.

    Mario Apuzzo’s actions, if they have any effect at all, aim to provide a legal underpinning for a profoundly racist, white supremacist agenda, ie: creating a new subclass of citizens.

    It is enough to speculate what would happen if Mario’s agenda came to be recognized as the correct interpretation of the Law: millions of Americans born on US soil from one (or two) non-citizen parents would become automatically barred from running for the highest positions in your Nation.

    Quite a while ago, I established that Mario’s “two citizens parents” notion actually originated in KKK founder Brigadier Gordon’s [PRESCRIPT] and provided a link thereto. (The [PRESCRIPT] also targeted Jews and immigrants from Southern European origins, which is rather ironic in this case.)

    I think the problem with Mario is not that, unlike his clients, he himself is deeply racist and/or committed to a racist agenda, it is that he has no moral compass at all. His attesting under oath to the truth of the Pakistani visa matter in his pleadings is sufficient to establish his total lack of ethics.

    That’s why I vote “Liar” rather than “Idiot”.

  627. Lupin,

    You said: “It is enough to speculate what would happen if Mario’s agenda came to be recognized as the correct interpretation of the Law: millions of Americans born on US soil from one (or two) non-citizen parents would become automatically barred from running for the highest positions in your Nation.”

    Have you considered that such a result is what the Founders and Framers constitutionally commanded when they wrote and adopted Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and what the American people accepted when they ratified that clause which provides:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    Yes, indeed, not all American “citizens” are eligible to be President, for the Founders and Framers told us the following:

    1. For those born after the Constitution was adopted, no one except a “natural born Citizen” could be President. Hence, if anybody was born after the Constitution was adopted and he was only a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen,” he was not eligible for the Office of President.

    2. A grandfathered “citizen of the United States” or a “natural born Citizen” who was 35 years old or older and a 14-year resident qualified to be President, but one who was less than 35 years old did not.

    3. A grandfathered “citizen of the United States” or a “natural born Citizen” who was a resident of the United States for 14 years or more and at least 35 years old qualified to be President, but one who was a resident for less than 14 years did not.

    4. Finally, any “citizen of the United States” who acquired that status after his or her birth, having acquired that status through naturalization after birth, was forever barred from being eligible for the Office of President.

    So, are you still so shocked that some American “citizens” are excluded from being eligible to occupy the Office of President? Do you really believe that the American people at the Founding did not designate a group Americans for the sole purpose of allowing only them to be eligible for the Office of President and temporarily exclude some and permanently exclude others from eligibility to that high office?

  628. For those, such as myself, who have been looking for this link since 2009, I note that the text by George Gordon is not “PRECEPTS” but “PRESCRIPT.” Lupin found it in the book “The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America” by Win Craig Wade. There is a preview of the book available at Google Books which contains most of this document in an appendix. I have ordered a hard copy. No ebook available.

    Lupin: Quite a while ago, I established that Mario’s “two citizens parents” notion actually originated in KKK founder Brigadier Gordon’s PRECEPTS and provided a link thereto. (The PRECEPTS also targeted Jews and immigrants from Southern European origins, which is rather ironic in this case.)

  629. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What’s the matter, cat’s got your tongue?

    I notice you didn’t answer the question. What’s the matter did Obama steal your winning cases from you?

  630. I think it reasonable to look at the debates over the qualifications of members of Congress from the Federal Convention of 1787, debates that were vigorous and extended. The issue was how long must one be a citizen to hold the office. Some said that only the native-born should be Senators. Others thought a lesser time was sufficient. (No one mentioned parents.)

    Some citizens are eligible to be members of Congress and others not, based on the length of time they have been citizens. The length of time required to be president is “ones whole life.” It is not really that the President must be a different kind of citizen than members of Congress, only that the length of time that he is a citizen is different.

    When I write an article mentioning racism, you’re over here squealing lick a stuck pig. When I write a substantive and thoughtful article like http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/the-framers-on-foreign-influence/ you’re never to be seen.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Have you considered that such a result is what the Founders and Framers constitutionally commanded when they wrote and adopted Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and what the American people accepted when they ratified that clause which provides:

  631. Lupin says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: For those, such as myself, who have been looking for this link since 2009, I note that the text by George Gordon is not “PRECEPTS” but “PRESCRIPT.”

    I apologize for the mistake; I was (mis)remembering off the top of my head.

  632. Lupin says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So, are you still so shocked that some American “citizens” are excluded from being eligible to occupy the Office of President?

    I’m not shocked by the minimum age & residency requirements; I don’t think anyone is. I’m shocked by your avocation of racist/xenophobic requirements.

    Let me remind you that Julius Streicher never wore the Nazi uniform and as far as I know never killed anyone: he was merely a propagandist. Yet, they still hung him at Nuremberg.

    AFAIC you may not wear the KKK robes, but whether or not you believe in it, what yo do is odious and you still belong to that same ilk.

  633. donna says:

    lupin:

    mario has refused to translate my phrase into english regarding “les parents” – he told me to get a french waiter to help me out

    lol do you know any?

  634. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: what the American people accepted when they ratified that clause

    Putzie’s knowledge of history is as poor as his knowledge of law. The “American people” never ratified squat. The ratification was conducted by state legislatures, which consisted entirely of white, male property owners (in many cases the “property” consisted largely of other human beings) elected by other white male property owners. Women, ordinary working people, the vast majority of blacks, not to mention native Americans (who could rightfully have said, “As a matter of fact, we DO own the country”) were completely without representation. The electorate was limited to perhaps 15% of the adult population at best. So, “the people” of 1788 did not ratify that clause and the people of 2012 even less so.

    How’s about a national referendum with a choice between: 1. Putzie’s two citizen parent crap and; 2. The normal definition that all courts accept (we can call it the Ankeny definition). And, how’s about throwing in: 3. Get rid of the NBC thing entirely-perhaps substitute a requirement that you have been a citizen for 20 years. Then, we can see whether Putzie represents anyone beyond himself.

  635. Lupin says:

    donna: mario has refused to translate my phrase into english regarding “les parents”

    You must be new here! 😉 I have discovered very quickly that Mario always refuses to comment when caught red-handed in one of his many lies.

    I was originally drawn here because of the preposterous interpretations of Vattel put out by the birther community. (I’m a bit of specialist & have edited some of Vattel’s text in English). I found rather quickly that truth and reason penetrate Mario’s skin the same way water will a block of granite.

  636. donna says:

    Lupin: You must be new here! …………

    no, not new, and i regularly follow your posts

    “I have discovered very quickly that Mario always refuses to comment when caught red-handed in one of his many lies.”

    i also asked mario what he intends to do about rubio and jindal since, in birtherstan, they are ineligible – as late as last night they appeared at a “kickoff to 2016”

    he has also twice ignored my question about them

  637. The Magic M says:

    donna: i also asked mario what he intends to do about rubio and jindal since, in birtherstan, they are ineligible

    A typical deluded birther would answer: “Since Obama set a precedent, we cannot contest their election; therefore we must concentrate on Obama.” Well, ODS give you a zillion reason why only the black guy is held to a certain standard.

  638. Lupin says:

    donna: he has also twice ignored my question about them

    The list of questions Mario has refused to answer is long indeed.

  639. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    donna: Lupin: You must be new here! …………no, not new, and i regularly follow your posts “I have discovered very quickly that Mario always refuses to comment when caught red-handed in one of his many lies.”i also asked mario what he intends to do about rubio and jindal since, in birtherstan, they are ineligible – as late as last night they appeared at a “kickoff to 2016″he has also twice ignored my question about them

    You should see his birther intepretation of why he says McCain was eligible based on Vattel. Claiming somehow that Vattel considered those serving overseas to military parents the same as those born on the country’s soil. It’s quite convoluted.

  640. The Magic M says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: for the Founders and Framers told us the following:
    […]
    4. Finally, any “citizen of the United States” who acquired that status after his or her birth, having acquired that status through naturalization after birth, was forever barred from being eligible for the Office of President.

    Correct – and those who acquired that status at birth (citizen at birth = natural born citizen) – and not by naturalization – were not (barred, that is). You’re saying it right there without realizing it.
    Your four points do not mention parents once.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Some said that only the native-born should be Senators. Others thought a lesser time was sufficient. (No one mentioned parents.)

    That’s another thing Mario can’t explain – why none of the framers ever talked about parents. I mean, wouldn’t you expect some discussion whether you needed one or two citizen parents, or a mention of Vattel regarding parents, or why “native born” simply wasn’t enough?

  641. donna says:

    The Magic M: “…..a zillion reason why only the black guy is held to a certain standard.”

    yeah, “only the black guy” since the other 2, rubio & jindal” are “brown”

  642. As Madison (Framer, Congressman and President) said:

    It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.

    Rather than follow a trail of bread crumbs made up on things taken out of context, the straightforward reason the Framers never talked about parentage is that, as Madison put it, such considerations were “unnecessary.”

    The Magic M: That’s another thing Mario can’t explain – why none of the framers ever talked about parents. I mean, wouldn’t you expect some discussion whether you needed one or two citizen parents, or a mention of Vattel regarding parents, or why “native born” simply wasn’t enough?

  643. Lupin says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: As Madison (Framer, Congressman and President)

    You forgot French citizen! 🙂

  644. JPotter says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: Rather than follow a trail of bread crumbs made up on things taken out of context, the straightforward reason the Framers never talked about parentage is that, as Madison put it, such considerations were “unnecessary.”

    Absolutely. It’s ridiculous to imagine the Framers in colonial America, being paranoid about people from the Outside. “Outside” being defined as outside the colonies. Borders were fluid. Territories changed from one international power to another. Allies became enemies and back to Allies again. The idea of the United Colonies was a recent invention. Immigrants were the rule, not the exception. There was already pride in being able to trace ancestry back to early settlers, but such persons were rare (which is why it was worth taking pride in!).

    This desire to insist that the Founders / Framers wished to disenfranchise immigrants and first generation Americans is just one giant case of projection by nutty moderns onto much worthier forebears!

  645. Yoda says:

    The funniest thing about Mario is that he cites his own failed briefs to support his failed arguments. It is obvious that Mario runs from direct questions that go directly to the heart of his argument.

    1) Why do you call the passage in Minor a holding when it is clearly dicta?

    2) If a native citizen is one who is born here and a native and natural born citizens are the same thing, how is a person not a natural born citizen by virtue of his being born here?

    3) The dissenting opinion in WKA lamented the fact that the Ark could become President, how would that be possible unless the Majority ruled that Ark was a NBC?

    4) The two citizen parent theory is based on DeVattel’s law of Nations. MInor refers to the Common aw, DeVattle is a treatise, not the Common law, what is the authority for saying that the Law of Nations generally and the definition of NBC was part of the Common law prior to Minor being decided?

    5) The Court in WKA said that there were two types of citizens, citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. There is a naturalization process in this Country. The Minor passage discusses doubts of the citizenship status of child born to aliens on US soil, would there have been a need to do so if those children had been naturalized? If not, isn’t it true that the doubts expressed concerned whether they were citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on US soil?

    6) If you have 10 children all with one citizen parent, can it be said that there are 10 children with citizen parents? If not, how is that not correct? If yes, isn’t it true that the phrase children born to citizen parents can include children born to ONE citizen parent?

    7) If the founding fathers were concerned about foreign influence, why would a person only be required to be a resident for 14 years in order to be President?

    8) What is the significance of the original intent of the natural born citizenship requirement if the Supreme Court has ruled that a person born here, with two exceptions, is a natural born citizen as it did in WKA?

    9) Is it truly your belief that the founding fathers created a “ruling class” of people? If so, what is your basis for saying that?

    10) The Law of Nations also advocates strict gun control, how do you explain the second amendment if the founding fathers were so influenced by DeVattel?

    11) The Law of Nations itself contemplated that people other than the children of citizen parents could be natural born citizens, accordingly, why do you rely solely on section 212?

    12) What is your basis for saying that the definition of Natural Born Citizen was the currently understood translation of section 212, when it was not translated that way until years after the Constitution was adopted?

    I have more.

  646. donna says:

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: It’s quite convoluted.

    mario’s interpretations and explanations are so convoluted and contrived that they give me a headache

    perhaps that’s mario’s plan – fortunately, the triers of FACT have more patience and maybe more potent pain meds

  647. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This all means that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he still was not born to a U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot satisfy both conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” However, under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), he was born a citizen and therefore he is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” “by birth,” or “from birth.” The bottom line is that Obama, if born in Hawaii, can be a Fourteenth Amendment or Sec. 1401(a) “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    The voters, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts(who swore Obama in), and every lower court disagrees with your rather bizarre interpretation.

    Frankly all Americans know you are wrong. That is what makes this so bizarre- all Americans know that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. We all learned this as kids.

    You have created a new definition specifically and solely intended to disqualify Barack Obama from office.

    And all sane people have rejected your warped rational.

  648. Jim says:

    And all sane people have rejected your warped rational.

    So Mario, if you’re so right on this, where are all the legal scholars backing up your findings? How many law professors have you got on board? Constitutional experts? I guess you’re just a genius in your own mind. 😀

  649. Daniel says:

    Yoda:
    The funniest thing about Mario is that he cites his own failed briefs to support his failed arguments.

    To be fair, that’s not really Mario’s fault. I’m sure he would cite credible sources to support his position, if any existed. Since none do, he’s kind of limited to his own delusions.

  650. donna says:

    Jim:

    and where are the RESPECTABLE attorneys like ted olson, ben ginsberg, victoria toensing joe digenova, etc ……………… ALL conservatives?

    is it that THEY are not “patriots” and don’t know who is eligible and “natural born”?

    how sad!!!!

  651. Yoda is still at it after he/she lost the debate. What a funny guy/gal.

  652. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Yoda is still at it after he/she lost the debate.What a funny guy/gal.

    Funny, but all I saw was you getting your butt kicked while you declared victory and evaded questions.

  653. Keith says:

    Yoda: Funny, but all I saw was you getting your butt kicked while you declared victory and evaded questions.

    What debate?

    This was more like a class-room discussion, and you got schooled.

  654. Yoda says:

    Keith: What debate?

    This was more like a class-room discussion, and you got schooled.

    Are you saying I got schooled or Putzie did?

  655. Keith says:

    Yoda: Are you saying I got schooled or Putzie did?

    Sorry that is confusing. I thought I was responding to Mr. Esquire. I got that very wrong.

  656. Yoda says:

    Keith: Sorry that is confusing. I thought I was responding to Mr. Esquire. I got that very wrong.

    Thanks

  657. Yoda says:

    Mario, face it son, when it comes to legal analysis, you are my bitch. I offered you a civil debate on the subject. You never accepted, instead choosing to start being insulting. Big mistake, HUGE. But it was fun educating you.

  658. JPotter says:

    sfjeff: We all learned this as kids.

    Indeed. I’ve been on a search for an American textbook from any point in the past, that leaves open the door to birferism. A couple dozen texts from teh 1850s to the 1950s later … nothing. Lot’s of interesting material, even embarrassingly xenophobic, equgenic, and or rascist material (particularly from the 1910s and 1920s …. like the (Re)birh of a (Hateful) Nation 🙁 ) …. but nowhere any suggestion that such and such persons born under so-an-so circumstances are not NBCs. No “14th Amendment citizens” or federal citizens. No state’s rights rampages, etc. Not even from Reconstruction.

    Will keep looking ….

  659. Yoda says:

    JPotter: Indeed. I’ve been on a search for an American textbook from any point in the past, that leaves open the door to birferism. A couple dozen texts from teh 1850s to the 1950s later … nothing. Lot’s of interesting material, even embarrassingly xenophobic, equgenic, and or rascist material (particularly from the 1910s and 1920s …. like the (Re)birh of a (Hateful) Nation ) …. but nowhere any suggestion that such and such persons born under so-an-so circumstances are not NBCs. No “14th Amendment citizens” or federal citizens. No state’s rights rampages, etc. Not even from Reconstruction.

    Will keep looking ….

    Don’t you know the regime collected all those old books and replaced them with books that don’t support birtherism?

  660. JPotter says:

    Yoda: Don’t you know the regime collected all those old books and replaced them with books that don’t support birtherism?

    The Ulysses S. Grant regime, of course. Drat them danged Yanks!

  661. ASK Esq says:

    The Magic M: A typical deluded birther would answer: “Since Obama set a precedent, we cannot contest their election; therefore we must concentrate on Obama.” Well, ODS give you a zillion reason why only the black guy is held to a certain standard.

    Actually, I have seen many birthers who are convinced that, if either Jindal or Rubio ran for President or VP, Democrats would complain that they were not eligible. It is often typical of guilty people to think that others would do the same reprehensible acts that they committed themselves.

  662. You would think that if Apuzzo were correct about Minor v Happersett he could post links to contemporary articles in legal journals that would have noted that “Hey, the Supreme Court just defined the term natural born citizen and you have to have two citizen parents to be president.”. He cannot find even one. However, there are several contemporary articles that concluded that the court defined in 1898 that a person born of Chinese parents who were barred by law from ever naturalizing could himself become president some day.

  663. Yoda: Mario, face it son, when it comes to legal analysis, you are my bitch. I offered you a civil debate on the subject. You never accepted, instead choosing to start being insulting. Big mistake, HUGE. But it was fun educating you.

    Yoda, you are an embarrassment to Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. Get lost.

  664. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Yoda, you are an embarrassment to Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. Get lost.

    ROTLF… He is embarrassing you… Let’s not confuse cause and effect here my confused friend. Remember what the Government argued?

    The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    Yes, Mario, when your lack of arguments is exposed, your behavior becomes quite predictable. ROTFL… Minor does not support your position, WKA totally destroys it and the lower courts now have all taken notice of WKA and rejected your ‘academic’ arguments as lacking in legal merit.

    The Court wrote:

    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.

    All know, now who is going to tell Mario… Must annoy him that in the history books he may at best be remembered for his follies just like the arguments by George Collins which mirror in many aspects Mario’s ‘arguments’ and which were clearly rejected by the Court in WKA.

    Good luck Mario… Happy retirement.

  665. nbc says:

    Reality Check: He cannot find even one. However, there are several contemporary articles that concluded that the court defined in 1898 that a person born of Chinese parents who were barred by law from ever naturalizing could himself become president some day.

    Yes, even the dissenting Judge observed this… But Mario… Not so much. I still believe that Mario may have a reading comprehension problem. Perhaps English is not his native tongue? Anyone?

  666. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Yoda is still at it after he/she lost the debate.What a funny guy/gal.

    ROTFL… Yes, Mario’s idea of a debate is somewhat different from reality, as is his understanding of ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ a debate.

    Mario has tried many times, and when he lost the arguments, he would disappear, mope at his lair, commenting how mean we were and how he had ‘shown us’…

    Much hilarity ensues…

  667. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are the one who does not get it. Children that Minor did not address went on to become “citizens” in Wong Kim Ark, not “natural born Citizens.”

    ROTFL.. Since they were not naturalized they were obviously natural born citizen… Comprehension Mario…

    Read the case

    These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Aliens of foreigners…

    Sigh…

  668. nbc: Again not understanding WKA. Since the 14th Amendment had not created any new citizenship, the Court had to look at the Constitution which recognized citizens and natural born citizens and the right of congress to write uniform laws of naturalization. As such, the Court was faced with the fact that WKA could not be a citizen under the naturalization clause as such was forbidden by law. But if WKA could be a citizen under the natural born citizen clause, then he would indeed be a US citizen.The court renders its verdict after explaining how a child of any parents, with minor exceptions, if born on US soil, is indeed a natural born citizen and thus a citizen of the US.Still struggling with the clear ruling I notice.No worries. I expect no progress in your personal education as you are too emotionally invested and the inevitable bias has caused you to reject common sense, the same common sense the courts applied and which you insist, should be rejected.Watch out for them windmills my friend…

    You said that “the 14th Amendment had not created any new citizenship.” This is incorrect. As Minor so clearly explained, the amendment did not create any new citizenship for the “class” made up by anyone who was born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Minor also clearly explained that this class was comprised of those “citizens” who were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” We can see that at common law, “native” (not to be confused with “native-born” which was later used in our history to denote birth on U.S. soil) had the same meaning as “natural-born citizen.” Minor added that as to the “class” made up of any one “born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” … “there have been doubts.” The Court was very clear in stating that there was no doubt as to the citizenship status of children born in the country to “citizen” parents. They were not only “citizens,” but they were “natural-born citizens.” As to those children born in the country to alien parents, there were doubts that they were even “citizens.” And surely, they could not be “natural-born citizens” because they did not meet the definition of the clause that existed “at common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” which was “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws. The New Jersey Supreme Court had earlier confirmed in Benny v. O’Brien, 58 N.J. Law, 29 Vroom 36, 39, 40 (1895) that “[t]he colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.” So, the only way such children, born in the country to alien parents, could be U.S. “citizens” was if they could be accepted as being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. And that is what both Benny and Wong Kim Ark did. But again, there is nothing in either Benny or Wong Kim Ark which suggests that these new “citizens” “at birth” were “natural born Citizens.”

    You said: “But if WKA could be a citizen under the natural born citizen clause, then he would indeed be a US citizen.” This is incorrect. Wong Kim Ark interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In fact, Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark only mentioned the clause “natural born Citizen” when the court cited and quoted Minor and its definition of the clause and when it made a distinction between a “natural born child of a citizen” (an Article II “natural born Citizen”) and a “native-born child[] of foreign parents” (a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth). Remember that the Fourteenth Amendment did not exist when the Founders and Framers looked to common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Specifically, the Court’s task was to interpret what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. There is no such clause in Article II. It analyzed what persons were excluded from being “citizens of the United States” under the amendment and concluded that persons born in the United States to domiciled and resident parents were not excluded as were American Indians and the children of foreign diplomats and military invaders. The Court even examined what impact the law of nations–calling it “international law,” which is not what the Founders and Framers considered it–could have on the question, but only within the context of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II, saying that “[t]here is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” Wong Kim Ark, at 667.

    You said: “The court renders its verdict after explaining how a child of any parents, with minor exceptions, if born on US soil, is indeed a natural born citizen and thus a citizen of the US.” Also incorrect. Again, Wong resolved the question of whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” (a “native-born child[] of foreign parents”), not whether he was a “natural born Citizen” (a “natural born child of a citizen”).

    P.S. Nbc, promise me that you won’t give that noodle brain, Yoda, any of this action. He already had his chance and it was just a devastating knock out in the first round that even Mike Tyson was impressed.

    P.S.S. Be careful to also not suffer the same fate as Yoda. But I really would not be saddened by it since you are such a pretentious fool.

  669. nbc says:

    You said that “the 14th Amendment had not created any new citizenship.” This is incorrect. As Minor so clearly explained, the amendment did not create any new citizenship for the “class” made up by anyone who was born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

    That’s not what the facts show. The facts show that the 14th Amendment was merely formalizing the status of citizenship as it existed in the US under our Constitution. Birth or naturalization in country…

    We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws

    Which left natural born citizenship as the only option. Why do you think the Court went through pages outlining that under the common law in England, the colonies, the early republic, a person born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents, was considered to be natural born.

    It’s so simple… And yet you confuse naturalized and natural-born… Tsk tsk my friend. You’re so much fun…

    Even the appealing attorney presented the issue as “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”. Even the dissenting judge understood. But you have to ignore common sense, reason, logic, history and legal precedent in order to avoid the only possible conclusion. Is this where the term devil’s advocate comes from?

    Look Mario, I have no problem with you showing yourself to be clueless again… It’s my pleasure to try to educate you once again. I am a patient person.

  670. Paper says:

    You are not only incorrect in your fabricated ideas regarding natural born citizens, you also are incorrect about whose arguments are winning and whose are losing.

    In brief, citizen parents are not a *requirement* of being a natural born citizen. There is no lesser category of citizen called “citizen” with the restricted definition you assign to it, most notably not your binary schema of nbc vs. citizen. These are mere fabrications.

    Your arguments are unresponsive, repetitively assertive without merit, erroneous, and littered with indulgent insult binges. You play to your niche, talk radio style, but your indulgences are unbecoming of a supposed professional, and more pointedly with regards to your ambitions, such indulgences, even on a blog removed from the courtroom, are uncharacteristic of success.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Yoda is still at it after he/she lost the debate.What a funny guy/gal.

    Yoda, you are an embarrassment to Dr. Consoiracy’s blog. Get lost.

  671. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: P.S.S. Be careful to also not suffer the same fate as Yoda. But I really would not be saddened by it since you are such a pretentious fool.

    Yes, the same fate… Having Mario call you names… Not the best way to win an argument my foolish friend.

  672. nbc says:

    PS: Happersett rules

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

    Citizens? Not natural born citizens? Whazzupwiththat?… ROTFL…

  673. nbc says:

    In furtherance of Mario’s continued education, I present: Minor v Happersett

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    Just like WKA, the court finds that there are two ways to add to citizenship, birth and naturalization.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

    Children born on soil to citizen parents were citizens.

    These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Natural born versus foreigners/aliens (who could subsequently be naturalized)

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    It’s clear that it was not clear in the mind of the Court if children born to alien parents were citizens at all. But if they were, they could only be natural born, as they could not be naturalized by virtue of their birth on soil. Just like WKA….

  674. donna says:

    what exactly is mario’s purpose here?

    he and his ilk have not been successful in convincing a single court and hundreds of judges

    nor have they been able to successfully win a state ballot challenge

    nor has a single state birther bill succeeded

    does he think the people HERE will fall for his (mis)interpretation of minor and wong ……… that this forum will give him a win?

    here and elsewhere his assertion that Obama was ineligible due to his non-citizen father “has no merit in law” and “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

    he cherry picks which questions to answer and with whom to pick his next fight

    does that somehow puff him up?

    NOT ONE RESPECTABLE attorney of either political persuasion has jumped at the chance of prosecuting the would be biggest case of fraud in the history of the world

    i think ole mario should seek out an elementary school class of minority kids and explain to them how they will never be eligible to become president – those kids can then go home and yell at their parents for not becoming citizens before they were born

    OR perhaps he can take a tip from the newt and tell those kids to pick up a broom instead since the american dream of becoming president is NOT in THEIR future

  675. ASK Esq says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said that “the 14th Amendment had not created any new citizenship.” This is incorrect. As Minor so clearly explained, the amendment did not create any new citizenship for the “class” made up by anyone who was born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Minor also clearly explained that this class was comprised of those “citizens” who were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” We can see that at common law, “native” (not to be confused with “native-born” which was later used in our history to denote birth on U.S. soil) had the same meaning as “natural-born citizen.” Minor added that as to the “class” made up of any one “born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” … “there have been doubts.” The Court was very clear in stating that there was no doubt as to the citizenship status of children born in the country to “citizen” parents. They were not only “citizens,” but they were “natural-born citizens.” As to those children born in the country to alien parents, there were doubts that they were even “citizens.”

    Wrong again, Mario. The Court in Minor did not say that the 14th Amendment created citizenship for anyone. Nor did it say that there were doubts as to the citizenship of children born here to aliens. As I pointed out to you before, those who there were doubts about would have been, for example, the children of slaves, “Gypsies,” Chinese and Native Americans. Now, I know you won’t do this, because you are a coward, but please show us one example of a child born here to European parents, neither of whom were government officials or members of an enemy army, who was not a citizen at birth. Now go ahead and ignore the simple challenge that, if you could actually meet it, would demonstrate that you are right. That, of course, would be a first.

  676. nbc says:

    Now Miller v Albright

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the 424*424 jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

  677. nbc says:

    See Mario run…

    The door… Oh the humanity…

  678. Lupin says:

    Yoda: The two citizen parent theory is based on DeVattel’s law of Nations.

    Actually, that’s not even true. Vattel’s “parents” means relatives, and the plural means “either” not both. So Mario is purposefully misquoting Vattel.

  679. Lupin says:

    donna: what exactly is mario’s purpose here?

    Sharpen his tools so he can continue propagandizing his racist tripe to welcoming audiences.

  680. Lupin says:

    ASK Esq: lease show us one example of a child born here to European parents, neither of whom were government officials or members of an enemy army, who was not a citizen at birth. Now go ahead and ignore the simple challenge that, if you could actually meet it, would demonstrate that you are right.

    It’s easy to understand Mario’s purposes, IMHO.

    Mario’s “masters” are OK with brown people being just “citizens”, they just don’t want them to be on top (ie: “natural-born citizens”)

  681. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Yoda is still at it after he/she lost the debate.What a funny guy/gal.

    Yoda lost that debate in much the same way as you won your last birther case.

  682. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws.

    Mr. Esquire

    Naturalized means “made natural”. As opposed to “born natural”.

    Wikipedia:

    Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.

    Merriam-Webster Online:

    naturalize
    verb \ˈna-chə-rə-ˌlīz, ˈnach-rə-\
    naturalizednaturalizing
    Definition of NATURALIZE
    transitive verb
    1
    : to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship

    The Free Online Dictionary by Farlex:

    naturalize (nchr–lz, nchr-)
    v. naturalized, naturalizing, naturalizes
    v.tr.
    1. To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth).

    Dictionary.com

    naturalize

    naturalize
    [nach-er-uh-lahyz, nach-ruh-] Show IPA verb, naturalized, naturalizing.
    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.

    Oxford Dictionary (online)

    natural-born
    Definition of natural-born
    adjective

    having a specified innate characteristic or ability: Glen was a natural-born sailor

    archaic having a particular position by birth: a natural-born citizen

    Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute

    naturalization: an overview

    Naturalization refers to conferring U.S. citizenship after birth upon someone who lacks U.S. citizenship. To be eligible for naturalization, an applicant must have reached the age of 18.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

    Citizenship Through Naturalization

    Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    Is there any possibility that you can begin to see the pattern here, Mr. Esquire?

    Naturalization => Citizenship granted after birth.

    I’d like to repeat the Cornell LII remarks for emphasis:

    Naturalization refers to conferring U.S. citizenship after birth upon someone who lacks U.S. citizenship. To be eligible for naturalization, an applicant must have reached the age of 18.

    Did you catch that subtle hidden message, Mr. Esquire: 18 years old is threshold to be eligible to be naturalized. There is no such thing as “naturalization at birth”.

    Since you cannot be “naturalized at birth”, there is only one other alternative for someone who is a “citizen from birth”, they must be “Natural Born”.

    WKA could not be naturalized, yet he was a citizen. Therefore WKA was a natural born citizen. There is no other possibility.

    Also note that the Oxford indicates that “natural born citizen” is an archaic use. Remember my comment about redundancies (is a round circle different from a circle)? Well here we are in the 21st century and the Oxford Dictionary is telling us that we don’t have to use the redundant “natural born citizen” anymore; “born citizen” is quite enough.

  683. Saint James says:

    Keith: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws.

    Let me be clear understanding the above…”We also know that Wong could not be…(“A”)…, for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed the he could not be…(“B”)… under Congress’s naturalization laws”?

    Soooo….He could not be Natural Born Citizen because he could not be Naturalized citizen?

  684. nbc says:

    Lupin: Actually, that’s not even true. Vattel’s “parents” means relatives, and the plural means “either” not both. So Mario is purposefully misquoting Vattel.

    Well, unless his waiter speaks French, how would he know?

  685. Keith says:

    Saint James: Let me be clear understanding the above…”We also know that Wong could not be…(“A”)…, for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed the he could not be…(“B”)… under Congress’s naturalization laws”?

    Soooo….He could not be Natural Born Citizen because he could not be Naturalized citizen?

    Yes. That is exactly what Mr. Esquire is trying to say: “since he can’t be naturalized, he can’t be a natural born citizen”.

    He is completely, unequivocally, and disingenuously trying to get people to believe that.

  686. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said that “the 14th Amendment had not created any new citizenship.”This is incorrect.

    P.S. Nbc, promise me that you won’t give that noodle brain, Yoda, any of this action. He already had his chance and it was just a devastating knock out in the first round that even Mike Tyson was impressed.

    P.S.S. Be careful to also not suffer the same fate as Yoda.But I really would not be saddened by it since you are such a pretentious fool.

    You are shockingly stupid. You just said that WKA created a new form of citizenship. Perhaps you forgot these quotes:

    “The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.

    As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.”

    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,”

    “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.”

    I schooled you yet again Putzie

  687. Northland10 says:

    Keith: Yes. That is exactly what Mr. Esquire is trying to say: “since he can’t be naturalized, he can’t be a natural born citizen”.

    And this sounds rather close to the ruling in Dred Scott (which Mario also likes to cite). I will try to avoid pointing out the correlation between this and the actual topic of Doc’s original this blog post. Oops, I just did.

  688. Donna said:

    “i think ole mario should seek out an elementary school class of minority kids and explain to them how they will never be eligible to become president – those kids can then go home and yell at their parents for not becoming citizens before they were born

    OR perhaps he can take a tip from the newt and tell those kids to pick up a broom instead since the american dream of becoming president is NOT in THEIR future.”

    I have more respect for the garbage on the street than someone who makes such statements. When I see garbage on the street, I pick it up and put it in the waste basket.

  689. Lupin: It’s easy to understand Mario’s purposes, IMHO.Mario’s “masters” are OK with brown people being just “citizens”, they just don’t want them to be on top (ie: “natural-born citizens”)

    Maybe you can show me where I mentioned anything about race or color. You cannot and you know that you are a sorry loser. That is why you have to resort to race to try to win any argument.

  690. nbc: PS: Happersett rulesCitizens? Not natural born citizens? Whazzupwiththat?… ROTFL…

    You do not understand basic logic. All “natural born Citizen” are “citizens,” but not all “citizens” are “natural born Citizens.”

    I have all the patience you need for me to school you in this basic logical principles.

  691. Paper says:

    Yes, those citizens are naturalized citizens. They are not “citizens” as defined by you in your separate and fabricated class of citizen.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not understand basic logic.All “natural born Citizen” are “citizens,” but not all “citizens” are “natural born Citizens.”

    I have all the patience you need for me to school you in this basic logical principles.

  692. bovril says:

    Come along Putzie,

    Still waiting on that list of supporting, winning cases that identify and support this magical 3rd class of citizen, the NBC who isn’t an NBC.

    I mean you DO have that list and are not simply making stuff up, I mean that would be dishonest and surely as a putative officer of the court you would never do such a thing.

    Feel free to answer to me or you can pretend I’m this other person who scares the pants off you, “Whiskey”.

  693. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not understand basic logic.

    like this one?

    Saint James: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws.

  694. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: When I see garbage on the street, I pick it up and put it in the waste basket.

    I doubt you put those garbage in the waste basket. Where do those garbage that you regurgitate here come from?

  695. Paper: Yes, those citizens are naturalized citizens. They are not “citizens” as defined by you in your separate and fabricated class of citizen.

    The last time that I looked at Article I, Article II, the Fourteenth Amendment, and all applicable Acts of Congress, they called persons who become U.S. “citizens” after birth “citizens of the United States,” not “naturalized citizens.”

    Why do you insist on calling a certain percentage of our “citizens” “naturalized citizens?” Why do you want to create this other class of “citizens” whom you call “naturalized citizens?” Why do you take such an illegal discriminatory approach? I hope that you believe that persons who become “citizens” after birth are as much a “citizen” as any other “citizen of the United States” and even a “natural born Citizen,” except like other “citizens of the United States,” they are not eligible to be President. You advocate calling these “citizens” “naturalized citizens” when they should be called “citizens of the United States” for the sake of saving Obama. Are those “citizens” not “citizens of the United States” like all other “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens?” You should be ashamed of yourself.

  696. donna says:

    Mario: Donna, I have more respect for the garbage on the street than someone who makes such statements. When I see garbage on the street, I pick it up and put it in the waste basket.

    grazie mille, mario

    let me know when you have the cojones to tell rubio & jindal that they are ineligible

    Lupin:

    Yoda: The two citizen parent theory is based on DeVattel’s law of Nations.

    Actually, that’s not even true. Vattel’s “parents” means relatives, and the plural means “either” not both. So Mario is purposefully misquoting Vattel.

    nbc:

    Lupin: Actually, that’s not even true. Vattel’s “parents” means relatives, and the plural means “either” not both. So Mario is purposefully misquoting Vattel.

    Well, unless his waiter speaks French, how would he know?

    MOI: merci cent fois – i’m still waiting for mario to translate my french phrase into english

    y ahora, excuse-moi, hay basura en la calle

  697. Yoda: You are shockingly stupid. You just said that WKA created a new form of citizenship. Perhaps you forgot these quotes:“The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.”“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,”“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall 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.”I schooled you yet again Putzie

    Yoda (which is short for Yodel Brain-you picked it, not me),

    Your simpleton mind cannot comprehend that sources of citizenship being birth and naturalization only describes the means by which one can become a U.S. “citizen.” After those means are exhausted, the Constitution then takes the person up and ascribes to him or her the applicable class of “citizen” that he or she has become either at birth or after birth. And under our Constitution and Acts of Congress, there are only two classes, either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

  698. Keith: Yes. That is exactly what Mr. Esquire is trying to say: “since he can’t be naturalized, he can’t be a natural born citizen”.

    You said: “Yes. That is exactly what Mr. Esquire is trying to say: ‘since he can’t be naturalized, he can’t be a natural born citizen.'””

    Is that so hard for you to comprehend? How can a person who does not even qualify to be naturalized be a “natural born Citizen”? What have our schools come to?

  699. donna says:

    mario since i too am a simpleton and prefer things boiled down rather than convoluted & contrived

    is this how you would outline YOUR (mis)interpretation of the constitution?

    sources & means of citizenship (your words)

    a) birth

    1. born on us soil to 2 american citizens = “natural born Citizen”

    2. born on us soil to non-citizen parents = “citizen of the United States.”

    b) naturalization

  700. Scientist says:

    With all due respect to those on both sides there are NO classes of citizens, only citizens, all with the same rights, privileges and obligations. As for the idea that only some citizens are eligible to be President, what Supreme Court holding has ever said that? And what Supreme Court holding has ever said eligibility has anything to do with BEING President? The answer to both qestions is-NONE.

    Now, if you want to set up 2 different classes of citizens and give one class privileges that the other class lacks, then it is only fair that they pay for their privileges. No one would expect to fly 1st class for the same price as tourist. So, if you want to be a fancy-pants “natural born citizen” you should have to pay taxes at a higher rate than plain old citizens, At this time of the “fiscal cliff” this should be self-evident to everyone.

    I note that Barack Obama paid a respectable effective tax rate for his income bracket and is thus indisputably a “natural born citiizen”. Mitt Romney not so much.

  701. Jim says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said:“Yes. That is exactly what Mr. Esquire is trying to say: ‘since he can’t be naturalized, he can’t be a natural born citizen.’””

    Is that so hard for you to comprehend?How can a person who does not even qualify to be naturalized be a “natural born Citizen”?What have our schools come to?

    But Mario…your favorite case says just that!

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&invol=162

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.””

    I guess the bigger question should be who took the bar for you and how did you ever become a lawyer with that lack of reading comprehension.

  702. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you insist on calling a certain percentage of our “citizens” “naturalized citizens?” Why do you want to create this other class of “citizens” whom you call “naturalized citizens?” Why do you take such an illegal discriminatory approach?

    What’s illegal and discriminatory about saying naturalized citizens…it’s all spelled out in us code title 8.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: even a “natural born Citizen,” except like other “citizens of the United States,” they are not eligible to be President.

    Only in your mind Mario, even the court stated that yours is purely academic but without legal merits! You LOST in court remember?

  703. There is a distinction between persons born citizens in the US and persons born citizens outside the US. Because the latter are neither born in the US nor naturalized in the US, the 14th Amendment guarantees do not apply to them, or so says the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei.

    In this limited case, there is a person who is not a “14th amendment citizen” but nevertheless is a “natural born citizen.”

    Scientist: With all due respect to those on both sides there are NO classes of citizens, only citizens, all with the same rights, privileges and obligations.

  704. ASK Esq: Wrong again, Mario. The Court in Minor did not say that the 14th Amendment created citizenship for anyone. Nor did it say that there were doubts as to the citizenship of children born here to aliens. As I pointed out to you before, those who there were doubts about would have been, for example, the children of slaves, “Gypsies,” Chinese and Native Americans. Now, I know you won’t do this, because you are a coward, but please show us one example of a child born here to European parents, neither of whom were government officials or members of an enemy army, who was not a citizen at birth. Now go ahead and ignore the simple challenge that, if you could actually meet it, would demonstrate that you are right. That, of course, would be a first.

    The most notable and probative case in our history is the James McClure case. Even though he was born in the United States after the revolution, Mr. McClure had been imprisoned in France for being a British enemy of France. In that case, the James Madison Administration along with famous founders, eventually declared James McClure, who was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, not a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “Citizen of the United States” who became such under the Naturalization Act of 1802 after the naturalization of his British father on February 20, 1786 when James was still a minor and dwelling in the United States.

    Regarding the claim that McClure could be a “Citizen of the United States” by simply being born in the United States, this is what “Publius” explained. “Publius” (the pen name used by the writers of The Federalist Papers) on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 in the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:

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

    Publius, in 1811, living when the acts were passed by Congress, would know what Congress intended when it passed the naturalization acts. In that connection, Publius tells us that it did not matter where a child was born. Wheresoever born, if his parents were aliens, he or she was an alien. Regardless of where the child was born, the child’s parents had to naturalize in order to make their children citizens. The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James Monroe, eventually declared McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.” I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the acts meant rather than yours in 2012.

    For more information on the James McClure case, see my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012.

    I have discussed the James McClure case at length. Hence, you are the coward, for it is you who denies and has contempt for our history for the sake of supporting a current political position.

  705. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How can a person who does not even qualify to be naturalized be a “natural born Citizen”? What have our schools come to?

    Natural born Citizens are already citizens at birth, they can’t naturalize since naturalization is only for those born citizens of another country who want to acquire US citizenship….read us code title 8…What have our law schools come to?

  706. Paper says:

    Such word games are irrelevant. You cannot mask your attempt to fabricate a class that does not exist.

    As you are not aware of Acts of Congress which note the distinction, I refer you to USC Title 8.

    First:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8

    8 USC 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

    Second:

    Here they speak of how a naturalized citizen can lose their citizenship in a manner in which a natural born cannot.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1451?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8

    8 USC 1451 – Revocation of naturalization

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The last time that I looked at Article I, Article II, the Fourteenth Amendment, and all applicable Acts of Congress, they called persons who become U.S. “citizens” after birth “citizens of the United States,” not “naturalized citizens.”

    …I hope that you believe that persons who become “citizens” after birth are as much a “citizen” as any other “citizen of the United States” and even a “natural born Citizen,” except like other “citizens of the United States,” they are not eligible to be President….

  707. Paper says:

    I see everyone beat me to the punch with USC Title 8. I spend too much time editing down my posts. ;-}

  708. Scientist says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is a distinction between persons born citizens in the US and persons born citizens outside the US. Because the latter are neither born in the US nor naturalized in the US, the 14th Amendment guarantees do not apply to them, or so says the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei.
    In this limited case, there is a person who is not a “14th amendment citizen” but nevertheless is a “natural born citizen.”

    The Supreme Court? Well la-di-da. The same august body that gave us Bush II and Citizens United? You think that impresses me?

    I maintain my position that anyone who gets fewer rights and privilges should have a lower tax rate. And those super-duper “natural born types” should pay extra. That is elemental fairness. Now put that in your Supreme Court and smoke it!

  709. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: For more information on the James McClure case, see my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012.

    You lost that case didn’t you?

    “No further question your honor!”

  710. Dr. Conspiracy: There is a distinction between persons born citizens in the US and persons born citizens outside the US. Because the latter are neither born in the US nor naturalized in the US, the 14th Amendment guarantees do not apply to them, or so says the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei.In this limited case, there is a person who is not a “14th amendment citizen” but nevertheless is a “natural born citizen.”

    Maybe you need new reading glasses. Our current Congressional Acts that make persons born out of the United States U.S. citizens are naturalization acts. They also declare those persons to whom they apply to be “citizens of the United States.” There is not a single word in any such acts that those persons are “natural born Citizens” like we saw in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which at best only said that they shall be “considered as natural born citizens,” but which, in any event, as early as 1795, such language was done away with by the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 and never used again to this day. So how do you through Dr. Conspiracy’s law convert these persons to be “natural born Citizens” today when the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power of naturalization which cannot include the power to make anyone a “natural born citizen” but is limited to making persons “citizens of the United States,” Congress in 1790 at best said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were only to be “considered as natural born citizens,” and as early as 1795 told us that they were not to be so considered but rather only “considered as citizens of the United States?”

  711. Saint James: You lost that case didn’t you?

    You lost this debate, didn’t you?

  712. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The most notable and probative case in our history is the James McClure case.

    Mario,

    Why did the American Minister in London give James McClure a US passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”?

    Why did American citizen and businessman John Rodman say that McClure was a citizen by birth in the US?

  713. bovril says:

    Still wholly incapable of supporting the identification, definition and support for your magical 3rd class of citizen in statute, case, SC ruling or analysis eh Putzie,

    So, just admit you’re just making stuff up with no actual legal basis

    Come on, tell the horrid man you have support, apart from your truss off course

  714. donna: Mario: Donna, I have more respect for the garbage on the street than someone who makes such statements. When I see garbage on the street, I pick it up and put it in the waste basket.grazie mille, mariolet me know when you have the cojones to tell rubio & jindal that they are ineligible Lupin:Yoda: The two citizen parent theory is based on DeVattel’s law of Nations. Actually, that’s not even true. Vattel’s “parents” means relatives, and the plural means “either” not both. So Mario is purposefully misquoting Vattel.nbc:Lupin: Actually, that’s not even true. Vattel’s “parents” means relatives, and the plural means “either” not both. So Mario is purposefully misquoting Vattel.Well, unless his waiter speaks French, how would he know?MOI: merci cent fois – i’m still waiting for mario to translate my french phrase into englishy ahora, excuse-moi, hay basura en la calle

    You’re so witty. You must be really smart.

  715. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You must be really smart.

    Mario, another question,

    Why did the American Minister in London give James McClure a US passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”?

    Why did American citizen and businessman John Rodman say that McClure was a citizen by birth in the US?

    What proof do you have that Publius letter was written by one of the authors of the Federalist Papers?

  716. Saint James: Natural born Citizens are already citizens at birth, they can’t naturalize since naturalization is only for those born citizens of another country who want to acquire US citizenship….read us code title 8…What have our law schools come to?

    You just love to beg the question. The issue is whether those children are “natural born Citizens.” Not one Act of Congress ever said that they were. Not one U.S. Supreme Court case ever said that they were. Neither Minor nor Wong Kim Ark said that they were. Read a good logic book. What have our law schools come to.

  717. Saint James says:

    Saint James: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: When I see garbage on the street, I pick it up and put it in the waste basket.
    I doubt you put those garbage in the waste basket. Where do those garbage that you regurgitate here come from?

    Saint James: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How can a person who does not even qualify to be naturalized be a “natural born Citizen”? What have our schools come to?
    Natural born Citizens are already citizens at birth, they can’t naturalize since naturalization is only for those born citizens of another country who want to acquire US citizenship….read us code title 8…What have our law schools come to?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You lost this debate, didn’t you?

    How can I lose a debate when nothing but garbage comes out of your mouth? Show me proof from these thread that a debate between us insued?

    Let me reiterate…

    Saint James: my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012.

    You lost that case didn’t you

    “No further question your honor!”

  718. gorefan: Mario, Why did the American Minister in London give James McClure a US passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”?Why did American citizen and businessman John Rodman say that McClure was a citizen by birth in the US?

    Give me a break!

  719. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Give me a break!

    I didn’t think you could answer the questions.

  720. Saint James: You lost that case didn’t you? “No further question your honor!”

    You are an ignorant one. The court said it had no jurisdiction. It never reached the merits of anything. What have our law schools come to.

  721. donna says:

    mario:

    donna You’re so witty. You must be really smart.

    grazie mille (after you said “I have more respect for the garbage on the street than someone who makes such statements. When I see garbage on the street, I pick it up and put it in the waste basket.”)

    ahora, per favore, would you correct/edit my outline if inaccurate since i too am a simpleton and prefer things boiled down rather than convoluted & contrived

    is this how you would outline YOUR (mis)interpretation of the constitution?

    sources & means of citizenship (your words)

    a) birth

    1. born on us soil to 2 american citizens = “natural born Citizen”

    2. born on us soil to non-citizen parents = “citizen of the United States.”

    b) naturalization

  722. gorefan: I didn’t think you could answer the questions.

    No,you are wrong as usual. I need a break because I have already answered these questions many times and you already know my answers. You are only asking the questions to try to give an impression to new readers or those with short memories that there is something that I have overlooked. In short, your questions do not amount to a hill of beans.

  723. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Give me a break!

    From the Alexandria Herald article:

    “Mr. McC. went to France to reclaim his property of the ship; carrying with him a Passport from the American Minister of London, confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”

    Why did the US Minister of London issue James McClure a US Passport confessing him to be “native citizen” of the United States?

  724. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: In short words, your questions do not amount to a hill of beans.

    Actually no Mario, I have not seen you answer these questions. If I missed your answer I apologize for repeating myself – please post a link to your answer to these questions.

  725. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are an ignorant one. The court said it had no jurisdiction. It never reached the merits of anything. What have our law schools come to.

    So, being a lawyer, you must have known before hand that your case is not the jurisdiction of the court! So…you’re the ignorant one! However, I’ve read that one court stated that yours is pure academic and without legal merit…what say you? What have our law school come to?

  726. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have already answered these questions many times

    Here is an exchange we had at NBC’s site.

    ==================================================================

    gorefan permalink

    September 17, 2012 00:00

    Mario some questions about the McClure case:

    =================================================================

    And Mario’s response

    =================================================================

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. permalink

    September 17, 2012 00:00

    gorefan thinks he’s cute talking about how McClure got a passport and Jefferson’s citizenship laws rather than what’s at issue, Congress’s naturalization acts.

    ===================================================================

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/the-apuzzo-files-2/mario-v-fuller/

    So on that occasion you did not answer my questions.

  727. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have already answered these questions many times

    Here is another exchange:

    ===================================================================

    gorefan May 25, 2012 at 8:52 pm#

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Also, it does not matter who wrote the Publius piece.

    Mario – why did McClure receive a passport from the American Minister in London “confessing him to be a native American citizen”?

    ==================================================================

    gorefanMay 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm#

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I guess you are also behind the learning curve.

    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”?

    =================================================================

    And in fact you did provide an answer, but not to my question

    ==================================================================

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.May 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm#

    gorefan,

    The U.S. passport held by James McClure did not provide much protection for him in 1810.

    ====================================================================

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/new-jersey-purpura-appeal-filed/

    So let me rephrase it:

    Why did the US Minister of London issue the US passport based on his being native born and not naturalized?

  728. Scientist says:

    I have found the fundamental flaw in Apuzzo’s logic (there are many, but this is very basic). He claims:

    1. One must be a natural born citizen to be President
    2. Barack Obama is not a natural a natural born citizen

    Yet, Barack Obama is President.

    So, clearly, at least one of Apuzzo’s premises is wrong.

  729. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Neither Minor nor Wong Kim Ark said that they were. Read a good logic book. What have our law schools come to.

    Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen…he was born in the US…the argument that he is not was already decided in court…there is no need to rehash the argument…you lost!

    It’s you that needed to read a good logic book…you don’t understand “beg the question” and

    Keith: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws.

    “he couldn’t be natural born citizen because he couldn’t naturalize?…(he couldn’t “A” because he couldn’t “B”, therefore he is what?) What kind of logic is that?

  730. gorefan: From the Alexandria Herald article:“Mr. McC. went to France to reclaim his property of the ship; carrying with him a Passport from the American Minister of London, confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”Why did the US Minister of London issue James McClure a US Passport confessing him to be “native citizen” of the United States?

    His passport did not amount to a hill of beans like your question. He was put in jail for being a British “natural born subject.” So I guess his passport did not help much.

  731. Saint James: Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen…he was born in the US…the argument that he is not was already decided in court…there is no need to rehash the argument…you lost!It’s you that needed to read a good logic book…you don’t understand “beg the question” and “he couldn’t be natural born citizen because he couldn’t naturalize?…(he couldn’t “A” because he couldn’t “B”, therefore he is what?) What kind of logic is that?

    Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

  732. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Yoda, you are an embarrassment to Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. Get lost

    If you can’t win an argument, I guess your alternative is to insult and tell them to go away…..does that win you many court cases?

  733. Scientist: I have found the fundamental flaw in Apuzzo’s logic (there are many, but this is very basic). He claims:1. One must be a natural born citizen to be President2. Barack Obama is not a natural a natural born citizen Yet, Barack Obama is President.So, clearly, at least one of Apuzzo’s premises is wrong.

    Scientist, I am shocked at you, being a scientist and presenting the fallacious argument of affirming the consequent.

    What have our science schools come to.

  734. sfjeff says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    and when you lose the argument, you argue that the courts are just wrong and you are right.

  735. sfjeff: If you can’t win an argument, I guess your alternative is to insult and tell them to go away…..does that win you many court cases?

    Yea, yea, yea.

  736. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    LOL! (Another gem for the collection—No comment necessary!)

  737. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    Now, the above is a perfect example of begging the question…since Mario can’t explain himself, to goes to “begging the question mode”…”Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled”

    By the way mario…there is no debate,,,I challeged you to go through this thread to prove that a debate insued between us..there is none!

    But you need to respond to my statement. You really seriously need to read a good book on logic

    Hey Mario…”You can’t drive because you can’t walk is to you can’t be nbc because you can’t naturalize”!

    Now let me reiterate….

    Saint James: “he couldn’t be natural born citizen because he couldn’t naturalize?…(he couldn’t “A” because he couldn’t “B”, therefore he is what?) What kind of logic is that?

  738. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: His passport did not amount to a hill of beans like your question

    The issue is not his passport but why it was issued “confessing” him to be a native citizen of the U.S.

    So let’s try this,

    Do you agree with the US Minister of London that James McClure was a native citizen of the US?

  739. donna says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    SERIOUSLY? and to whom do YOU look as an “officer of the court”?

  740. Saint James: Now, the above is a perfect example of begging the question…since Mario can’t explain himself, to goes to “begging the question mode”…”Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled”By the way mario…there is no debate,,,I challeged you to go through this thread to prove that a debate insued between us..there is none!But you need to respond to my statement. You really seriously need to read a good book on logicHey Mario…”You can’t drive because you can’t walk is to you can’t be nbc because you can’t naturalize”!Now let me reiterate….

    If I do not have $10.00, I surely do not have $20.00. You really are hopeless.

  741. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If I do not have $10.00, I surely do not have $20.00. You really are hopeless.

    That’s you logic, mario!

    You see? So in your desperation, you still try to show that your premise is correct? I don’t wander why you lost in court big time! Let me stick this to you…

    “He couldn’t be natural born citizen because he couldn’t naturalize”…Mario Apuzzo,Esq. (quote of the day)

    Let me dare you to go to a USCIS office, try to apply to change your citizenship status…from NBC to a naturalized citizen and/or vice versa. I’ll bet my bottom dollar you’ll be laughed at like many laughed at you in court!

  742. Yoda says:

    sfjeff: and when you lose the argument, you argue that the courts are just wrong and you are right.

    The problem with people like Putzie is that they not only claims that the Courts are wrong but that they are corrupt. It never, ever occurs to them that they are simply wrong themselves. With each successive loss they claim that it is further proof that the Courts are in on the Conspiracy and then double down on their stupidity. No instead of being just an attorney with a failed argument, he because a name and face associated with a cause that defies logic, reason and all known legal precedent. It is ok to fail, all attorneys do from time to time, but this is unprecedented in its ineptitude.

    My next post, which is a point that others have made before, will conclusively prove Putzie wrong, so I am looking forward to his response. As others have noted, Putzie never answers questions, he just declares himself the victor of a non existent debate insults people. His insults are even sophomoric.

    Putzie, in order for there to be a real debate there have to be two legitimate arguments. Here, you do not have one and your analysis would receive an “F” in any HS civics or government class. Kudos.

  743. Jim says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If I do not have $10.00, I surely do not have $20.00.You really are hopeless.

    But Mario…using your logic from Minor, if you only have a $20 bill on you, you don’t have $10 but do have $20.

  744. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    When I hire a lawyer, I don’t give a crap how he does in a “debate” on a blog. I do, however, care very much how he does in court.

  745. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Yoda (which is short for Yodel Brain-you picked it, not me),

    Your simpleton mind cannot comprehend that sources of citizenship being birth and naturalization only describes the means by which one can become a U.S. “citizen.”After those means are exhausted, the Constitution then takes the person up and ascribes to him or her the applicable class of “citizen” that he or she has become either at birth or after birth.And under our Constitution and Acts of Congress, there are only two classes, either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

    Shockingly enough, Putzie has hit a new level of stupidity with the above quote. Had Putzie bothered to read the actual Constitution he would have discovered the following:
    Article 1 Section 2 says

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

    Article 1 Section 3 says

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

    Note, that neither of these sections of the US Constitution say one may be either a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States in order to be Senator or a member of Congress. Hopefully, not even Putzie is stupid enough to suggest that a natural born citizen is not eligible to President. However, this is exactly the logical conclusion that Putzie’s argument would leave if he were correct. By this very simple, logical analysis, one must conclude Citizen of the United States is a term that we now call citizen, which is an umbrella term and includes natural born and naturalized citizens, rather than a separate and distinct class of citizenship as Putzie inexplicably suggests.

    Putzie, one thing is for certain, you are my bitch when it comes to legal analysis.

  746. Saint James: That’s you logic, mario!You see? So in your desperation, you still try to show that your premise is correct? I don’t wander why you lost in court big time! Let me stick this to you…“He couldn’t be natural born citizen because he couldn’t naturalize”…Mario Apuzzo,Esq. (quote of the day)Let me dare you to go to a USCIS office, try to apply to change your citizenship status…from NBC to a naturalized citizen and/or vice versa. I’ll bet my bottom dollar you’ll be laughed at like many laughed at you in court!

    You continue to be not only hopeless, but also a waste of time. Under common law and Congressional naturalization acts, Wong was neither a “citizen” by way of being “natural born” nor by way of naturalization after birth. Hence, there was no possibility for him to switch from one to the other. The Court declared him a “citizen” from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, which that amendment designates such citizenship to be and the Court so held him a “citizen of the United States.”

  747. Scientist: When I hire a lawyer, I don’t give a crap how he does in a “debate” on a blog. I do, however, care very much how he does in court.

    Ok, so you hired me for court and now that’s done. So now we are still debating the point because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided the current point. So what is your beef, Scientist? Please, you are really getting worse and worse as you try harder and harder.

  748. Jim: But Mario…using your logic from Minor, if you only have a $20 bill on you, you don’t have $10 but do have $20.

    Sorry Jim, but under Minor, Wong would have been neither a “natural-born citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth.

  749. donna says:

    Mario: because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided the current point.

    IF TRUE, is it NECESSARY for the supremes to grant cert on all cases decided and affirmed by appellate review?

    why is it that not even one supreme requested papers from defendants in the birther lawsuits?

    In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

    Here is the relevant section from the transcript:

    Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

    They did not want that.

    They wanted natural born Americans.

    [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

    Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

    [Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

    Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

    I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

    I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

    It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/

  750. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: that sources of citizenship being birth and naturalization only describes the means by which one can become a U.S. “citizen.” After those means are exhausted, the Constitution then takes the person up and ascribes to him or her the applicable class of “citizen” that he or she has become either at birth or after birth. And under our Constitution and Acts of Congress, there are only two classes, either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

    Let’s analyze this for Mario

    1. that sources of citizenship being BIRTH and NATURALIZATION ONLY DESCRIBES the means by which one can become a U.S. “citizen.”

    2. After those means are EXHAUSTED?(it seems that one has to be described first as nbc or naturalized), the Constitution then takes the person up and ascribes to him or her the applicable class of “citizen” that he or she has become either at birth or after birth…… So after one gets to be NBC and or Naturalized through description the constitution ascribes (like an investiture ceremony perhaps?) to him/her the citizenship that he or she has become (nbc or naturalized)

    3. And under our Constitution and Acts of Congress, there are only two classes, either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”….then finally the “natural born citizen” becomes “natural born citizen” and the “naturalized citizen” becomes “citizen of the united states or naturalized”

    Very much a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT Mario…..Your boat never sailed!…he he

    (I laughed as I wrote this one….goodness gracious!)…

  751. Yoda says:

    donna:
    Mario: because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided the current point.

    IF TRUE, is it NECESSARY for the supremes to grant cert on all cases decided and affirmed by appellate review?

    why is it that not even one supreme requested papers from defendants in the birther lawsuits?

    In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS(No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

    Here is the relevant section from the transcript:

    Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

    They did not want that.

    They wanted natural born Americans.

    [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

    Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

    [Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

    Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

    I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

    I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

    It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/supreme-court-justice-scalia-believes-natural-born-citizenship-is-jus-soli/

    Don’t forget that former Justice Sandra Say O’Connor indicated in a letter to a young girl that President Obama was a natural born citizen. I realize that this has no legal meaning, but it is interesting how even the most conservative of Supreme Court Justices have rejected the very arguments that Putzie thinks are established.

  752. donna: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.SERIOUSLY? and to whom do YOU look as an “officer of the court”?

    Being in court is one thing, debating on a blog is another. I do not understand why you limit the possible results of the latter with results from the former, especially when the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court.

  753. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you can show me where I mentioned anything about race or color.You cannot and you know that you are a sorry loser.That is why you have to resort to race to try to win any argument.

    That’s because it isn’t the done thing anymore. I remind you once again that we are all aware of Reagan’s political strategist, Lee Atwater’s, ‘Southern Strategy’

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

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

    You aren’t fooling anyone, Mr. Esquire.

  754. JPotter says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Sorry Jim, but under Minor, Wong would have been neither a “natural-born citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth.

    Yeah, because cases such as Wong’s were specifically, explicitly excluded in the opinion. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, lo these many years. Minor has nothing to do with Wong, Minor punted.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So now we are still debating the point because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided the current point.

    No, we’re poking fun because it’s an idle distraction. SCOTUS nailed this down long ago. Maybe not in your alternate universe. A moderator usually cuts off threads that run on forever, and ‘excuses’ those not contributing to an honest debate. Ever ponder why Doc lets you ramble on for so long?

    Any comments on Coleman yet?

    Recovered any pre-2008 citizenship concerns lost? Perhaps you could try a hypnotist, ask for assistance in ‘recovering lost memories’ 😛

  755. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Under common law and Congressional naturalization acts, Wong was neither a “citizen” by way of being “natural born” nor by way of naturalization after birth.

    That’s according to your argument…but you already lost big time Mario. You’ve yet to convince one court that your lawsuits have legal merits! You lost 185 cases so far! Then you have the audacity to even mention “begging the question” yet you’re the one using it? Your logic is defies explanation.

  756. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said:“Yes. That is exactly what Mr. Esquire is trying to say: ‘since he can’t be naturalized, he can’t be a natural born citizen.’””

    Is that so hard for you to comprehend?How can a person who does not even qualify to be naturalized be a “natural born Citizen”?What have our schools come to?

    The word “naturalized” means (in the context of citizenship) “to be made a citizen after birth”. Clearly the contrasting position is “citizen at birth”.

    The precise phrases are “made natural” and “born natural”.

    A citizen who is “born natural” is a natural born citizen.

    The Constitution gives Congress, and Congress only, the authority to make laws about how citizenship is conferred to someone who was not born a citizen. It does not give Congress the authority to decide who are born citizens.

    The statement is referring to the fact that Congress had decided that Chinese could not become citizens, that is ‘naturalized’.

    If WKA was a citizen, he was not and could not have been a naturalized citizen, because Congress forade it. Therefore the only possible solution, if WKA was a citizen, was that he was a “born a citizen”.

    As the both the Government and the Dissenting Opinion agreed, this means that if WKA was found to be a citizen, then he was a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be President.

    WKA was found to be a citizen. He was therefore a natural born citizen.

    Since you fail to understand even the most basic English usage, I suggest you might have more success if you go back and sue your school for its failure to educate you to the standard required to prevent you from making such a fool of yourself.

  757. Keith says:

    Scientist: With all due respect…

    😎

  758. That’s the normal usage of the word.

    The point of confusion is that Congress makes persons citizens at birth through legislation that they are empowered to do under the uniform system of naturalization clause in the Constitution.

    It appears to me that everybody born in the country (except children of ambassadors…) was a citizen of the United States under the common law, and under various state laws. Jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) did not exist until 1790 and the Naturalization Act. That doesn’t mean, however, that we should call these foreign-born children of American parents “naturalized” in any usual sense of the word, even if they become so through the uniform system of naturalization.

    Keith: The word “naturalized” means (in the context of citizenship) “to be made a citizen after birth”. Clearly the contrasting position is “citizen at birth”.

  759. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You just love to beg the question.The issue is whether those children are “natural born Citizens.”Not one Act of Congress ever said that they were.Not one U.S. Supreme Court case ever said that they were.Neither Minor nor Wong Kim Ark said that they were.Read a good logic book.What have our law schools come to.

    The problem with this argument, Mr. Esquire, is that it doesn’t apply to the President.

    No one here (that I am aware of) questions the actual existence of an academic, technical issue about “foreign born citizens at birth”. Are citizens, born overseas to citizens parents and therefore citizens from the moment of their birth, “natural born citizens”?

    This is indeed an unanswered question. But it doesn’t apply to Barrack Obama; he was not born overseas.

    It does, of course, apply to John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone. While Congress established a precedent by declaring that they would not hear based on this fact challenges to any Electoral College votes he might win (by declaring that they considered him to be NBC), it has never been tried.

    It is an interesting question, but ultimately moot until someone in that position (born overseas, but citizen from birth) makes a run for President and someone challenges it.

  760. Keith says:

    Saint James: Keith: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We also know that Wong could not be “natural born Citizens,” for the Wong Kim Ark Court even considered and confirmed that he could not be naturalized under Congress’s naturalization laws.

    “he couldn’t be natural born citizen because he couldn’t naturalize?…(he couldn’t “A” because he couldn’t “B”, therefore he is what?) What kind of logic is that?

    It ain’t any kind of logic.

    You are aware that I was quoting Mr. Esquire, aren’t you?

  761. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You do not understand basic logic. All “natural born Citizen” are “citizens,” but not all “citizens” are “natural born Citizens.”

    Of course not, there are natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. THe courts have held this consistently. And you admitted that WKA was not naturalized… So that leaves but one…
    The problem is that the term citizen is confused by you and that you fail to properly read Minor. No problems… The courts have rejected your follies for exactly these reasons.

  762. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Yea, yea, yea.

    The traditional phrase of the loser.

  763. nbc says:

    The last time that I looked at Article I, Article II, the Fourteenth Amendment, and all applicable Acts of Congress, they called persons who become U.S. “citizens” after birth “citizens of the United States,” not “naturalized citizens.”

    Duh… the process of naturalization makes them a naturalized citizen and as such they become citizens of the US, just like natural born citizens become citizens of the US.

    Reading comprehension…. Basic…

  764. gorefan says:

    nbc: Citizens? Not natural born citizens? Whazzupwiththat?… ROTFL…

    And from Wong Kim Ark,

    “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.”

    Not a natural born citizen but the dreaded “citizen of the United States”

    And from Chief Justice Fuller in Ex Parte Lockwood,

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court 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”

    Again not an NBC just a “citizen of the United States”.

    I guess we would have to assume that natural born citizens are part of the class of “citizens of the United States”.

  765. Keith says:

    Jim: But Mario…using your logic from Minor, if you only have a $20 bill on you, you don’t have $10 but do have $20.

    Or perhaps, if he had a $10 note, he couldn’t have Ten Dollars, because he didn’t have two $5 notes?

  766. Keith says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Sorry Jim, but under Minor, Wong would have been neither a “natural-born citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth.

    Sorry, Mario, but under Minor, Wong’s situation was not discussed, except to say:

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    For the purposes of Minor, it was not necessary to comment on Wong’s circumstances.

    When the Wong case came along, it WAS necessary and the court found that he was a natural born citizen.

    You really do need to go back to school.

  767. ASK Esq says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The most notable and probative case in our history is the James McClure case. Even though he was born in the United States after the revolution, Mr. McClure had been imprisoned in France for being a British enemy of France. In that case, the James Madison Administration along with famous founders, eventually declared James McClure, who was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, not a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a “Citizen of the United States” who became such under the Naturalization Act of 1802 after the naturalization of his British father on February 20, 1786 when James was still a minor and dwelling in the United States. Regarding the claim that McClure could be a “Citizen of the United States” by simply being born in the United States, this is what “Publius” explained. “Publius” (the pen name used by the writers of The Federalist Papers) on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 in the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:“Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.” Publius, in 1811, living when the acts were passed by Congress, would know what Congress intended when it passed the naturalization acts. In that connection, Publius tells us that it did not matter where a child was born. Wheresoever born, if his parents were aliens, he or she was an alien. Regardless of where the child was born, the child’s parents had to naturalize in order to make their children citizens. The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James Monroe, eventually declared McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.” I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the acts meant rather than yours in 2012. For more information on the James McClure case, see my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012.I have discussed the James McClure case at length. Hence, you are the coward, for it is you who denies and has contempt for our history for the sake of supporting a current political position.

    Boy, do you ever get tired of being wrong? Yes, the US goverment declared McClure to be a citizen of the United States. But you are the only one who seems to think that this is somehow a third subset rather than the umbrella term. Saying he was a citizen did not mean that he could not also have been a natural born citizen. Or are you suggesting that natural born citizens are not also citizens? You also have no proof that the Publius who wrote that letter to the newspaper was Madison, rather than someone simply using the famous pen name. In fact, as we have a direct quote from Madison regarding citizenship being derived from place of birth, and it was Monroe, writing on behalf of the Madison administration who said that McClure was a citizen due to his being born in Charleston (With no mention of his parentage), the evidence would strongly indicate that this was a different Publius. So, please, give an example that actually helps your case, not one that hurts it.

  768. Yoda says:

    So, please, give an example that actually helps your case, not one that hurts it.

    That is the problem, there are no examples that help his case. There has never been a case decided that supports his conclusions or opinions, so he was forced to create a third form of citizenship out of thin air.

    As I said previously, when you have to create a fiction to make your theory work, your theory does not work. Putzie is, for lack of a better word, a fucktard who has no idea what he is talking about. I am tired of even pretending to have a modicum of respect for any birther.

    Putzie there are a minimum of 15 cases that all point to you being wrong and not one that says you are right. EVEN Minor says you are wrong. If you have a problem with what I saying don’t take it up with me, take it up with the Supreme Court and all the judges who have rejected your theory out of hand.

    By the way, I am still waiting for you to answer my 12 questions. I have dozens more when you are done, but you will not answer even one. Why? Because you can’t. You would rather declare victory, a la Bagdad Bob, and change the subject.

  769. donna says:

    Yoda “……that Putzie thinks are established.”

    perhaps use the italian word “pazzo” – mario has probably heard that word a lot

    Mario: Being in court is one thing, debating on a blog is another. I do not understand why you limit the possible results of the latter with results from the former, especially when the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court.

    again, i have to boil this down

    why would there be a difference between “[b]eing in court” v “debating on a blog”?

    do the facts change?

    i can only (sorta) agree with your statement if you took the defendant’s side of the birther argument in a debate here “on a blog” – now that would really be of interest to me

    “……when the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court?”

    in YOUR opinion “the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court”

    however, no court has rendered that decision

    so in your mind, every decision rendered and affirmed must then be reaffirmed by the supremes to be “thorough” & “final”?

    in my mind, the supremes have chosen not to take up the birther cases NOT because they were “paid off”, “afraid of obama”, etc but because they had NOTHING TO ADD ….. there was no ambiguity ……… and that in THEIR minds, this is settled law aka stare decisis both “thoroughly” and “as a final determination”

    and to make matters worse for the birthers, decisions rendered against them have been used against them in subsequent courts – isn’t that “precedent” or at least “persuasive”?

    when i read pleadings from the plaintiffs, i am always amused when plaintiffs are silent about wong but place their eggs in the “minor” basket as if the court is too dumb to notice

    in my opinion and in the same vein, that’s the reason why no RESPECTABLE ATTORNEY like ted olson, ben ginsberg, joe digenova, victoria toensing, etc (all conservatives) have not jumped at the chance to be on the winning side of the would be biggest case of fraud in the history of the world ………….. the man who was elected twice by over 50% (only 4 times in history) and the man named #1 on the forbes most powerful list for the 2nd time perpetrated a fraud and i, ___________, brought him down

    i’m sure you were hoping that “blank” contained your name – quelle dommage

  770. ASK Esq: Boy, do you ever get tired of being wrong? Yes, the US goverment declared McClure to be a citizen of the United States. But you are the only one who seems to think that this is somehow a third subset rather than the umbrella term. Saying he was a citizen did not mean that he could not also have been a natural born citizen. Or are you suggesting that natural born citizens are not also citizens? You also have no proof that the Publius who wrote that letter to the newspaper was Madison, rather than someone simply using the famous pen name. In fact, as we have a direct quote from Madison regarding citizenship being derived from place of birth, and it was Monroe, writing on behalf of the Madison administration who said that McClure was a citizen due to his being born in Charleston (With no mention of his parentage), the evidence would strongly indicate that this was a different Publius. So, please, give an example that actually helps your case, not one that hurts it.

    I am not going to waste my time on your lies.

  771. Keith: Or perhaps, if he had a $10 note, he couldn’t have Ten Dollars, because he didn’t have two $5 notes?

    And if he did not have any mental function his fictitious name would be Keith.

  772. Keith: That’s because it isn’t the done thing anymore. I remind you once again that we are all aware of Reagan’s political strategist, Lee Atwater’s, ‘Southern Strategy’You aren’t fooling anyone, Mr. Esquire.

    Get thee to a psychologist at once.

  773. Saint James: That’s according to your argument…but you already lost big time Mario. You’ve yet to convince one court that your lawsuits have legal merits! You lost 185 cases so far! Then you have the audacity to even mention “begging the question” yet you’re the one using it? Your logic is defies explanation.

    Go back to sleep.

  774. Saint James: Let’s analyze this for Mario1. that sources of citizenship being BIRTH and NATURALIZATION ONLY DESCRIBES the means by which one can become a U.S. “citizen.”2. After those means are EXHAUSTED?(it seems that one has to be described first as nbc or naturalized), the Constitution then takes the person up and ascribes to him or her the applicable class of “citizen” that he or she has become either at birth or after birth…… So after one gets to be NBC and or Naturalized through description the constitution ascribes (like an investiture ceremony perhaps?) to him/her the citizenship that he or she has become (nbc or naturalized)3. And under our Constitution and Acts of Congress, there are only two classes, either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”….then finally the “natural born citizen” becomes “natural born citizen” and the “naturalized citizen” becomes “citizen of the united states or naturalized”Very much a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT Mario…..Your boat never sailed!…he he (I laughed as I wrote this one….goodness gracious!)…

    Your reading comprehension is horrific.

  775. donna: Yoda “……that Putzie thinks are established.” perhaps use the italian word “pazzo” – mario has probably heard that word a lotMario: Being in court is one thing, debating on a blog is another. I do not understand why you limit the possible results of the latter with results from the former, especially when the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court.again, i have to boil this downwhy would there be a difference between “[b]eing in court” v “debating on a blog”? do the facts change?i can only (sorta) agree with your statement if you took the defendant’s side of the birther argument in a debate here “on a blog” – now that would really be of interest to me“……when the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court?”in YOUR opinion “the matter was determined by the former neither thoroughly nor as a final adjudication by the highest court” however, no court has rendered that decisionso in your mind, every decision rendered and affirmed must then be reaffirmed by the supremes to be “thorough” & “final”?in my mind, the supremes have chosen not to take up the birther cases NOT because they were “paid off”, “afraid of obama”, etc but because they had NOTHING TO ADD ….. there was no ambiguity ……… and that in THEIR minds, this is settled law aka stare decisis both “thoroughly” and “as a final determination”and to make matters worse for the birthers, decisions rendered against them have been used against them in subsequent courts – isn’t that “precedent” or at least “persuasive”?when i read pleadings from the plaintiffs, i am always amused when plaintiffs are silent about wong but place their eggs in the “minor” basket as if the court is too dumb to noticein my opinion and in the same vein, that’s the reason why no RESPECTABLE ATTORNEY like ted olson, ben ginsberg, joe digenova, victoria toensing, etc (all conservatives) have not jumped at the chance to be on the winning side of the would be biggest case of fraud in the history of the world ………….. the man who was elected twice by over 50% (only 4 times in history) and the man named #1 on the forbes most powerful list for the 2nd time perpetrated a fraud and i, ___________, brought him downi’m sure you were hoping that “blank” contained your name – quelle dommage

    You are a naive dreamer.

  776. Keith: Sorry, Mario, but under Minor, Wong’s situation was not discussed, except to say:For the purposes of Minor, it was not necessary to comment on Wong’s circumstances. When the Wong case came along, it WAS necessary and the court found that he was a natural born citizen.You really do need to go back to school.

    Wrong. Wong could not be a “natural born Citizen” at common law as explained by Minor. Minor left open the possibility that he could be a “citizen of the United States” under the new Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Get thee to a different law school.

  777. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wrong.Wong could not be a “natural born Citizen” at common law as explained by Minor.Minor left open the possibility that he could be a “citizen of the United States” under the new Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Get thee to a different law school.

    There is no such thing as a “14th amendment” citizen of the United States. You’re creating another class on top of the citizen of the united states that you claim was a citizen type according to the constitution. No it held Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth and even the government understood what was at stake if they lost the case.

    Get thee to an actual law school.

  778. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not going to waste my time on your lies.

    So you concede that you’re full of crap.

  779. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wrong.Wong could not be a “natural born Citizen” at common law as explained by Minor.Minor left open the possibility that he could be a “citizen of the United States” under the new Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Get thee to a different law school.

    So a Natural Born Citizen is not a Citizen of the United States?

  780. Yoda says:

    I see Putzie is so scared of me he won’t even respond to my posts. Lol. Putzied now knows he is not in my league.

  781. gorefan: And from Wong Kim Ark,“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.”Not a natural born citizen but the dreaded “citizen of the United States”And from Chief Justice Fuller in Ex Parte Lockwood,“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court 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”Again not an NBC just a “citizen of the United States”.I guess we would have to assume that natural born citizens are part of the class of “citizens of the United States”.

    That is right. All “natural born Citizens” have the rights of “citizens of the United States,” and all “citizens of the United States” have the rights of the “natural born Citizens” except for the right to be eligible to the Office of President.

    Also, yodel brain Yoda said that there was no “holding” in Minor regarding citizenship. I guess the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Ex parte Lockwood did not agree with him.

  782. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That is right.All “natural born Citizens” have the rights of “citizens of the United States,” and all “citizens of the United States” have the rights of the “natural born Citizens” except for the right to be eligible to the Office of President.

    Also, yodel brain Yoda said that there was no “holding” in Minor regarding citizenship.I guess the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Ex parte Lockwood did not agree with him.

    Lol. So stupid

  783. Scientist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So what is your beef, Scientist?

    My beef is that you are an enormous waste of time. This site is not the Minor Conspiracy Theories nor the Wong Conspiracy Theories. It is the Obama Conspiracy Theories. Obama is the President. Under the Constitution, as you are very well aware, the President is without question a natural born citizen. Period. End of story. He has that status conferred on him not by any set of judges, but by the Supreme authority in the land, the People.

    You know that is true. So stop wasting everybody’s time.

  784. Yoda says:

    Was not particularly familiar with Lockwood, but as usual, you misread it. Minor had a holding as to citizenship only to the extent that it was necessary to the determination of her right to vote, which would be the same whether she was NBC or naturalized. There any discussion as to the alleged definition of NBC is dicta. GO BACK TO LAW SCHOOL. You are my bitch, boy.

  785. gorefan says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That is right.

    So you agree the term “citizen of the United States” would include “natural born citizens”?

    Justice Gray and Chief Justice Fuller said Virginia Minor “was” and have “always been considered” a citizen of the United States.

  786. @ Yoda

    You have done a great job of spanking Mario Apuzzo who has as we know has never won a single case on the issues presented here and you are to be congratulated. However, remember that Mr. Apuzzo got spanked in New Jersey by a very young and inexperienced but capable attorney named Alexandra Hill. Ms Hill astutely sat silent and smiled to herself while Apuzzo’s arguments were sliced and diced by Judge Masin. Although young she was smart enough to know that when the judge is proving your case for you let him continue. Apuzzo stuttered and sputtered as Judge Masin referred to the most important case ever decided on citizenship and the self proclaimed expert on natural born citizenship had to admit he didn’t even bring a copy of the Wong Kim Ark decision with him. It was very entertaining.

  787. US Citizen says:

    I think Mario is right.
    No, not that his bizarre logic or arguments are valid, but rather that a blog is not a court.
    A court would never allow responses such as:

    “I am not going to waste my time on your lies”
    “Go back to sleep.”
    “Your reading comprehension is horrific.”
    “You are a naive dreamer.”
    “Get thee to a different law school.”

  788. Yoda: Was not particularly familiar with Lockwood, but as usual, you misread it. Minor had a holding as to citizenship only to the extent that it was necessary to the determination of her right to vote, which would be the same whether she was NBC or naturalized. There any discussion as to the alleged definition of NBC is dicta. GO BACK TO LAW SCHOOL. You are my bitch, boy.

    Yodel brain, you might think it was not necessary, but the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court thought it was important enough to devote to the issue of citizenship a major part of its decision. Hence, the Court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of “original citizens,’ “natural-born citizens,” and “citizens” by naturalization after birth all counts, my friend.

    Also, by the language that you use, it sounds as though you have spent time in jail. Have you?

  789. Yoda says:

    Thanks RC. I am familiar with Courtroom failures of Putzie as I keep up with birther follies. And while I congratulate Ms Hill, Putzie just got crushed by me, and I am a HS graduate.

  790. Reality Check: @ YodaYou have done a great job of spanking Mario Apuzzo who has as we know has never won a single case on the issues presented here and you are to be congratulated. However, remember that Mr. Apuzzo got spanked in New Jersey by a very young and inexperienced but capable attorney named Alexandra Hill. Ms Hill astutely sat silent and smiled to herself while Apuzzo’s arguments were sliced and diced by Judge Masin. Although young she was smart enough to know that when the judge is proving your case for you let him continue. Apuzzo stuttered and sputtered as Judge Masin referred to the most important case ever decided on citizenship and the self proclaimed expert on natural born citizenship had to admit he didn’t even bring a copy of the Wong Kim Ark decision with him. It was very entertaining.

    The good professor is back. He finished grading his students’ exams and so he figured he’d come on here and share with us his boring prose. Now you know why his students all say he is so boring in class.

  791. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    US Citizen:
    I think Mario is right.
    No, not that his bizarre logic or arguments are valid, but rather that a blog is not a court.
    A court would never allow responses such as:

    “I am not going to waste my time on your lies”
    “Go back to sleep.”
    “Your reading comprehension is horrific.”
    “You are a naive dreamer.”
    “Get thee to a different law school.”

    Which means Mario is in the wrong profession if he’s not interested in how a court rules but rather in how he thinks they should have ruled.

  792. Yoda: Thanks RC. I am familiar with Courtroom failures of Putzie as I keep up with birther follies. And while I congratulate Ms Hill, Putzie just got crushed by me, and I am a HS graduate.

    It shows.

  793. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Yodel brain, you might think it was not necessary, but the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court thought it was important enough to devote to the issue of citizenship a major part of its decision.Hence, the Court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of “original citizens,’ “natural-born citizens,” and “citizens” by naturalization after birth all counts, my friend.

    Also, by the language that you use, it sounds as though you have spent time in jail. Have you?

    Once again, you are not my friend. But you again show your ignorance. Did you really go to law school? You have no idea what a holding is.

  794. Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Which means Mario is in the wrong profession if he’s not interested in how a court rules but rather in how he thinks they should have ruled.

    Don’t forget you are a pretentious fool.

  795. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It shows.

    Lol. How does it feel to be the legal bitch of a HS graduate Putzie? You couldn’t beat a lowly HS graduate in a discussion of legal analysis. And you have been allegedly practicing law for what, 5-6 years now?

  796. I did not intend to demean the smack-down you have inflicted upon Mr. Apuzzo.

    You know what is also funny? The hearing in question was before an Administrative Law Judge, which is the only place Apuzzo could even get a hearing. In federal courts his pleadings were so bad they were dismissed without a hearing every single time. He begged for a hearing before the Third Circuit and they not only denied that request but said his appeal was frivolous and issued an OSC as to why he should not be sanctioned. I would call that record not only a failure but a massive stinking pile of failure.

    Yoda:
    Thanks RC.I am familiar with Courtroom failures of Putzie as I keep up with birther follies.And while I congratulate Ms Hill, Putzie just got crushed by me, and I am a HS graduate.

  797. Yoda: Once again, you are not my friend. But you again show your ignorance. Did you really go to law school? You have no idea what a holding is.

    Since you, a H.S. graduate as you claim, know so much about holdings and what lawyers learn in law school, why do you not quote for us here the holding of Wong Kim Ark. I need just a quote from the decision, not your imaginary analysis.

  798. Yoda says:

    Reality Check:
    I did not intend to demean the smack-down you have inflicted upon Mr. Apuzzo.

    You know what is also funny? The hearing in question was before an Administrative Law Judge, which is the only place Apuzzo could even get a hearing. In federal courts his pleadings were so bad they were dismissed without a hearing. He begged for a hearing before the Third Circuit and they not only denied that request but said his appeal was frivolous and issued an OSC as to why he should not be sanctioned. I would call that record not only a failure but a massive stinking pile of failure.

    I didn’t think you did. I take pride in my legal knowledge. Sorry it came across that way. I just wanted to make it clear that I was a HS graduate and made him my bitch.

  799. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Since you, a H.S. graduate as you claim, know so much about holdings and what lawyers learn in law school, why do you not quote for us here the holding of Wong Kim Ark. I need just a quote from the decision, not your imaginary analysis.

    I have quoted it many times. But I will post it again when you answer my 12 questions. Remember, you are my bitch, not the other way around.

  800. Saint James says:

    Keith: You are aware that I was quoting Mr. Esquire, aren’t you?

    Yes Keith, I was aware I was quoting Mr Esquire.

  801. Yoda says:

    Saint James: Yes Keith, I was aware I was quoting Mr Esquire.

    And imagine that Mario is JUST a alawyer, unlike Orly, who is a dentist and and lawyer and a real estate agent and a unicorn.

  802. ASK Esq says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not going to waste my time on your lies.

    Then it sure is a good thing I didn’t tell any. Now, will you please respond to my facts? No, of course you won’t. You’re a pathetic coward who cannot face the truth, so you do nothing but spout your own lies, and pretend that nobody notices.

    You know something, Mario? You have actually accomplished something amazing. The fact that you are a disgrace to the legal profession is not a big deal. There are many lawyers who have done that over the years. No, you have managed the seemingly impossible. You have disgraced New Jersey.

  803. Sudoku says:

    I think Mario needs to reread the words of Chief Justice Waite. In the first two paragraph’s of his decision in Minor, he makes it clear the Court only addressed whether laws restricting the vote to men are unconstitutional. Note he says she could be born or naturalized and he has the gall to refer to Minor as simply (gasp!) a citizen of the United States.

    Surely, someone as learned as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, would understand the relevance of the Court defining NBC and would not have failed to mention it.

    “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. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”

    “It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.”
    (emphasis added)

  804. Yoda says:

    Sudoku:
    I think Mario needs to reread the words of Chief Justice Waite.

    I think Mario needs a brain enema.

  805. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: why do you not quote for us here the holding of Wong Kim Ark. I need just a quote from the decision, not your imaginary analysis.

    Mario, why don’t you explain what a holding is and an example from Wong Kim Ark since you legal skills is in question here?

  806. Sudoku says:

    True, that and so many other needs. I considered posting them all, but I don’t have the requisite free time to compile a comprehensive list. Holidays coming and all that… :mrgreen:

    Yoda: I think Mario needs a brain enema.

  807. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Don’t forget you are a pretentious fool.

    Oh my… The irony.

  808. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wrong.Wong could not be a “natural born Citizen” at common law as explained by Minor.Minor left open the possibility that he could be a “citizen of the United States” under the new Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Get thee to a different law school.

    ROTFL… The fourteenth amendment merely reflected that which the Constitution had already provided for. Either one is naturalized by statute, or one is natural born by birth on soil. It’s that simple. Since WKA could not be a citizen of the United States through naturalization, there was only one remaining pathway to citizenship: Natural born status, which is why the appealing attorney argued

    The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    WKA also rejected the argument by Holmes

    And this court did in Minor v. Happersett (21 Wall., 167) look to the common law to ascertain from its nomenclature who were meant by “natural-born citizens,” and they found just what the Government is contending for here, that “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

    Finding WKA indeed to be a citizen of the US.

    Logic my friend. Pure logic.

  809. nbc says:

    Mario is, once again, all over the place… Sad really

  810. donna says:

    NBC:

    all over the place and yet nowhere

  811. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Don’t forget you are a pretentious fool.

    Says the guy who signs everything with “esq” while pretending to be a real lawyer

  812. ASK Esq says:

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Don’t forget you are a pretentious fool.

    Says the guy who signs everything with “esq” while pretending to be a real lawyer

    He’s a real lawyer. A real bad lawyer, to be precise.

  813. Dave B. says:

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Says the guy who signs everything with “esq” while pretending to be a real lawyer

    Maybe he should add an “A.N.D.” after that “Esq.”

  814. Reality Check: I did not intend to demean the smack-down you have inflicted upon Mr. Apuzzo. You know what is also funny? The hearing in question was before an Administrative Law Judge, which is the only place Apuzzo could even get a hearing. In federal courts his pleadings were so bad they were dismissed without a hearing every single time. He begged for a hearing before the Third Circuit and they not only denied that request but said his appeal was frivolous and issued an OSC as to why he should not be sanctioned. I would call that record not only a failure but a massive stinking pile of failure.

    Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check,

    Does the University of Connecticut know that you engage in such infantile behavior?

  815. Yoda: I have quoted it many times. But I will post it again when you answer my 12 questions. Remember, you are my bitch, not the other way around.

    I know a lot of people that talk like you.

  816. Keith says:

    I find this thread taking much too long to load up these days, and Mr. Esquire’s bleating exceedingly tedious and boorish.

    It is time for this little black duck to stop feeding the troll here.

  817. ASK Esq: Then it sure is a good thing I didn’t tell any. Now, will you please respond to my facts? No, of course you won’t. You’re a pathetic coward who cannot face the truth, so you do nothing but spout your own lies, and pretend that nobody notices.You know something, Mario? You have actually accomplished something amazing. The fact that you are a disgrace to the legal profession is not a big deal. There are many lawyers who have done that over the years. No, you have managed the seemingly impossible. You have disgraced New Jersey.

    You are a morals phony.

  818. Sudoku: I think Mario needs to reread the words of Chief Justice Waite. In the first two paragraph’s of his decision in Minor, he makes it clear the Court only addressed whether laws restricting the vote to men are unconstitutional. Note he says she could be born or naturalized and he has the gall to refer to Minor as simply (gasp!) a citizen of the United States.Surely, someone as learned as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, would understand the relevance of the Court defining NBC and would not have failed to mention it.“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. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”“It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.”(emphasis added)

    Virginia Minor argued that Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for why Missouri could not deny her the right to vote. Under those constitutional provisions, she only had to show that she was a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural-born citizen” to show that she was entitled to privileges and immunities and to the protection that the Fourteenth Amendment gave to them from state abridgement. But to show that she was such a “citizen,” the Court showed how women were always citizens from the Founding and not only “citizens” but also “natural-born citizens.” And in its discussion, the Court said that the Constitution (which included the Fourteenth Amendment) did not define a “natural-born citizen.” It then said that under the common law with which the Framers were familiar, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were not only “citizens” themselves like their parents, but also “natives or natural-born citizens.” Since Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court concluded that she was a “citizen” and therefore had standing to assert her voting rights constitutional claims under Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. We also know that in the end, the Court found that the privileges and immunities of the “citizens of the United States” did not include the right to vote and so Missouri was free to limit the right to vote to men only. So, unlike Wong Kim Ark, who was a “citizen,” but not a “natural-born citizen,” Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.”

  819. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I know a lot of people that talk like you.

    Unfortunately, I know a few people who think like you–they are called birthers

  820. sfjeff says:

    There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the “natural born citizen” clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    The court in Ankeny v Daniles recognized the simple fact that all Americans know that anyone born in the United States(with the acknowledged exceptions) is a natural born citizen.

    That is why the voters never doubted that Barack Obama was eligible, and it is why Congress confirmed him once and will confirm him again. It is why Chief Justice Roberts didn’t beg off swearing him in.

    It is why there is no Senator who is waving “Law of Nations” around and yelling “Ursurper”

    It is why John McCain didn’t call Obama ineligible.

    This is a quack theory that the Supreme Court is not wasting its time on.

  821. Yoda says:

    sfjeff:
    There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the “natural born citizen” clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    The court in Ankeny v Daniles recognized the simple fact that all Americans know that anyone born in the United States(with the acknowledged exceptions) is a natural born citizen.

    That is why the voters never doubted that Barack Obama was eligible, and it is why Congress confirmed him once and will confirm him again. It is why Chief Justice Roberts didn’t beg off swearing him in.

    It is why there is no Senator who is waving “Law of Nations” around and yelling “Ursurper”

    It is why John McCain didn’t call Obama ineligible.

    This is a quack theory that the Supreme Court is not wasting its time on.

    The Supreme Court is likely to never hear a birther case unless and until birthers win one. Until now, all of the birther cases have been uniformly decided and there is no inconsistency in results. The Court would likely take a case in order to resolve the inconsistency should one arise. It won’t.

  822. sfjeff: There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the “natural born citizen” clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant:Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.The court in Ankeny v Daniles recognized the simple fact that all Americans know that anyone born in the United States(with the acknowledged exceptions) is a natural born citizen.That is why the voters never doubted that Barack Obama was eligible, and it is why Congress confirmed him once and will confirm him again. It is why Chief Justice Roberts didn’t beg off swearing him in.It is why there is no Senator who is waving “Law of Nations” around and yelling “Ursurper”It is why John McCain didn’t call Obama ineligible.This is a quack theory that the Supreme Court is not wasting its time on.

    Ankeny, while conceding that Wong in the language of its holding did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen, concluded that a “natural born Citizen” is any person who becomes a “citizen” at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents. This is both a tautology and a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

  823. nbc says:

    What I find fascinating is how Mario is raising many of the same ‘arguments’ which the Courts rejected in WKA. Furthermore, both the appellant and the dissenting Judge realized that WKA was ruled to be a natural born citizen

    George Collins:

    The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    Justice Fuller is in disagreement with the majority’s findings:

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

    So it’s clear that the Court in WKA declared WKA to be a citizen since he was born on US soil and thus under our Constitution, a natural born citizen.

    Similarly the Court in Rogers v Bellei observed

    The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization.”

    Two additions to citizenship, birth or naturalized and children born in the US are NOT naturalized. Again, the meaning is clear. WKA was not naturalized and thus the only constitutionally recognized way to obtain US citizenship was through birth on soil which under Common Law made him a natural born citizen.

    Nice and clean

    Unlike Mario’s arguments which received a variety of responses

    Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.

    And this court…

    Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.

  824. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Ankeny, while conceding that Wong in the language of its holding did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen, concluded that a “natural born Citizen” is any person who becomes a “citizen” at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents.This is both a tautology and a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

    Apparently, you did not read the footnote. Ya gotta read footnotes–or did they not teach you that in law school?

  825. nbc says:

    Also in Malihi’s ruling he observed

    Plaintiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor as
    defining natural born citizens as only “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define
    the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the
    Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its
    citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open
    the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural
    born citizen.

    Smack…

    The judge in Allen v Arizona

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

    Smack Smack…

    And the list keeps on growing…

  826. nbc says:

    Yoda: Apparently, you did not read the footnote. Ya gotta read footnotes–or did they not teach you that in law school?

    The footnote explains

    14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

    Dichotomy as to who is a natural born and naturalized citizen is irrelevant in WKA. Again recognizing the existence of two forms of citizenship.

    Mario is getting no respect from the courts who continue to properly read and understand WKA. Heck, even the dissenting judge understood, or the appealing attorney… Yes, all understood…

  827. nbc says:

    Mario: Ankeny, while conceding that Wong in the language of its holding did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen, concluded that a “natural born Citizen” is any person who becomes a “citizen” at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents. This is both a tautology and a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

    The court understood that the issue was not if WKA were a natural born citizen but rather if he were a citizen. Recognizing only two sources of citizenship, birth and statute, the court observed that WKA could not have become a citizen under statute. But he did observe that under common law, the meaning of the term “natural born” included any child born to parents, with minor exceptions and thus concluded that WKA was indeed natural born and thus a citizen.

  828. Yes, it is most definitely a tautology.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: a “natural born Citizen” is any person who becomes a “citizen” at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents. This is … a tautology

  829. I count eight.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/lawsuits/recent-court-rulings-on-presidential-eligibility/

    sfjeff: There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the “natural born citizen” clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant:

  830. nbc says:

    It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909, as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.

    Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454 – Supreme Court 1920

  831. nbc says:

    n addition, Wong Kim Ark cites numerous common law sources and authorities which indicate that all persons born within the territory of a sovereign nation and who owe complete allegiance to that nation are deemed “natural born” for purposes of citizenship

    Rabang v. INS, 35 F. 3d 1449 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1994

  832. Only that’s not what the court said, is it? That’s why you keep arriving at the wrong conclusion. You rewrite history to make if fit your needs.

    The people who read your blog may be credulous and believe your edited version of history, but over here, we read the original text.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It then said that under the common law with which the Framers were familiar, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were not only “citizens” themselves like their parents, but also “natives or natural-born citizens.”

  833. That comment adds nothing to the discussion. Are you reduced to petty insults?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a naive dreamer.

  834. dunstvangeet says:

    Not to mention the quotes that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark goes through to prove that there is no distance between English Common Law and the Common Law of the United States.

    Such as their very directed quote of U.S. v. Rhodes, which stated:
    “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.”

    Oh, and before you try to state that the common law is different, what Supreme Court said:

    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, your entire argument that there is an American Common Law is soundly rejected by the Supreme Court, the very body which you say is the final arbitrator of the matter.

  835. Daniel says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    What a ridiculous thing for a lawyer to say, or Mario for that matter.

  836. Daniel says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That comment adds nothing to the discussion. Are you reduced to petty insults?

    Hasn’t Mario just about used up his measure of forbearance? It’s obvious he’s only here to drip and moan after taking a pounding in court… again. He’s obviously not interested in any sort of honest discussion.

    Why are we allowing him to torture electrons to vent his frustrations at being such a colossal failure in court, here in this forum? Surely any courtesy you might have owed him by virtue of being at least a human being has been well and fairly used up by now?

  837. Sudoku says:

    So why do you keep saying that the SCOTUS defined NBC in Minor?

    1. It wasn’t necessary to the holding, that the Constitution did not confer the right of suffrage on anyone.

    2. The Court said the argument presented involved a woman, born or naturalized in the US. NBC status was not necessary.

    3. Chief Justice Waite specifically said the Court was addressing only one issue.

    4. Besides the above, citizenship was not even necessary to vote in all cases in MO, provided that the person was male.

    Clearly, if you think the Court “defined” NBC, it had to be dicta.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Virginia Minor argued that Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for why Missouri could not deny her the right to vote. Under those constitutional provisions, she only had to show that she was a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural-born citizen” to show that she was entitled to privileges and immunities and to the protection that the Fourteenth Amendment gave to them from state abridgement.

  838. Sudoku says:

    Because the courts are the arbiters of disputes and laws and SCOTUS has the final word on the meaning of the Constitution?

    You can have everyone in the blogosphere agree with you, but if the none of the courts do…Well, you know how that feels.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

  839. bovril says:

    Sudoku: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have said repeatedly, when the Obots lose the debate, they look to the courts to rescue them.

    Poor old Falio, very sad when a putative officer of the court fails to understand both what a court or the law is.

    Well, Putzie, in the real, world what happens are the Birther slappers look to the winning law cases and see that they support them unlike Birfoons who look to pretend lawyers like yourself and your new paramour Mad Ole Orly to validate them.

    Facts on the side of us, nothing but bigotted, seditious, inane, immoral and unethical behaviour on your side.

    So, do tell Putzie, where is that list of winning cases of yours that identify, categorizes, define and support your magical 3rd class of citizen…?

  840. The Magic M says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, the Court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of “original citizens,’ “natural-born citizens,” and “citizens” by naturalization after birth all counts, my friend.

    Just funny they failed to mention that other class of citizens, “born in the country with less than two citizen parents”, that you claim exists.

    Why did SCOTUS in Minor contrast “natural-born citizen” with “alien or foreigner” instead of “citizen” or “naturalized citizen”? After all, the court said, in your interpretation, you can only be the one or the other.

  841. So Mr. Apuzzo. Are you making a little threat there? Are you suggesting that people should to contact the University of Connecticut and report someone for posting facts on a blog. Facts like you got your ass handed to you by a young still wet behind the ears young attorney? Facts like courts have said your theories are without legal merit. Facts like your appeal to the Third Circuit was frivolous. Well go right ahead. I will be glad to inform the Professor himself that you plan to do that so he can consider appropriate actions. That seems to be the way you pathetic Birthers like Tracy Fair, Jerome Corsi and your buddy Kerchner like to operate.

    By the way, I am pretty sure you just violated Doc’s comment policy even though you didn’t really expose my name. I would say it is intent that counts. I don’t really care if he bans you or not. You provide a lot of amusement.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check,

    Does the University of Connecticut know that you engage in such infantile behavior?

  842. Reality Check: So Mr. Apuzzo. Are you making a little threat there? Are you suggesting that people should to contact the University of Connecticut and report someone for posting facts on a blog. Facts like you got your ass handed to you by a young still wet behind the ears young attorney? Facts like courts have said your theories are without legal merit. Facts like your appeal to the Third Circuit was frivolous. Well go right ahead. I will be glad to inform the Professor himself that you plan to do that so he can consider appropriate actions. That seems to be the way you pathetic Birthers like Tracy Fair, Jerome Corsi and your buddy Kerchner like to operate. By the way, I am pretty sure you just violated Doc’s comment policy even though you didn’t really expose my name. I would say it is intent that counts. I don’t really care if he bans you or not. You provide a lot of amusement.

    What’s the problem, you all know who I am? Why do you not have the good Professor Rockwell call me and we can straighten this identity thing out.

  843. realist says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check,

    Does the University of Connecticut know that you engage in such infantile behavior?

    Corsi’s and Tracy Fair’s research is just about as good as Mario’s legal analyses. That’s why Mario buys in to it.

  844. Also, remember it was Apuzzo who told Frank Arduini that he knew Frank Arduini and he was not Frank Arduini. 😆

    realist:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check,

    Does the University of Connecticut know that you engage in such infantile behavior?

    Corsi’s and Tracy Fair’s research is just about as good as Mario’s legal analyses.That’s why Mario buys in to it.

  845. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: What’s the problem, you all know who I am? Why do you not have the good Professor Rockwell call me and we can straighten this identity thing out.

    Why don’t you call him Mario and straighten it out? Also if you’re going to record the call you’re going to need his permission seeing as Connecticut is a dual consent state.

  846. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check, Does the University of Connecticut know that you engage in such infantile behavior?

    So do you rely on an insane methhead like Tracy Fair to do your legal research as well?

  847. Mario also doesn’t seem to realize that I (and others) am not going around filing frivolous lawsuits and defaming the President based on a silly theory that no serious scholar of the Constitution gives a rat’s ass about. Out of thousands of attorneys there are maybe one or two crackpots like Herb Titus who might have given any credence at all to anything close to what Apuzzo is pushing. Even crazy old Herb hasn’t put his name on a lawsuit, however.

  848. ASK Esq says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are a morals phony.

    OK, Mario, just so we’re clear, we have reached the part of our back-and-forth where you know that there is nothing that you can say that can possibly support your position, so you are reduced to making snide comments. Got it. Thanks.

    I don’t know if there is much motion practice involved in allowing drunk drivers back behind the wheel with a slap on the wrist, but I can imagine how you would approach it if you had to. First, you’d make a motion, citing case law and statutes in your affirmation. Then, your adversary would file an affirmation in opposition, explaining to the court why every case and statute you cite does not actually say what you claimk they say, and, in fact, they say the exact opposite of what you want them to. Then, in your reply, you would call your adversary a stupid smelly poopyhead. After the court denies your motion, you would then say that the court did so because it doesn’t understand the law. Does that sound about right to you?

  849. Reality Check: Mario also doesn’t seem to realize that I (and others) am not going around filing frivolous lawsuits and defaming the President based on a silly theory that no serious scholar of the Constitution gives a rat’s ass about. Out of thousands of attorneys there are maybe one or two crackpots like Herb Titus who might have given any credence at all to anything close to what Apuzzo is pushing. Even crazy old Herb hasn’t put his name on a lawsuit, however.

    How convenient. The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

  850. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How convenient. The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

    Take responsibility? You never do that everytime you lose in the courts it’s always someone else’s fault.

  851. Jim says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How convenient.The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

    Ummmm, Mario…You’re the infantile game they’re playing. And when they’re through with you they’ll laugh at you and toss you aside. Were you always the geeky kid that everyone laughed at and no one wanted to be friends with?

  852. ASK Esq says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How convenient. The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

    So what are you suggesting, Mario? We should file lawsuits seeking to have Obama declared eligible? I’d ask if that makes sense to you but, honestly, I’m afraid of what the answer might be.

  853. bovril says:

    What one must remember is that Mario is a sad, ineffectual liar.

    For example, he attempts to “out” an individual in a pathetic attempt to slow down their relentless dismantling of his nonsense.

    It of course backfires in exactly the same manner as his imbecilic attempt to state that because over at Amazon, an individual named “Whiskey” culls his dross, by coming over here that makes moi, another culler of Birfoon dross, Bovril, one and the same.

    When Mario is pulled and chastised as an idiot, as he is making a judgement based on facts not in evidence, (a fundamentally basic legal concept) he retires in high dudgeon for being exposed as the charlatan and bigot he is.

    It would be comical if it didn’t demonstrate exactly how profoundly stupid he is.

    Still, he amuses us all with his monkey see, monkey do tactics as well as acting as an exemplar training example to ones children…”If you don’t stop messing around and act like a responsible person yoo will end up as a Mario!!!”

  854. Sudoku says:

    Having to explain this to you speaks volumes… There is no need to litigate if you are content with the status quo.

    Let’s put it this way. How many clients do you take on, who had not been intoxicated, not charged with DUI, who are merely seeking to file suit to have the court declare that they were not intoxicated and had not been charged with a DUI?

    Makes you wonder…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How convenient. The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

  855. J.D. Reed says:

    Mario, what’s your end game? What happens after President Obama’s election is confirmed by the electoral college on Dec. 17, the Congress confirms his election in early January — don’t have exact date before me — and is sworn in for a second term on Jan. 20? All this will happen, or do you believe otherwise? What kind of legal actions are you planning after Mr. Obama starts serving his second term? I mean, anything different from what has been tried and repeatedly failed to date?

  856. Jim says:

    I hope he comes up with some new material…the old stuff is getting kind of stale.

  857. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How convenient. The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

    First, you make the mistake that all birthers make. Just because we are of the opinion that the President is Constitutionally eligible to serve does not mean that we are Obot. We are anti birther. But logic was never your strong suit.

    As for talking a good game, there is nothing for us to do. You guys lose to empty chairs and tables. We are on the right side both of the law and history.

    There is an old adage, I heard it back in HS. When the law is on your side, argue the law, when the facts are on your said, argue the fact. When neither is on your side, bang the table. And that is all birthers have ever done–bang the table.

  858. ASK Esq says:

    Yoda: There is an old adage, I heard it back in HS. When the law is on your side, argue the law, when the facts are on your said, argue the fact. When neither is on your side, bang the table. And that is all birthers have ever done–bang the table.

    At law school there was a poster that phrased the third option as “Call the other guy a schmuck,” and that is exactly what Mario’s been doing here.

  859. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    J.D. Reed:
    Mario, what’s your end game?

    I can only hope Mario’s endgame involves succumbing to the guilt of representing drunk drivers. The way I see it, drunk driving is no different than loading a bullet into a gun and firing it into a crowded room. Therefore I have nothing remotely good or decent to say about someone who defends people like that.

  860. donna says:

    ASK Esq: “Call the other guy a schmuck,” and that is exactly what Mario’s been doing here.

    or in my case “a naive dreamer” & “I have more respect for the garbage on the street than someone (ME) who makes such statements” & “I think you are out of your league here.”

  861. I guess Mario and I are mortal enemies. I was foreman of a jury that convicted a drunk driver. The Defense argument was about as good as Mario’s stuff.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I can only hope Mario’s endgame involves succumbing to the guilt of representing drunk drivers.

  862. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How convenient. The Obot children here talk a big game but are not willing to take personal responsibility and accountability for their little infantile game.

    ROTFL… Oh the irony is killing me…

  863. gorefan says:

    donna:

    Donna, if Mario’s name calling ever bothers you just respond with what the New Jersey Appellate Court told him

    “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). “

    Or you can shorten it to simply “R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)”

    R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) – that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r2-11.htm

  864. nbc says:

    gorefan: “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). “

    ROTFL… Mario’s follies are not limited to these forums I gather, but extend into the legal world. Of course the fact that the plaintiffs include Purpura, whose musings have failed to impress the court as well, helps explain the uphill battle Mario was facing here.

  865. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Defense argument was about as good as Mario’s stuff.

    In my opinion there is no legitimate defense for playing Russian Roulette with a car and someone else’s life. Drunk driving convictions should come with a mandatory “banned from driving for life!” status.

  866. donna says:

    gorefan:

    thanks mucho for the tips – i will save them – mario’s comments don’t bother me – i always consider the source and his comments are also “without merit” in law or anywhere else

    my objections come from his “cherry picking” which is why i previously asked “what exactly is mario’s purpose here?”

    thanks again

  867. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Maybe Mario can regale us with his tall tale about how he didn’t have to beg to get out of sanctions in the Kerchner case.

  868. E Pluribus Unum says:

    I find this curious. If anything, wouldn’t “natural born” be a pleonasm (redundancy) rather than a tautology?

    I also think the term has its own syntactical relevance which would preclude it from being even a pleonasm.

    Regardless, Mario Apuzzo’s related arguments are meaningless. And separate from that inadequate, made-up theory of his, I just am interested in the logic here.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes, it is most definitely a tautology.

  869. nbc: What I find fascinating is how Mario is raising many of the same ‘arguments’ which the Courts rejected in WKA. Furthermore, both the appellant and the dissenting Judge realized that WKA was ruled to be a natural born citizenGeorge Collins:Justice Fuller is in disagreement with the majority’s findings:So it’s clear that the Court in WKA declared WKA to be a citizen since he was born on US soil and thus under our Constitution, a natural born citizen.Similarly the Court in Rogers v Bellei observedTwo additions to citizenship, birth or naturalized and children born in the US are NOT naturalized. Again, the meaning is clear. WKA was not naturalized and thus the only constitutionally recognized way to obtain US citizenship was through birth on soil which under Common Law made him a natural born citizen.Nice and cleanUnlike Mario’s arguments which received a variety of responses And this court…

    You said: “So it’s clear that the Court in WKA declared WKA to be a citizen since he was born on US soil and thus under our Constitution, a natural born citizen.” Are we rewriting history? Yes, the Court held Wong to be a “citizen.” But it did not hold him to be a “natural born Citizen.” It is you that have so held him, not the Court.

    You said: “Two additions to citizenship, birth or naturalized and children born in the US are NOT naturalized. Again, the meaning is clear. WKA was not naturalized and thus the only constitutionally recognized way to obtain US citizenship was through birth on soil which under Common Law made him a natural born citizen.” Wrong again. Birth in the country to citizen parents produces Minor Article II “natural-born citizens.” Birth in the country to domiciled and resident alien parents produces Wong Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” at birth. And statutory naturalization produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” after birth.

    Nice and clean.

  870. Keith says:

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Why don’t you call him Mario and straighten it out?

    Why should he call him Mario?

  871. Keith says:

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I can only hope Mario’s endgame involves succumbing to the guilt of representing drunk drivers. The way I see it, drunk driving is no different than loading a bullet into a gun and firing it into a crowded room. Therefore I have nothing remotely good or decent to say about someone who defends people like that.

    I agree with your opinion of drunk drivers. However, everyone deserves competent representation.

  872. Should read:

    And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents or to no-U.S. citizen parents produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth, respectively.

  873. nbc: The Minor Court left open
    the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural
    born citizen.

    Not true. Minor was very clear that at common law with which the Framers were familiar a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. This is the only definition that the Court provided. Minor left open the question of whether a child “born in the jurisdiction,” regardless of the citizenship of the parents, was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether it was a “natural-born citizen.” Are we to believe that the Founders and Framers did not know the definition of a “natural born Citizen” and so Minor could not answer any question about the clause if the question really did concern that clause and not some other clause? There was no debate on the “natural born Citizen” clause in either the drafting or ratifying convention. So, are we to conclude that 88 years later suddenly our U.S. Supreme Court did not know what a “natural born Citizen” was such that it had to leave questions regarding the clause unanswered? Such a thesis not only makes little sense, but also has no historical support.

  874. Yoda: And that is all birthers have ever done–bang the table.

    Perfected by Nikita Khrushchev: http://mcgarnagle.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/khrushchev_shoe1.jpg
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident

  875. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor was very clear that at common law with which the Framers were familiar a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. This is the only definition that the Court provided.

    What about a child whose mother was a US citizen, whose father was a diplomat AND born on Mars?

  876. E Pluribus Unum says:

    Continuing re the matters of logic raised here, Apuzzo claims he is not affirming the consequent because a natural born citizen must be born in country to two citizen parents, that if and only if those conditions are met is a person born as a natural born citizen, eligible for the presidency.

    Exactly so, but no. Unfortunately for his argument, that is an untrue limit. Those conditions are sufficient but not necessary. There are other conditions, such as one citizen parent, or no citizen parent.

    So he is indeed affirming the consequent.

  877. Sudoku says:

    Exactly what question was asked of the Minor Court regarding the NBC clause?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: so Minor could not answer any question about the clause if the question really did concern that clause and not some other clause?

  878. Sudoku says:

    This is exactly what you get wrong. It may seem like semantics, but it is vital to your (mis)understanding.

    Minor was clear that a child born to parents who were its citizens was a NBC. Minor did not say it the other way around, as you did here, that a NBC is a child born…

    Big difference.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor was very clear that at common law with which the Framers were familiar a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

  879. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents or to no-U.S. citizen parents produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth, respectively.

    1. “And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents”?…..there is no process in place for naturalization for someone who is already a natural born citizen

    2. “And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to no-U.S. citizen parents produces Congressional “citizens of the United States”? …..Of course, if one is born out of the US of non-us citizen parents, then they have to go through the process of naturalization if they want to be us citizens.

    The following are NBC and are qualified to be POTUS like John McCain per 8 USC 1401

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

    (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

    What say you Mario? Sort and sift right away!

  880. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Not true. Minor was very clear that at common law with which the Framers were familiar a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. This is the only definition that the Court provided.Minor left open the question of whether a child “born in the jurisdiction,” regardless of the citizenship of the parents, was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether it was a “natural-born citizen.”Are we to believe that the Founders and Framers did not know the definition of a “natural born Citizen” and so Minor could not answer any question about the clause if the question really did concern that clause and not some other clause?There was no debate on the “natural born Citizen” clause in either the drafting or ratifying convention.So,are we to conclude that 88 years later suddenly our U.S. Supreme Court did not know what a “natural born Citizen” was such that it had to leave questions regarding the clause unanswered?Such a thesis not only makes little sense, but also has no historical support.

    You could not pass a high school civics test. You still do not understand what the word “these” means in the passage in Minor. Nor can you see the logical fallacy which is essential to your delusion. The Court indicated that there were doubts about the citizenship status of the children of aliens. Clearly, had the children had not been naturalized or there would not be a question. The only possible remaining question was whether they citizens at birth. We know from the first two sentences of the paragraph that the Court had defined citizens at birth as natives or natural born citizens. Accordingly, contrary to your assertion, the doubt centered directly on whether the children of aliens were NBC. This question was resolved by the Court in Ark after the Minor Court expressly refused to discuss under the doctrine of judicial restraint–you heard of that, haven’t you Putzie?

  881. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Should read:

    And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents or to no-U.S. citizen parents produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth, respectively.

    As I have said before when have to create a fictional class of citizenship to make your theory work, then it is an epic fail. FACE IT PUTZIE, YOU ARE STILL MY BITCH WHEN IT COMES TO LEGAL ANALYSIS.

  882. Yoda says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said:“So it’s clear that the Court in WKA declared WKA to be a citizen since he was born on US soil and thus under our Constitution, a natural born citizen.”Are we rewriting history?Yes, the Court held Wong to be a “citizen.”But it did not hold him to be a “natural born Citizen.”It is you that have so held him, not the Court.

    You said:“Two additions to citizenship, birth or naturalized and children born in the US are NOT naturalized. Again, the meaning is clear. WKA was not naturalized and thus the only constitutionally recognized way to obtain US citizenship was through birth on soil which under Common Law made him a natural born citizen.”Wrong again.Birth in the country to citizen parents produces Minor Article II “natural-born citizens.” Birth in the country to domiciled and resident alien parents produces Wong Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” at birth. And statutory naturalization produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” after birth.

    Nice and clean.

    What is nice and clean about creating a fictional 3rd category of citizenship? I bet you had a lot of imaginary friends as a child.

  883. Yoda says:

    Sudoku:
    This is exactly what you get wrong.It may seem like semantics, but it is vital to your (mis)understanding.

    Minor was clear that a child born to parents who were its citizens was a NBC.Minor did not say it the other way around, as you did here, that a NBC is a child born…

    Big difference.

    Perhaps you should start by explaining to Putzie that while all apples are fruit, not all fruit are apples. You have to go slow with him.

  884. nbc says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents or to no-U.S. citizen parents produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth, respectively.

    Naturalization of a child born on US soil under its jurisdiction is impossible. You’re going down the drain again my friend.

    We already know that WKA’s court observed that WKA could not have been naturalized.

    Desperate much?

  885. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Should read:
    And statutory naturalization in the case of birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents or to no-U.S. citizen parents produces Congressional “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth, respectively.

    Why do you insist that your argument is correct when you already lost in court? Don’t even say that the court dismissed your case without considering the merit. According to the court…yours is academic and without merit in law!

    Move on Mario, if there’s an iota of dignity left in you. You’re already shredded to pieces in this blog. You lost your argument!

  886. nbc says:

    Saint James: Move on Mario, if there’s an iota of dignity left in you. You’re already shredded to pieces in this blog. You lost your argument!

    Mario craves for attention. Any attention, or so it appears.

  887. Yoda: What is nice and clean about creating a fictional 3rd category of citizenship? I bet you had a lot of imaginary friends as a child.

    You are the one that fabricates types of citizenships. I have only included two classes which is what is stated in the Constitution, “natural born citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” How one attains those statuses is not a type of citizen. All these classes of citizens that you present is just a figment of your imagination. Better yet, all your imaginary citizens are all straw men set up and disposed of by you.

  888. nbc: Mario craves for attention. Any attention, or so it appears.

    nbc, are you kidding me. You have yet to win one argument with me in over 4 years.

  889. dunstvangeet says:

    Mario, which court said this:

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England … 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.”

    Then the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark also dismantled your entire argument by quoting this written by a Supreme Court Judge.

    “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.”

    Both passages were quoted in the opinion of the court for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. And they completely dismantle your entire argument.

  890. nbc: The footnote explainsDichotomy as to who is a natural born and naturalized citizen is irrelevant in WKA. Again recognizing the existence of two forms of citizenship.Mario is getting no respect from the courts who continue to properly read and understand WKA. Heck, even the dissenting judge understood, or the appealing attorney… Yes, all understood…

    The Ankeny Court in Footnote 14 said:

    “14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen’ using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

    The Ankeny Court said “the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant,” because it only applies to who wants to be President. The Court seems to be saying, given that it maintains that the amendment implicitly includes a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” that the framers of the amendment did not use the language “natural born Citizen” because that status of citizenship only applies to persons who want to be President.

    First, there is no support for such an argument from the amendment’s debates or from the amendment’s text. That persons who want to be President must be “natural born Citizens” simply has nothing to do with what the framers of the amendment sought to accomplish with it, i.e., guarantee constitutionally that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” were “citizens of the United States.” Who can be President simply has nothing to do with that goal. Additionally, it would have been nothing for the amendment’s framers to simply say that those who are born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are “natural born Citizens” and those who are naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are “citizens of the United States.”

    Second, the error by the Court in making this statement is that it assumes that the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “natural born Citizen” without provind any evidence of that fact. Hence, the Court begs the question. In fact, we know that the Court errs in making such an assumption because Minor told us that the Constitution, which included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a “natural-born citizen,” and that rather, its definition could be found at common law with which the Framers were familiar at the time they drafted the Constitution, and that that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Hence, it was very material that Wong Kim Ark only interpreted and applied the Fourteenth Amendment and that in the language of its holding it said that Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” rather than that he was a “natural born Citizen.” It is material because it shows that Wong Kim Ark recognized Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Ankeny decision is therefore bad law.

  891. Mr. Apuzzo,

    Please review the Editorial Policy of this site, specifically item 14. I am placing you in moderation until you post a comment agreeing to abide by this item.

    I’ve met Reality Check personally and can attest to the fact that your identification of him is as accurate as that travel ban to Pakistan in the Kerchner complaint you signed; that is, not at all accurate.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check,

  892. nbc: Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454 – Supreme Court 1920

    nbc, you are running out of materials and are not really getting desperate. Citing and quoting to decisions which did not in the least analyze the issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” but only contain a statement by some administration official referring to the clause does not help you. And you have the nerve to cite and quote Kwock Jan Fat for a definition of a “natural born Citizen” and reject the word of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

  893. Rickey says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: nbc, are you kidding me.You have yet to win one argument with me in over 4 years.

    The only arguments which count are the ones which are heard in court, and you have lost every one of those.

  894. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: nbc, are you kidding me. You have yet to win one argument with me in over 4 years.

    You won? I’m amazed…how come your argument here was already shredded to pieces and now in the process of pulverization? Is your argument now different from what you argued 4 years ago?

  895. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Citing and quoting to decisions which did not in the least analyze the issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” but only contain a statement by some administration official referring to the clause does not help you. And you have the nerve to cite and quote Kwock Jan Fat for a definition of a “natural born Citizen” and reject the word of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

    What do you mean by “a decision that did not analyze what NBC is”….It’s written in the decion by Mr Justice Clarke. “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country”.

    Mr. Kwock , like Mr Wong and Mr. Obama is NBC, being born in the US.

    Don’t insist that there are different types of NBC’s!

  896. Dr. Conspiracy: Mr. Apuzzo,Please review the Editorial Policy of this site, specifically item 14. I am placing you in moderation until you post a comment agreeing to abide by this item.I’ve met Reality Check personally and can attest to the fact that your identification of him is as accurate as that travel ban to Pakistan in the Kerchner complaint you signed; that is, not at all accurate.

    You accuse me of violating your editorial rule No. 14 which provides: “Posting personal information about private individuals is prohibited.” I have not violated this rule. I have not posted any “personal information” about Reality Check. I have mentioned a Professor Richard Rockwell of the University of Connecticut. According to Reality Check and you even confirm, he is not this person. So what “personal information” have I posted about Reality Check? Furthermore, Reality Check is hardly a “private person.” He has his own radio show and is quite a celebrity on the Obot blogs.

    In any event, of course, I will abide by all your rules on this blog.

    At the same time, I expect you to enforce your rules against your Obot toadies on here also. They daily violate your rules in almost every one of their comments to me. They violate Rules:

    “4. Visitors will be treated with respect, whether they deserve it or not. However, persistent abusive comments may result in a ban. It’s a free country, but this is not a free blog.” This is a real joke. You have never enforced this policy against your sophomoric tribe when they post their daily comments against me personally.

    “12. Misinformation and Disinformation about Barack Obama, his family and his administration are the subject of this web site, and such allegations are permitted. Misinformation and disinformation about others will not be tolerated.” Almost every comment on your blog directed at me is full of misinformation and disinformation about me personally and my career. Where are you in those cases enforcing your little rules?

    Because of your hypocrisy and deceitful ways, I have no respect for you as a human being. But I will respect your editorial rules if I will be posting on your blog.

  897. Rule 14, in bold face, is the the one rule that I enforce absolutely. I learned long ago that it was not feasible to expect people to be respectful towards each other, even though I ask it.

    Your whining about others breaking the respect rule rings hollow, since your opening remark in the thread was a personal insult: “Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite.” I knew bullies like you in middle school, who picked fights and then tried to get their victims in trouble for starting it.

    I am not interested in whether you respect me or not.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Because of your hypocrisy and deceitful ways, I have no respect for you as a human being. But I will respect your editorial rules if I will be posting on your blog.

  898. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Visitors will be treated with respect, whether they deserve it or not.

    Have you even tried to be a guest in your friend’s home where you were allowed to rule? I yet have to find a culture anywhere in the world where the house guest becomes the master of the house! Hey, you may as well review your response to Dr. C…it’s full of insults (do I need to be specific?). While at it, you may also want to review all of your postings. You tend to throw in one liner insults in response to those posts that you can’t answer.

    You don’t get to be the master here Mario!

  899. Sudoku: This is exactly what you get wrong. It may seem like semantics, but it is vital to your (mis)understanding.Minor was clear that a child born to parents who were its citizens was a NBC. Minor did not say it the other way around, as you did here, that a NBC is a child born…Big difference.

    This is such a frivolous argument. Read Vattel Section 212 of The Law of Nations, The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), Dred Scott (J. Daniels concurring), Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), and United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890). They all define a “natural born Citizen” the same. Minor paraphrased the same definition. The order of the words means nothing. This is nothing but a little Obot talking point that they just keep using over and over again.

  900. Dr. Conspiracy: Rule 14, in bold face, is the the one rule that I enforce absolutely. I learned long ago that it was not feasible to expect people to be respectful towards each other, even though I ask it.Your whining about others breaking the respect rule rings hollow, since your opening remark in the thread was a personal insult: “Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite.” I knew bullies like you in middle school, who picked fights and then tried to get their victims in trouble for starting it. You are pathetic.Who would want the respect of someone like you? I certainly would not.

    You only see what is convenient for you. I stand on what I said about your character.

  901. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But I will respect your editorial rules if I will be posting on your blog.

    Rather why not say…”I shall…as it’s imperative? You will not be missed if you don’t!

    Only despots command respect!

  902. Dr. Conspiracy: Rule 14, in bold face, is the the one rule that I enforce absolutely. I learned long ago that it was not feasible to expect people to be respectful towards each other, even though I ask it.Your whining about others breaking the respect rule rings hollow, since your opening remark in the thread was a personal insult: “Yet in reality you are but a politically motivated demagogue, a rabble rouser, a phony, and a hypocrite.” I knew bullies like you in middle school, who picked fights and then tried to get their victims in trouble for starting it. I am not interested in whether you respect me or not.

    You said: “I knew bullies like you in middle school, who picked fights and then tried to get their victims in trouble for starting it.” You have just described all your toady followers on this blog.

  903. You have no standing.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I stand on what I said about your character.

  904. Mercifully, this thread’s two weeks is about up.

  905. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This is nothing but a little Obot talking point that they just keep using over and over again.

    Much like your talking point that has been judged to be without merit in law! It’s only you around here who have the experience of filing frivolous lawsuits, so you must know the exact usage of the word “frivolous”

  906. Saint James says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have just described all your toady followers on this blog.

    You come here throwing insults on your very first post but you now claim to be the victim? If you think that you can come in here throwing your weight around that you can come out unchallenged? Think again!…Now you know!

    I’m sure your experience here is not as painful as when you’re being chastised by a judge!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.