The occasional open thread: faithful to the end

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Dr. Conspiracy

Place your Obama conspiracy comments that don’t relate to current articles here. The discussion will close automatically in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

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

552 Responses to The occasional open thread: faithful to the end

  1. Keith says:
    November 30, 2012 at 7:57 am  (Quote)

    Since Mario has mentioned me in his blog, I have prepared a visual guide that explains my argument for him.

    Since he cannot understand plain English whether it be from me or any of the other posters that can be bothered to give him the time of day, the Doc, or any of the Judges he has appeared in front of, I thought he might be able to gain some benefit from visual aides.

    I’ll try passing him the link over on his web site, but I doubt he’ll let it through moderation or acknowledge it. Before I do so, I’d like to invite you all to point out any errors I may have made.

    Thanks in advance.

    Citizens of the United States

  2. ASK Esq says:
    November 30, 2012 at 9:52 am  (Quote)

    It seems Sibley’s at it again. He has filed for a preliminary injunction in the DC court, naming the three DC electors as defendants. Of course, he also subpoenaed President Obama to produce his birth certificate, and, since he didn’t comply, is asking for contempt of court. Gee, I wonder how that will turn out?

  3. Sudoku says:
    November 30, 2012 at 10:22 am  (Quote)

    Hey, Keith, if Mario acknowledges your chart, it will be to ridicule its “errors”, so prepare your irony meter.

    I like the chart and have only one minor (pun unintended) comment. I think the red side your be labeled “naturalized citizens” instead of “born outside the jurisdiction of US” because McCain is on the blue side and is described as born overseas. Just my $0.02.

    Keith: I’ll try passing him the link over on his web site, but I doubt he’ll let it through moderation or acknowledge it. Before I do so, I’d like to invite you all to point out any errors I may have made.

  4. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    November 30, 2012 at 10:24 am  (Quote)

    All I want for Christmas is for Orly to have a full on mental breakdown.
    …and plutonium!

  5. JoZeppy says:
    November 30, 2012 at 10:56 am  (Quote)

    Speaking of Mario (and Orly)…according to Orly, they’re going to be collaborating…..the blind leading the dumb…the quesition is which is which?:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=363860#comments

    “Update: I talked to attorney Mario Apuzzo, he stated, he will assist as much as he can”

  6. Sudoku says:
    November 30, 2012 at 11:10 am  (Quote)

    Because adding Mario’s track record to hers can help? Geez! I know none of the birther lawyers have won any Obama eligibility/ballot challenge, etc., suits, but if Orly wanted help, you’d think she would at least get someone new to the arena, who had a chance to add at least hope her side. Instead, she doubles down on failure. I guess she wouldn’t be Orly if she got these things right…

    JoZeppy: Speaking of Mario (and Orly)…according to Orly, they’re going to be collaborating…..the blind leading the dumb…the quesition is which is which?:

  7. The Magic M says:
    November 30, 2012 at 11:38 am  (Quote)

    Sudoku: Because adding Mario’s track record to hers can help?

    In Cologne, we have a famous local folk song that goes “Dreimol Null es Null bliev Null” (“three times zero is zero and remains zero”).

    Sudoku: if Orly wanted help, you’d think she would at least get someone new to the arena

    At least she tried with the attorney (Black?) who helped her in one of her challenges where she appeared pro hac vice. But he’s obviously too clever to keep being associated with birtherism. (I wonder why Orly hasn’t yet claimed “Obama got to him”).

  8. ASK Esq says:
    November 30, 2012 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: Speaking of Mario (and Orly)…according to Orly, they’re going to be collaborating…..the blind leading the dumb…the quesition is which is which?:http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=363860#comments“Update: I talked to attorney Mario Apuzzo, he stated, he will assist as much as he can”

    Mario will assist “as much as he can.” I think that says all you need to know. That is akin to saying that you’ve asked Paris Hilton to collaborate on a paper you’re writing on quantum mechanics, and that she will help as much as she can.

  9. The Magic M says:
    November 30, 2012 at 11:41 am  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: All I want for Christmas is for Orly to have a full on mental breakdown.
    …and plutonium!

    That could be misunderstood. You want Orly to have plutonium? 😉

  10. gorefan says:
    November 30, 2012 at 1:06 pm  (Quote)

    When I open the home page for this site there are big gray quotation marks running down the column of article summaries. Anyone else seeing those?

  11. Sudoku says:
    November 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    I just have ones along the side of quoted text in italics, that has been indented.

  12. misha marinsky says:
    November 30, 2012 at 1:20 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Before I do so, I’d like to invite you all to point out any errors I may have made.

    Thanks in advance. Citizens of the United States

    Not to quibble, but McCain is a space alien:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccain-is-space-alien.html

  13. Steve says:
    November 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: When I open the home page for this site there are big gray quotation marks running down the column of article summaries. Anyone else seeing those?

    I am.

  14. gorefan says:
    November 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm  (Quote)

    Sudoku: I just have ones along the side of quoted text in italics, that has been indented.

    Steve: I am

    The ones I see are large (about nine lines of text) and wide (about 40 characters) covering the text of the articles.

    “GIANT QUOTATION MARKS ATTACK OBAMACONSPIRACY WEBSITE, film at 11”

  16. Keith says:
    November 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm  (Quote)

    Sudoku:
    Hey, Keith, if Mario acknowledges your chart, it will be to ridicule its “errors”, so prepare your irony meter.

    I like the chart and have only one minor (pun unintended) comment.I think the red side your be labeled “naturalized citizens” instead of “born outside the jurisdiction of US” because McCain is on the blue side and is described as born overseas.Just my $0.02.

    Good point. The legend says the orange side is naturalized, but that could certainly be a point of contention. Thanks.

  17. misha marinsky says:
    December 1, 2012 at 8:03 am  (Quote)

    Gail Collins has mentioned Seamus 65 times:

    “As Romney’s SUV approached the White House grounds, police stopped a man who tried to reach for the car yelling “Mitt! Mitt!” It wasn’t clear what he had in mind. Perhaps he was an angry dog lover who still hasn’t gotten over the fact that Romney once drove to Canada with an Irish setter strapped to the car roof.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/collins-mitts-oval-office-moment.html

  18. bob j says:
    December 1, 2012 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    gorefan:
    The ones I see are large (about nine lines of text) and wide (about 40 characters) covering the text of the articles.

    “GIANT QUOTATION MARKS ATTACK OBAMACONSPIRACY WEBSITE, film at 11″

    same here. Intrigued by what it could be.

  19. gorefan says:
    December 1, 2012 at 11:36 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    Gail Collins has mentioned Seamus 65 times:

    “As Romney’s SUV approached the White House grounds, police stopped a man who tried to reach for the car yelling “Mitt! Mitt!” It wasn’t clear what he had in mind. Perhaps he was an angry dog lover who still hasn’t gotten over the fact that Romney once drove to Canada with an Irish setter strapped to the car roof.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/collins-mitts-oval-office-moment.html

    Collins is also aware of the Electoral College plans:

    “Perhaps he was a disappointed fan, eager to discuss the Tea Party’s clever plan to resuscitate the Romney presidency by organizing a boycott of the Electoral College.”

  20. richCares says:
    December 1, 2012 at 11:49 am  (Quote)

    “GIANT QUOTATION MARKS ATTACK OBAMACONSPIRACY WEBSITE, film at 11″
    plus links not working

    the cure: FireFox (works fine)

  21. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm  (Quote)

    I presume this resulted from a theme upgrade. The problem does not appear with Firefox, Google Chrome or Silk browsers. I have contacted the theme supplier about the problem.

    gorefan: “GIANT QUOTATION MARKS ATTACK OBAMACONSPIRACY WEBSITE, film at 11″

  22. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve had a fairly large problem (hundreds) with bogus user registrations, so I have added a Captcha challenge for new registrations.

    I have deleted a large number of user registrations that I didn’t recognize or have never commented. My apologies to rts1c4t256, xiaxuetifal, RaneeLeighann826 and the 160 others I canned if I made a mistake.

  23. RuhRoh says:
    December 1, 2012 at 7:29 pm  (Quote)

    The video of Bo examining the White House decorations is guaranteed to make you smile, especially when he’s quizzically observing a larger than life replica of himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lce5gWKgMXI

    There are worse ways to spend a minute and a half. 😉

  24. Pastor Charmley says:
    December 2, 2012 at 4:51 pm  (Quote)

    It seems to me, as I observe some of my Facebook friends in the US, that one of the reasons Birtherism continues is wishful thinking. These people really do not like Obama being US President, and cannot handle the idea that he has been elected for another 4 years. The idea that he can be removed before that makes his election almost bearable, because it’s not really going to be 4 years.

    So despite the fact that there have been people looking to find that Obama is not actually eligible to be President for over 5 years now, there are still people who delude themselves that somehow he will be proven to have been born in Kenya. Nonsense.

  25. JPotter says:
    December 3, 2012 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s a site guaranteed to give a birfer indigestion:

    Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
    http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/

    Construction of the Inaugural Platform is under way! Look, Boehner and Reid, Pelosi, and Ryan, all driving nails together!

    According to the handy countdown, 48 days to go. Better get crackin’, Birfers!

  26. sfjeff says:
    December 3, 2012 at 3:56 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: Here’s a site guaranteed to give a birfer indigestion:Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonieshttp://www.inaugural.senate.gov/Construction of the Inaugural Platform is under way! Look, Boehner and Reid, Pelosi, and Ryan, all driving nails together!According to the handy countdown, 48 days to go. Better get crackin’, Birfers!

    Birthers will convince themselves that this is a seKrit gallows and on inaugeration day Birthers will show the world their ‘proof’ and then justice will be done- Birther style (not to be confused with Gangum style)

  27. JPotter says:
    December 3, 2012 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    Obama to build Death Star!

    You can’t make this up. A prankster starts a “Please begin construction of a Death Star by 2016” petition on We The People … and WND presents it as a serious plan by the White House. (Well, sort of …)

    The rabble in the commentary section are off to the races. They could do better. Abortion clinic on the moon, Death Panels in space …

  28. John Reilly says:
    December 4, 2012 at 12:57 am  (Quote)

    Sibley has apparently issued a subpoena from District of Columbia Superior Court (where does that fit in with District Court?) to Occidental College, with production due at Dr. Taitz’s office. Next week.

    Does the DC Superior Court have jurisdiction over Occidental? Sibley and Taitz (another duo) sure think so.

    Do these folks learn?

    Dr. Taitz’s supporters believe a subpoena is a court order, just all that Occidental wants before it turns over the records.

    Any day now.

  29. J.D. Reed says:
    December 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm  (Quote)

    John Reilly, hasn’t a court already decided that Occidental has no such obligation, and wasn’t someone sanctioned $4,000 as a result of trying to drag Oxy into this?

  30. John Reilly says:
    December 4, 2012 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Reed: The fact that another Court decided Occidental has no such obligation is of no precedential value whatever to Dr. Taitz or Mr. Sibley.

    Of course, the decision in Minor, when limited to the sentences Mr. Apuzzo likes, has binding and irreversible precedential value. For all time.

    If I recall the discussion here, in order to enforce the subpoena Mr. Sibley or Dr. Taitz will need to go to a California court. Perhaps a judge in such a court will be reminded by Occidental of the prior sanction. Perhaps the sanction has not yet been paid.

  31. misha marinsky says:
    December 4, 2012 at 12:29 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Reed: wasn’t someone sanctioned $4,000 as a result of trying to drag Oxy into this?

    Here’s one link: Taitz sanctioned $4,000 to be paid to Occidental College. (Running total: $24,250.) More to follow.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20140103113356/http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=24535

  32. J.D. Reed says:
    December 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: If

    Thanks, guys. Actually was a rhetorical question. John Reilly, I’m well aware that Orly and other birthers have great problems with concepts such as Res judicata, among others.

  33. Paper says:
    December 4, 2012 at 3:20 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t know if this was noted elsewhere here already, but Santorum has joined World Net Daily! A lot of comments in the press about this.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/this-treaty-crushes-u-s-sovereignty/

  34. JPotter says:
    December 4, 2012 at 3:49 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: I don’t know if this was noted elsewhere here already, but Santorum has joined World Net Daily! A lot of comments in the press about this.

    Yeah, it was noticed. Even he has bills to pay I guess. And he knows where his audience is!

    The commentary on his article has been a fun mix between hero worship, and ignoring his presence, going straigh tot the hardcore crazy!

  35. Daniel says:
    December 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    I don’t know if this was noted elsewhere here already, but Santorum has joined World Net Daily!A lot of comments in the press about this.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/this-treaty-crushes-u-s-sovereignty/

    I guess he realizes he’s not going any higher than nominee wannabee, so a political career ending job isn’t that bad of an idea

  36. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 4, 2012 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns calls secessionists racist and says the Tea Party uses the “N” word on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and in an interview with Breitbart News.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/11/25/burns-secessionists-racists

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/12/03/ken-burns-doubles-down-tea-party-racist

  37. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm  (Quote)

    Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program last night had a big segment on this. One way to look at it is that WND is dragging down Santorum. Another way to view it is that Santorum will lift up WND. Naaah.

    Daniel: I guess he realizes he’s not going any higher than nominee wannabee, so a political career ending job isn’t that bad of an idea

  38. Paper says:
    December 4, 2012 at 5:01 pm  (Quote)

    Saw that show. Very wry.

    A third way to look at it, perhaps, is that WND is lifting up Santorum?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program last night had a big segment on this. One way to look at it is that WND is dragging down Santorum. Another way to view it is that Santorum will lift up WND. Naaah.

  39. ASK Esq says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm  (Quote)

    Just want to express my condolences to Orly Taitz. Her niece’s 26 year old husband was found dead recently, leaving behind his wife and 8 month old baby.

  40. JPotter says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: One way to look at it is that WND is dragging down Santorum. Another way to view it is that Santorum will lift up WND.

    I just think he went home 😉

    Seriously.

    Fringe media is where the celebrity nuts go when the mainstream rejects them.

    If only the celebrity writers would participate in the comments on their articles, WND would be perfect LOL

  41. JPotter says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns calls secessionists racist and says the Tea Party uses the “N” word on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and in an interview with Breitbart News.

    I saw the Sunday appearrance and noted it here, but did not know he was making more appearances as a pundit. He has two new projects out, so I expect to see him, but showing up on the panel on Meet the Press was surprising. Agree with him or not, it was refreshing to have a more opinionated voice on the panel! … perhaps he is transitioning to a new career?

    He’s been a powerful voice, letting his films speak for him, commenting on the present through the lens of the past. Moving out from behind the camera is an interesting move, could be a risk. Perhaps he’s comfortable, turning over the reins, and has decided to speak for himself.

  42. misha marinsky says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    ASK Esq: Just want to express my condolences to Orly Taitz. Her niece’s 26 year old husband was found dead recently, leaving behind his wife and 8 month old baby.

    He was a cantor. Anyone know what happened?

    I don’t wish harm on anyone.

  43. Lani says:
    December 5, 2012 at 2:56 am  (Quote)

    Apparently, it was a slip and fall accident.

    “His body was found under a bridge in the Tzfat area. Police believe that he slipped and fell while walking along the road.”
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162709#.UL7-BYbhdrc

  44. bovril says:
    December 5, 2012 at 4:58 am  (Quote)

    Of course, in an all too typical and predictable manner by her FM base

    ================
    IMO, guess who would’ve done this? More muslim violence! No one else over there would’ve even thought of such a thing!
    …….
    Who? Muslim Brotherhood? Hezbollah? Hammas? Etc.?
    =================

  45. Arthur says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:32 am  (Quote)

    Some remarkable polling information about post-election Republicans. Lord, how deeply conspiracy thinking is entrenched in the Grand Old Party. The loyal opposition has turned into looney tunes.

    “49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn’t exist anymore.”

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/republicans-not-handling-election-results-well.html

  46. Lupin says:
    December 5, 2012 at 10:17 am  (Quote)

    BREAKING!!!

    Meretricious Mario Apuzzo retroactively appears on MURPHY BROWN, played by Wallace Shawn:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0-FWweJLRc

    Hilarity guaranteed!!!!!!!

  47. The Magic M says:
    December 5, 2012 at 11:26 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Meretricious Mario Apuzzo retroactively appears on MURPHY BROWN

    Why not on Jackie Brown? Speaking of Samuel L. Jackson, I envision a trailer where he goes “I’ve just about had it with these mother… birthers on this mother… internet!”.
    Or a Matrix spoof with “the chosen one” Corsio going “Blue pill? Red pill? You mean Obama pill and Romney pill? They both lead to the conspiracy! And I’m not taking anything from a BLACK man either!”.

  48. ASK Esq says:
    December 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm  (Quote)

    The birthers have yet another “Last way to stop Obama.” This time, they want Republican electors in states that (they say) don’t require electors to vote for the candidate who won their state to, instead, vote for Obama. The claim is this would give the electors standing to sue to see Obama’s documentation since they would be entitled to know whether or not he is eligible.

    Just goes to show, whenever you think the birthers have reached the peak of crazy, they find a new level.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2012/12/exclusive-how-we-can-stop-obama-2450594.html

  49. Scientist says:
    December 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    ASK Esq: The birthers have yet another “Last way to stop Obama.” This time, they want Republican electors in states that (they say) don’t require electors to vote for the candidate who won their state to, instead, vote for Obama. The claim is this would give the electors standing to sue to see Obama’s documentation since they would be entitled to know whether or not he is eligible. Just goes to show, whenever you think the birthers have reached the peak of crazy, they find a new level.http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2012/12/exclusive-how-we-can-stop-obama-2450594.html

    Some Romney elector will announce, “I intend to vote for Obama but I want to see blah, blah, blah”. The response will be-“Tough luck. Now go vote for Romney like you are supposed to.” Brilliant!!!

  50. donna says:
    December 5, 2012 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur:

    One in four Americans has an opinion about an IMAGINARY debt plan

    A new poll from Public Policy Polling found that an impressive 39 percent of Americans have an opinion about the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.

    Before you start celebrating the new, sweeping reach of the 2010 commission’s work, consider this:

    Twenty-five percent of Americans also took a stance on the Panetta-Burns plan.

    What’s that? You’re not familiar with Panetta-Burns? That’s probably because its “a mythical Clinton Chief of Staff/former western Republican Senator combo” that PPP dreamed up to test how many Americans would profess to have an opinion about a policy that did not exist. They found one in four voters to do just that.

  51. Keith says:
    December 5, 2012 at 6:52 pm  (Quote)

    Jan “headless bodies in the desert” Brewer has gone AWOL in Arizona.

    Hiking in the Appalacians perhaps?

  52. JPotter says:
    December 5, 2012 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    ASK Esq: The birthers have yet another “Last way to stop Obama.” This time, they want Republican electors in states that (they say) don’t require electors to vote for the candidate who won their state to, instead, vote for Obama. The claim is this would give the electors standing to sue to see Obama’s documentation since they would be entitled to know whether or not he is eligible. Just goes to show, whenever you think the birthers have reached the peak of crazy, they find a new level.http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2012/12/exclusive-how-we-can-stop-obama-2450594.html

    That’s a short list of states (if any at all, not checked yet). And, since they are at some level at least ethically obligated to vote per the outcome in their state (they sought to be in a position to vote for the Red guy, didn’t they?) … then who the heck is going to buy that they have been “injured” …. injured by theiur own choosing to vote for someone they will sat is ineligible???

    Good luck selling that line. I can hear it now. “I am so appalled by rMoney’s post-election behavior, I could never cast my vote for him in good conscience! However my only other option is a Kenyan Moozlim Pinko-Commie! I am injured! Gimme some standing!”

  53. JPotter says:
    December 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    Can Texas Secede from the Union?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S92fTz_-kQE&feature=em-uploademail

    CGPGrey’s videos are well done and funny. He didn’t exphasize my favorite part … about how pathetically failed Texas was as a country, and how it whined and begged its way into the Union, even betraying Southern plans to use Texas to load up the Senate …. but still a fun video, and a humorous repudiation of winger fantasies 😉

  54. Wile says:
    December 5, 2012 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter:
    Can Texas Secede from the Union?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S92fTz_-kQE&feature=em-uploademail

    CGPGrey’s videos are well done and funny. He didn’t exphasize my favorite part … about how pathetically failed Texas was as a country, and how it whined and begged its way into the Union, even betraying Southern plans to use Texas to load up the Senate …. but still a fun video, and a humorous repudiation of winger fantasies

    Well, that goes straight to bookmarks. Thanks.

    Who knew Creepers were active at the Battle of San Jacinto? My Minecraft addicted little people are gonna dig that.

  55. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    I have decided not to write stories about seditious comments at Orly’s web site. I just can’t tell when they’re serious, and when they are making fun of Orly.

  56. Thrifty says:
    December 6, 2012 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    I twice got comments through moderation at Orly’s site. One time she even responded to me.

    The other time, my comment was something like “Orly, you are wrong, but you close yourself off to debate by censoring everyone who disagrees with you.”

    That one got through moderation, prompting one of her sycophantic fans to say “You dumb Obot! Orly let your comment through! Dumb lying Obot! Why did Obummer have to give up his law license? Tell me that!”

  57. Thrifty says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    OH… MY… GOD..

    Newest quasi-article on Orly’s site:

    please, help me ID this man demanding $500,000 not to shoot me, please, report him to police and FBI.

    Orly is being targeted by a variant of the 419 fraud (better known as those Nigerian money laundering scams). It’s an old scam in which someone threatens to kill you unless you pay them off. It preys on the victim’s fear rather than their greed, as the traditional scams do.

    I’ve informed Orly of this via the comments section of her web site, but of course it’s in moderation.

  58. LW says:
    December 6, 2012 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    Nigeria… that’s in the country of Africa! You know who else is from the country of Africa?

  59. American Mzungu says:
    December 6, 2012 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    LW: You know who else is from the country of Africa?

    Karen Blixen? Lucy? Africanus Scipio? Tarzan? Moses? Queen of Sheeba? Please tell us. The suspense is killing me!

  60. misha marinsky says:
    December 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    LW: You know who else is from the country of Africa?

    I know, I know!! Sarah Palin.

    Palin Didn’t Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter

    According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked “a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,” in part because she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA, and she “didn’t understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html

  61. LW says:
    December 6, 2012 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    I was actually thinking of the band “Toto,” but I have been informed that despite their release of a song named “Africa,” they are not themselves actually from the country of Africa. Apparently, the band Asia is not from the country of Asia, either. I am considering filing several lawsuits in response to this. Does anyone know of a good lawyer or two?

  62. Keith says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:10 pm  (Quote)

    LW: I was actually thinking of the band “Toto,” but I have been informed that despite their release of a song named “Africa,” they are not themselves actually from the country of Africa.

    Of course not silly. They are from the Land of Oz. Or Kansas. I forget.

  63. Scientist says:
    December 7, 2012 at 8:54 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Of course not silly. They are from the Land of Oz. Or Kansas. I forget.

    The band “Toto” was from Los Angeles. However, “Kansas” really was from Kansas (Topeka) and “Boston” was from Boston (at least the Boston metro area).

  64. donna says:
    December 7, 2012 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    latest from birtherstan:

    Bin Laden Raid A Smokescreen For BHO Eligibility Hearing

    Did you know that the most significant of the dozen or so Obama eligibility hearings occurred on May 2,2011 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena,California?

    Did you know that this particular lawsuit included 2008 presidential candidate Alan Keyes,twenty state representatives,and thirty members of the military?

    http://www.exposeobama.com/

    i find NO “eligibility hearing” on may 2nd in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

    i only find “May 2 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed”

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1351.htm

  65. gorefan says:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Doc. – Over at NBCs site there is a posted link to your “Recent court rulings on presidential eligibility”

    There are several missing,

    Voeltz v. Obama round two (September, 2012) –

    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

    Fair v. Obama – Judge says that Wong Kim Ark is binding on lower courts.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wKKiOvnt0lMp6-qpjJyQxVuqE7PZwcPAihzA2dKtP-M/edit?pli=1

    For completeness, you may want to include the New Jersey Appellate Court ruling in Purpura v. Obama – calls Judge Masin’s opinon “thorough and thoughtful written”.

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20NJCO%2020120531303.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

    and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Tisdale v. Obama

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10297957363131120065&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

  66. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 8, 2012 at 10:29 am  (Quote)

    Birther Alex Jones: 42 stupid predictions:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA

  67. Paper says:
    December 8, 2012 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    Birtherism: gateway drug to the whole world of conspiracy goodness.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Birther Alex Jones: 42 stupid predictions

  68. misha marinsky says:
    December 8, 2012 at 2:28 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: “Boston” was from Boston (at least the Boston metro area).

    Tom Scholz first started writing music in 1969 while he was attending MIT, and was an electrical engineer for Polaroid. He used his salary to build a recording studio in his basement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_(band)

  69. Arthur says:
    December 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Birther Alex Jones: 42 stupid predictions:

    I think Alex Jones is more icky than all the birthers put together.

  70. JPotter says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:09 am  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Birtherism: gateway drug to the whole world of conspiracy goodness.

    A popular jibe, but I don’t think so. I think it’s the other way ’round. Birferism is just one more fix for conspiratorial minds addicted to faux expertise and steeped in denial.

    I don’t know any perfectly rational persons who got sucked up in birferism as part of an reaction to Obama, and then, mind softened by its first bout with stupidity, moved on, adding more conspiracies to the collection.

    Such a person might be the mythical “double-positive” … the non-existence of which I and others have noted.

    No, if a person wasn’t already wired for denying reality, they wouldn’t be able to go a’birfin’.

  71. JPotter says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:29 am  (Quote)

    Obama’s Detractors: In The Right Wing Nut House

    Suggested addition to the recommended reading list:

    “This is a study of media types from Fox TV and politicians who have written books and engaged in radio-television shows to critique President Obama. Obama’s Detractors: In The Right Wing Nut House identifies his critics and analyzes their messsage. The critics include Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham among others. This book argues that the anti-Obama books are a multi-million dollar industry. The conservative authors have little interest in accuracy, the facts or an honest portrayal of President Obama. The political right wing nut house threatens democracy by forcing extremism into the center of American politics. In doing so all of our liberties decline.”

    Some irony in selling a book that points out others are using books to profiteer on the fears of others … profiteering on profiteers by pointing out the obvious? Well, at least it’s a small ask. Only $2.99 on Kindle. The man deserves a return on his time. And a good read so far, taking material familiar to me and expanding on it greatly.

  72. Reality Check says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:39 am  (Quote)

    I would put Jerome Corsi at the same level of icky sliminess.

    Arthur: I think Alex Jones is more icky than all the birthers put together.

  73. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: The conflation of the concepts ‘gatekeeppers’ and ‘fifth column’ is an epic logic fail.

    I see that you have learned something.

    Try this instead: The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

  74. JPotter says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I see that you have learned something.

    Try this instead:The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

    So you are helping Taitz!

    Yes, you are obviously correct. The concept “natural born Citizen” is not equivalent to the concept “citizen of the United States” / “United States citizen”, as there are millions of the latter who are not also the former.

    All well and good, but what does this have to do with the subject of this thread … or even this blog?

  75. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm  (Quote)

    DaveH: Only if the “citizen of the United States” is naturalized.

    Wrong. Your statement should read: Because the “citizen of the United States” is not a “natural born Citizen.”

  76. JPotter says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm  (Quote)

    Attempted threadjack on aisle Taitz. Containment and cleanup to follow 😉

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Try this instead: The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

  77. brygenon says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

    For an epic fail, look at what happened when Apuzzo petitioned the State of New Jersey Office of Administrative Law on this issue. Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin concluded:

    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.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

  78. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm  (Quote)

    brygenon: For an epic fail, look at what happened when Apuzzo petitioned the State of New Jersey Office of Administrative Law on this issue. Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin concluded:http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

    We know that already. So what’s your point?

  79. gorefan says:
    December 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Because the “citizen of the United States” is not a “natural born Citizen.”

    Shouldn’t that be because the “citizen of the United States” might not be a “natural born Citizen”? Afterall both Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Gray said that Virginia Minor was a “citizen of the United States”.

  80. brygenon says:
    December 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: We know that already. So what’s your point?

    That we already know your theory “has no merit in law” is my point. What’s the point of trying to pitch it to an audience that is aware of your outcomes?

  81. roadburner says:
    December 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We know that already.So what’s your point?

    the point is putzo, to continually tap you on the head with little gems like this until you finally realise and can admit you’re wrong.

    every case and hearing lost when bringing up your 2 parent nonsense illustrates it beautifully.

    but you still remain within egyptian rivers

  82. gorefan says:
    December 9, 2012 at 1:41 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So what’s your point?

    The point is R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(e).

  83. Scientist says:
    December 9, 2012 at 2:00 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

    No one is conflating them. US citizens can get a US passport, while natural born citizens cannot. There is a complicating factor, however-Mexico is officially called the United States of Mexico, so Mexicans are citizens of the United States as well. Many are also natural born citizens. And then, there is New Mexico-don’t even get me started.

  84. misha marinsky says:
    December 9, 2012 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Try this instead:The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

    Try to answer my question: A child’s mother is a US citizen, the father is a diplomat, and the child is born on Mars.

    I see that you have learned something – avoiding my questions.

    And stop hijacking threads. This is not a DWI trial.

  85. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 2:51 pm  (Quote)

    (I am putting this response where it belongs, in the open thread.)

    It would be if anyone was doing that. But there is no third class called “citizen” that can be conflated. The only logical problem would be to contract or confine or constrain “citizenship” to only being NBC or only being naturalized, but no one is doing that either. “Citizen” is a top level term, not a subcategory.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Try this instead:The conflation of the concepts “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is an epic logic fail.

  86. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 9, 2012 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    Thank you for your respect for the commenting community. I have manually moved the rest of the off-topic comments to the Open Thread.

    Remember, it’s 5 times easier for me to just delete an off-topic comment than to move it. Maybe next time I’ll take the easy way.

    EPU: (I am putting this response where it belongs, in the open thread.)

  87. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 3:11 pm  (Quote)

    That’s what Alan Sepinwall does on his tv blog, for instance, when he requests that people not post spoilers or discuss politics or such…

    He just deletes.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Thank you for your respect for the commenting community. I have manually moved the rest of the off-topic comments to the Open Thread.

    Remember, it’s 5 times easier for me to just delete an off-topic comment than to move it. Maybe next time I’ll take the easy way.

  88. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm  (Quote)

    Apuzzo presents a straw man. What is being conflated is “natural born citizen” and “citizen from birth.” I argue for this conflation in my articles, particularly:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/framer-v-farmer/

    EPU: It would be if anyone was doing that. But there is no third class called “citizen” that can be conflated.

  89. dunstvangeet says:
    December 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    Mario, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark quoted this decision…

    “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.”

  90. Rickey says:
    December 9, 2012 at 5:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Apuzzo presents a straw man. What is being conflated is “natural born citizen” and “citizen from birth.” I argue for this conflation in my articles, particularly:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/framer-v-farmer/

    Yes, what Apuzzo refuses to accept is that there are “citizens of the United States” and within that group there are two sub-sets, and two sub-sets only: natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. All citizens of the United State belong to one sub-set or the other. The supposed third sub-set, citizens who are neither natural born nor naturalized, is a sub-set which exists only in Apuzzo’s legal fantasies.

  91. Yoda says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: the point is putzo, to continually tap you on the head with little gems like this until you finally realise and can admit you’re wrong.

    every case and hearing lost when bringing up your 2 parent nonsense illustrates it beautifully.

    but you still remain within egyptian rivers

    You have to have some self awareness to admit that you wrong. Putzie is either too stupid or too dishonest to do that. His analysis about article 1 citizenship just me the dumbest thing I have ever heard from an attorney with the exception of everything ever said by Taitz

  92. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:40 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Try to answer my question: A child’s mother is a US citizen, the father is a diplomat, and the child is born on Mars.I see that you have learned something – avoiding my questions.And stop hijacking threads. This is not a DWI trial.

    “Stop hijacking threads.” That is all you do with your little corny comments in any thread.

    And for your information, the Orly thread is about going to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, your claim that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not relevant to that endeavor is patently absurd. Such silly statements by you is the product of letting others think for you.

  93. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:54 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Shouldn’t that be because the “citizen of the United States” might not be a “natural born Citizen”? Afterall both Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Gray said that Virginia Minor was a “citizen of the United States”.

    Of course, Virginia Minor was also a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, for she was born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” But what follows from what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor, she was foremost a “natural born Citizen,” for she was born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. So her correct form of citizenship is “natural born Citizen,” not “citizen of the United States,” within the context of a discussion of who is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

  94. dunstvangeet says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    Mario,

    “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.”

    Written by a Supreme Court Justice and quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

  95. misha marinsky says:
    December 9, 2012 at 7:26 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That is all you do with your little corny comments in any thread.

    It’s Borscht Belt wit, honed by living in the Lower East Side.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Such silly statements by you is the product of letting others think for you.

    A natural born citizen was defined by Shakespeare: “nobody born from a woman will ever harm Macbeth.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: the Orly thread is about going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    ♪ ♫ Going To The Chapel ♫ ♪

    So, neu bubbeleh?

  96. Scientist says:
    December 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So her correct form of citizenship is “natural born Citizen,” not “citizen of the United States,” within the context of a discussion of who is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    The Minor case never metioned Article II, nor did they ever discuss her eligibility to run for President, nor was she ever elected President. Minor has no relevancy to the presidency. The cases that speak directly and explicitly to the qualifications for the presidency are Ankeny and the various decisions that affirm Ankeny.

    We also have well over 50 presidential elections which are precedential (nice pun, eh?) as to who can actually hold the office, as opposed to merely being “eligible” (holding the offiice counts for orders of magnitude more than being “elgible”). So, the lack of any requirement for 2 citizen parents is well established as a matter of precedent for Presidents.

    Now, lets discuss the “fiscal cliff” shall we? Have you phoned John Boehner? He is ignoring your brilliance and continues to negotiate with President Obama. Now, in your opinon, who exactly should the Speaker be negotiating with?

  97. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:05 pm  (Quote)

    Hmmm. This comment might be diagnostic of why Mr. Apuzzo fails to read the historical record correctly and in context.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: And for your information, the Orly thread is about going to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, your claim that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not relevant to that endeavor is patently absurd. Such silly statements by you is the product of letting others think for you.

  98. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    If by “naturalized citizen” you mean anyone who is a citizen, but not born a citizen, then I would agree; however, if you mean someone who is a citizen by virtue of the naturalization power of Congress than I would not.

    Vattel talks about naturalization at birth when discussing British law, and the US Naturalization Act of 1790 talks about making “natural born citizens” by legislation.

    I try to keep in mind the two different usages of “naturalized citizen” in mind so as not to confuse the sources.

    Rickey: Yes, what Apuzzo refuses to accept is that there are “citizens of the United States” and within that group there are two sub-sets, and two sub-sets only: natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

  99. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Such silly statements by you is the product of letting others think for you.

    Might have hit home, no Doc?

  100. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:25 pm  (Quote)

    EPU: (I am putting this response where it belongs, in the open thread.)It would be if anyone was doing that. But there is no third class called “citizen” that can be conflated. The only logical problem would be to contract or confine or constrain “citizenship” to only being NBC or only being naturalized, but no one is doing that either. “Citizen” is a top level term, not a subcategory.

    Membership in the United States is called “citizen.” A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen,” being a “Citizen,” has the same privileges, immunities, and rights as a “Citizen of the United States.” See Article IV, Section 2 (“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States”). Unlike Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Article IV says “Citizens,” not “natural born Citizens” or “Citizens of the United States.” Hence, any privilege, immunity, or right which our Constitution (e.g. eligibility for Congress under Article I, Section 2 and 3) or any Congressional Act gives to a “citizen of the United States” (a “Citizen”) is also given to a “natural born Citizen” (a “Citizen”). Finally, a “Citizen of the United States” has the same privileges, immunities, and rights as a “natural born Citizen,” except under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, if born after the adoption of the Constitution, is forever barred from being President or Vice-President.

  101. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:37 pm  (Quote)

    I believe this is why Orly Taitz is planning to argue her points as part of US v. Windsor. If you can’t get cert on your own case, no matter, no difference, it’s just about going to the Supreme Court. Content matters not.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Hmmm. This comment might be diagnostic of why Mr. Apuzzo fails to read the historical record correctly and in context.

  102. misha marinsky says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Now, in your opinon, who exactly should the Speaker be negotiating with?

    Robert Welch

  103. donna says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:59 pm  (Quote)

    2nd bite to challenge Obama’s eligibility?

    Famous justice has had ‘serious questions’ about birth certificate

    This one, should it appear before the state Supreme Court as Klayman plans, would be before a panel where one judge at an earlier step in the case already has raised doubts about Obama’s authenticity.

    It was when the majority of the high court denied a petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot this year, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

    Parker wrote, “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

    The “certain documentation” Parker refers to is the findings of an investigation conducted by Arpaio.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/2nd-bite-to-challenge-obamas-eligibility/print

    ANY ….. DAY …… NOW

  104. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    Your terminology is false. I see that you keep repeating your terms as if they mean something. You are not actually making an argument. These terms are not legitimate nor relevant. They are the opposite of self-evident; they are self-imploding. They are not worthy of discussion.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Membership in the United States is called “citizen.”A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”…

  105. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:17 pm  (Quote)

    EPU: Your terminology is false. I see that you keep repeating your terms as if they mean something. You are not actually making an argument. These terms are not legitimate nor relevant. They are the opposite of self-evident; they are self-imploding. They are not worthy of discussion.

    I have seen various responses to my arguments. But I have not seen anyone say anything like you have just presented.

  106. Northland10 says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:18 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: And for your information, the Orly thread is about going to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, your claim that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not relevant to that endeavor is patently absurd. Such silly statements by you is the product of letting others think for you.

    Taitz v. Astrue. Where in this case is the definition of natural born citizen?

  107. Keith says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:25 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Membership in the United States is called “citizen.”

    Correct

    A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    Incorrect

    A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “naturalized Citizen.”

    The terms:

    => “citizen” (when referring to an American) and
    => “Citizen of the United States” and
    => “United States Citizen” and
    => “American Citizens” and
    => “the set of all possible U.S. Citizens”
    (including any capitalization variants)

    are all equivalent. They mean the same thing. They are interchangeable. They are synonyms.

    And they all refer to the exact same group of people.

  108. Scientist says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:30 pm  (Quote)

    Mario-If not with Obama, with whom should Speaker Boehner be negotiating regarding the fiscal cliff?

  109. Scientist says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:33 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have seen various responses to my arguments.

    Mostly this

    http://www.edvard-munch.com/Paintings/anxiety/scream_3.jpg

  110. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:34 pm  (Quote)

    I myself have seen plenty of people pointing out the falseness of your terminology. But, however that may be, now then is your chance to realize your error.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have seen various responses to my arguments.But I have not seen anyone say anything like you have just presented.

  111. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:34 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: CorrectIncorrectA “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “naturalized Citizen.”The terms:=> “citizen” (when referring to an American) and=> “Citizen of the United States” and=> “United States Citizen” and=> “American Citizen” and(including any capitalization variants)are all equivalent. They mean the same thing. They are interchangeable. They are synonyms.

    You err. We are not dealing with common, everyday terms such as you present. We are talking about constitutional terms which have very specific technical meanings. The Constitution and all acts of Congress only contain two classes of “citizens,” “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” Do not bother citing and quoting any Acts of Congress which might have in their title, “naturalized citizens.” Titles of statutes are not controlling. Nor could any statute trump the Constitution. Rather, it is constitutional and statutory text that counts. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where you will find a “citizen” class which you call “naturalized Citizen.” You will not find that class anywhere mentioned.

  112. Daniel says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:37 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You err.We are not dealing with common, everyday terms such as you present.We are talking about constitutional terms which have very specific technical meanings.The Constitution and all acts of Congress only contain two classes of “citizens,” “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.”Do not bother citing and quoting any Acts of Congress which might have in their title, “naturalized citizens.”Titles of statutes are not controlling.Nor could any statute trump the Constitution.Rather, it is constitutional and statutory text that counts.Show me anywhere in the Constitution where you will find a “citizen” class which you call “naturalized Citizen.”You will not find that class anywhere mentioned.

    And yet every Constitutional expert, both houses of Congress, the Research Breanch of the Library of Congress, 200 years of Jurisprudence, and every court that’s heard the matter…. all disagree with you.

    A sane person, facing those realities, would be starting to think he might just be wrong.

  113. Steve says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You err.We are not dealing with common, everyday terms such as you present.We are talking about constitutional terms which have very specific technical meanings.The Constitution and all acts of Congress only contain two classes of “citizens,” “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.”Do not bother citing and quoting any Acts of Congress which might have in their title, “naturalized citizens.”Titles of statutes are not controlling.Nor could any statute trump the Constitution.Rather, it is constitutional and statutory text that counts.Show me anywhere in the Constitution where you will find a “citizen” class which you call “naturalized Citizen.”You will not find that class anywhere mentioned.

    I’m pretty sure the neither Constitution nor the courts split hairs that much.

  114. Daniel says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    Citizenship is a nature. A person is a citizen when he has the nature of a citizen. Many people obtain the nature of a citizen at birth. Some obtain the nature of a citizen some time after they are born. Those who obtain the nature of a citizen at birth, are natural born citizens. Those who obtain the nature of a citizen later are then later naturalized citizen. Natural born, or later naturalized…. why is that so hard for birthers?

    Perhaps they do not wish to understand that which would make the black man eligible.

  115. Daniel says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:44 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Show me anywhere in the Constitution where you will find a “citizen” class which you call “naturalized Citizen.”You will not find that class anywhere mentioned.

    Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says I have to stop at stop signs…

  116. Keith says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:46 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Show me anywhere in the Constitution where you will find a “citizen” class which you call “naturalized Citizen.” You will not find that class anywhere mentioned.

    Article 1 Section 8:

    The Congress shall have power… To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…

    Fourteenth Amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States

  117. gorefan says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:47 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Virginia Minor was also a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, for she was born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Actually, that’s not what Chief Justice Fuller said.

    “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” Ex Parte lockwood

    A natural born citizens before the 14th amendment = a citizen of the United States.

  118. Keith says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:50 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says I have to stop at stop signs…

    Tenth Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    and Article 4 Section 1

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

  119. Scientist says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:51 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    So, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Obama began their careers as “Citizens of the United States” when they were in Congress and then became “natural born Citizens” when they became President and/or Vice President. I think I get this now.

  120. donna says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:58 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    according to mario, i guess rubio & jindal are just “citizens of the us” but when they grow up they won’t be “natural born”

    i hope mario is working on those lawsuits – i can’t wait

  121. dunstvangeet says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:05 pm  (Quote)

    Hey Mario…

    Just wondering…

    The Constitution requires House and Senate Members to be “Citizens of the United States”. Does this mean that since they are “Citizens of the United States” and not “Natural Born Citizens” that they cannot be President of the United States?

    If that’s true then how do you explain.

    Senator Barack Obama
    Representative George H. W. Bush
    Representative Gerald Ford
    Senator Richard Nixon
    Seantor Lyndon B. Johnson
    Senator John F. Kennedy
    Senator Harry S. Truman
    Senator Warren G. Harding
    Senator Benjamin Harrison
    Representative James A. Garfield
    Representative Rutheford B Hayes
    Senator Andrew Johnson
    Representative Abraham Lincoln
    Senator James Buchanan
    Senator Franklin Pierce
    Representative Millard Fillmore
    Representative James Polk

    All of them had to have been a “Citizen of the United States” because that is spelled out in the Constitution (Article I specifically says “Citizen of the United States”) and therefore could not be “Natural Born Citizens” according to you. Yet, all of them held the office of the President.

    Oh, and Mario Apuzzo, every Supreme Court Justice rejects your theory. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the term “Natural-born” comes from English Common Law, as well as all the other terms in the Constitution.

  122. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    My goodness, Mario keeps coming back for more defeats.

    Hilarious, once you realize that

    1. The government in US v WKA raised most of the same ‘arguments’
    2. The court rejected their arguments
    3. The government identified the issue at error as “did the lower court correctly rule WKA to be natural born”?
    4. The dissenting judge lamented that under the majority ruling children like WKA could become president while children born abroad to US citizens could not.

    It’s all so simple once you realize the simple logic: There are two kinds of citizens and combined they make up the ‘citizens of the US’. The first kind derives its citizenship by mere birth on soil, no need for statutes, the second kind derives its citizenship from statutes and are referred to as naturalized citizen. Two kind of citizens: Natural-Born and Natural-Ized.

    And all falls into place. That Mario has to misunderstand Minor as well as WKA is fascinating but that he consequently has to accuse the courts, of not properly understanding WKA is hilarious.

    In Rogers v Bellei the dissent observed

    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, 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.” And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884), the Court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment

    “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. . . . Persons 842*842 not . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” 112 U. S., at 101-102.

  123. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:09 pm  (Quote)

    So then cease inventing your own definitions.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We are talking about constitutional terms which have very specific technical meanings.

  124. Scientist says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:12 pm  (Quote)

    donna: according to mario, i guess rubio & jindal are just “citizens of the us” but when they grow up they won’t be “natural born”

    Members of Congress all must be “Citizens of the United States” under Article I, while Presidents must be “natural born Citizens” under Article II. Since Mario says you are EITHER a “Citizen of the United States” OR a “natural born Citizen”, it seems clear that no one person can be a member of Congress and President/VP.

    Unless, they become a “natural born Citizen” temporarily while serving as President. Actually, I think that is what happens, since all Presidents are clearly “natural born Citizens”-the Constitution says so.

  125. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    Let’s not forget the wise words in WKA

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    The same rule was in force in the English Colonies, all the way to the declaration of indedepence and afterwards in the US.

    What was this rule?

    ; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

  126. Keith says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:28 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You err. We are not dealing with common, everyday terms such as you present. We are talking about constitutional terms which have very specific technical meanings.

    If you are correct, then you should be able to find where those “word of art” or “term of art” phrases are defined in a recognized Legal Dictionary to mean what you think they mean.

    If the phrases in the Constitution or the legal cases mean what you think they do as “terms of art”, they will be found in recognized academic literature with those definitions, not just in your mind. So you show me where a recognized academic work defines and uses those terms the way you think they should.

    You can claim definitions for terminology used in the Constitution till the cows come home, but unless you can back that claim up with a recognized source that agrees with you, its just so much hot air.

    You are the lawyer, not me, you are the one trying to push this rope for 4 years or more. You should have found those definitions by now. Oh, and don’t bother trying to use Vattel. He is neither recognized, nor offering definitions. “Terms of Art” aren’t just used, they are defined”.

  127. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:31 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Members of Congress all must be “Citizens of the United States” under Article I, while Presidents must be “natural born Citizens” under Article II. Since Mario says you are EITHER a “Citizen of the United States” OR a “natural born Citizen”, it seems clear that no one person can be a member of Congress and President/VP.

    Mario has avoided this logical contradiction many times, as it led, every single time, to the defeat of his poorly formulated ‘arguments’.

  128. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: Article 1 Section 8:

    The Congress shall have power… To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…

    Fourteenth Amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States

    Other than those…

  129. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:48 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: And yet every Constitutional expert, both houses of Congress, the Research Breanch of the Library of Congress, 200 years of Jurisprudence, and every court that’s heard the matter…. all disagree with you.A sane person, facing those realities, would be starting to think he might just be wrong.

    Maybe you have a career being a painter waiting for you.

  130. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:52 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Other than those…

    “Naturalization” is only the means by which the person becomes a “citizen.” Nothing says they are called “naturalized Citizens.” Rather, they are called “citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear on what these “citizens” are called.

  131. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 10:59 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: So, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Obama began their careers as “Citizens of the United States” when they were in Congress and then became “natural born Citizens” when they became President and/or Vice President. I think I get this now.

    Membership in the United States is called “citizen.” A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen,” being a “Citizen,” has the same privileges, immunities, and rights as a “Citizen of the United States.” See Article IV, Section 2 (“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States”). Unlike Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Article IV says “Citizens,” not “natural born Citizens” or “Citizens of the United States.” Hence, any privilege, immunity, or right which our Constitution (e.g. eligibility for Congress under Article I, Section 2 and 3) or any Congressional Act gives to a “citizen of the United States” (a “Citizen”) is also given to a “natural born Citizen” (a “Citizen”). Finally, a “Citizen of the United States” has the same privileges, immunities, and rights as a “natural born Citizen,” except under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, if born after the adoption of the Constitution, is forever barred from being President or Vice-President.

  132. Keith says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:00 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “Naturalization” is only the means by which the person becomes a “citizen.”Nothing says they are called “naturalized Citizens.”Rather, they are called “citizens of the United States.”The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear on what these “citizens” are called.

    So “the set of all American Citizens” and “the set of all Naturalized Citizens” is the same?

    Is that what you are saying?

    I repeat: show me the recognized academic work that defines the terms the way you claim they are defined.

  133. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:01 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Mario has avoided this logical contradiction many times, as it led, every single time, to the defeat of his poorly formulated ‘arguments’.

    There is no contradiction.

    Membership in the United States is called “citizen.” A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen,” being a “Citizen,” has the same privileges, immunities, and rights as a “Citizen of the United States.” See Article IV, Section 2 (“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States”). Unlike Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Article IV says “Citizens,” not “natural born Citizens” or “Citizens of the United States.” Hence, any privilege, immunity, or right which our Constitution (e.g. eligibility for Congress under Article I, Section 2 and 3) or any Congressional Act gives to a “citizen of the United States” (a “Citizen”) is also given to a “natural born Citizen” (a “Citizen”). Finally, a “Citizen of the United States” has the same privileges, immunities, and rights as a “natural born Citizen,” except under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, if born after the adoption of the Constitution, is forever barred from being President or Vice-President.

  134. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apuzzo presents a straw man. What is being conflated is “natural born citizen” and “citizen from birth.” I argue for this conflation in my articles, particularly:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/framer-v-farmer/

    “Citizen from birth” is not a class of “citizen.” Rather, it is a necessary consequence of being an Article II “natural born Citizen” (for those born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country) or a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” “at birth” (for those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) or Congressional Act “citizen of the United States “at birth” (for those born out of the United States to one or two U.S. “citizen” parents). As we can see, the necessary conditions to be a “natural born Citizen,” which cause one to be a “citizen from birth,” are birth in the country to citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This follows perfectly given that the Fourteenth Amendment calls a person who it makes a “citizen from birth” a “citizen of the United States” and Congress calls a person who it makes under its naturalization powers a “citizen from birth” a “citizen of the United States.” Hence, using “citizen from birth” alone to define a “natural born Citizen” is a tautology and proves nothing. “Citizen from birth” is a consequence of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not the causative agent. A statement of what one becomes at birth cannot logically be the causative factor. On the other hand, what is the causative agent is born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. And it is these two elements of causation which produce the condition of being a “citizen at birth.”

    If born in Hawaii, Barack Obama is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because, while presumably born in the United States to a U.S. “citizen” mother, he was born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father. Since he was born after the adoption of the Constitution, he is forever barred from being President or Vice-President.

  135. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:12 pm  (Quote)

    If born in Hawaii, Barack Obama is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because, while presumably born in the United States to a U.S. “citizen” mother, he was born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father. Since he was born after the adoption of the Constitution, he is forever barred from being President or Vice-President.

    Except that you made one logical fallacy: Birth on soil is all that is needed to be a natural born citizen. This is what the Court in US v WKA showed.

    Minor never defined who all are natural born citizens.

  136. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm  (Quote)

    What a contrived ‘argument’… Hilarious. No wonder no court is taking Mario seriously. Really, what a legacy to be remembered for, or perhaps best forgotten.

  137. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:14 pm  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: Mario,“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.”Written by a Supreme Court Justice and quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

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

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] 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.”

    1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41. Justice Gray cited and quoted this same passage in Wong Kim Ark as evidence that he could use the English common law as an aid in defining a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” But it is error to use this passage as proof that a “natural born Citizen” should also be defined under that same English common law. First, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor did not use the English common law to define a “natural-born citizen,” but rather American common law which in matters of national citizenship had its origins in the law of nations. Second Justice Swayne did not define what “born in the allegiance of the United States” means. The Founders and Framers, as evidenced by the early Congresses in their naturalization acts, considered that only by being born in the country to citizen parents could one be “born in the allegiance of the United States.” Third, Justice Swayne conflated a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.” He mentioned “the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution” when referring to who could be a “natural born citizen.” But as Minor showed, such a qualification cannot refer to a “natural born Citizen,” for there are no exceptions to the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” In all cases, the child is born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, there is no problem of parents who may be foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders.
    In short, Justice Gray used Justice Swayne’s statement to help him resolve whether Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” But he did not nor could he use it to hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.”

  138. EPU says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm  (Quote)

    I believe you have now repeated your definition at least three times here. That doesn’t make it any less an invention of your own. Merely repeating your flawed definitions does not mean anything.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Membership in the United States is called “citizen.” A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

  139. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:21 pm  (Quote)

    How to post like Mario / Spouting pretentious bull crap in just THREE easy steps!

    *Take a thought that can be summed up in one or two sentences, then expand it into several paragraphs.

    *Fill said paragraphs with filler consisting of bologna legal jargon, that has no actual validity.

    *Answer any valid arguments, that destroy your invalid ones, with Richard “Lowtax”-esque banter.

  140. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:21 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Minor never defined who all are natural born citizens.

    Not only do you misrepresent what Wong Kim Ark held, but your also misrepresent what Minor held. 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

  141. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:38 pm  (Quote)

    Not only do you misrepresent what Wong Kim Ark held, but your also misrepresent what Minor held. Minor held:

    As I said, Minor never defined who all are natural born citizens.

    Poor reading comprehension.

    We all know how the Court in WKA showed how the term natural born extended all the way from the English Common Law to the United States where it meant born on soil, with minor exceptions.

    Of course, we also know that the losing attorney in that case, used much of the same arguments are you have tried, and failing miserably. We also know that said attorney raised the issue as “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”

    Such follies.

  142. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:42 pm  (Quote)

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

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] 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.”

    So all persons born on the allegiance of the US are natural born citizens. Just as WKA found and just as we have been arguing. Even Minor used common law, which was birth on soil. In their case, they did not want to address the status of children born on soil to alien parents as that was not relevant to their ruling.

    It’s so simple Mario….

    Playing the devil’s advocate again? I guess some people crave the argument, even if they continue to lose, in court and elsewhere.

    For that we thank you Mario. Without the Court’s clear rejections of your follies, people could have continued to make these meritless claims. Now they are just academic.

  143. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:49 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “Naturalization” is only the means by which the person becomes a “citizen.” Nothing says they are called “naturalized Citizens.” Rather, they are called “citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear on what these “citizens” are called.

    ROTL… THe fourteenth amendment shows how birth and naturalization are the only two paths to citizenship. Since WKA was not naturalized it was birth and thus under WKA, he was natural born.

    It is so trivial. Minor never wanted to address the status of said children, realizing that once they were to rule that they were citizens, they were natural born citizens or native born. Born on soil, it’s all that it takes.

    The 14th is clear that birth or naturalization all lead to being a Citizen of the US

    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.

    All persons born in the US. This includes children born to two citizen parents. So your dichotomy cannot hold.

    So many fails.

  144. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:50 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you have a career being a painter waiting for you.

    Or plumber eh Mario 🙂

  145. JPotter says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have seen various responses to my arguments. But I have not seen anyone say anything like you have just presented.

    Really? No one has ever pointed out your habit of pointlessly parsing lexemes and declaring them unique and independent? I find that very hard to believe; it’s at the root of your continual failure, and a central theme running through every reaction to your drivelings.

    This silliness is so basic, it must be intentional.

    That is to say … you don’t really believe the crap you’re shilling, do ya?

  146. Keith says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Not only do you misrepresent what Wong Kim Ark held, but your also misrepresent what Minor held.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

    Read the bolded part Mario. Read the bolded part Mario. REad the bolded part Mario.

    First: that is NOT the HOLDING. That is commentary on how the Court arrived at the holding: it is DICTA. The holding was that the Constitution does not guarantee a citizen (any citizen) the right to vote.

    Second: the part that I put into bold (Read the bolded part Mario) is telling you that there are doubts about whether 2 citizen parents are required, or if born in country is enough.

    How can you read that (READ THE BOLDED PART MARIO) and maintain that it is saying that holding in Minor is that 2 citizen parents are required?

    We know you have no intellectual honesty, but don’t you have any pride at all?

  147. nbc says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:58 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: This silliness is so basic, it must be intentional.

    That is to say … you don’t really believe the crap you’re shilling, do ya?

    I have come to much of the same conclusion myself.

  148. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 11:58 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: As I said, Minor never defined who all are natural born citizens.Poor reading comprehension.We all know how the Court in WKA showed how the term natural born extended all the way from the English Common Law to the United States where it meant born on soil, with minor exceptions.Of course, we also know that the losing attorney in that case, used much of the same arguments are you have tried, and failing miserably. We also know that said attorney raised the issue as “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”Such follies.

    You are wrong again. What you say makes no sense. There are no exceptions to “natural born Citizens.” They are born in the country to “citizen” parents. Exceptions, such as that which apply to parents who are diplomats or military invaders, only apply to any person who would claim to be a “citizen” through birth in the country, but not a “natural born Citizen.”

    The losing side in Wong would not even concede that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” The Court said that he was. But Its holding in no way made Wong a “natural born Citizen.”

  149. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:00 am  (Quote)

    Keith: We know you have no intellectual honesty, but don’t you have any pride at all?

    A loaded or rhetorical question 🙂

    Mario has no problems going deep and then disappearing for a while, licking his wounds and bragging on his heavily censored blog how he has shown these obots.

    Such a funny guy this Mario.

  150. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:01 am  (Quote)

    nbc: So all persons born on the allegiance of the US are natural born citizens. Just as WKA found and just as we have been arguing. Even Minor used common law, which was birth on soil. In their case, they did not want to address the status of children born on soil to alien parents as that was not relevant to their ruling.It’s so simple Mario….Playing the devil’s advocate again? I guess some people crave the argument, even if they continue to lose, in court and elsewhere.For that we thank you Mario. Without the Court’s clear rejections of your follies, people could have continued to make these meritless claims. Now they are just academic.

    Maybe someday you will figure out how to demonstrate that I am wrong rather than just saying that I am.

  151. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:02 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are wrong again. What you say makes no sense. There are no exceptions to “natural born Citizens.” They are born in the country to “citizen” parents.

    That’s not what Minor suggested. And of course, WKA showed how Minor’s inclusion of children born to US citizens was a subgroup of the full category.

    And that’s what the courts have ruled from Ankeny onwards.

  152. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe someday you will figure out how to demonstrate that I am wrong rather than just saying that I am.

    I doubt that you would recognize a logical argument if it were to hit you in the face my friend. But I need not demonstrate this to you, just to the interested reader 😉

    After all, we already know that your arguments lack in merit and are at best academic in nature

  153. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    nbc: A loaded or rhetorical question Mario has no problems going deep and then disappearing for a while, licking his wounds and bragging on his heavily censored blog how he has shown these obots. Such a funny guy this Mario.

    You keep lying that my blog is heavily censored. That is a lie and you keep repeating it. You just prefer to post on Obot blogs because that is the only place that you can get way-to-go slaps on the back from your toady supporters.

  154. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:06 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apuzzo presents a straw man.

    A straw man … sort of. The epic logic fail (Mario) posits that failing to agree with the epic logic fail (Mario) is an epic logic fail. Which is plainly silly …. to agree with any epic logic fail isan epic logic fail. Exterior to the epic logic fail, this is easily and plainly seen. However, resistance to this realization is essential to the continued existence of the epic logic fail. It the fail drops its guard for a second, and is polluted by the obvious truth of its own nature, it would implode and wink right out of existence.

    This constant vigil must be tiring.

  155. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:06 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The losing side in Wong would not even concede that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” The Court said that he was. But Its holding in no way made Wong a “natural born Citizen.”

    The Court in WKA by any credible interpretation did in fact rule that WKA was natural born. Even the dissenting judge understood. But you ignore the fact that the appealing attorney, who raised many of the same arguments you have raised, understood that the issue at hand was “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”. Anyone in those days understood that native birth citizenship would render one a natural born. What they were trying to argue is that he was not born under jurisdiction. Another failure.

    Come on Mario… THis is just getting too easy.

  156. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:07 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You just prefer to post on Obot blogs because that is the only place that you can get way-to-go slaps on the back from your toady supporters.

    You’re such a funny dude my friend. A bit in denial but funny nevertheless. Now if you address the 14th Amendment declaring that birth or naturalization on US soil makes one a Citizen of the US, and you may come to a final understanding that the category is inclusive and that it includes two subgroups, birth on soil (native/natural born) and naturalization on soil (naturalized)

  157. EPU says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:08 am  (Quote)

    At seemingly every juncture, you rely upon your own invented meanings.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are wrong again.What you say makes no sense.There are no exceptions to “natural born Citizens.”They are born in the country to “citizen” parents.Exceptions, such as that which apply to parents who are diplomats or military invaders, only apply to any person who would claim to be a “citizen” through birth in the country, but not a “natural born Citizen.”

  158. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:09 am  (Quote)

    nbc: That’s not what Minor suggested. And of course, WKA showed how Minor’s inclusion of children born to US citizens was a subgroup of the full category.And that’s what the courts have ruled from Ankeny onwards.

    You are just making stuff up. Minor only defined one class as “natural born Citizens,” i.e., children born in a country to parents who “citizens” of that country, and that was the only class the Framers knew at common law with which they were familiar to be “natural-born citizens.”

  159. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:10 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The losing side in Wong would not even concede that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.”

    Yes, the intransigence of the ‘losing side’ always trumps the opinion of the court. Were it not so, our entire legal system would have no stable continuity whatsoever.

    ( 😛 )

  160. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:11 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep lying that my blog is heavily censored.

    You have a blog?

  161. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:11 am  (Quote)

    EPU: At seemingly every juncture, you rely upon your own invented meanings.

    I do not find your conclusory statements to be of any value to this debate.

  162. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:12 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not find your conclusory statements to be of any value to this debate.

    ROTFL, the pot calling the kettle black. Hilarious

  163. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:13 am  (Quote)

    JPotter: You have a blog?

    Why do you not just go to sleep if you have nothing to say?

  164. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:13 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are just making stuff up. Minor only defined one class as “natural born Citizens,” i.e., children born in a country to parents who “citizens” of that country, and that was the only class the Framers knew at common law with which they were familiar to be “natural-born citizens.”

    They did not address if children born to non citizen parents were natural/native born by virtue of their birth on soil. WKA showed that under the common law such children were indeed natural born.

    It’s so simple… Even you would be able to comprehend it, were it not that you had placed your bets on a losing horse, academically speaking.

  165. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:15 am  (Quote)

    We can see that the Obots have lost also on this thread. They have nothing substantive to say so they just revert back to their old ways. Yes, they are, indeed, scorpions.

  166. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:19 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not just go to sleep if you have nothing to say?

    A strange answer to a yes/no query. You really are bad with direct questions. Can you even confirm that your last name is “Apuzzo”?

  167. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:19 am  (Quote)

    nbc: You’re such a funny dude my friend. A bit in denial but funny nevertheless. Now if you address the 14th Amendment declaring that birth or naturalization on US soil makes one a Citizen of the US, and you may come to a final understanding that the category is inclusive and that it includes two subgroups, birth on soil (native/natural born) and naturalization on soil (naturalized)

    You are in deep denial. The Fourteenth Amendment only uses the class “citizen of the United States.” It is you who inject into it a “natural born Citizen.” Any rational person can see this. It is only those who are politically invested in this Obama thing, one way or another, who deny this simple truth.

  168. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:24 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We can see that the Obots have lost also on this thread. They have nothing substantive to say so they just revert back to their old ways. Yes, they are, indeed, scorpions.

    Mario is getting ready to return to his ‘lair’ and claim victory… So predictable

  169. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    nbc: They did not address if children born to non citizen parents were natural/native born by virtue of their birth on soil. WKA showed that under the common law such children were indeed natural born.It’s so simple… Even you would be able to comprehend it, were it not that you had placed your bets on a losing horse, academically speaking.

    The children the citizenship of whom Minor did not address were not and could not be “natural/native born,” for a very simple reason. They did not fit the definition of the “natives or natural-born citizens” as they were defined under common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. Minor held that that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. Note that the Court only said that “some authorities” considered them “citizens,” even if their parents were not “citizens.” The Court did not say that the same common law which defined the “natural-born citizens” so defined them.

  170. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are in deep denial. The Fourteenth Amendment only uses the class “citizen of the United States.” It is you who inject into it a “natural born Citizen.” Any rational person can see this. It is only those who are politically invested in this Obama thing, one way or another, who deny this simple truth.

    You had ‘argued’ that natural born citizens were not Citizens of the US but rather held the same privileges, now that I have shown you the 14th Amendment (did you ever bother to look it up) it shows how birth on soil makes one a citizen of the US. In other words, citizen of the US is not a separate class to natural born.

    It’s that simple. Remember what you ‘argued’?

    A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    Nope, a natural born citizen is born on soil and thus a citizen of the united states.

    Come on Mario… Noone can be this foolish or desperate.

    Let me remind you of the 14th, an amendment which like WKA you may not have read or fully comprehended.

    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.

    All persons born in the US…

  171. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:30 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The children the citizenship of whom Minor did not address were not and could not be “natural/native born,” for a very simple reason. They did not fit the definition of the “natives or natural-born citizens” as they were defined under common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution.

    In fact, that is contradicted by the court in WKA which showed how the common law definition was in fact that any child born on soil is considered to be natural born. Minor and WKA merge quite naturally and your confused reading of Minor is contradicted by the Court in US v WKA.

    Sorry Mario… Those are the cold hard facts that led courts to reject your follies as lacking in merit and academic.

    For pretty good reasons I might say.

  172. EPU says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:30 am  (Quote)

    This is not a debate.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I do not find your conclusory statements to be of any value to this debate.

  173. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:30 am  (Quote)

    nbc: You had ‘argued’ that natural born citizens were not Citizens of the US but rather held the same privileges, now that I have shown you the 14th Amendment (did you ever bother to look it up) it shows how birth on soil makes one a citizen of the US. In other words, citizen of the US is not a separate class to natural born.It’s that simple. Remember what you ‘argued’?Nope, a natural born citizen is born on soil and thus a citizen of the united states. Come on Mario… Noone can be this foolish or desperate.

    You have said nothing that in any way contradicts my position. Now you are just writing anything.

  174. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:33 am  (Quote)

    EPU: This is not a debate.

    You just insist on impressing me. I know that you are nothing but a waste of time and do not have any thing to add here other than provide the usual Obot snark.

  175. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:33 am  (Quote)

    A reminder for Mario

    Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

    Yep, another confused court…

  176. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:34 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You just insist on impressing me. I know that you are nothing but a waste of time and do not have any thing to add here other than provide the usual Obot snark.

    Someone has to counter your foolish claims and meaningless ‘assertions’…

  177. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:35 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have said nothing that in any way contradicts my position. Now you are just writing anything.

    ROTFL… Blind as well… Oh the humanity… Mario oh Mario… You cannot be for real…

    Mario explain how a natural born citizen is and is not at the same time a citizen of the US…

  178. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:35 am  (Quote)

    nbc: In fact, that is contradicted by the court in WKA which showed how the common law definition was in fact that any child born on soil is considered to be natural born. Minor and WKA merge quite naturally and your confused reading of Minor is contradicted by the Court in US v WKA.Sorry Mario… Those are the cold hard facts that led courts to reject your follies as lacking in merit and academic.For pretty good reasons I might say.

    The only thing you can do is just keep repeating what a handful of lower courts and administrative agencies have done. But you are not able demonstrate that what those courts and agencies have done is correct.

  179. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:36 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Mario is getting ready to return to his ‘lair’ and claim victory… So predictable

    Where did I see this routine before …. oh, right, live from Baghdad ….. !

  180. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:38 am  (Quote)

    nbc: ROTFL… Blind as well… Oh the humanity… Mario oh Mario… You cannot be for real…

    Don’t give me that pretentious bunk.

  181. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:40 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The only thing you can do is just keep repeating what a handful of lower courts and administrative agencies have done. But you are not able demonstrate that what those courts and agencies have done is correct.

    ROTFL.. Not only have I shown how these rulings follow the logic of Minor and WKA, not to mention the overwhelming legal history, scholarly understanding but I have also shown how your arguments lack in merit, just like those which were rejected in US v WKA.

    Now you can always argue that all these courts are wrong but with the Supreme Court on my side and now more and more lower courts, I’d say that your position has become rather tenuous, if not ridiculous.

    You will never admit to your defeat my friend. But that does not prevent us from having some fun with you.

  182. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:40 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Don’t give me that pretentious bunk.

    I do apologize, I did not want to step onto your territory.

  183. dunstvangeet says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:12 am  (Quote)

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

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] 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.”

    1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.Justice Gray cited and quoted this same passage in Wong Kim Ark as evidence that he could use the English common law as an aid in defining a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”But it is error to use this passage as proof that a “natural born Citizen” should also be defined under that same English common law.First, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor did not use the English common law to define a “natural-born citizen,” but rather American common law which in matters of national citizenship had its origins in the law of nations.Second Justice Swayne did not define what “born in the allegiance of the United States” means.The Founders and Framers, as evidenced by the early Congresses in their naturalization acts, considered that only by being born in the country to citizen parents could one be “born in the allegiance of the United States.”Third, Justice Swayne conflated a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen.”He mentioned “the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution” when referring to who could be a “natural born citizen.”But as Minor showed, such a qualification cannot refer to a “natural born Citizen,” for there are no exceptions to the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”In all cases, the child is born in the country to U.S. citizen parents.Hence, there is no problem of parents who may be foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders.
    In short, Justice Gray used Justice Swayne’s statement to help him resolve whether Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”But he did not nor could he use it to hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.”

    Now, tell me one thing, which Court ruled 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 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.

    I’ll give you a hint, it has 9 justices on it…

  184. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:35 am  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: I’ll give you a hint, it has 9 justices on it…

    I doubt Mario will address this… Par for the course.

  185. EPU says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:35 am  (Quote)

    Your errors are obvious. You base your arguments on false premises, and then argue against others by just repeating your false premises.

    Your reading of Minor, for example, is false. You just keep eliminating the fact that they left the definition open, and did not close it to only children born in country to citizen parents. That is basic, irreducible error on your part. You need not wait for some profound revelation that will impress you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You just insist on impressing me.

  186. Keith says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:25 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep lying that my blog is heavily censored. That is a lie and you keep repeating it. You just prefer to post on Obot blogs because that is the only place that you can get way-to-go slaps on the back from your toady supporters.

    So I have left a post at your place, Mario. Publish it and answer it, or admit that you censor your blog.

    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.

    The holding in Minor was that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote to any American citizen of any class or origin.

    The section you continue to erroneously describe as the holding is not the holding. It is a discussion showing how the Court reached its decision:

    1) Is the appellate a citizen? If not, then we need go no further. But the answer is yes, and there is no doubt because etc, etc (dicta) …

    2) The question then becomes “Does the Constitution grant suffrage as a right to all citizens?” No, because… etc, etc (dicta) …

    3) Therefore we find for the respondent: the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, and the State was within its Constitutional privilege to deny the vote to Virgina Minor. (holding).

  187. US Citizen says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:41 am  (Quote)

    Perhaps we can all enjoy a little peace and quiet by asking Mr. Apuzzo to instead talk about his many legal successes in Constitutional law.

  188. Daniel says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:11 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If born in Hawaii, Barack Obama is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because, while presumably born in the United States to a U.S. “citizen” mother, he was born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father. Since he was born after the adoption of the Constitution, he is forever barred from being President or Vice-President.

    For a guy who is “barred” from it, He certainly seems to be enjoying the reality of a second term.

    Only a moron would think everybody just conveniently overlooked that little detail… twice…

  189. Daniel says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:12 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Don’t give me that pretentious bunk.

    Which pretentious bunk would you prefer?

    The kind that points out how you lost arguing all this same crap in every court you’ve piled it?

  190. Daniel says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:13 am  (Quote)

    US Citizen:
    Perhaps we can all enjoy a little peace and quiet by asking Mr. Apuzzo to instead talk about his many legal successes in Constitutional law.

    I don’t know about quiet…. but it would be mercifully short…

  191. Saint James says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:14 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The only thing you can do is just keep repeating what a handful of lower courts and administrative agencies have done.

    It’s worth repeating what those “handful” lower courts and administrative agencies have “done” wherein they decided against your argument and that it was academic and has no merits in law!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: But you are not able demonstrate that what those courts and agencies have done is correct.

    If that is the case, does it mean that those courts and agencies were wrong? However, to demonstrate that the decision of those courts and agencies is correct, all one has to do is simply reiterate how they came up with the correct decision!

    You can not reinvent the wheel Mario!

    “Where is it written in the Bible that it was an apple Eve gave Adam to eat? If it’s nowhere to be found, then it must not be an apple!

    Where is it then written in the Bible that it’s Not an apple Eve gave Adam to eat? If it’s nowhere to be found, then it must be an apple!”

    Mario you keep rehashing your argument. You go round in circle over and over!

    It’s not about an “apple”…what is written is a “FRUIT”

    Your case has already been judged….your case “HAS NO MERIT IN LAW”

  192. bovril says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:37 am  (Quote)

    But Putzie, what about the 22 yes TWENTY TWO times the Supreme Court has made a specific, positive and binding decision to refuse cert for this cack of the Birtfoons?

    Idiots like you have 22 (TWENTY TWO)TIMES had the opportunity to present your nonsense to the Supreme Court and 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES times the SC has not only refused cert but have NEVER asked for any more details, documents or briefs.

    So yes they have seen the Birther cack, read the Birther cack, probably laughed or sighed in irritation AGAIN at the Birther cack and made a decision not to hear the Birther cack.

    In the real world that means the SC finds zero, no, nada, zilch merit in the birther cack.

    SC says no 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES Birthers like you whine that no one has looked at your cack when in reality it has been rejected by the SC 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES.

    That would make you, whats that word, oh yes a LIAR and of course The Second Worst Lawyer In The Western World

  193. Lupin says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:53 am  (Quote)

    Since Mario likes repeating the same tropes, I hope I can be allowed to remind everyone (if only for the google effect) that:

    Mario Apuzzo is a liar and a perjurer
    Mario Apuzzo is the sockpuppet for far right white supremacists organization(s)

  194. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 5:03 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: A “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

    I get it JFK,,LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush I and Obama were “Citizens of the United States” when they served in Congress and became “natural born Citizens” when they got elected President. We are totally on the same page, my bro. Cool…

  195. Saint James says:
    December 10, 2012 at 5:06 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Mario Apuzzo is a liar and a perjurer
    Mario Apuzzo is the sockpuppet for far right white supremacists organization(s)

    Oh no! Not really…how so?

  196. roadburner says:
    December 10, 2012 at 5:11 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We can see that the Obots have lost also on this thread. They have nothing substantive to say so they just revert back to their old ways. Yes, they are, indeed, scorpions.

    poor mario! so short on understanding.

    you know what it means when a judge says your arguements are without merit? it means you lost – end of story.

    let me clue you in to something.

    in a boxing match, the guy on the floor that doesn’t make the 10 count hasn’t won because he bled all over his opponents boots. that is called losing.

    and until a court actually accepts your theory (which it is as it has no backup by anyone in authority, and the repetition by your sychophants does not count), we’ll keep counting past 11 as you bleed on our boots.

    now scuttle back to your fans and claim victory. we’ll just keep laughing as the door hits your ass on the way out.

  197. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:28 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The only thing you can do is just keep repeating what a handful of lower courts and administrative agencies have done. But you are not able demonstrate that what those courts and agencies have done is correct.

    Now, despite himself, Mario has, for the first time posed a question that is actually worth discussing. How do we know that what a court has done is “correct”? When dealing with matters of fact, juries, who carefully weigh the evidence, are assumed to be correct, unless new facts surface (DNA evidence that was unavailable at the time of trial, for example). I am sure that if one visited one’s local penitentiary one woud find it filled with the innocent who were wrongly convicted (to hear the inmates tell it) but I have my doubts about that.

    When dealing with matters of law, on the other hand, how do we know courts are “correct”? I would argue we know it by the fact that their rulings were not overturned and are still in effect. By this standard, Ankeny and the follow-on cases are certainly “correct”. Moreover, the aim of the plaintiffs in those cases-to have President Obama out of office-did not occur So, Ankeny was correct.

    Now, how would we know that a court is “incorrect”? Simply, when its ruling is overturned and no longer in effect. What are some well-known cases that were “incorrect” and no longer in effect? Dred Scott said blacks were not citizens. Of course they are. Therefore, the court was incorrect. Minor said women had no right to vote. Of course they do. Minor was incorrect.

    So, Ankeny was correct and Minor was incorrect.

    Simple. Glad I could clear that up.

  198. Lupin says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:41 am  (Quote)

    Saint James: Oh no! Not really…how so?

    Mario Apuzzo’s beliefs about the two citizen parents originated with the KKK and he refuses to disclose the exact identity of his mysterious clients but does not deny they’re connected to far right organizations.

  199. Saint James says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:21 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Mario Apuzzo’s beliefs about the two citizen parents originated with the KKK

    Hmmm! Mario Apuzzo,KKK not Esq.

  200. Northland10 says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:31 am  (Quote)

    Mario, oh Mario,

    So others have been calling you on the “EITHER citizen of the United States OR natural born Citizen” definition. You have made them mutually exclusive. Yet, the Constitution is abundantly clear. Eligibility for Congress is citizen of the United States whereas eligibility for President is a natural born Citizen. Since your definitions are dichotomous by your own usage, those eligible for the Presidency are not eligible for Congress.

    Your attempt to explain, which I will not quote here as it takes up too much space, was no real explanation. For all you did was take your definition on what we used to call a “Chinese fire drill.” You ran them around the car but nothing actually changed.

    Your attempt to justify your discrepancy invoking “rights and privileges” are of no help because the definition in the Constitution and your terms are unambiguous,. Article I says citizen of the United States. Your definition is that you are EITHER/OR. Now, if Article I said “a citizen for 7 years” (or 9 years), then you would have an out. However, “citizen for 7 years” it sayeth not. It uses your exclusive term “citizen of the United States.”

    If I can easily recognize the flaw in your definition, can you imagine what response you might get from Justice Scalia?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There is no contradiction.

  201. Lupin says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:14 am  (Quote)

    Saint James: Hmmm! Mario Apuzzo,KKK not Esq.

    Gordon’s Prescript, the KKK’s founding document, introduces the notion of “native-born white gentile citizen” which is one of the conditions to be a Klansman, and hinges upon having explicitly (unlike Vattel’s formulation which is anything but) BOTH parents being “white gentile citizens.”

    The KKK tried at various points in US history to advance its agenda and “legitimize” it, but always failed. Mario Apuzzo’s efforts on its behalf (or a like-minded organization) is but the latest iteration.

  202. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:15 am  (Quote)

    It was my experience some time back, that Mario’s blog was censored. What he would do is let someone post a comment and then he would give a lengthy, but flawed response. When I pointed out the fallacies in his response, he would not allow that response to appear.

    The way he manages his blog, he gets the last word and he makes appear that he wins the argument, and that the opposition is left without a response.

    I stopped posting over there because to do so would be to aid and abet his dishonesty.

    The other thing I would note about Apuzzo’s posts here is that he will respond to a charge of racism, and he will respond to an insult. He never responds to substantive criticism, attempting to shift the burden of proof to others to prove him wrong (which has been done, but he doesn’t acknowledge it). Authority after authority, from Rawle to Bates to Chin and courts in no less than 8 states and appellate courts just in the past 4 years, have said that the question of the presidential eligibility of those born in the US to non-citizen parents is settled. The burden of proof is on Apuzzo. Apuzzo claims that the courts have not addressed each and every of his arguments (or rather his misrepresentations and contextual violations); however, John Woodman did expose each and every one of them in his article series. Has Apuzzo ever responded to EACH AND EVERY point made by Woodman?

    Heck, Apuzzo has never admitted being totally wrong about the 1981 travel ban to Pakistan.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You keep lying that my blog is heavily censored. That is a lie and you keep repeating it. You just prefer to post on Obot blogs because that is the only place that you can get way-to-go slaps on the back from your toady supporters.

  203. Lupin says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:19 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I stopped posting over there because to do so would be to aid and abet his dishonesty.

    Mario Apuzzo’s dishonesty reached a professional nadir when he dragged in the patently false Pakistan Visa story into his pleadings.

  204. Lupin says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:21 am  (Quote)

    Submitted for your considseration (as Serling would say), a remarkable diary entry by the legendary Billmon on Daily Kos

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/09/1168521/-Right-Wing-Extremism-and-Obama-s-Reelection-Will-There-Be-Blood

  205. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:33 am  (Quote)

    Jesus said: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.”

    This is the condemnation of Apuzzo over the travel ban to Pakistan. If he cannot repent this obvious falsehood, how can anyone give credence to his larger arguments?

    Lupin: Mario Apuzzo’s dishonesty reached a professional nadir when he dragged in the patently false Pakistan Visa story into his pleadings.

  206. Lupin says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:56 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is the condemnation of Apuzzo over the travel ban to Pakistan. If he cannot repent this obvious falsehood, how can anyone give credence to his larger arguments?

    Well said, I could not agree more!

  207. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:11 am  (Quote)

    roadburner: in a boxing match, the guy on the floor that doesn’t make the 10 count hasn’t won because he bled all over his opponents boots. that is called losing.

    Are you saying Mario is the Black Knight of lawyers?

  208. bovril says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    Dr K,

    Not quite, even the Black Knight admitted that its was a flesh wound, Mario refuses to even be that honest when he’s been eviscerated…….

    I will admit the final line is Apuzzo-esque (not Esq) in its true delusiona.

    “Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off! ”

  209. Rickey says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:50 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Jesus said: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.”

    This is the condemnation of Apuzzo over the travel ban to Pakistan. If he cannot repent this obvious falsehood, how can anyone give credence to his larger arguments?

    At one point he tacitly acknowledged that there was no written ban but he then lamely claimed that it was a de facto ban. Of course, when challenged to provide evidence that any American was prevented from traveling to Pakistan, he stopped talking about it. As you say, he still refuses to concede that there was no ban of any kind.

  210. roadburner says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:52 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Heck, Apuzzo has never admitted being totally wrong about the 1981 travel ban to Pakistan.

    excuse me quoting you here doc, but his repeated refusal to address this point has been obvious, despite many people pulling him on it during the last few weeks asking him if he’ll now admit he was wrong.

    so i reckon reminding him a bit more might get a response

    though i dont hold much hope of it being `i was wrong’ 😀

  211. bovril says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:05 pm  (Quote)

    ANY….DAY…..NOW….. 😎

  212. The Magic M says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: If he cannot repent this obvious falsehood, how can anyone give credence to his larger arguments?

    The inability to admit mistakes (for fear that once your nimbus of infallibility is gone, your arguments are worth less than zero) is one thing that separates the loon from the sane people.

    (The reason is that loons themselves use the “you were wrong with …, so how can you ever be credible again?” approach frequently. Because it’s so easy to say “relativity theory is wrong because Einstein once was wrong about something totally different”, it relieves you of any duty to actually bring evidence. For a related meme, see the ID people and their beloved “but… but… Darwin was an atheist!”)

    It may come more natural to a lawyer, but Mario doesn’t have anyone to pay damages to if it turns out the “travel ban” was in error.
    In other words, saying something untrue in error is excusable, but knowingly repeating the lie is pathetic.

  213. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: It was my experience some time back, that Mario’s blog was censored. What he would do is let someone post a comment and then he would give a lengthy, but flawed response. When I pointed out the fallacies in his response, he would not allow that response to appear

    Wow, and Mario object to me calling his blog censored :-)…

    Mario has failed to address various examples of him being wrong… May be too hard for him to accept.

    The inability to admit to his own errors may help explain why he continues down a path of meritless, academic arguments which are logically self-contradicting?

    He is a funny guy though….

  214. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10:
    Mario, oh Mario,

    So others have been calling you on the “EITHER citizen of the United States OR natural born Citizen” definition. You have made them mutually exclusive.Yet, the Constitution is abundantly clear.Eligibility for Congress is citizen of the United States whereas eligibility for President is a natural born Citizen.Since your definitions are dichotomous by your own usage, those eligible for the Presidency are not eligible for Congress.

    Eggzactly…. Poor Mario

  215. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    US Citizen: Perhaps we can all enjoy a little peace and quiet by asking Mr. Apuzzo to instead talk about his many legal successes in Constitutional law.

    Has anyone ever seen any of Mario’s legal successes?

  216. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: other than provide the usual Obot snark.

    No, that’s me. [Takes a bow.]

  217. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Has anyone ever seen any of Mario’s legal successes?

    You’ll find them on the Jersey Pike.

  218. brygenon says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: The only thing you can do is just keep repeating what a handful of lower courts and administrative agencies have done. But you are not able demonstrate that what those courts and agencies have done is correct.

    We can darn sure demonstrate that what we evil obots told you was correct.

    We told you what the courts and administrative agencies would do before they did it.

    The EOC (evil obot conspiracy) has its internal differences on details, which we debate ad nauseum, but our disagreements with you, Mr. Apuzzo, have been on the basics. The game is over. The stats are booked. One side batted 1000; the other 0.

    Mr. Apuzzo, “lower courts and administrative agencies” are your wheelhouse. Representing drunk drivers and crazy cat ladies is honorable work. Your birther clients didn’t choose you for your expertise on their issue. Charles Kerchner reported that he contacted many other lawyers before he met you at some birther event, but the others had all told him “no”. He had found competent counsel but that was not what he was seeking.

    Plus, it wasn’t just the lower level. Mario, we told you with striking precision how the Third Circuit Court of Appeals would come down on Kerchner v Obama. We had no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would deny your petition for cert.

    The real issue is not lower versus higher courts. It’s not liberal judges versus conservative judges. It’s not state versus federal, nor judicial branch versus executive or legislative. It’s not even WKA versus MvH. The issue is fantasy versus reality. Birtherism is crank nonsense.

  219. Saejanus says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm  (Quote)

    What have you heard about the President supposedly having an alias of Harrison J. Bounel? It’s the latest bout of craziness that I’ve heard.

  220. brygenon says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:30 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: It’s all so simple once you realize the simple logic: There are two kinds of citizens and combined they make up the ‘citizens of the US’. The first kind derives its citizenship by mere birth on soil, no need for statutes, the second kind derives its citizenship from statutes and are referred to as naturalized citizen. Two kind of citizens: Natural-Born and Natural-Ized.

    We’ve been over this, and NBC, at this point you should know better that to write that. Under a straightforward reading, you imply that *only* those born on the soil are natural-born citizens potentially eligible to be president, and that those who disagree are missing something simple.

    The Article II eligibility of foreign-born children of citizens was historically more controversial than that of native-born children of foreigners, but today the controversy is pretty much over. As renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar explained the issue for a lay audience in 2008:

    The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2008/02/the_constitution_and_the_candidates.html

  221. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    Found a few examples:

    Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 158 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2007

    Mario Apuzzo was counsel for the defendant Caroleo and the Court of Appeals denied Caroleo’s petition.

    Monroe Tp. Council v. Garibaldi, 522 A. 2d 1011 – NJ: Appellate Div. 1987

    Mario was a defendant and argued pro se. The court affirmed the lower Court’s findings.

    Apuzzo v. PRINCETON PACKET, INC., 110 NJ 176 – NJ: Supreme Court 1988
    Petition for cert denied

    Castro v. Attorney General of US, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2010
    Dismissed and denied petition for review by Castro

    IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF ROBINSON, NJ: Appellate Div. 2010
    Mario representing the plaintiff, Court Affirmed lower Court decision

    State v. Wright, 507 A. 2d 1185 – NJ: Appellate Div. 1986
    Mario for Appellant Wright. Lower court’s decision overturned

  222. Yoda says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:36 pm  (Quote)

    Saejanus:
    What have you heard about the President supposedly having an alias of Harrison J. Bounel? It’s the latest bout of craziness that I’ve heard.

    The people who claim that the President has used 349 different (I lose track of the claims) SS# also claim that one ore more of the SS#s has been linked to some mystery person name Harrison Bounel.

  223. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:43 pm  (Quote)

    brygenon: As renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar explained the issue for a lay audience in 2008:

    The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

    An interesting opinion at best. But that does not mean that we can ignore the precedent that points to the opposite. If the Founders had believed that children born abroad to US citizens were natural born under common law principles, then why did they find it necessary to take care of the status of said children? The status of children born abroad is specifically dealt with by statute. Now, we can disagree as to whether or not such makes these children natural born, to argue that a ‘distinguished’ scholar has argued otherwise should not be used to assert the accuracy of such a position.

    The Court in US v Wong Kim Ark

    It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

    The fourteenth amendment is clear: Birth or naturalization in the US, not birth outside the US.

    We have gone over this before and I politely disagree with your distinguished scholar.

  224. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    Jack Maskell

    The possibility of satisfying these purposes would appear to be as likely from an interpretation of the term “natural born” citizen which would include one who is a citizen “at birth” by either common law principles of jus soli, that is, being born on the soil (in the general usage of the term, one who is “native born”), or by the operation of statutory law of the principles of jus sanguinis, that is, through the law of descent by being born to U.S. citizens abroad. That is, one who is a citizen of the United States “at birth” by descent under federal law could develop the requisite allegiances and reverences for the United States passed down, inculcated, and taught by one’s parent-citizens, and would have a lifetime of allegiance to the United States at least as strong, in a theoretical sense, as one of a “native born” citizen. 40

    Theoretical sense at best… Remember that under Common Law, only children born on soil were considered to be natural born. To extend said citizenship to foreign born children, an explicit statute was needed.

  225. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:58 pm  (Quote)

    The majority in Rogers v Bellei quotes Justice Gray

    Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,” so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:

    “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

    Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

    Similarly the dissent observed

    Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:
    “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
    1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a “Rule of Naturalization” shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898):

    “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

    Concluding

    he 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.”

    Some may wish the controversy was over but so far I see no solid evidence of such. Even the Court which ruled on the issue, indicated that the issue as to the eligibility or lack thereof of Presidential Candidate McCain, was poorly raised.

  226. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    In Rabang v. INS, 35 F. 3d 1449 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1994, the Court observed, ruling that someone born in US territory was not a citizen under the 14th Amendment:

    Rodolfo Rabang and six other individuals appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaints for failure to state a claim for relief. The complaints allege that plaintiffs or their parents were born in the Philippine Islands when those islands were United States territory, and seek declaratory judgments that plaintiffs are United States citizens under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or under the Citizenship Clause in conjunction with 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (citizenship by descent). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.

    Observing:

    A focus on these select phrases is also misleading in view of the ambiguous ways in which the Court at other places defines the territorial scope of citizenship. See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 658, 18 S.Ct. at 460 (under the English common law rule, “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject”) (emphasis added)[9]; id. at 661, 18 S.Ct. at 461-62 (“[p]ersons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country”) (emphasis added; citation omitted); id. at 665, 18 S.Ct. at 463 (“[t]he right of citizenship … is incident to birth in the country”) (emphasis added; citation omitted). But see, id. at 666, 18 S.Ct. at 463 (“mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen”) (emphasis added; citation omitted); id. at 667, 18 S.Ct. at 463-64 (discussing the “ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion”) (emphasis added); id. at 674, 18 S.Ct. at 466-67 (“the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty”) (emphasis added); id. at 675, 688, 18 S.Ct. at 467, 471-72 (reaffirmation by the Fourteenth Amendment of citizenship by birth “within the dominion”) (emphasis added).

    Citing US v Wong Kim Ark

    In Wong Kim Ark, the Court then traced the United States’ reliance on the common law rule of citizenship by birth from its origins in Calvin’s Case. 77 Eng.Rep. 377, 399 (Exch.Ch. 1608). That case established that a person’s status as a natural-born subject[4] requires that (1) the person’s birth occur within the bounds of the King’s dominion and (2) that the parents owe obedience to the King at the time of the child’s birth. Id. 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. at 459. Further, in Wong Kim Ark the Court stated:

    The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance — also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” — of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection.

    Id. (Emphasis added.) Continuing its analysis, the Court noted:

    Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions…. “`Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of birth. Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject….”

    Id. at 657, 18 S.Ct. at 460.[5]

    The Court in Wong Kim Ark then noted that the above quoted rule was adopted by the English Colonies and was implicitly incorporated by the framers into the original 1458*1458 Constitution:

    “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.”

    169 U.S. at 658, 18 S.Ct. at 460.

    “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the king of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens…. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a `subject of the king’ is now a `citizen of the state.'” [Quoting State v. Manual, (1838) 4 Dev. & B. 20, 26.]
    That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted….

    Id. 169 U.S. at 664-65, 18 S.Ct. at 462 (emphasis added).

    The idea that a child born abroad to US citizens was a citizen under our Constitution and thus could be a natural born citizen is strongly contradicted by these cases. Such children were naturalized and thus likely failed to be natural born citizens, the latter term reserved in common law for those born on soil, subject to jurisdiction.

  227. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm  (Quote)

    John Dean observes:

    In fact, there are conflicting holdings that only further compound the problem of understanding this clause. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born. But in contrast, Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that “at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government.”

    It is the consensus of scholars, however, that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that Romney and McCain would certainly qualify.

    To argue that Weeding v Chin Bow holds this finding misses the point that it cites Chief Justice Fulley (Fuller) and Harlan, the dissenters who objected to the finding by the majority.

    Yes, I do agree that it is ‘the consensus of scholars’ that natural born includes those born abroad to US citizen parents, however that does not necessarily undermine my arguments unless it can be shown that these scholars have accurately represented history and legal precedent. I for one am not convinced that they have or that the issue has been settled. Having said that, I also do not believe that the issue will ever be settled in Court.

    Also, it took until 1934 until statutes granted citizenship to children born abroad to a US citizen mother.

  228. Keith says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm  (Quote)

    The Magic M: For a related meme, see the ID people and their beloved “but… but… Darwin was an atheist!”

    Followed immediately by “but… but… Darwin repented on his deathbed!”.

  229. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    Great truths are not built of little lies, just as an entire country’s legal tradition is not bound by two cherrypicked phrases … particularly when those phrases must be misread to get what the loons are saying, and the phrases are near-completely irrelevant to the point the loon wants to make.

    The Klan didn’t invent the “two parent” position Mario is pushing, but they are of a school of thought that has been carrying the flame for it. Extreme nativists have been clinging to the “Doubts of Happersett” ever since that rulling came down. The same have been abusing Vattel just as long. The birfers can’t be accused of inventing this stuff, but they are flailing positions and ideas long rejected.

    I was wheedling Apuzzo about “Dr.” Coleman in another thread because Coleman has been pushing the birfer’s take on Vattel for decades. He’s also a super-conspiract nut, you name it, he’s probably pushing a book on it. Apuzzo may be completely unaware of Coleman, or intimately familiar. But what is Apuzzo going to do? Embrace the work of a paranoid loon, or disagree with his own position?

    I know, pinning an idea to the (lack of) character of one of its adherents is fallacious, but … what the heck, it’s only birferism.

  230. Keith says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:34 pm  (Quote)

    Saejanus:
    What have you heard about the President supposedly having an alias of Harrison J. Bounel? It’s the latest bout of craziness that I’ve heard.

    Well I understand that the Secret Service does give code names to those it protects. One code name is as good as another. Its possible.

  231. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:40 pm  (Quote)

    Saejanus: What have you heard about the President supposedly having an alias of Harrison J. Bounel? It’s the latest bout of craziness that I’ve heard.

    It’s an old Corsi routine, see his article at WND:

    http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/336889/

    Apparently the meme wasn’t invented in time for inclusion in his opus, Where’s the Birth Certificate? No mentions there. Perhaps it part of the material he was saving for sequels? 😉

    Speaking of WTBC?, if anyone needs a copy, I inherited a free one last week. It’s beat up (part of it’s being free), but clean and complete. Am willing to mail it to anyone who wants a copy as a memento or for later research.

    I almost said “needs” … but who really needs this crap?

  232. Rickey says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm  (Quote)

    Saejanus:
    What have you heard about the President supposedly having an alias of Harrison J. Bounel? It’s the latest bout of craziness that I’ve heard.

    Supposedly one of the birthers ran Obama’s SSN through a database and one of the matches which came back was for Harrison J. Bounel. It was probably a hoax, possibly someone submitting a credit application using Obama’s SSN and a fictitious name. The surname “Bounel” is extremely rare. Several people claiming to be Harrison J. Bounel have set up Facebook pages.

  233. gorefan says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    Saejanus:
    What have you heard about the President supposedly having an alias of Harrison J. Bounel? It’s the latest bout of craziness that I’ve heard.

    The Bounel name first showed up in the public databases in 2009 (IIRC). Highly unlikely that shortly after winning the election, President Obama went out and bought something using a fake name.

  234. Keith says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Yes, I do agree that it is ‘the consensus of scholars’ that natural born includes those born abroad to US citizen parents, however that does not necessarily undermine my arguments unless it can be shown that these scholars have accurately represented history and legal precedent. I for one am not convinced that they have or that the issue has been settled. Having said that, I also do not believe that the issue will ever be settled in Court.

    I agree. I think there is much doubt about children born overseas like McCain. It seems clear to me that the Constitution and Common law do indeed focus on the ‘how’ of attaining citizenship, either ‘by nature’ or ‘by statute’. This would rule out McCain.

    At the same time I am strongly of the opinion that people in McCain’s position shouldn’t be ‘penalized’ simply because they had the misfortune to be born to parents who were honorably serving their country at the time of the birth.

    This, I am convinced is why it has become generally accepted that the correct focus is ‘when’ citizenship was established, at the moment of birth, or sometime after that. I agree that there is no Constitutional basis for that interpretation, and it is a rather modern interpretation. The only ‘official’ precedent that I am aware of is the House and Senate resolutions that declared that they considered McCain an NBC.

    But it is an interpretation with some justification; few would argue that McCain’s situation should make him ineligible and the authors of the Constitution would be more horrified that there was a standing army permanently stationed overseas than they would have been about foreign born children of Government servants on official duty being considered NBC.

    That there is academic controversy about foreign born citizens-at-birth is beyond doubt; the idea of ‘when’ citizenship is gained instead of ‘how’ citizenship is gained is a solution that works and seems to ‘cover all the bases’ of what the general consensus would expect. That it has nothing to do with Obama or any other candidate currently on the horizon is equally beyond doubt.

    If only Madison had written ‘born natural citizen’ instead of ‘natural born citizen’! How much easier this whole thing would be.

  235. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: But it is an interpretation with some justification; few would argue that McCain’s situation should make him ineligible and the authors of the Constitution would be more horrified that there was a standing army permanently stationed overseas than they would have been about foreign born children of Government servants on official duty being considered NBC.

    Exactly, it would be based on emotions more than on a solid foundation in law.

  236. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 5:16 pm  (Quote)

    This is the second night of Chanukah. We celebrate for eight days, because the oil lasted for eight, instead of one.

    That was no miracle. The oil lasted so long because they got it wholesale from Shlomo and Sons. They ordered it mail order – carrier pigeon.

    Shlomo and Sons – You fight, We light™

  237. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:01 pm  (Quote)

    Spam comment of the day:

    Hello there, just turned into alert to your weblog via Google, and located that it’s truly informative. I’m gonna be careful for brussels. I’ll be grateful if you happen to continue this in future. Numerous people shall be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

  238. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:13 pm  (Quote)

    I would mention the Naturalization act of 1790, passed by the first Congress that explicitly called foreign-born children of US citizen fathers “natural born citizens.” I do not buy an argument that they were careless in their language, nor persuaded that the repeal of that Act indicated any admission of error (only replacement by a new version).

    I would also note that British legislation, e.g. the Nationality Act of 1730 called foreign-born children of British subjects “natural born.”

    The debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 on qualifications seem to be all about the length of time as a citizen. Hamilton and Madison would have been satisfied without the natural born citizen requirement at all. That said, there was considerable “nativist” sentiment at the 1787 Convention and there may well have been a significant desire for only US-born presidents, along with others who did not hold this view.

    My view is that one cannot, given that the Constitution was after all a compromise, pick one authority over another. What I do, as the courts generally do, is to look at what the Constitution actually says. “Natural born” in English means having a quality from birth. “Natural born citizen” as a term of art derives from the English Common Law and British institutions. In Britain, those born abroad to citizen parents are natural born subjects.

    Keith: This, I am convinced is why it has become generally accepted that the correct focus is ‘when’ citizenship was established, at the moment of birth, or sometime after that. I agree that there is no Constitutional basis for that interpretation, and it is a rather modern interpretation.

  239. LW says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: They ordered it mail order – carrier pigeon.

    All the way from South America — specifically from the Bezhos people, who dwelt along the mighty river there, and offered most attractive prices despite the great distances involved, to the dismay and ruination of the nearby Merchants of the Yellow Tag.

  240. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would also note that British legislation, e.g. the Nationality Act of 1730 called foreign-born children of British subjects “natural born.”

    Yes, the British were not constrained by their Constitution from referring to children born abroad who became citizens/subjects under statute as ‘Natural Born’.

    In fact, there is some reason to believe that the original act was made in error as the reference was quickly removed in the next version. They relied on the original text of the British statute and left ‘natural born’ in the text. Why would the Founders feel it necessary to take care of children born abroad to US citizens, if under the Constitution they were in fact (natural born) citizens?

  241. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: This is the second night of Chanukah

    misha-I am pretty sure that tonight, Dec 10, is the 3rd night.

  242. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm  (Quote)

    But in fact the British did pass legislation which made the children of British subjects born overseas “natural born subjects.” In my way of looking at this, the only way this makes sense is for “natural born subject” to mean “subject from birth,” some were so under the common law, and some were by legislation.

    I do not see why someone must be born a citizen under the common law to be a natural born citizen in America, any more than they need to be born a subject under common law to be a natural born subject in England. Nor do I see the necessity that a that the same qualifications to be a natural born citizen in 1879 need apply in 1790.

    Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Look at the 17th Amendment:

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    When the 17th Amendment was passed those persons who could vote for Senator were defined. However, if a State changed the qualifications for who could vote for the legislature, they changed who could vote for Senator under the Constitution. If “natural born citizen” means “citizen from birth” then Congress could change who was a citizen from birth, and thereby who was eligible to the presidency. I don’t think that whether you call such persons “naturalized” or not is relevant.

    nbc: Theoretical sense at best… Remember that under Common Law, only children born on soil were considered to be natural born. To extend said citizenship to foreign born children, an explicit statute was needed.

  243. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:28 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: In Britain, those born abroad to citizen parents are natural born subjects.

    Not under common law…
    The meaning of the term has to be found in common law. And common law never considered children born abroad to be natural born.

    Once you take the steps that WKA took, you will come to realize the precarious nature of those children born abroad. In fact, for a while such children may not even have been citizens under US statute. Furthermore, a child born abroad to a citizen mother was not even considered to be a citizen until 1934

  244. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: But in fact the British did pass legislation which made the children of British subjects born overseas “natural born subjects.” In my way of looking at this, the only way this makes sense is for “natural born subject” to mean “subject from birth,” some were so under the common law, and some were by legislation.

    Exactly and since the Court in WKA looked at the meaning of the word under Common Law, the inevitable conclusion appears to be that children born abroad to US citizens were not natural born. This is why the dissenting Judge is so upset.

  245. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:34 pm  (Quote)

    In US v Wong Kim Ark

    There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

    Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203. And the great weight of the English authorities, before and since he wrote, appears to support his conclusion. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 17a, 18a; Co.Lit. 8a, and Hargrave’s note 36; 1 Bl.Com. 33; Barrington on Statutes, (5th ed.) 268; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; I: ord Chancellor Cranworth, in Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macq. 535, 611; Cockburn on Nationality, 7, 9; De Greer v. Stone, 2 Ch.D. 243, 252; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741. “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

    It has been pertinently observed that, if the statute of Edward III had only been declaratory of the common law, the subsequent legislation on the subject would have been wholly unnecessary Cockburn on Nationality 9. By the [p671] statute of 29 Car. II, (1677) c. 6, 1, entitled "An act for the naturalization of children of His Majesty's subjects born in foreign countries during the late troubles," all persons who, at any time between June 14, 1641, and March 24, 1660, "were born out of His Majesty's dominions, and whose fathers or mothers were natural-born subjects of this realm" were declared to be natural-born subjects. By the statute of 7 Anne, (1708) c. 5, 3, "the children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors" — explained by the statute of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 21, to mean all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively . . . . shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.

    That statute was limited to foreign-born children of natural-born subjects, and was extended by the statute of 13 Geo. III, (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects, but not to the issue of such grandchildren; or, as put by Mr. Dicey, "British nationality does not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation." See DeGeer v. Stone, above cited; Dicey, Conflict of Laws 742.

    Furthermore

    By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, “dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.” Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. 2165, 2172, 1993.

    Such children are thus naturalized and if so, the question becomes: Can naturalized citizens be natural born?

  246. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:53 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: In fact, for a while such children may not even have been citizens under US statute.

    If they were born at such time, then they would likely not be natural born citizens. However, those who were citizes under the law when they were born are. By the way, blacks born after Dred Scott but before the civil war were not citizens when they were born, but surely they would have been eligible in 1870 or 1880, no?

    These arcane discussions are why the clause should be either abolished (by far the best choice) or rewritten in a clear form.

    But just out of curiosity, why do you have a problem with Congress changing who is a citizen from birth, but find it OK for the courts to do so? They are equal branches are they not?

  247. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: If “natural born citizen” means “citizen from birth” then Congress could change who was a citizen from birth, and thereby who was eligible to the presidency.

    In WKA the court observed that under common law natural born meant born on soil owing jurisdiction.

  248. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: The Court in WKA by any credible interpretation did in fact rule that WKA was natural born. Even the dissenting judge understood. But you ignore the fact that the appealing attorney, who raised many of the same arguments you have raised, understood that the issue at hand was “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”. Anyone in those days understood that native birth citizenship would render one a natural born. What they were trying to argue is that he was not born under jurisdiction. Another failure.Come on Mario… THis is just getting too easy.

    Come on nbc, you are just making stuff up about what the lower court held in Wong Kim Ark. There is not one word about “natural born” or “natural born Citizen” in the lower court in Wong Kim Ark.

  249. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Can naturalized citizens be natural born?

    Yes, as long as all natural ingredients were used.

  250. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    Come on nbc, you are just making stuff up about what the lower court held in Wong Kim Ark. There is not one word about “natural born” or “natural born Citizen” in the lower court in Wong Kim Ark.

    And yet, the appealing attorney presented the issue of error as such. He understood that the lower court’s ruling effectively had declared WKA a NBC.

    As to your statement about the lower court, I assume you have never read it?

    “The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Citing Lynch v Clarke

    After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general. understanding of. the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind

    Fail again. Really Mario, you should read these rulings. Both the lower court and the Supreme Court ruling put to rest any of your follies.

    Oh, the court also denied your position;

    The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

    ROTFL…

    Source In re WONG KIM ARK.

    (District Court, N. D. California. January 3, 1896.)

    No. 11,198.

  251. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    A further note- Parliament has just changed the rules of succession to the throne such that the genders will be treated equally, beginning with Kate’s in utero child. The powers of Congress were modelled on those of Parliament. So Congress can speak to natural born just as much as the courts can. I understand the relctance to give Congress any power, in view of its well-deserved current low standing, but I am not convinced the judiciary is wiser or better.

    In the end, a republic is a res publica and belongs to the people-the living ones not an elite group of dead ones. I not convinced that limiting who the public can choose as leaders is either morally right or practically feasible. It’s long past tme to move into the 21st century and let the 18th rest in peace.

  252. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m gonna be careful for brussels.

    Greetings from my Brussels sprouts and asparagus.

  253. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:02 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Come on nbc, you are just making stuff up about what the lower court held in Wong Kim Ark.There is not one word about “natural born” or “natural born Citizen” in the lower court in Wong Kim Ark.

    You didn’t read the government’s brief that was the basis for the Wong Kim Ark appeal to the supreme court did you mario?

  254. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:04 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: You didn’t read the government’s brief that was the basis for the Wong Kim Ark appeal to the supreme court did you mario?

    Of course he never did.. Even though it has been pointed out to him several times. He also appears to not have read the lower court opinion…

  255. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Yes, as long as all natural ingredients were used.

    ROTFL. Or in NY’s constitution, native born because natural born may confuse people as to the manner the child is born… Now who is suing in NY again… Would he not be surprised to find out this detail?

  256. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm  (Quote)

    Even Minor creates problems for Mario

    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.

    By birth or by naturalization. Citizens may be born or created… Since WKA was not naturalized he was born a citizen and by virtue of the Constitution, since he was not a citizen of US at the time of the Adoption, he must have been a natural born citizen.

    You’re welcome

  257. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:14 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Jesus said: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.”This is the condemnation of Apuzzo over the travel ban to Pakistan. If he cannot repent this obvious falsehood, how can anyone give credence to his larger arguments?

    First, you are just one fallacy after another. Whether there was any travel ban to Pakistan in 1981-82 has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Second, the Obots look at Attorney Berg’s Pakistan travel “ban” as the gift that keeps on giving. They use it to create a straw man argument against me and declare victory. The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it. Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country. I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country. But the point is not what type of ban was there, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban. The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan. I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81. In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time.

  258. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: First, you are just one fallacy after another. Whether there was any travel ban to Pakistan in 1981-82 has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    So why was it raised by you as an issue then? It is not meant to declare victory, it’s meant to show how you are incapable of admitting that you were wrong.

    Kerchner v Obama

    78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

    Source: Kerchner v Obama

  259. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm  (Quote)

    brygenon: We’ve been over this, and NBC, at this point you should know better that to write that. Under a straightforward reading, you imply that *only* those born on the soil are natural-born citizens potentially eligible to be president, and that those who disagree are missing something simple.The Article II eligibility of foreign-born children of citizens was historically more controversial than that of native-born children of foreigners, but today the controversy is pretty much over. As renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar explained the issue for a lay audience in 2008:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2008/02/the_constitution_and_the_candidates.html

    “The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.”

    Mr Amar’s argument is a tautology, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.” Rather absurd.

  260. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:25 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.”

    Mr Amar’s argument is a tautology, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.” Rather absurd.

    Not a tautology because one can also be created a citizen. Tsk tsk Mario… So unfamiliar with our Constitution.

    For Mario’s benefits:

    Citizens (of the United States) include Natural-Born and Natural-ized Citizens.

    Natural-Born are those who are born on soil, or taking Amar’s hypothesis, born a citizen. Natural-ized are those citizens which are created by Congressional Statute under the Constitutional powers.

  261. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:28 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82.

    The average American doesn’t become President.

    By the way, I personally know a US citizen born in a small town in the Midwest with an Anglo name, descended from Mayflower types on both sides, who lived in Islamabad for much of the 1980s. She later lived in Afghanistan. Some people are adventurous, some aren’t.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit.

    So it would be perfectly safe for someone who lived in the US, but had dual citizenship in some other country? Bullets and bomb fragments would be stopped by a non-US passport in your pocket, right?

  262. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Mr Amar’s argument is rather obvious.

    FIFY.

    But hey, glad to see you’re trying to master the new words you’ve picked up here at OCT!

  263. Scientist says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:38 pm  (Quote)

    By the way, what legal theory forbids a President to have used a non-US passport at some time in their life? Consider someone born in the US to US-born parents whose own parents (the child’s grandparents) came from Italy. Even by Apuzzo rules they would be a natural born citizen. But, under Italian law, they are entitled to an Italian passport. Suppose they apply for one and use one to live in Europe for a few years. Under what US law would they now be disqualified for the White House?

  264. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:38 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: First, you are just one fallacy after another.Whether there was any travel ban to Pakistan in 1981-82 has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Second, the Obots look at Attorney Berg’s Pakistan travel “ban” as the gift that keeps on giving.They use it to create a straw man argument against me and declare victory.The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82.There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it.Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country.I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country.But the point is not what type of ban was there, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban.The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan.I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81.In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time.

    Mario you idiot there are travel advisories to pretty much any country you go to take for instance Mexico or the Dominican which Lucas Smith is fond of. Even the Caribbean. It’s obvious he went on an American passport. The point is that you guys lied about a travel ban to try to claim Obama had some other passport. You’ve also seen no proof of an indonesian passport or british passport but it hasn’t stopped birthers like you from speculating.

  265. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Kerchner v Obama

    78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

    Source: Kerchner v Obama

    But NBC why would the lawyer in Kerchner V Obama make such a false claim without doing any kind of research? Do you have an answer for that one Mario?

  266. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dicey, Conflict of Law

    The principle of the common law is that a person born beyond the limits of the British dominions does not at his birth owe allegiance to the Crown and cannot therefore be a natural born British subject. If such a person acquires British nationality at all he must acquire it at some later period of his life. This principle however was before 1870 so far relaxed by legislation that persons born abroad whose fathers or grandfathers by the father’s side were natural born subjects are deemed to be natural born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes.

  267. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:44 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: But NBC why would the lawyer in Kerchner V Obama make such a false claim without doing any kind of research? Do you have an answer for that one Mario?

    I have no idea. Perhaps that’s why he is unwilling to apologize for the statement made? The claim that there was a ban is not supported by evidence and in fact contradicted. Perhaps Mario can shine some light on this?

  268. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm  (Quote)

    Another golden oldie

    Note: Mario has suggested that he was not really ‘quoting’ Howard. I am not sure to what extent this is going to be convincing to the Court but technically, he did not ‘quote’ Howard, he suggested that Howard had made a statement defining the term Natural Born Citizen and provided an incorrect page reference to said statement. When compared to the statement found in the cited source on an earlier page, a discrepancy was found between what Howard had stated and Mario’s ‘interpretation’ thereof.

    Mario writes in his Appeal Brief submitted in the case of Kerchner v Obama

    Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1 st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)).

    However, this is a clear misquote of what Sen Jacob Howard actually stated (Mario further complicates matters by misquoting the page which should have been 2890)

    This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

    Sloppy at best

  269. donna says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    the ditz is asking the 80,000 people who have watched her YouTube video to join her for a protest in Washington.

    Taitz posted on her website on Monday that a 2011 YouTube video of her speaking to the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission now had 80,000 views. She said that amount of people protesting would make a difference in her bid to challenge Obama’s presidential eligibility based on her belief that Obama was not born in the United States. As of late Monday morning, over 81,400 views were listed on the video.

    the nh ballot commission after which In a strongly-worded letter to Taitz, the state’s Republican House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt wrote:

    “Please, Dr. Taitz, go away and leave New Hampshire alone”

    Taitz wrote on her website in her trademark all-caps style:

    A MILESTONE: NOW OVER 80,000 PEOPLE WATCHED THIS VIDEO CLIP OF ME TESTIFYING TO NH ELECTIONS COMMISSION. 80,000 PEOPLE DEMONSTRATING BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE OR A CAPITOL BUILDING OR FEDERAL BUILDING CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!

    Taitz also challenged Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R) to file a criminal complaint based on his “cold case posse’s” investigation into Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. Taitz said Arpaio should return donations he’s received if he does not file a complaint.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/orly-taitz-protest_n_2271452.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

  270. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    Harry Accornero of Laconia who supported her follies was replaced in the latest elections with a Democrat 🙂

  271. JoZeppy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:04 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Second, the Obots look at Attorney Berg’s Pakistan travel “ban” as the gift that keeps on giving. They use it to create a straw man argument against me and declare victory. The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it. Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country. I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country. But the point is not what type of ban was there, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban. The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan. I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81. In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time.

    It keeps giving because you keep doubling down on it with garbage like this. First off, you said “forbidden.” That is very different from saying “very few Americans traveled.” trying to claim some “defacto ban” is one of the most rediculous things I’ve heard, which says a lot considering some of the stuff you come up with. Either a person could do, or they couldn’t. The fact that few actually did, does not mean that those who did would have had to have done it by some nefarious back door way. As said before, some folks are just more adventureous than others. Travel advisorys are pretty meaningless. The State Department has a travel advisory for travel to Mexico. Are you telling me everyone going to Mexico must be using something other than a US passport? Equally meaningless are the visa restrictions. The fact that you can be detained for not having a valid visa is true for every country that you need a visa to enter. The difference here is you could get a visa upon arrival in Pakistan, and they were freely renewable. Not the case with most countries. And the fact that you have not seen the President’s passport from the 1980s is equally indicative of nothing. You have not provided any reason why he couldn’t have traveled to Pakistan on a US passport, so until you can actually provide evidence or even a reason why he wouldn’t have used a US passport, it’s usually a safe bet to assume someone who was born in the US travels on a US passport.

  272. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm  (Quote)

    First, let me remind the readers what Apuzzo wrote in HIS first Amended complaint in Kerchner v. Obama:

    Apuzzo: 78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.

    Apuzzo to this day refuses to admit directly and without evasion that the statement he made in the complaint is false both literally and in context.

    Today, Apuzzo tries to make it seem that this is Phil Berg’s fault writing:

    Apuzzo: the Obots look at Attorney Berg’s Pakistan travel “ban” as the gift that keeps on giving.

    It is irrelevant whether Mario Apuzzo cribbed this lie from Berg or from WorldNetDaily; it is a lie and he signed it, not Berg. So blaming Berg is lie number 2.

    For lie numbers 3-5, we look above and see Apuzzo writing:

    Apuzzo: The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it.

    Lie #3 is saying that the ban is not the point. The point Apuzzo made in Kerchner is exactly this (his words):

    Apuzzo: There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.

    Lie #4 regards the whole issue of Pakistan being dangerous. Contemporary newspaper articles promoted tourism by Americans to Pakistan. US-Pakistani relations was at a high point at the time under the Reagan administration. There was no danger. See NY Times article and followup.

    Lie #5 regards the travel advisory. In context Apuzzo is saying that the travel advisory relates to unrest in the country. It says nothing about unrest or danger. The very fact that the travel advisory, which only deals with visa requirements, does not mention any unrest is proof that the Department didn’t consider it dangerous.

    The reason that the travel ban “keeps on giving” is that Apuzzo keeps repeating it in various forms. If he had come on this blog in 2009 and said: “I was mistaken about the Pakistan travel issue” the story would have been over and I would never have mentioned it again. But he did not, and he has not. Rather he dissembles, evades, shifts the blame and tries to rewrite history.

    Mario Apuzzo is a liar, and I have demonstrated it conclusively. If he lies here, and in court filings, what credibility does he have in either place? None as far as I am concerned.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit.

  273. roadburner says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:19 pm  (Quote)

    putzo gets bitchslapped 3 for 3 by NBC and appears to have made a run for it!

    did we just see another of his `victories’?

    oh boy! you couldn’t write comedy this good!

  274. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    donna: the ditz is asking the 80,000 people who have watched her YouTube video to join her for a protest in Washington.

    LOL! Of course it hasn’t occurred to her to wonder how many of them watched her as they would watch a car crash. Or for comedy value. Or *ahem* in the course of serious, diligent Obot stuidies. An example for a psych class. As part of an effort to chronicle contemporary, popular (you know what I mean) delusions.

    We’ll all be there in spirit. 😛

  275. donna says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:39 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter:

    or as a law school class on the birthers and how NOT to prosecute cases

    step one: don’t follow the birther attorneys

    step two: re-read step one

  276. howard a. dewitt says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    See my book Obama’s Detractors: In The Right Wing Nut HOuse for a look at the far right and how they have employed innuendo and conspiracy theories to attack the president. As always Fox News is the culprit, they are not fair and balanced.

  277. sfjeff says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mario Apuzzo is a liar, and I have demonstrated it conclusively. If he lies here, and in court filings, what credibility does he have in either place? None as far as I am concerned.

    Well put.

    When a person flat out lies….and is caught in the lie….and then lies about his lie….

    Well why shouldn’t we assume everything he says is a lie also?

  278. howard a. dewitt says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm  (Quote)

    go to amazon and see obama’s detractors: in the right wing nut house it tells the story of the right and their conspiracies.

  279. JPotter says:
    December 10, 2012 at 8:47 pm  (Quote)

    “That case [Ankeny], like this one [consolidated cases in GA], was filed to stop Mr Obama from becoming president, and that decision rested on centuries of Supreme Court precedent and English common law. The opposing case rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett … Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term).

    “Now, having read all that you might well ask who cares. Hard-core birthers ye will always have with you; they rely upon a hardy zombie of an argument and a resolute imperviousness to facts …”

    It’s old copy, but in light of Mario’s recent repeat visitations, it cracked me up (again!) This from the usually staid Economist !

    Birtherism 2012: To the nation born
    Feb 7th 2012, 17:42

  280. donna says:
    December 10, 2012 at 9:03 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter:

    thanks for the link which ends with:

    The interesting question now is what happens if Mitt Romney selects Marco Rubio, born in Miami to two Cuban parents, as his running mate? What happens if Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal, born in America to Punjabi parents, seeks the presidency in 2016? If Mr Obama is ineligible then they are too. My guess is you will see the swamp left to the swamp creatures.

  281. Keith says:
    December 10, 2012 at 9:39 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan. I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    What gives you the right or reason to see 30 yo passport details for living persons?

    What bearing does it have on the eligibility of that passport holder?

    We know he could not have had any passport other than a U.S. passport, but what difference does it make if he did?

  282. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:02 pm  (Quote)

    The point of the travel advisory is that the arrival visas were not generally renewable. However, Obama was in and out in under 30 days.

    JoZeppy: Equally meaningless are the visa restrictions. The fact that you can be detained for not having a valid visa is true for every country that you need a visa to enter. The difference here is you could get a visa upon arrival in Pakistan, and they were freely renewable.

  283. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: putzo gets bitchslapped 3 for 3 by NBC and appears to have made a run for it!

    Say it is not true. Where do I get my entertainment now?

  284. donna says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:27 pm  (Quote)

    howard a. dewitt:

    Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/chart-obama-conspiracy-theories

    i think doc and others added to it

  285. nbc says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm  (Quote)

    For Mario’s sake:

    From the opposing brief by the Appellant (Government)

    I am not even sure if Mario realizes how the appeal tried to argue many of Mario’s positions (and lost)…

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated:Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen … (p.2)

    and

    The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    So much fun…

  286. Rickey says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82.There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it.

    Please provide evidence that Pakistan was a “dangerous place” for Americans to visit in 1981-1982. How many American travelers were harmed while visiting Pakistan during those years? I assume that you have done extensive research on this and that you can provide names and details about the many Americans who suffered while visiting Pakistan.

    By the way, there is a difference between a “travel advisory” and a “travel warning.” Have you read the 1981 travel advisory? It says nothing about Pakistan being a “dangerous place.”

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

  287. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:48 pm  (Quote)

    And my reply is yes, provided they are naturalized at birth.

    nbc: Such children are thus naturalized and if so, the question becomes: Can naturalized citizens be natural born?

  288. Pip says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm  (Quote)

    I (young American then with American passport) passed through in the late 80s. I was traveling though India, with visa to continue on to Pakistan. I planned to travel by train. But they started bombing trains then, so I decided not to travel through Pakistan and took a plane to Karachi instead.

    I’m the adventurous sort, and not necessarily put off by travel advisories, but when they start blowing up trains just before I take them, well…

    Scientist:
    By the way, I personally know a US citizen born in a small town in the Midwest with an Anglo name, descended from Mayflower types on both sides, who lived in Islamabad for much of the 1980s.She later lived in Afghanistan. Some people are adventurous, some aren’t.

  289. Pip says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:12 pm  (Quote)

    The Shaggy school of litigation?

    “It wasn’t me.”

    sfjeff:

    When a person flat out lies….and is caught in the lie….and then lies about his lie…

  290. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Don’t give me that pretentious bunk.

    You calling someone else pretentious is the pot calling the kettle black. But by all means keep digging your hole deeper. You’ll hit Australia eventually.

  291. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:47 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: But by all means keep digging your hole deeper. You’ll hit Australia eventually.

    Nooooooo…don’t do that to Oz.

  292. misha marinsky says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:52 pm  (Quote)

    Pip: I’m the adventurous sort, and not necessarily put off by travel advisories

    When I went to Israel, there was a travel advisory. Everyone said, “Only you would go to a war zone for a vacation.”

  293. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:09 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: And my reply is yes, provided they are naturalized at birth.

    Fair enough.

  294. Saint James says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:02 am  (Quote)

    JPotter: An example for a psych class. As part of an effort to chronicle contemporary, popular (you know what I mean) delusions.

    Indeed, I frequented that video to observe exchanges between posters to use them for my psych class!

  295. brygenon says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:08 am  (Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: Mr Amar’s argument is a tautology, i.e., a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen.” Rather absurd.

    Mr. Apuzzo, do you even know what those words mean? If my quote of Professor Amar’s is a tautology, then arguing *against* it would be absurd. Tautologies are always true.

    Also, contrary to your description, it’s not Amar’s argument. He was explaining, not arguing. *I* was arguing: A renowned constitutional scholar says… My argument was an appeal to authority, which would have been a fallacy were Amar not really an expert, or had he been disagreeing with most other experts, or had I misrepresented what he said, or had what he said not been relevant the question at issue. I looked all that up. I got the boxes checked.

    Do you know who, besides me, has cited Professor Amar? The Supreme Court of the United States in more than twenty cases.

    Do you know who, besides me and the SCOTUS, has cited Amar? You, Mr. Apuzzo. Check your reply brief to the District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and your opening brief to the Circuit Court. You cited as an authority Amar’s book, America’s Constitution: A Biography (Random House, 2005. ISBN-13: 978-1400062621). Did you get as far as page 164?

    Of course you don’t have to agree with everything your authorities say. Still, you look pretty silly crying “tautology” and “absurd” when I quote an expert that you yourself cited as an authority saying:

    The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2008/02/the_constitution_and_the_candidates.html

  296. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:32 am  (Quote)

    brygenon: The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.

    Still not agreeing with that interpretation. Certainly under WKA, such a notion would be found in common law and it isn’t.

    But in the spirit of Christmas I will let this one lie.

  297. Pip says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:51 am  (Quote)

    My ex-girlfriend is Israeli, and now she is back living in Jerusalem. I understand completely.

    misha marinsky: When I went to Israel, there was a travel advisory. Everyone said, “Only you would go to a war zone for a vacation.”

  298. Lupin says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:22 am  (Quote)

    Regarding Obama’s passport, we know that Obama visited the South of France in the early 80s (source: Interview given to French channel Canal-Plus transcribed & posted on the WH site) and also a couple of hoteliers interviewed remembered him as this nice, pleasant American black (loosely translated).

    While this does not constitute direct evidence, it’s hard to imagine how Obama could have entered France, etc., without a US passport.

  299. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:57 am  (Quote)

    nbc:
    Harry Accornero of Laconia who supported her follies was replaced in the latest elections with a Democrat

    Awesome! What a douche. It also looks like he might be lowering his public profile as his FB page that was rife with delusional bigotry, blatant birthery lies and paranoia appears to be no longer active.

    Harry’s e-mail rant to every New Hampshire State Representative on October 14th, 2011:

    Open letter to all Members of Congress,

    I am formally asking you to bring a commission of treason against Mr. Barack Husain Obama.

    We have a President who allows our borders to be violated by illegals of any country while we are at war. He allows them work permits, access to our services and when apprehended by law enforcement refuses to have them jailed or deported. Barack Husain Obama has crossed the line, and under Article III section 3 of our Constitution is guilty of treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy and attempting to over throw our government from within. Now is the time for members of Congress to finally do your Constitutional duty and hold Barack Husain Obama accountable for his crimes against America. Mr. Obama is a fraudulent president who is selling out America. Its time Mr. Obama is called accountable for his treasonous actions. I can only hope our members of Congress have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done. It is time to make up your mind “Do you stand with this fraud and treasons president of with the American people and our Constitution which you swore to protect and defend”?

    Thank you,
    Harry Accornero 603-xxx-xxxx (redacted)
    Representative, Laconia, NH

    More on Hopeless Harry and his birther buddies:
    http://miscellanyblue.com/post/13092649100

    “. . . you better not get out of the house without a mask!”

  300. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:59 am  (Quote)

    The Best of what the Tea party has to offer for sure.

  301. Lani says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:04 am  (Quote)

    I have friends, men and women, who backpacked around the world in the late ’70’s and early 80’s. Those treks included Afghanistan and Pakistan. They often relied on the kindness of families they knew through classmates. They weren’t scared, they weren’t stopped at crossing points. Nothing unusual occurred. And no one now thinks they aren’t US citizens because of their travels.

  302. brygenon says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:01 am  (Quote)

    nbc: An interesting opinion at best. But that does not mean that we can ignore the precedent that points to the opposite

    That’s why I wrote, “The Article II eligibility of foreign-born children of citizens was historically more controversial than that of native-born children of foreigners.” I did not ignore past precedent, but I sure did refute your paragraph implying that one need only realize simple logic to find that *only* those born on U.S. soil are eligible to be president. If I’m misrepresenting your position, please correct me.

    nbc: If the Founders had believed that children born abroad to US citizens were natural born under common law principles, then why did they find it necessary to take care of the status of said children?

    Far as your question is from relevance to reality, I’ll try to answer. I think the Founders took on the status of children of citizens born abroad at the federal level because leaving it to the several states would be an inscrutable mess. NBC, your tunnel-vision and obsession with English Common Law did not afflict the Founders. It was their language, and language is important, but there’s a reason we still call what they did a revolution.

    nbc: The fourteenth amendment is clear: Birth or naturalization in the US, not birth outside the US

    Sure, but what could possibly be going through your head to lead you to post that as if it were an argument against anything I wrote? Birthers oft point out that the Fourteenth amendment did not repeal the Article II eligibility requirements, nor did it use the “natural born” language. Birtherism is crank nonsense, and if I ever suggested NBC was on that level it was mistake and I regret it, but there’s stuff here that needs saying.

    NBC’s take is not real. Application of common law does mean we should argue about the foundation and what the originators meant, interesting as that may be. Actually, it means the opposite: Under common law, the law today is what the courts held yesterday, except for what the legislature changed it this morning, possibly requiring the signature of the executive. Google it already.

    nbc: We have gone over this before and I politely disagree with your distinguished scholar.

    On that, we find ourselves in agreement.

    Agreement is boring. In the unlikely possibility that anyone is still reading, I’d bet it’s not in hopes of seeing NBC myself make all nice. I’ll keep this quick: Obvious and boring as it is, I note that my strong disagreements with NBC are a vastly different matter from my revulsion and disgust at the birthers, present company — you know who — included. Now back to my sincere attempts to utterly refute NBC…

    There are some new outcomes since the time when NBC and I last debated all that here. There’s another report by the Congressional Research Service, and at least one court opinion directly on this issue. The old pattern repeated: NBC restated his long-winded focus on tangential points from the Common Law of England from hundreds of yeas ago, while the actual authorities that decide cases reaffirmed what I’ve been saying all along.

    Plus, it just so happened that our host, Dr. Conspiracy, officially came around to my side on this particular question.
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/framer-v-farmer/
    I don’t know whether my arguments here had any effect on our host, and I’d bet that if he reads this he’ll be astonished that anyone would care enough to make note. Passionate as we may be, we’re not all that important. That said, I am all smug and self-satisfied that Dr. C. — near as I can tell — has taken my position on the issue.

  303. Reality Check says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:35 am  (Quote)

    A most excellent smack down nbc!

    Mario foolishly claims that WKA was not about him being a natural born citizen. It most certainly was. But he goes even further and dishonestly tries to claim the ruling actually supports his dead wrong claim that Minor defined natural born citizen.

    nbc:
    For Mario’s sake:

    From the opposing brief by the Appellant (Government)

    I am not even sure if Mario realizes how the appeal tried to argue many of Mario’s positions (and lost)…

    and

    So much fun…

  304. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:23 am  (Quote)

    JPotter: FIFY.But hey, glad to see you’re trying to master the new words you’ve picked up here at OCT!

    I did not pick up any words here at OCT. It is you and your toadies that have picked up words from me.

  305. RetiredLawyer says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:25 am  (Quote)

    Hi all,

    I’ve got a research problem: I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the “Obama was born in Kenya” meme first appeared in an April Fool’s Day post. I’ve been trying to find said post for the past day, and I’ve had to slog thru so much dreck that I’ve almost given up. Would anyone here be able to direct me to the beginning post of said meme?

    Thanks in advance.

  306. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:27 am  (Quote)

    Lani: I have friends, men and women, who backpacked around the world in the late ’70′s and early 80′s. Those treks included Afghanistan and Pakistan. They often relied on the kindness of families they knew through classmates. They weren’t scared, they weren’t stopped at crossing points. Nothing unusual occurred. And no one now thinks they aren’t US citizens because of their travels.

    Do your friends have literary agent biographies, contemporaneous African newspapers, and members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya?

  307. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    I find joy in the sense of humor that others have. One special example is someone that chose the screen on Orly’s site: Rhesus Monkey, ESQ.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=364416#comments

  308. JPotter says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:53 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I did not pick up any words here at OCT.

    Your posts say otherwise. 😉

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It is you and your toadies

    I have “toadies”? Do they require much care? Do I have to pay them?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do your friends have literary agent biographies, contemporaneous African newspapers, and members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya?

    My friends don’t, but Meja Mwangi does. Or are you speaking of Binyavanga Wainaina
    ?

  309. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:55 am  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer: Hi all,I’ve got a research problem: I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the “Obama was born in Kenya” meme first appeared in an April Fool’s Day post. I’ve been trying to find said post for the past day, and I’ve had to slog thru so much dreck that I’ve almost given up. Would anyone here be able to direct me to the beginning post of said meme? Thanks in advance.

    I think you are incorrect about the April Fool’s post. As I recall, the first mention of “born in Kenya” was in comments on the legal blog, “The Volokh Conspiracy”. It was posed not as “Obama was born in Kenya”, but, rather, as a moot court sort of exercise, whether, if that were true, he would be eligible (Professor Volokh said no). Ths would date from Spring 2008, but not necessarily April 1.

    The April Fool’s post had to do with Obama supposedly having gone to Occidental as a foreign student. That post was from April 1, 2009.

    At least that is my recollection.

  310. JPotter says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    RetiredLawyer: I’ve got a research problem: I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the “Obama was born in Kenya” meme first appeared in an April Fool’s Day post.

    Is this what you mean?
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/

  311. Thomas Brown says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:14 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: I think you are incorrect about the April Fool’s post.As I recall, the first mention of “born in Kenya” was in comments on the legal blog, “The Volokh Conspiracy”.It was posed not as “Obama was born in Kenya”, but, rather, as a moot court sort of exercise, whether, if that were true, he would be eligible (Professor Volokh said no).Ths would date from Spring 2008, but not necessarily April 1.

    The April Fool’s post had to do with Obama supposedly having gone to Occidental as a foreign student. That post was from April 1, 2009.

    At least that is my recollection.

    I believe you have it right. And as I recall, the author of the Occidental/foreign-student hoax came out and admitted to the April-Fool’s gag, but was then astonished that Birfistan continued to embrace the idea even after he ‘fessed up.

    So easy to underestimate the idiocy of Birfers.

  312. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:19 am  (Quote)

    HuffPo wrote a big Taitz article. They did what I do–skim her web site and find stuff to make fun of. I call this “being lazy” when I do it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/orly-taitz-protest_n_2271452.html

  313. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    This is the definitive article on the origins of this meme:

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html

    RetiredLawyer: I’ve got a research problem: I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the “Obama was born in Kenya” meme first appeared in an April Fool’s Day post.

  314. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:31 am  (Quote)

    JPotter: I have “toadies”? Do they require much care? Do I have to pay them?

    You need to pad their paychecks and swamp them with kindness.

    Apparently, Putzie, the pathetic birther idiot, is stranded in the early 1800s with his own merry band of servile parasites.

  315. The Magic M says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:45 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do your friends have literary agent biographies, contemporaneous African newspapers, and members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya?

    You are arguing in circles. This was about your “Pakistan travel ban” claim which does not magically turn from false to true because somebody claimed Obama was born in Kenya.

    Do you argue that way in court as well? The old “throw enough dirt to see how much sticks” method? Heck, I would rip you to pieces in court, even though I’m a layman (but no Klayman) from another country. In fact, I only see this line of reasoning from laymen who have no idea how things work in court.

    I bet that if we discussed “members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya”, you would retort “did your friends also travel to Pakistan when it was forbidden?”.

  316. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:50 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: You are arguing in circles. This was about your “Pakistan travel ban” claim which does not magically turn from false to true because somebody claimed Obama was born in Kenya.I bet that if we discussed “members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya”, you would retort “did your friends also travel to Pakistan when it was forbidden?”.

    Reading comprehension and logical thought would be appreciated.

  317. Lupin says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:53 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do your friends have literary agent biographies […] saying they were born in Kenya?

    Look: Mario Apuzzo, perjurer, once again making hay of half-truths and already widely debunked stories.

    He can’t help himself.

    Mario: look up Julius Streicher. Birds of a feather.

  318. Daniel says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Reading comprehension and logical thought would be appreciated.

    Isn’t that what the court said to you… when you lost?

  319. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 10:56 am  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Mario you idiot there are travel advisories to pretty much any country you go to take for instance Mexico or the Dominican which Lucas Smith is fond of. Even the Caribbean. It’s obvious he went on an American passport. The point is that you guys lied about a travel ban to try to claim Obama had some other passport. You’ve also seen no proof of an indonesian passport or british passport but it hasn’t stopped birthers like you from speculating.

    Your are the idiot who has a reading comprehension problem. I did not say there was only a travel advisory to Pakistan.

  320. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:01 am  (Quote)

    nbc: I have no idea. Perhaps that’s why he is unwilling to apologize for the statement made? The claim that there was a ban is not supported by evidence and in fact contradicted. Perhaps Mario can shine some light on this?

    First, you are just one fallacy after another.Whether there was any travel ban to Pakistan in 1981-82 has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    Second, the Obots look at Attorney Berg’s Pakistan travel “ban” as the gift that keeps on giving.They use it to create a straw man argument against me and declare victory.The point about Obama’s alleged Pakistan travel is that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82.There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it.Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country.I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country.But the point is not what type of ban was there, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban.The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan.I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81.In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time.

  321. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:06 am  (Quote)

    Kerchner v. Obama:

    Apuzzo: 78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.

    “The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!”
    – Tennessee Williams

  322. Rickey says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:10 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Reading comprehension and logical thought would be appreciated.

    Let’s test your reading comprehension.

    I posted a link to the 1981 Pakistan travel advisory, but to make it easy for you I will post it again. Please read it and tell us where it says anything about Pakistan being dangerous for Americans.

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

  323. misha marinsky says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:14 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan,

    I hope it keeps you up at night.

  324. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Your are the idiot who has a reading comprehension problem. I did not say there was only a travel advisory to Pakistan.

    No you said in Kerchner V Obama that travel to Pakistan was forbidden to Americans. So apparently it is you who is the idiot with a reading comprehension problem. You also have a problem with the meaning of words in that travel advisories aren’t about dangers to americans. In fact the original advisory said nothing about there being danger to Americans. How about being a man for once Mario and admitting you were wrong?

  325. misha marinsky says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:16 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Mario: look up Julius Streicher. Birds of a feather.

    Thank you.

    Orly Taitz is playing with fire.

  326. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do your friends have literary agent biographies, contemporaneous African newspapers, and members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya?

    “Hey look over there!!” Mario this is about your lie that travel was forbidden to Pakistan for Americans during that time period. So you either failed to do your research or you perjured yourself which is it Mario?

    Also there weren’t “members” you guys like to inflate things. One guy said something he had no way of knowing. During the same session they claimed America had 51 states and attributed a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt to FDR. There was a biography that was never published in print and the own publisher said they made an error and never checked with Obama.

  327. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Let’s test your reading comprehension.I posted a link to the 1981 Pakistan travel advisory, but to make it easy for you I will post it again. Please read it and tell us where it says anything about Pakistan being dangerous for Americans. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

    Are you kidding me? Talk about reading comprehension. Did I say that the travel advisory said that Pakistan was dangerous for Americans? Please, don’t waste my time.

  328. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:33 am  (Quote)

    brygenon: Amar

    The historical record and cases from our U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)) demonstrate that born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” are both the sufficient and necessary conditions for being a “natural born Citizen” and that satisfying these conditions causes one to be not only a “born citizen” but also a “natural born Citizen.” This “natural born Citizen” is not to be conflated and confounded with any Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth who does not acquire that status by being born in the country to “citizen” parents, but rather by being born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” for example, by being born in the United States to one or two domiciled and resident alien parents. See Wong Kim Ark (the Court held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth because he was born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents). Not satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., born in the country to “citizen” parents, a Wong Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is a “born citizen,” but not a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, I did not nor would I argue “against” Professor Amar for having said that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born citizen,” for being a “born citizen” is a necessary consequent of being a “natural born Citizen.” What I said is that he does not provide a real definition of a “natural born Citizen,” but only a repetition of the same words to define the clause which I consider to be a tautology, i.e., his statement is true only by virtue of its form and nothing else. With being born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” being the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a “natural born Citizen,” simply saying that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” does not provide any definition of the clause, but rather only a repetition of part of the words of the clause (“born citizen”) which in and of itself is a necessary consequent of being a “natural born Citizen,” but not a sufficient condition. For these reasons, Professor Amar also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

    I cited and quoted Amar because he recognizes the importance of Vattel to the Founders and Framers, not because I agree with his definition of a “natural born Citizen.” There is nothing wrong with my reliance upon him for that limited purpose. You even concede that one does not have to agree with everything an authority may say on any given subject.

  329. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:36 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are you kidding me?Talk about reading comprehension.Did I say that the travel advisory said that Pakistan was dangerous for Americans?Please, don’t waste my time.

    You implied it. Twice on this thread alone.

    “[Pakistan] was a dangerous place for an American to visit.”

    Did they teach you to make unsubstantiated claims at Temple?

    The alumni association must be so proud.

    “There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit.” – Apuzzo

    Are you drunk? No matter. Your blatant lies and stupidity are still pretty funny. You should consider stand up comedy. You certainly suck at law.

  330. gorefan says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:41 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: contemporaneous African newspapers

    Wait – you have African newspapers from 1961 that say the President was born in Kenya?

    if not what is the oldest African newspaper that says he was born in Kenya?

  331. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:56 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: .In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel ban for Americans to that nation at that time.

    Please present legal arguments under which it matters. What law forbids a US citizen, even a future President, from holding and using passports of other countries in addition to a US passport?

  332. Rickey says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are you kidding me?Talk about reading comprehension.Did I say that the travel advisory said that Pakistan was dangerous for Americans?Please, don’t waste my time.

    Now you are being disingenuous – not that it is any great surprise.

    So what was your point in bringing up the travel advisory? It simply explains the visa requirements, including where they could be obtained and how long they were valid. The State Department issues such advisories for every foreign country, and every country’s rules are different. When there are dangers involved in traveling to foreign countries, the State Department issues travel alerts and travel warnings. Have you never traveled to a foreign country? You should try it some time, as you might learn something.

    For your edification, here is the current travel advisory on Italy:

    http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1146.html

  333. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm  (Quote)

    Is Mario still avoiding the issue that the attorney for the appellant (Government) in Wong Kim Ark clearly understood the impact of the lower Court’s ruling?

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated:Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen … (p.2)

    or how the lower Court, like the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Mario is so fond of?

    The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

    I understand Mario…

  334. Saint James says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm  (Quote)

    : Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: contemporaneous African newspapers

    Like the contemporaneous Hawaiian newspaper birth announcement?

    Mario Apuzzo, KKK, DUI Esq…seems like you’re again being shredded to pieces on this thread…keep it up!

  335. Jim says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:09 pm  (Quote)

    Mario you can beat that dead horse to your heart’s content, but it will still be dead. You either need to come up with some new material, or quit calling yourself a lawyer and start calling yourself a con man.

  336. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:11 pm  (Quote)

    Mario tries: First, you are just one fallacy after another.Whether there was any travel ban to Pakistan in 1981-82 has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    And yet, you raised it as an issue in your brief in Kerchner v Obama. I guess you have come to realize how foolish the argument really was. But have you apologized for your follies? Instead you blame the ‘obots’…

    Fascinating Mario, truly fascinating… Says a lot about a man who cannot admit that he was wrong….

    Now it’s time to go back to US v WKA and your ill-informed statements about the lower court ruling…

    Don’t worry, I have not forgotten 😉

  337. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:15 pm  (Quote)

    Saint James: Mario Apuzzo, KKK, DUI Esq…seems like you’re again being shredded to pieces on this thread…keep it up!

    Now now… That’s somewhat uncalled for, I believe. You can make fun of his career as a DUI attorney, but to refer to him as KKK.

    One need not insult Mario to expose his arguments as lacking in reason, logic and historical support.

  338. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: contemporaneous African newspapers

    Wait – you have African newspapers from 1961 that say the President was born in Kenya?

    Mario’s control of the English language has never been that strong, or so I have come to conclude 😉

  339. Saint James says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: One need not insult Mario to expose his arguments as lacking in reason, logic and historical support.

    mea culpa!….I realized that I will have to show proof of his affinity with the KKK.

  340. Lupin says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Now now… That’s somewhat uncalled for, I believe. You can make fun of his career as a DUI attorney, but to refer to him as KKK.

    One need not insult Mario to expose his arguments as lacking in reason, logic and historical support.

    Actually, I disagree.

    Everyone deserves a defense, even drunk drivers, so while Mario’s DUI career doesn’t qualify him to turn himself into a constitutional lawyer overnight, it is at least honorable.

    As for his association with the KKK or (as i always say more generally) a like-minded far right organization, if it quacks like a duck…

  341. Lupin says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: you are just one fallacy after another.

    In moment of rare candor, Mario looks at himself in a mirror.

  342. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: You implied it. Twice on this thread alone.“[Pakistan] was a dangerous place for an American to visit.” Did they teach you to make unsubstantiated claims at Temple?The alumni association must be so proud.“There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit.” – ApuzzoAre you drunk? No matter. Your blatant lies and stupidity are still pretty funny. You should consider stand up comedy. You certainly suck at law.

    You are hopeless. Show me where I said the travel advisory gave any of that information.

  343. Lupin says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I cited and quoted Amar because he recognizes the importance of Vattel to the Founders

    Which as demonstrated here many times is an utterly hollow argument.

  344. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm  (Quote)

    Mario, on his lair, posts the following

    The historical record and cases from our U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)) demonstrate that born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” are both the sufficient and necessary conditions for being a “natural born Citizen” and that satisfying these conditions causes one to be not only a “born citizen” but also a “natural born Citizen.”

    This is totally at odds with the reality of these cases. First of all, Minor never claimed that its definition of who was natural born was complete but it did observe how our Constitution recognizes two modes of citizenship: birth or statute. The first results in natural born citizenship, the latter in naturalized citizenship.

    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.

    While Minor observed that it was not clear if children born on soil to alien parents were citizens (and thus natural born) it did observe that under common law, it was clear that birth on soil grants such citizenship to children born to us citizen parents. In US v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court took up the question as raised by the attorney for the appellant (Government):

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated:Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen … (p.2)

    In order to rule as they did, the Court had to determine if Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. Observing that he could not be a citizen under the naturalization acts, they had to determine if there were other paths to citizenship. Observing that under the US constitution, as recognized in the declaratory 14th Amendment on this issue, that it recognized natural born citizenship, the court decided to determine what the meaning of this term was. The appellant had argued that it had to be interpreted under the Law of Nations, a position rejected by the lower Court. The Court in WKA found that the term Natural Born meant plainly: Birth on soil, under jurisdiction.

    It therefor recognized Wong Kim Ark as a (natural born) citizen, rejecting most of Mario’s musings, raised by the appellant.

    The Arizona Court understood

    Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

    But in Mario’s world, all these Courts fail to understand his genius. Or perhaps… they do?

  345. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Wait – you have African newspapers from 1961 that say the President was born in Kenya?if not what is the oldest African newspaper that says he was born in Kenya?

    Like I have begged, reading comprehension would be appreciated. Did I say contemporaneous to what?

  346. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Mario’s control of the English language has never been that strong, or so I have come to conclude

    Poor nbc, he is still trying to win one argument with me but still fails miserably.

  347. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: And yet, you raised it as an issue in your brief in Kerchner v Obama. I guess you have come to realize how foolish the argument really was. But have you apologized for your follies? Instead you blame the ‘obots’…Fascinating Mario, truly fascinating… Says a lot about a man who cannot admit that he was wrong….Now it’s time to go back to US v WKA and your ill-informed statements about the lower court ruling…Don’t worry, I have not forgotten

    You continue with your stupid reasoning which to you in your pretentious world think to be correct. “Natural born Citizen” has two components, birth in the country and birth to citizen parents. The question of what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan goes to place of birth as a minimum and was highly relevant to the Kerchner case. So, again you fail.

  348. Saint James says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:46 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Did I say contemporaneous to what?

    : Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do your friends have literary agent biographies, contemporaneous African newspapers, and members of the Kenyan Parliament saying they were born in Kenya?

    Now, it’s your reading comprehension that’s in question!

  349. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit.” – Mario Apuzzo

    Where is your evidence? Do you understand the concept of evidence? I don’t think you do.

    From Kerchner v Obama:

    78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. – Mario Apuzzo

    Do you know what forbidden means? It’s not even one of those “Jewish” words you despise.

    You’re incapable of admitting you were wrong. That’s pathetic.

  350. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: . . . and was highly relevant to the Kerchner case. So, again you fail.

    And you won that case, right?

    How many eligibility cases have you won?

    Is it a number higher than zero?

  351. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    Saint James: Like the contemporaneous Hawaiian newspaper birth announcement?

    So you concede that contemporaneous newspapers have at least some probative value.

  352. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Reading comprehension and logical thought would be appreciated.

    If that was a requirement, we wouldn’t see any of your posts.

    Meanwhile- why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?

  353. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue with your stupid reasoning which to you in your pretentious world think to be correct. “Natural born Citizen” has two components, birth in the country and birth to citizen parents. The question of what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan goes to place of birth as a minimum and was highly relevant to the Kerchner case. So, again you fail.

    So Mario,

    Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was banned?

  354. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: And you won that case, right?

    You continue to waste my time. How does a case decided on standing alone which never reached the merits of the definition of “natural born Citizen” dispose of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen?” It does not, not even in the least degree.

  355. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have begged, reading comprehension would be appreciated. Did I say contemporaneous to what?

    Okay.

    Mario- why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?

  356. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue to waste my time.How does a case decided on standing alone which never reached the merits of the definition of“natural born Citizen” dispose of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen?”It does not, not even in the least degree.

    How many eligibility cases have you won?

    Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden? Were you high?

  357. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:58 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: So Mario,Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was banned?

    Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

  358. Saint James says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you concede that contemporaneous newspapers have at least some probative value.

    If by “concede” you mean acknowledge, then yes! Will you show me a contemporaneous African newspaper saying Obama was born in Kenya?

  359. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Apuzzo: 78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.

    Apuzzo: 78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.

    Mario- why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?

    Rather than waste our time with telling us that we have reading comprehension problems- answer the question.

  360. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: How many eligibility cases have you won?Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden? Were you high?

    You lost this one. Give it up.

  361. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

    Mario- why did you claim that there was a travel ban to Pakistan?

  362. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

    Please produce the law forbidding a US citizen to have or use a passport from another country.

  363. misha marinsky says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you concede that contemporaneous newspapers have at least some probative value.

    Circular reasoning.

  364. gorefan says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:11 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Did I say contemporaneous to what?

    No, you were vague as usual. That’s why I asked the followup question. Here is another for you between 1990 and 2000 how many African newspapers say he was born in Kenya? How many US newspapers say he was born in Hawaii?

  365. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:12 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So you concede that contemporaneous newspapers have at least some probative value.

    If it can be shown that their source comes from information source that has first hand knowledge. In case of the Hawaiian newspapers, they support the fact that the birth certificate shows President Obama born on US soil. Under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, newspapers are self authenticating. Whether or not the information they contain is relevant, is determined by circumstance. We know that the DOH of Hawaii submitted its new births to the newspapers for distribution and thus the source of the information is credible.

    Now if you find a foreign newspaper that announces President Obama’s birth in Kenya… But these ‘contemporaneous newspapers’ are recent newspapers which lack any first hand knowledge of where President Obama was born.

  366. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:12 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Please produce the law forbidding a US citizen to have or use a passport from another country.

    There is none.

  367. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue with your stupid reasoning which to you in your pretentious world think to be correct. “Natural born Citizen” has two components, birth in the country and birth to citizen parents. The question of what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan goes to place of birth as a minimum and was highly relevant to the Kerchner case. So, again you fail.

    Affirming the consequence dear Mario. You call it ‘stupid reasoning’ but I have shown how courts have held this to be factual. There is no support that natural born citizen requires birth to citizen parents.

    The question about the passport was premised on the assumption that President Obama could not have traveled to Pakistan on a US passport and thus he must have had a foreign passport. Lacking this, any claims of a foreign passport lack foundation in fact and relevance. Furthermore, you have failed to explain why the use of let’s say, an UK passport would preclude President Obama from being a natural born.

    Dual citizenship is of no consequence to the status of a child born on US soil. So even assuming that President Obama traveled on a foreign passport, this by itself does nothing to undermine his native birth on US soil, making him under Common Law, a natural born citizen.

    The concept that International Law guides the interpretation of Natural Born was outright rejected in WKA and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

  368. Jim says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:19 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

    Since you’re the one making the claims…where’s your proof he did not travel on an American passport?

  369. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:19 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

    Since it is you who makes the foolish assertion, is it not up to you to present the relevant evidence? Getting a bit confused as to the burden of proof here? In Kerchner, the burden of proof was attempted to be shifted to President Obama, by arguing that he could not have traveled to Pakistan on a US passport. Now that we know that this was a flawed foundation, the rest goes out with the wind…

  370. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: Mario- why did you claim that there was a travel ban to Pakistan?

    To overcome the burden of proof. By arguing that there was no possibility for President Obama to have traveled to Pakistan, Kerchner could ask to see under what foreign passport President Obama had traveled there. Now that we know that the foundation was flawed, the burden of proof reverts to Mario/Kerchner…

    They have nothing…

  371. dunstvangeet says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue to waste my time.How does a case decided on standing alone which never reached the merits of the definition of“natural born Citizen” dispose of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen?”It does not, not even in the least degree.

    You continue to waste my time. How does a case decided on whether or not the constitution contained within it a constitutiional right to vote dispose of the question of what a “natural born citizen” is when the court expressly said that it would not determine that definition?

  372. Saint James says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: How does a case decided on standing alone which never reached the merits of the definition of “natural born Citizen” dispose of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen?”

    Because your argument was “academic and has no legal merits in law”?

  373. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You lost this one. Give it up.

    Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?

    I don’t think you understand that either. There is SO MUCH you don’t understand.

    You said, “There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit.”

    Do you have proof? Do you understand what proof means?

    “Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?” – Apuzzo

    Do your defendants have the burden of proof in court?

    Do you know what burden of proof means? I don’t think you do.

    How about semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit?

    Your silly ban? You can’t admit you lied.

    Apuzzo: 78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.

  374. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You lost this one. Give it up.

    Wo why did you make that claim? And why do you refuse to address this? Did you know that the claim was wrong when it was submitted to the Court? Did you attempt to correct the statement when you found out? Will you admit to the fact that the statement was wrong, destroying your foundation for as to why you should be allowed to inspect the President’s passports?

  375. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Do your defendants have the burden of proof in court?

    Do you know what burden of proof means? I don’t think you do.

    I am sure he understands and he also understands that with the fall of the foundation of his argument that there was a ban, he also fails to place the burden on the side of the defendant.

  376. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue to waste my time. How does a case decided on standing alone which never reached the merits of the definition of “natural born Citizen” dispose of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen?” It does not, not even in the least degree.

    ROTFL and yet Mario appeals to Minor… Now that is hilarious… As to why the court’s findings are relevant, the Court explains. Reading comprehension Mario, reading comprehension. Not your strongest suit as you showed when you denied that the lower court’s case used the term natural born…

    Oh Mario, you are so much fun in you running away from that disaster. Come on face it head on. Admit to being wrong…

    Can you?

  377. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm  (Quote)

    It looks like everyone BUT (and it’s a big one) understands burden of proof except Apuzzo, the unrepentant, putative attorney and his birther buddies.

  378. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor nbc, he is still trying to win one argument with me but still fails miserably.

    Then why are you avoiding explaining you being confused about the lower court’s ruling? For starters…

    Keep denying the obvious Mario… You have shown yourself to be quite good at ignoring the many times you have been shown to have failed. More surprising, or perhaps not, is your inability to admit to such.

  379. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:34 pm  (Quote)

    Mario indeed argued in the past that

    Let us stay “on message” (I am sure you know how to do that) rather than argue the little stuff the need for which is created only because Mr. Obama refuses to meet HIS burden of proof to provide “conclusive” (putting an end to debate or question) evidence that he was born in the United States.

    ROTFL…

    Rickey already put to rest Mario’s ‘arguments’

    Mario’s Amended Complaint states “Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.” In his Second Amended Complaint, Mario asserts “Obama stated publicly to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using a U.S. passport.” [emphasis mine]

    Both assertions are flat-out misstatements of fact. Travel to Pakistan was not “forbidden” or “prohibited” to U.S. citizens in 1981. But Mario cannot bring himself to acknowledge that he was wrong, so now he concocts some mumbo-jumbo about a “de facto” ban on travel to Pakistan. A travel advisory is not a ban, Mario. The New York Times would not a have published a travel article in 1981 giving Americans advice on what to do and see in Pakistan if Americans were not allowed to go there.

    Sorry Mario, but the burden of proof is something you may want to study up on some more.

  380. brygenon says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:40 pm  (Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

    Because we think the rules for Barack Hussein Obama should be the same as the rules for the first 43 presidents. Can you show us other presidents’ passports from decades before they held the office?

    Mario, what you wrote about travel to Pakistan in your “Second Amended and Verified Complaint” was false. Specifically:

    “and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport”

    and,

    “But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at the time.”

    No, Mario, you and your client knew no such thing, and had you exercised anything resembling due diligence, you would have found there was no such prohibition.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong on this: a “verified” complaint means that your client swore to the allegations made therein. Mario, when you learned that claims in your verified complaint were false, what did you do about it? Did you inform the Court?

  381. bovril says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm  (Quote)

    Now Putzie, after making your wholly asinine comment about how nhw only lower courts etc had ruled on Birfoon issues I pointed out that was utter BS, yet as if by magic you fail AGAIN to respond.

    Just as a reminder

    What about the 22 yes TWENTY TWO times the Supreme Court has made a specific, positive and binding decision to refuse cert for this cack of the Birtfoons?

    Idiots like you have 22 (TWENTY TWO)TIMES had the opportunity to present your nonsense to the Supreme Court and 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES times the SC has not only refused cert but have NEVER asked for any more details, documents or briefs.

    So yes they have seen the Birther cack, read the Birther cack, probably laughed or sighed in irritation AGAIN at the Birther cack and made a decision not to hear the Birther cack.

    In the real world that means the SC finds zero, no, nada, zilch merit in the birther cack.

    SC says no 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES Birthers like you whine that no one has looked at your cack when in reality it has been rejected by the SC 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES.

    Come on Putzie boy, care to retract your cretinous remark along with the Pakistan travel ban one???

  382. Yoda says:
    December 11, 2012 at 1:58 pm  (Quote)

    I am shocked at the lack of fundamental legal knowledge that Putzie and other birther lawyers exhibit. From not understanding how to serve documents, through having no comprehension of the full faith and credit clause.

    It is hard to imagine that Putzie can actually claim that the term Citizen of the United States does not include Natural Born Citizens. Clearly that defies any semblence of logic and/or reason. And it is one thing to refuse to admit that he lied about the ban to travel to Pakistan, but to continue to suggest that he is entitled to see the passport despite the lie is just amazing. It would be akin to demanding to provide an alibi to a crime that never took place. Even a person with a HS diploma, like me, can understand that.

    And Putzie, I am still waiting for you to answer the 12 questions I posed to you on the other thread. Because you failed and/or refused to answer them, I must assume that you can’t. And they are elementary questions Putzie. They should be easy to answer.

  383. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I have begged, reading comprehension would be appreciated. Did I say contemporaneous to what?

    Do you even know what the word contemporaneous even means mario?

  384. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue with your stupid reasoning which to you in your pretentious world think to be correct. “Natural born Citizen” has two components, birth in the country and birth to citizen parents. The question of what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan goes to place of birth as a minimum and was highly relevant to the Kerchner case. So, again you fail.

    Stupidest reasoning ever. If one becomes naturalized they can get a passport from the country they naturalize in. You claiming something about the passport has no basis in reality. Obama was born in the US. He never traveled to Kenya until he was much older. He didn’t travel to England until he was much older. His passport would have been from the US. When exactly would he have made the trip to get a foreign passport Mario?

  385. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:13 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you not produce the passport which Obama used to travel to Pakistan which is the issue and not your silly ban?

    It wasn’t his silly ban it was your claim of a ban that didn’t exist. Or are you claiming some other person filled out the paperwork for you in Kerchner V Obama? You either admit you had no idea what you were doing or you perjured yourself. Which is it?

  386. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Since it is you who makes the foolish assertion, is it not up to you to present the relevant evidence? Getting a bit confused as to the burden of proof here? In Kerchner, the burden of proof was attempted to be shifted to President Obama, by arguing that he could not have traveled to Pakistan on a US passport. Now that we know that this was a flawed foundation, the rest goes out with the wind…

    This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

  387. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You lost this one. Give it up.

    I’ll take that as an admission that you perjured yourself in Kerchner V Obama when you claimed travel to pakistan by americans was forbidden.

  388. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

    He doesn’t want to be President he is President. He already proved it to the satisfaction of the electors, the majority of the voting public, and congress.

  389. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Do you even know what the word contemporaneous even means mario?

    Looks like you’ve been affected by too much noisy water. Contemporaneous means contemporary which means occurring or existing at the same time. What you fail to comprehend is that two events or things are needed in order to have a comparison which serves as the basis for the statement that the events occurred contemporaneously or the things are contemporaneous. I never told you what the second event was and you simply assumed it was Obama’s birth in 1961. It must really be depressing for you to be wrong all the time.

  390. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: He doesn’t want to be President he is President. He already proved it to the satisfaction of the electors, the majority of the voting public, and congress.

    Maybe someday you will argue something that it germane to the point. The issue was who has the burden of proof, not whether it as been met.

  391. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I’ll take that as an admission that you perjured yourself in Kerchner V Obama when you claimed travel to pakistan by americans was forbidden.

    I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot produce a copy of Obama’s passport which he used when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981-82.

  392. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:52 pm  (Quote)

    Yoda: I am shocked at the lack of fundamental legal knowledge that Putzie and other birther lawyers exhibit. From not understanding how to serve documents, through having no comprehension of the full faith and credit clause. It is hard to imagine that Putzie can actually claim that the term Citizen of the United States does not include Natural Born Citizens. Clearly that defies any semblence of logic and/or reason. And it is one thing to refuse to admit that he lied about the ban to travel to Pakistan, but to continue to suggest that he is entitled to see the passport despite the lie is just amazing. It would be akin to demanding to provide an alibi to a crime that never took place. Even a person with a HS diploma, like me, can understand that. And Putzie, I am still waiting for you to answer the 12 questions I posed to you on the other thread. Because you failed and/or refused to answer them, I must assume that you can’t. And they are elementary questions Putzie. They should be easy to answer.

    You and I already had our little debate in which you failed miserably.

  393. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 2:55 pm  (Quote)

    bovril: Now Putzie, after making your wholly asinine comment about how nhw only lower courts etc had ruled on Birfoon issues I pointed out that was utter BS, yet as if by magic you fail AGAIN to respond.Just as a reminderWhat about the 22 yes TWENTY TWO times the Supreme Court has made a specific, positive and binding decision to refuse cert for this cack of the Birtfoons?Idiots like you have 22 (TWENTY TWO)TIMES had the opportunity to present your nonsense to the Supreme Court and 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES times the SC has not only refused cert but have NEVER asked for any more details, documents or briefs.So yes they have seen the Birther cack, read the Birther cack, probably laughed or sighed in irritation AGAIN at the Birther cack and made a decision not to hear the Birther cack.In the real world that means the SC finds zero, no, nada, zilch merit in the birther cack.SC says no 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES Birthers like you whine that no one has looked at your cack when in reality it has been rejected by the SC 22 (TWENTY TWO) TIMES.Come on Putzie boy, care to retract your cretinous remark along with the Pakistan travel ban one???

    Poor, bovril, he just keeps citing irrelevant statistics.

  394. Jim says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:08 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous.Obama wants to be President.The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.”The burden of proof is on him.

    You’ll be happy to know that he has satisfied that burden to the satisfaction of a majority of the voters and to the satisfaction of Congress. That you don’t want to accept it is inconsequential.

  395. Yoda says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:09 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You and I already had our little debate in which you failed miserably.

    One has to wonder how you define victory and defeat. Assuming that we were having a debate, and we weren’t as you never accepted my challenge, and the measure of victory was whether I convinced YOU that you were wrong, then yes, I lost. However, in order to have a debate, there must be two different, opposing, potentially valid points or arguments. There aren’t. So no debate could be had. But more importantly, the victor of a debate is not determined by a subjective standard, but rather objectively.

    And objectively, this HS graduate kicked your lawyer butt from here to Los Angeles and back (and I live on the east coast). To put it bluntly, your karate is a joke.

    I am still waiting for the answers to my questions, boy. They are on the other thread, son. Take your time, I know you have difficulty understanding the english language.

  396. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous.

    I’ll bet judges love it when you mock the law.

    Do your DUI defendants have the burden of proof too?

    How many times have you been sued for malpractice?

  397. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: a copy of Obama’s passport

    Maybe you’ll get a chance to see it at his Presidential library one day if you’re not in a padded cell by then and you can beg or scrape up the change for admission.

  398. Daniel says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous.Obama wants to be President.The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.”The burden of proof is on him.

    I have to wonder if the fact that you don’t understand the concept of “burden of proof” is one of the reasons you keep failing in court?

  399. Daniel says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm  (Quote)

    Mario and Charlie Sheen are a lot alike….

    “WINNING!!!”

    Of course Charlie has since sobered up and seems to have come to his senses.

    Mario? Not so much…

  400. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It must really be depressing for you to be wrong all the time.

    The irony is strong with this one.

    How many eligibility cases have you won?

    Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?

    These are simple questions.

  401. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot produce a copy of Obama’s passport which he used when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981-82.

    The burden isn’t on me to produce a passport. You claimed in your perjurous pleading that travel to pakistan by an american was forbidden, it wasn’t. Obama’s passport had no relevance to your case.

  402. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe someday you will argue something that it germane to the point. The issue was who has the burden of proof, not whether it as been met.

    And you are the one with the burden of proof since you were the one claiming relevance of the passport to your case. Maybe someday you won’t entirely be laughed out of court.

  403. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:29 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

    Still unfamiliar with the law of our Country? There is no burden of proof and certainly no burden of proof to have to show his passport…

    Fail again my friend.

  404. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:30 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot produce a copy of Obama’s passport which he used when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981-82.

    Nor can you produce evidence that President Obama was using a non-US passport and since you make the argument, it is up to you to prove your position.

    Fail

  405. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor, bovril, he just keeps citing irrelevant statistics.

    Again Mario is unable to address these simple facts….

    Fail…

    When will Mario explain himself on the lower Court ruling in WKA?

    Well counsel? Can you admit to having been wrong?

    Tick Tock Tick Tock…

    Fail again

  406. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    Mario is again refusing to address any arguments. And yet he considers himself to be winning the arguments.

    Just like in the various courts where he has been continuing to win on this topic, dismissal after dismissal after dismissal after dismissal.

    Courts, including the WKA court have ruled against his position and yet…

    Love it…

  407. bovril says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm  (Quote)

    Irrelevant Putzie,

    You mean proof is irrelevant? As a putative officer of the court one would expect you to grasp how proof is not irrelevant.

    So, you admit that the Supreme Court has in fact seen your Birfoon cack as the real irrelevant nonsense it is by refusing to grant cert.

  408. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: And you are the one with the burden of proof since you were the one claiming relevance of the passport to your case. Maybe someday you won’t entirely be laughed out of court.

    That water must be getting noisier by the minute.

  409. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:50 pm  (Quote)

    bovril: Irrelevant Putzie,You mean proof is irrelevant? As a putative officer of the court one would expect you to grasp how proof is not irrelevant.So, you admit that the Supreme Court has in fact seen your Birfoon cack as the real irrelevant nonsense it is by refusing to grant cert.

    You profess to know so much about what the U.S. Supreme Court did. May I have the favor of your informing me of what was the reason the Court refused to hear the case? Given that the Court could refuse to hear a case for a sundry of reasons, if the Court’s refusal is to have any real meaning, at least we have to know why it refused the case so that we can rule out the reasons which do not go to establishing what the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Your mechanical speak will be most appreciated.

    I hope that I do not have to educate you on what “reasons” means.

  410. Yoda says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:56 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You profess to know so much about what the U.S. Supreme Court did. May I have the favor of your informing me of what was the reason the Court refused to hear the case? Given that the Court could refuse to hear a case for a sundry of reasons, if the Court’s refusal is to have any real meaning, at least we have to know why it refused the case so that we can rule out the reasons which do not go to establishing what the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is. Your mechanical speak will be most appreciated. I hope that I do not have to educate you on what “reasons” means.

    Putzie, either answer my questions, or admit that you can’t and that your ass kicked by someone with a HS diploma

  411. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm  (Quote)

    Yoda: Putzie, either answer my questions, or admit that you can’t and that your ass kicked by someone with a HS diploma

    His feeble posts have putrefied into repetitive, moldy and pathetic dreck.
    Oops, he despises those “Jewish” words.

  412. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:15 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Mario is again refusing to address any arguments. And yet he considers himself to be winning the arguments.Just like in the various courts where he has been continuing to win on this topic, dismissal after dismissal after dismissal after dismissal.Courts, including the WKA court have ruled against his position and yet…Love it…

    Try making reasoned and logical arguments with court citations as support rather than only speaking in a conclusory manner about what courts did and did not do.

  413. Rickey says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot produce a copy of Obama’s passport which he used when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981-82.

    I had Obama’s 1981 passport here in my files and now I can’t put my hands on it. I’ll let you know when I find it, so I can put your mind at ease.

    Now, about that travel ban…

  414. Taps says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    After you…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Try making reasoned and logical arguments with court citations as support rather than only speaking in a conclusory manner about what courts did and did not do.

  415. Yoda says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Try making reasoned and logical arguments with court citations as support rather than only speaking in a conclusory manner about what courts did and did not do.

    Why? You make up your authority by citing the wrong holdings for cases and twisting them. You have never put up one iota of support for your moronic opinions and conclusions, because none exists.

  416. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:33 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Nor can you produce evidence that President Obama was using a non-US passport and since you make the argument, it is up to you to prove your position.Fail

    You fail to understand the basics. The Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President. Hence, the burden is on Obama.

  417. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue with your stupid reasoning which to you in your pretentious world think to be correct. “Natural born Citizen” has two components, birth in the country and birth to citizen parents. The question of what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan goes to place of birth as a minimum and was highly relevant to the Kerchner case. So, again you fail.

    Of course what passports one holds does not “go to place of birth”. There are millions of people born in the US who hold or are eligible to hold foreign passports. I know quite a few personally. Of publically known individuals, let me cite a few:

    Mitt Romney (Mexico)
    Rick Santorum (Italy)
    Michelle Bachmann (Switzerland, OK, no, but she wanted one and would have had it if not for the publicity)
    Donald Trump (UK)
    Michael Dukakis (Greece)
    Ralph Nader (Lebanon)
    Tom Brady’s babies with Giselle Bundchen (Brazil)
    Mario Apuzzo (Italy)

    None of that would be relevant if they decided to run for President (Brady’s babies would have to wait).

  418. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:43 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand the basics. The Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President. Hence, the burden is on Obama.

    Which does not require President Obama to show his passport or anything else for that matter. There is only one institution which determines if the President has failed to qualify and that is congress.

    In 2008, they were satisfied as to his eligibility, as evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth.

    There is no requirement to be found anywhere that the President has a duty to show himself to be Natural Born. Certainly not in an environment of the Court where the issue clearly does not belong and where the rulings have been clear all the way back to US v Wong Kim Ark.

    Similarly your plaintiffs had no right to inspect President Obama’s ‘papers’ and the President had no duty to provide him with any such papers.

    Now, if you had been able to show that President Obama was not born on US soil, or having a foreign passport, you may have been able to go into discovery, although it is unlikely that the Court could grant any relief.

    But you raised the Pakistan ‘ban’ as a foundation to argue that President Obama must have been using a foreign passport, thus switching the burden of proof to the other side. But since the premise was flawed, there was thus no way you could convince the court to order President Obama to divulge his passport.

    You’re probably not too familiar with the rules of evidence and the burden of proof. Luckily the Courts have ruled on this as well.

  419. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Of course what passports one holds does not “go to place of birth”. There are millions of people born in the US who hold or are eligible to hold foreign passports. I know quite a few personally. Of publically known individuals, let me cite a few:Mitt Romney (Mexico)Rick Santorum (Italy)Michelle Bachmann (Switzerland, OK, no, but she wanted one and would have had it if not for the publicity)Donald Trump (UK)Michael Dukakis (Greece)Ralph Nader (Lebanon)Tom Brady’s babies with Giselle Bundchen (Brazil)Mario Apuzzo (Italy)None of that would be relevant if they decided to run for President (Brady’s babies would have to wait).

    Reading comprehension would be most appreciated. I said “goes to place of birth,” not determinative of place of birth.

  420. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Try making reasoned and logical arguments with court citations as support rather than only speaking in a conclusory manner about what courts did and did not do.

    I would extend the offer to you, were it not for the fact that you have shown limited familiarity with the court cases as evidenced by your statements about the lower Court’s ruling in WKA or the statements in Minor v Happersett which you confused to mean that the Court defined the meaning of the term natural born once and for all, when it observed that it would not rule on the status of those born to foreign parents on US soil.

    This was picked up by the Court in WKA which explored the meaning of the term Natural Born and rejected the ‘Vattel’ arguments raised by the opposing counsel.

    As to the individual court rulings, I could point you to the excellent collection by Dr Conspiracy which outlines the various rulings by Courts or hearing committees, that have rejected your poorly argued, meritless and academic position.

    Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), 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, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

    Could not be clearer really…. You tried the same arguments as raised in the original WKA case which were clearly rejected by the court.

    Now what? Time to read the rulings? GOod luck..

  421. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    As to Wong Kim Ark, we already know how it ruled

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    The same rule was in force in the United States afterwards (the Declaration of Independence)…

    What more do you really want… and how could any reasonable person deny these clear words?

  422. Yoda says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand the basics. The Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President. Hence, the burden is on Obama.

    Perhaps preliminary, yes. But the President’s ancestry is well known as is his birth in Hawaii. YOU are saying that he is not NBC, which has been accepted by everyone BUT birthers. Once his qualifications were accepted, the burden shifted to birthers to prove his ineligiblity. Obama owes you NOTHING.

    Where did you go to law school again?

  423. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Which does not require President Obama to show his passport or anything else for that matter. There is only one institution which determines if the President has failed to qualify and that is congress.In 2008, they were satisfied as to his eligibility, as evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth. There is no requirement to be found anywhere that the President has a duty to show himself to be Natural Born. Certainly not in an environment of the Court where the issue clearly does not belong and where the rulings have been clear all the way back to US v Wong Kim Ark.Similarly your plaintiffs had no right to inspect President Obama’s ‘papers’ and the President had no duty to provide him with any such papers.Now, if you had been able to show that President Obama was not born on US soil, or having a foreign passport, you may have been able to go into discovery, although it is unlikely that the Court could grant any relief.But you raised the Pakistan ‘ban’ as a foundation to argue that President Obama must have been using a foreign passport, thus switching the burden of proof to the other side. But since the premise was flawed, there was thus no way you could convince the court to order President Obama to divulge his passport.You’re probably not too familiar with the rules of evidence and the burden of proof. Luckily the Courts have ruled on this as well.

    nbc,

    You are so full of it. The court dismissed the case on standing on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint. We never got to any issue of discovery or passports or any of you other B.S.

  424. misha marinsky says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, the burden is on Obama.

    The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Of course, that’s my copy of the Constitution. Yours is different. Yours is the Mussolini version.

    And you call yourself a lawyer?!

  425. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm  (Quote)

    Did the judge in New Jersey buy that argument?

    Nevertheless, the verification sent by Hawaii to Arizona and Kansas comprise proof. So you lose either way.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

  426. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot produce a copy of Obama’s passport which he used when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981-82.

  427. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    I’m just curious Mario. Have you ever used the Italian passport you are entitled to? Technically, as an Italian citizen, you are supposed to use it to enter Italy and then use your US passport when you re-enter the US. I know these laws are almost never enforced, but you seem to be a stickler for fine legal points that no-one else cares about.

  428. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand the basics.

    If you’re lucky, maybe you can make the trip to Chicago to visit his Presidential library one day.

    Every time a toilet clogs, the library staff will tell the janitor that the birther exhibit needs to cleaned again.

    Here’s more proof of how successful your idiotic birther efforts are in court.

  429. Yoda says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    There is one almost universal truth amongst birthers–they have very poor reading comprehension skills. I am sure that many of them are also right wing “christians”, as there is a theme. They treat the Constitution and case law just the same way they treat the bible–by reading and accepting only portions, out of context and ignoring the balance of the written material.

    For example, Putzie will focus on the statement in WKA that ruled that he was a citizen, and ignore the 23 page discussion, which lead to the actual holding, which is that a person born on US soil is NBC regardless of parentage.

  430. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:57 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You are so full of it. The court dismissed the case on standing on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint. We never got to any issue of discovery or passports or any of you other B.S.

    Of course not, but even if you had overcome standing issues, your arguments as to why you should be allowed to see his papers were poorly explained, and shifted the burden of evidence to the defendant, contrary to good legal practices.

    The Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the first step necessary for a lawsuit to proceed and something which the Court cannot ignore and must raise sua sponte. The issue cannot be waived.

    However, this does not undermine my arguments about your belief that the defendant should prove his innocence. Several Judges I believe have tried to educate Orly on this matter. Perhaps a Court could hold a wider session to explain these basic facts?

  431. J.D. Reed says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:58 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

    “Wants to be president”? So silly! He IS president, and will be until Jan. 20, 2017.

  432. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:01 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor misha, he is still trying to come to grips with the countless of millions of innocent people her political mentors, on the command of Karl Marx, Lenin and Mao killed.

    How funny… Yes, ad hominems are much easier than arguments.

  433. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:04 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand the basics. The Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President.

    It says no such thing It speaks only of eliibility, not of BEING President. Even one as dense as you knows that.

  434. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:05 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Of course, that’s my copy of the Constitution. Yours is different. Yours is the Mussolini version.And you call yourself a lawyer?!

    Poor misha, how silly. There is no “plaintiff” when someone wants to run for President.

    Poor misha, he is still trying to come to grips with the reality of the countless of millions of innocent people her political mentors and heroes, on the command of Karl Marx, Stalin and Mao killed.

  435. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:10 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Of course not, but even if you had overcome standing issues, your arguments as to why you should be allowed to see his papers were poorly explained, and shifted the burden of evidence to the defendant, contrary to good legal practices. The Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the first step necessary for a lawsuit to proceed and something which the Court cannot ignore and must raise sua sponte. The issue cannot be waived. However, this does not undermine my arguments about your belief that the defendant should prove his innocence. Several Judges I believe have tried to educate Orly on this matter. Perhaps a Court could hold a wider session to explain these basic facts?

    I just love how when you are shown to be wrong you do not admit your error but rather go on to speak about matters that are not in dispute or not even relevant to the specific point of contention.

  436. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor misha, how silly. There is no “plaintiff” when someone wants to run for President.

    There is no requirement that specifies that the President shows himself to be natural born. There is no requirement that specifies that a car driver shows himself to be sober. When the issue is raised properly, either in court or through Congress, these issues may be resolved if the issues of standing and failure to state a claim can be overcome.

    Until then, as the Courts have shown, no legal remedies exist. Claiming that because the Constitution states that a President has to be eligible, that there is a duty on said President to show his papers to anyone who asks, is poorly argued at best.

  437. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

    Mario- why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was illegal?

    Because it seems to me that this was a flat out lie.

    And that your denials regarding this lie are therefore also lies.

    If you are willing to lie about something so ‘trivial’- why shouldn’t we assume that you are also lying about everything else you claim or have claimed?

  438. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:15 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I just love how when you are shown to be wrong you do not admit your error but rather go on to speak about matters that are not in dispute or not even relevant to the specific point of contention.

    So Mario, does this mean that you love in when you make foolish assertions about the Lower Court of WKA and then be smacked down for your ignorance.

    I have made my claims, you show me my errors. Hint: Given your fallacious position on burden of proof, I am amazed that you continue to dig yourself in deeper and deeper while refusing to admit to your follies.

    Why is that Mario? Why can you not admit to the simple fact that you were wrong about the lower court which actually ruled against your position?

    The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

    Citing Lynch v Clarke

    Citing Lynch v Clarke

    After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general. understanding of. the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind

    Keep ignoring the facts my friend… The courts will keep on rejecting your meritless and academic claims….

    It’s not my legacy…

  439. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:17 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: It says no such thing It speaks only of eliibility, not of BEING President. Even one as dense as you knows that.

    May I respectfully recommend that you stick to being a scientist rather than being a word master. You make as much sense as someone who argues: I need oxygen to breathe. I did not say I need oxygen to live because I only said I need it to breathe.

  440. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: May I respectfully recommend that you stick to being a scientist rather than being a word master. You make as much sense as someone who argues: I need oxygen to breathe. I did not say I need oxygen to live because I only said I need it to breathe.

    You could have chosen a better example I am sure, or perhaps not…

    I would argue that one could not be eligible for the office of President and still run in the elections as long as one meets the eligibility requirements when Congress gets to qualify you as such. So you can be 34 years of age, run the primary and general elections and only turn 35 before the Congress gets together to vote.

    interesting hypothetical question but it helps understand why eligibility is not an issue until the Congress gets to vote, after all, until then it is either an internal party matter or people are voting for electors.

  441. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:23 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: Mario- why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was illegal?

    Because it was irrelevant to the argument, or so he claims… But somehow…

  442. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:25 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: May I respectfully recommend that you stick to being a scientist rather than being a word master. You make as much sense as someone who argues: I need oxygen to breathe. I did not say I need oxygen to live because I only said I need it to breathe.

    Breathing and living are quite different. Many anaerobic organisms do not breathe, but they are unquestionably alive.

    Being eligible to be President and being President are very, very different things. Perhaps you would like to explain why Article I speaks of what is needed to BE a Representative or a Senator, while Article II only speaks of “eligible to the office”. Surely, you, of all people, would not say that the Founders and Framers (blessed be their names) chose words carelessly.

    Or, did they……

  443. sfjeff says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand the basics. The Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President. Hence, the burden is on Obama.

    What has that got to do with your lying about travel to Pakistan being forbidden?

    If you will lie about that- why shouldn’t we assume that you are lying about everything?

  444. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    You are such a liar. You said the lower court held that Wong was a “natural born Citizens.” I told you that the court mentioned the clause not even once. Now you come up with this rubbish. You might fool the unknowing, but you can’t fool me. I have got your number, nbc. You cannot escape me no matter how hard you try with your weasel words and ways.

    Nope I did not state this. I stated that the attorney for the appellant had called the issue in error as follows: “Did the lower court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was natural born”, understanding the logic of the lower court.

    As I said, you have no reading comprehension.

    Let me remind you of the exhange

    nbc: The Court in WKA by any credible interpretation did in fact rule that WKA was natural born. Even the dissenting judge understood. But you ignore the fact that the appealing attorney, who raised many of the same arguments you have raised, understood that the issue at hand was “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”. Anyone in those days understood that native birth citizenship would render one a natural born. What they were trying to argue is that he was not born under jurisdiction. Another failure.Come on Mario… THis is just getting too easy.

    Come on nbc, you are just making stuff up about what the lower court held in Wong Kim Ark. There is not one word about “natural born” or “natural born Citizen” in the lower court in Wong Kim Ark.

    Reading comprehension… So will you apologize for your follies? You also claimed that there not one word about “natural born” n the Lower Court in WKA and yet I showed at least two examples. So strictly speaking you were right, there is not one but two…

    But really Mario, stop embarrassing yourself.

    For goodness sakes my friend…. This is getting way to painful, and reminds me of one of the earlier smack downs where you argued the self contradictory position on “Citizens of the United States”.

    So Mario…. Correct yourself and admit that you misunderstood and that you had not read the lower court which in fact does contain the terms natural born.

    Stop moving the goalposts with logical fallacies…

  445. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:30 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Breathing and living are quite different. Many anaerobic organisms do not breathe, but they are unquestionably alive. Being eligible to be President and being President are very, very different things. Perhaps you would like to explain why Article I speaks of what is needed to BE a Representative or a Senator, while Article II only speaks of “eligible to the office”. Surely, you, of all people, would not say that the Founders and Framers (blessed be their names) chose words carelessly.Or, did they……

    Like I said, stick to being a scientist and not a word master. “I” is not an anaerobic organism. Try human being.

  446. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You fail to understand the basics. The Constitution says one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be President. Hence, the burden is on Obama.

    It talks about eligibility and describes who gets to determine if said eligibility has been met.

    That happens according to the 20th amendment in Congress

    If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    Interesting perspective…

  447. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Like I said, stick to being a scientist and not a word master. “I” is not an anaerobic organism. Try human being.

    Still unable to address the issue… I know, it requires a certain level of comprehension, commonly found in the average human being. Somehow it seems to elude you though.

  448. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Nope I did not state this. I stated that the attorney for the appellant had called the issue in error as follows: “Did the lower court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was natural born”, understanding the logic of the lower court.As I said, you have no reading comprehension.Let me remind you of the exhange

    Reading comprehension… So will you apologize for your follies? You also claimed that there not one word about “natural born” n the Lower Court in WKA and yet I showed at least two examples. So strictly speaking you were right, there is not one but two…But really Mario, stop embarrassing yourself.For goodness sakes my friend…. This is getting way to painful, and reminds me of one of the earlier smack downs where you argued the self contradictory position on “Citizens of the United States”.So Mario…. Correct yourself and admit that you misunderstood and that you had not read the lower court which in fact does contain the terms natural born.Stop moving the goalposts with logical fallacies…

    So I was correct, the lower Wong Court did not mention one time “natural born Citizen.” It was a lawyer in the U.S. Supreme Court that did. So what’s your problem, weasel?

  449. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:43 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: I’m just curious Mario. Have you ever used the Italian passport you are entitled to? Technically, as an Italian citizen, you are supposed to use it to enter Italy and then use your US passport when you re-enter the US. I know these laws are almost never enforced, but you seem to be a stickler for fine legal points that no-one else cares about.

    May I recommend that you use your retirement to which you are entitled.

  450. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:51 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: You could have chosen a better example I am sure, or perhaps not…I would argue that one could not be eligible for the office of President and still run in the elections as long as one meets the eligibility requirements when Congress gets to qualify you as such. So you can be 34 years of age, run the primary and general elections and only turn 35 before the Congress gets together to vote. interesting hypothetical question but it helps understand why eligibility is not an issue until the Congress gets to vote, after all, until then it is either an internal party matter or people are voting for electors.

    Real nice, nbc. So John Smith is not yet a “natural born Citizen.” So he will run for President. But don’t worry because by the time Congress meets, he will be a “natural born Citizen.”

  451. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:55 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: That water must be getting noisier by the minute.

    So Mario when are you going to stop relying on the government for support? There’s no way you’re making money as a lawyer seeing how often your cases are getting dismissed so now I’m wondering how much of my taxes are going to support you.

  452. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:57 pm  (Quote)

    Real nice, nbc. So John Smith is not yet a “natural born Citizen.” So he will run for President. But don’t worry because by the time Congress meets, he will be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Indeed, I provided one possible scenario, namely the age requirement. The eligibility requirement only matters when Congress votes as to the qualifications of the candidates for President and Vice President.

    As the Court in Keyes v Bowen observed, the determination of eligibility is best left to the parties or to congress. Nor the SOS or the electoral college have any obligation to determine the eligibility of the candidates.

    Makes a lot of sense, and helps understand why state suits will fail as individual states could not possible be given the right to rule on the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate and derail the process.

    Plaintiffs’ contentions lack merit. Among other things, we conclude that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine 652*652 whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution. As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes.

    and

    Similarly, the court ruled plaintiffs failed to identify any ministerial duty the Electors failed to perform. The requirement they vote “in the manner directed by the Constitution” (3 U.S.C. 8) merely refers to the mechanics of casting votes, found in the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Electors did not have an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate was a natural born citizen and, in fact, were required by statute to vote for their party’s nominee. (Elec. Code, 6906; further section references are to the Elections Code unless otherwise specified.)

    So I believe that any challenge to the eligibility of the President can only lie in the hands of Congress.

  453. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:57 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: The irony is strong with this one.How many eligibility cases have you won?Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?These are simple questions.

    Maybe you should study the meaning of “wrong.”

  454. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: So I was correct, the lower Wong Court did not mention one time “natural born Citizen.” It was a lawyer in the U.S. Supreme Court that did. So what’s your problem, weasel?

    Nope the lower court ruling mentioned natural born twice. So your problem is again, reading comprehension.

    How can you make the statement that the lower court did not even mention the term when in fact it is mentioned at least twice in the ruling. How can you claim that I was wrong when I stated that the attorney for the appellant made the claim of error.

    You surely have a convincing way of making my points as you continue to misrepresent or misunderstand what I say.

    As I have told you before my friend, your reading comprehension and inability to read the court rulings in a logical and reasoned manner continue to haunt you when making flawed and false accusations.

    Now you call me a weasel for your own mistakes?

    That tells me a lot about Mario as a person my dear friend.

  455. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:01 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you should study the meaning of “wrong.”

    After you study it and admit to having been wrong. There are several instances where you were clearly wrong and yet you continue to accuse others…

    Silly

  457. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:06 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: I’ll bet judges love it when you mock the law.Do your DUI defendants have the burden of proof too?How many times have you been sued for malpractice?

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” No, tell me, Einstein, did the Founders and Framers expect the people to prove that anyone wanting to be President is not a “natural born Citizen” or did they expect that person to demonstrate that he is?

  458. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Real nice, nbc. So John Smith is not yet a “natural born Citizen.” So he will run for President. But don’t worry because by the time Congress meets, he will be a “natural born Citizen.”

    Finally, you get it. Anyone elected and found qualified by Congress is a natural brn citizen by definition. Because the decision of who is a natural born citizen is made by the people and their elected representatives. That’s what being a democratic republic means. Democratic is from the Greek “demos” and means rule by the people. Republic is from the Latin “res publica” which means “thing belonging to the public”. Either way, the future of the country is detemined by the people.

    Everyone but you figured that out ages ago.

  459. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:18 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: did the Founders and Framers expect the people to prove that anyone wanting to be President is not a “natural born Citizen” or did they expect that person to demonstrate that he is?

    Neither. They left it up to the people and Congress to decide. No one before Obama ever presented the slightest proof. The voters decided that the other 42 were qualified and came to the same conclusion regarding Obama.

    If you birthers have a beef with anyone, it’s with the voters. Why don’t you sue them?

  460. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” No, tell me, Einstein, did the Founders and Framers expect the people to prove that anyone wanting to be President is not a “natural born Citizen” or did they expect that person to demonstrate that he is?

    A silly proposition. The question better phrased is: To whom should such candidates prove their eligibility? The Constitution does not explain but it does not make sense that anyone could just require a presidential candidate to show himself to be eligible or that a positive requirement to prove eligibility exists. As with any law or constitutional requirement, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, or in the case of the Presidential eligibility with Congress.

    Issues of standing, failure to state a claim and political question all come to mind. After all, one would not want our court systems to be clogged with foolish claims about our president now would we?

  462. Keith says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This burden of proof argument is so frivolous. Obama wants to be President. The Constitution says he must be a “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on him.

    I thought you claimed to be a lawyer. You know as well as your DUI clients that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

    You are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you. No amount of double-speak from you will change that.

    The President has already pandered to you nuts more than he should have by providing more proof than any President in history.

  463. misha marinsky says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:40 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor misha, he is still trying to come to grips with the reality of the countless of millions of innocent people her political mentors and heroes, on the command of Karl Marx

    That’s true. Here’s a photo of that very act:
    http://russianmemory.com/Blog_Photos/Marx_Lennon.jpg

  464. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:47 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: A silly proposition. The question better phrased is: To whom should such candidates prove their eligibility? The Constitution does not explain but it does not make sense that anyone could just require a presidential candidate to show himself to be eligible or that a positive requirement to prove eligibility exists. As with any law or constitutional requirement, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, or in the case of the Presidential eligibility with Congress.Issues of standing, failure to state a claim and political question all come to mind. After all, one would not want our court systems to be clogged with foolish claims about our president now would we?

    You continue with your straw man about plaintiffs and courts. The Founders and Framers expected those wanting to be President to show themselves to be qualified for that office, not that a minority of the republic would be expected to meet some burden of proof in a court to force the issue.

  465. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:52 pm  (Quote)

    You continue with your straw man about plaintiffs and courts. The Founders and Framers expected those wanting to be President to show themselves to be qualified for that office, not that a minority of the republic would be expected to meet some burden of proof in a court to force the issue.

    No such evidence exists… Proof by assertion, a classical logical fallacy

    And please address your follies about the lower court in WKA or admit to being wrong and having made inappropriate accusations, and retract your ‘weasel’ statement

  466. Scientist says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm  (Quote)

    Putz- Sue the voters. They, and no one else, made Obama President. Start by serving everyone in your town, then expand to the whole county, then all of New Jersey and don’t stop until you reach the Pacific Ocean.

    Stop wasting time here and move again the proper party(s).

  467. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm  (Quote)

    Barack Obama released his birth certificate in June of 2008. The fact that you cannot see it is a mental defect on your part. I do not think that the Constitution ever intended that the country’s policy should dictated by people with mental defects. There comes a point when one humors their crazy uncle, but stops actually listening to him.

    As for the definition of “natural born citizen” I am sure that you will agree that this is a question of law, and not a question of fact. Therefore in this area, there is no responsibility for Barack Obama to do anything, or to prove anything.

    But feel free to babble on.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Founders and Framers expected those wanting to be President to show themselves to be qualified for that office, not that a minority of the republic would be expected to meet some burden of proof in a court to force the issue.

  468. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: Presented for your comparison ….http://cdn.medgadget.com/img/lllllerere.jpghttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/apuzzo.jpgHmmm.

    Poor JPotter, does not understand what the hypothetical “I” means. For that, I have a nice photo of you. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunce_cap

  469. redheaded1 says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:25 pm  (Quote)

    Mario knows he is absolutely full of crap.

    He is just willing to lie about it.

    I would say he has debased himself, but he’d have to have a base to begin with.

    You have to wonder about Mario. It doesn’t bear thinking about (at least not on a full tummy) as to what sort of, ahem, pleasure he’s getting from this People who recklessly disregard society’s rules and norms for their own gratification are called sociopaths.

  470. Daniel says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue with your straw man about plaintiffs and courts.The Founders and Framers expected those wanting to be President to show themselves to be qualified for that office, not that a minority of the republic would be expected to meet some burden of proof in a court to force the issue.

    So how old are you Mario?

    Did you actually attend the debate sessions leading up to the drafting of the Constitution? Or did you just sit down with the founders informally over dinner and ask them?

  471. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:34 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you should study the meaning of “wrong.”

    How many eligibility cases have you won?

    Why did you claim that travel to Pakistan was forbidden?

    These are simple questions. Should I type slower for you Failio?

  472. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm  (Quote)

    redheaded1:
    Mario knows he is absolutely full of crap.

    He is just willing to lie about it.

    I would say he has debased himself, but he’d have to have a base to begin with.

    You have to wonder about Mario. It doesn’t bear thinking about (at least not on a full tummy) as to what sort of, ahem, pleasure he’s getting from this People who recklessly disregard society’s rules and norms for their own gratification are called sociopaths.

    Failio regularly gets sucked up to on his cesspool of a blog by such mental giants like MichaelN. He’s a glutton . . . for punishment. And amazingly pathetic.

  474. WASP says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:57 pm  (Quote)

    How dare some greaseball Guinea with a name like Mario Apuzzo claim to be an expert on who is a natural born citizen! Let’s see your papers, boy!

  475. JPotter says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:07 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Give us a hint…

    Well, let’s see … one is a microscopic, anaerobic blob … and the other is …. let’s see … yep, a macroscopic, anaerobic blob.

  476. JPotter says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor JPotter, does not understand what the hypothetical “I” means.

    You’re saying that neither is the “I” you were looking for? That neither of them is hypothetical? You can confirm the reality of both? They are both real “I”s? It warms my heart to know you’ve recognized the personhood of microbes everywhere. I trust you have forsaken all antiseptics.

    Now, about them naturally borned critterzens ….

  477. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm  (Quote)

    Let’s try to educate our dear counsel on the proper facts surrounding the Wong Kim Ark case. As anyone would understand, the case started in a lower court, this one started in the Northern District of the California District Court. Mario objected and claimed that I was wrong and that the Lower Court never mentioned ‘natural born’. So I quoted the following from the ruling

    “The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Citing Lynch v Clarke,

    “Independently of the constitutional provision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and jurisdiction of the United. States of itself creates citizenship.

    …

    After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind

    The Court also observed that the Court in Minor passed on the question and observed that under common law a child born on soil to alien parents was indeed a (natural born) citizen.

    n the case of Minor v. Bappersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question. Nor was there any definition; in the constitution or in the acts of congress, of what constituted citizenship, until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. At the common law, if the parent be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of the child’s birth be within the king’s obedience as well as in the dominion, the child becomes a subject of the realm; in other words, birth within the realm was deemed conclusive. This was decided in Calvin’s Case, reported by Lord Coke, 7 Coke, 1, and has always been recognized as the common-law doctrine. 1 Bl. Comm. 366; 2 Kent, Comm. 9; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583; U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

    The Court Ruled in a decision in which the Judge explicitly rejected the argument that it was International Law/Law of Nations that guided the interpretation of the term ‘natural born’

    The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

    The case was appealed to the Supreme Court were several briefs were submitted by the Appellee (Wong Kim Ark) and the Appellant (the government).

    In one of the briefs of the Appellant, the attorney submitted the following to the Court

    The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated:Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen … (p.2)

    and

    The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

    We all know what the Court in US v WKA found:

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    Now, I have not even addressed the claims made by the appellant and how the Court clearly rejected them, and with them, most of Mario’s academic musings.

  478. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:21 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: That’s amazing!

    Do I see a certain family resemblance reflected in both?

  479. Majority Will says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:33 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Do I see a certain family resemblance reflected in both?

    Perhaps but definitely at the same developmental level.

  480. Daniel says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: May I respectfully recommend…

    Judging by your behavior here….. I doubt it

  481. Daniel says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:52 pm  (Quote)

    nbc:
    Let’s try to educate our dear counsel…

    You can’t educate those who adamantly insist on being uneducated.

  482. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 8:55 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Perhaps but definitely at the same developmental level.

    Evolutionary regressive? Who can tell. But I am more interested in Mario addressing his latest follies where he makes certain claims about the lower case of Wong Kim Ark, in Re: Wong Kim Ark, District Court, N. D. California, January 3, 1896., No. 11,198.

  483. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:08 pm  (Quote)

    The Lower Court in Re: Wong Kim Ark observed that George Collins argued much of the same arguments as proposed by Mario, namely that the doctrine of international law determines citizenship in the US.

    The district attorney was assisted by Mr. George D. Collins, of the San Francisco bar, who appeared in the matter as amicus curiae. Mr. Collins’ position upon this question has been known for some time, and his views have been expressed in able and interesting articles in the American Law Review. 18 Am. Law Rev. 831; 29 Am. Law Rev. 385. He maintains that the doctrine of international law as to citizenship exists in the United States, and not that of the common law; that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment is in consonance with the international rule, and should be so interpreted; and that, therefore, birth within the United States does not confer the right of citizenship.

    The Government also had argued that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ meant political jurisdiction not merely ‘subject to the laws’ The Court found that the issue had been decided in, in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.

    “With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship; and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.”

    Since the Government had raised the Slaughterhouse cases, the judge looked at them and found them to be lacking as they were mere dictum.

    That this last sentence, which is the expression relied on by counsel for the government, is mere dictum, is plain from what has been stated as the issue involved in those cases. That being so, the observations referred to and relied upon, however persuasive they may appear to be, cannot be accepted as declaring the law in this circuit, at least as against the authority of In re Look Tin Sing, where the question was squarely met and decisively settled. But it is to be observed that the supreme court, immediately succeeding the remarks just quoted, used the following significant language:

    The Court similarly rejected Elk v Wilkins.

    While observing that the counsel for the government had raised some interesting ‘academic’ 🙂 arguments, he however found that

    Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

    But the Government decided to Appeal, thank goodness, to the Supreme Court where the Court affirmed the lower Court ruling. More on the briefs and the ruling in a next contribution.

    Needless to say that the Court found significant precedents supporting the common law interpretation of natural born and not the international law interpretation (aka Vattel or Law of Nations interpretation.)

    The Court even observed how the Court in Minor expressly declined to pass upon that question.

    By itself, this ruling lays to rest any of Mario’s musings but the lower Court ruling was further elaborated by the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.

  484. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:10 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: You can’t educate those who adamantly insist on being uneducated.

    I do not believe that Mario insists on being educated. That’s just the end effect of what I see as a poor reading ability and a certain confirmation bias, which does not allow our friend to consider any evidence contrary to his position.

  485. JPotter says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    It just occurred to me. Apuzzo keeps popping up because

    1) he’s jealous … of Orly (Ewwww!) Doc’s attention (in the form of articles) is going all her way, and none his, so he pops up and acts out in order to elicit some direct acknowledgment from Doc. This has also driven him to try to, as he sees it, steals Doc’s girl by promising to ‘help’ her, or at least crowd into her … uh … limelight (foglights–ha!) so he’ll know Doc’s eye is on him.

    2) he has nothing better to do, which gets to the real root cause of problem #1. He isn’t doing anything! Mario, if you want some notice, get out there and birf some birfy birfs! Orly keeps on crankin’ out a steady stream, and you (and 99% of all the rest of the birfers*) have left her hangin’.

    * So quiet this past month….what changed?

  486. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 9:49 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: he has nothing better to do

    I understand that he recently retired… Must be quite bored…

  487. Reality Check says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:22 pm  (Quote)

    I speculated on the show tonight the deadline to appeal the Pupura case in NJ to the Supreme Court of the US may have passed. May we assume that they decided not to waste a filing fee on this nonsense case?

  488. nbc says:
    December 11, 2012 at 11:54 pm  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    I speculated on the show tonight the deadline to appeal the Pupura case in NJ to the Supreme Court of the US may have passed. May we assume that they decided not to waste a filing fee on this nonsense case?

    Given his time spent online, I would assume that this may be correct. After all, what if the Court decides to hear Purpura… That would be devastating to the claims…

  489. misha marinsky says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor misha, he is still trying to come to grips with the reality of the countless of millions of innocent people her political mentors and heroes, on the command of Karl Marx

    If Groucho Marx and John Lennon wrote a musical together, it would be a Marxist-Lennonist production.

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  490. brygenon says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: You continue to waste my time. How does a case decided on standing alone which never reached the merits of the definition of “natural born Citizen” dispose of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen?” It does not, not even in the least degree.

    Apuzzo is not telling the truth. Standing was but one of two issues on which the Court decided his case. The other was, as NBC pointed out, that Congress is the institution that decides whether a candidate elected to be president has failed to qualify. In Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J.. 2009), the Court wrote :

    it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.

    Mr. Apuzzo, is it too much to ask that be familiar with cases on which you were the attorney of record?

  491. misha marinsky says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:30 am  (Quote)

    What gives?

    Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in …wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/lib/class.core.php on line 470 and defined in …/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 990
    misha marinsky December 12, 2012 at 12:21 am (Quote) #

    Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in …/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/lib/class.core.php on line 470 and defined in …/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 990

  492. JPotter says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:58 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: What gives?

    Looks like a function call in the comment editor isn’t getting an expected input. It started this afternoon, occurs sporadically. Choked up IE8 (browser dictated by the office) something awful. At home, Chrome doesn’t seem to mind so much.

    An irritating gremlin.

  493. JPotter says:
    December 12, 2012 at 1:02 am  (Quote)

    Lots of reports of this error related to a WordPress upgrade…prepare function now requires 2 arguments. Possible fix here:

    https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/22429

  494. nbc says:
    December 12, 2012 at 1:10 am  (Quote)

    brygenon: Mr. Apuzzo, is it too much to ask that be familiar with cases on which you were the attorney of record?

    Did he even read them I wonder and if so, did his documented reading comprehension problems undermine his ability to properly understand it?

    Would explain a lot.

  495. nbc says:
    December 12, 2012 at 1:30 am  (Quote)

    What happened to the great comment on Polemics and Foucault?

  496. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 1:56 am  (Quote)

    JPotter: So quiet this past month….what changed?

    His mysterious clients who hired him not to win cases in court but to be a propagandist must demand a certain amount of activity on his part. We’re filling the quota.

  497. EPU says:
    December 12, 2012 at 2:07 am  (Quote)

    I am trying to get it to post without the WordPress error.

    nbc:
    What happened to the great comment on Polemics and Foucault?

  498. bovril says:
    December 12, 2012 at 3:13 am  (Quote)

    I do so love seeking you squirm Mario.

    Real simple question, bolstered by observable facts

    Fact the first.. the supreme court has on no less than 22 occasions had a birthers case dropped on their doorstep like a cat’s president of a dead rat

    Fact the second…. The SC on each occasion has never requested any further malodorous birther droppings to support said cases

    Fact the third…. The SC has never, in each of these cases requested the opposing counsel to file any further supportive documentation, pleadings etc

    Fact the fourth…. The SC has on each occasion refused cert

    So, the SC has made a judgement on the cases by refusing to hear there and as such affirmed the lower courts findings and rulings.

    Therefore Mario, on no less than 22 occasions the SC has by is acts ruled that you and your ilk are wrong.

    Own your failure Mario it is after all, all you have.

  499. The Magic M says:
    December 12, 2012 at 5:35 am  (Quote)

    bovril: like a cat’s president of a dead rat

    Nice Freudian typo. 🙂

    Continuing with the cat image, if birthers were also right, Obama would be Schroedinger’s President, eligible and ineligible at the same time until Congress looks at it.

    misha marinsky: Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(),

    Uh-oh. It’s never a good idea to enable error logging to screen on a production environment. Never unnecessarily give away too much information on your server’s directory structure.

  500. The Magic M says:
    December 12, 2012 at 5:36 am  (Quote)

    PS. On production, always use

    error_reporting(0);
    ini_set(‘display_errors’, 0);

    and let the error messages go to the log file.

  501. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 7:40 am  (Quote)

    redheaded1: Mario knows he is absolutely full of crap.

    He is just willing to lie about it.

    And I’d bet he’s being paid handsomely for it.

  502. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 7:47 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Now you call me a weasel for your own mistakes?

    That tells me a lot about Mario as a person my dear friend.

    Note that thin-skinned Mario oh so prompt to hurl insults at his opponents for whatever perceived slights, and so not embarrassed at repeating his bold-faced lies (eg”forbidden to travel to Pakistan), has steadfastly remained silent when accused numerous times to be acting on behalf of a far-right organization.

    Let’s be real: if I called you or anyone else here a sockpuppet for the KKK, wouldn’t you react and loudly deny it?

    But not Mario, never Mario. The truth behind his “campaign” remains a mystery.

  503. bovril says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:36 am  (Quote)

    If he is, it’s not reflected in his home/office in Jamesburg.

    Sure, nice enough Colonial, pool out the back etc but not really a “paid handsomely” pad…probably worth about $340k, Princeton, Hoboken, Upper Saddle it ain’t.

  504. Saint James says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:37 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: The truth behind his “campaign” remains a mystery.

    Hmm! That’s something we should start looking into. I suspect him to be a provocateur.

  505. misha marinsky says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:44 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: His mysterious clients who hired him not to win cases in court but to be a propagandist must demand a certain amount of activity on his part. We’re filling the quota.

    Exactly what I believe.

  506. Northland10 says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    First Foggy had to change hosts and now Doc has odd warnings. Too many posts about Orly may be hazardous to a website. Computers can only take so much.

  507. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:07 am  (Quote)

    Thanks for the additional encouragement to get this done.

    The Magic M: PS. On production, always use

  508. EPU says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:09 am  (Quote)

    Up above, I noted that this is not a debate, which comment Mario Apuzzo labeled snark, though it was just observation. After some pondering, I believe Apuzzo’s posts at best are polemics. That would be on the high-end. I doubt they rarely go beyond even that level, laden as they are with belligerent, false assertions and teenage-style insult-fests.

    Certainly those arrayed against Apuzzo engage in some of their own polemics and insults, though it is a diverse crowd here and one characterization does not fit overall. Dr. C himself clearly focuses on investigation. Debate by others in this thread has occurred, such as with NBC’s thesis that citizen children born abroad are not or may not be natural born citizens, which is actually a reprise of a debate that has occurred here previously. Despite Apuzzo’s use of the word, though, I am hard-pressed to think of an instance of an exchange initiated by or involving Apuzzo that resembles much of a debate, or that is not detoured into polemic.

    Here is an interesting discussion of polemics by Foucault, which strikes me as practically a blow-by-blow description of Apuzzo’s antics:

    http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html

    Paul Rabinow: Why is it that you don’t engage in polemics ?

    Michel Foucault: I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them. It’s true that I don’t like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of “infantile leftism” I shut it again right away. That’s not my way of doing things; I don’t belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the one that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other.

    In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game—a game that is at once pleasant and difficult—in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue.

    The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.

    Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth. Very schematically, it seems to me that today we can recognize the presence in polemics of three models: the religious model, the judiciary model, and the political model. As in heresiology, polemics sets itself the task of determining the intangible point of dogma, the fundamental and necessary principle that the adversary has neglected, ignored or transgressed; and it denounces this negligence as a moral failing; at the root of the error, it finds passion, desire, interest, a whole series of weaknesses and inadmissible attachments that establish it as culpable. As in judiciary practice, polemics allows for no possibility of an equal discussion: it examines a case; it isn’t dealing with an interlocutor, it is processing a suspect; it collects the proofs of his guilt, designates the infraction he has committed, and pronounces the verdict and sentences him. In any case, what we have here is not on the order of a shared investigation; the polemicist tells the truth in the form of his judgment and by virtue of the authority he has conferred on himself. But it is the political model that is the most powerful today. Polemics defines alliances, recruits partisans, unites interests or opinions, represents a party; it establishes the other as an enemy, an upholder of opposed interests against which one must fight until the moment this enemy is defeated and either surrenders or disappears.

    Of course, the reactivation, in polemics, of these political, judiciary, or religious practices is nothing more than theater. One gesticulates: anathemas, excommunications, condemnations, battles, victories, and defeats are no more than ways of speaking, after all. And yet, in the order of discourse, they are also ways of acting which are not without consequence. There are the sterilizing effects. Has anyone ever seen a new idea come out of a polemic? And how could it be otherwise, given that here the interlocutors are incited not to advance, not to take more and more risks in what they say, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim, on their legitimacy, which they must defend, and on the affirmation of their innocence? There is something even more serious here: in this comedy, one mimics war, battles, annihilations, or unconditional surrenders, putting forward as much of one’s killer instinct as possible. But it is really dangerous to make anyone believe that he can gain access to the truth by such paths and thus to validate, even if in a merely symbolic form, the real political practices that could be warranted by it. Let us imagine, for a moment, that a magic wand is waved and one of the two adversaries in a polemic is given the ability to exercise all the power he likes over the other. One doesn’t even have to imagine it: one has only to look at what happened during the debate in the USSR over linguistics or genetics not long ago. Were these merely aberrant deviations from what was supposed to be the correct discussion? Not at all—they were the real consequences of a polemic attitude whose effects ordinarily remain suspended.

  509. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:18 am  (Quote)

    The warnings are not really a mystery. The Edit Comments plug-in code is not compatible with the current version of WordPress. What is a mystery is why the messages haven’t been there all along.

    In any case, following Magic M’s advice (and that of others), I have turned off the error display (I hope) so that you will not be bothered, and have re-enabled the comment editor.

    By the way, Orly’s commenters are complaining about all manner of problems commenting on her site. Some of them think they have been packed by the Evil Obots. I don’t know what her issue is, but whenever you comment, rather than seeing the comment, it takes you to the top of the page, making it look like the comment has not been posted. At other times, you got a blank page.

    Northland10: First Foggy had to change hosts and now Doc has odd warnings. Too many posts about Orly may be hazardous to a website. Computers can only take so much.

  510. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:36 am  (Quote)

    bovril: If he is, it’s not reflected in his home/office in Jamesburg.

    Sure, nice enough Colonial, pool out the back etc but not really a “paid handsomely” pad…probably worth about $340k, Princeton, Hoboken, Upper Saddle it ain’t.

    So on top of his other vices, Mario comes cheap. Why am I not surprised?

  511. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:41 am  (Quote)

    EPU: Up above, I noted that this is not a debate, which comment Mario Apuzzo labeled snark, though it was just observation. After some pondering, I believe Apuzzo’s posts at best are polemics. etc

    I keep saying that Mario himself is much more interesting than the driver he spouts.

    Mario might be a pure polemicist, as you describe, but in light his rather business-driven past (DUI attorney), I myself am inclined to think that he is a propagandist, paid by others to articulate and promote certain ideas (we all know what they are) amongst the masses.

  512. Scientist says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: And I’d bet he’s being paid handsomely for it.

    Much as it pains me, I am going to have to disagree with mon ami Lupin. If some shadowy person or entity were throwing around large sums of cash, why would they choose an incompetent nobody like Apuzzo? You might, perhaps, argue that they were unable to find anyone else that would touch this stinking pile of bovine excrement. But, I have seen no evidence that any scoundrel, no matter how loathsome, willing and able to dispense enough portraits of Benjamin Franklin need go without diligent counsel in this great country.

    No, I think Mario is just lonely old man hungry for attention We may be the closest thing he has to friends in this vale of tears.

  513. brygenon says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:03 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Did he even read them I wonder

    Yes, Apuzzo read them. He understood them. On two occasions of which I’m aware, he reported on them as a competent professional and gracious loser. Yeah, I was surprised as anyone.

    Obviously I’m no fan, but a couple years ago I credited Apuzzo for having “blogged about his defeats in the District Court and then the Circuit Court in remarkably straightforward and factual terms”. Here’s what I was talking about:

    “Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.” (October 21, 2009)
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/court-dismisses-kerchner.html

    “The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms the Dismissal of the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case for Lack of Standing and Orders Attorney Apuzzo to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Assessed Damages and Costs” (Sunday, July 4, 2010)
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms.html

    Best birther writing since Connie Rhodes’ masterpiece.

    Apuzzo subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, and when he lost on that he did not do as well as in the two posts cited above. If I’m wrong on that please cite. The response to the outcome on his blog was an idiotic rant by his client, conspiracy theorist and hate-tank Charles Kerchner:
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/statement-from-cdr-charles-kerchner-ret.html

  514. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:07 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Much as it pains me, I am going to have to disagree with mon ami Lupin. If some shadowy person or entity were throwing around large sums of cash, why would they choose an incompetent nobody like Apuzzo? You might, perhaps, argue that they were unable to find anyone else that would touch this stinking pile of bovine excrement. But, I have seen no evidence that any scoundrel, no matter how loathsome, willing and able to dispense enough portraits of Benjamin Franklin need go without diligent counsel in this great country.

    No, I think Mario is just lonely old man hungry for attention We may be the closest thing he has to friends in this vale of tears.

    You may well be right, in which case it’s really sad and pathetic.

    But Mario’s past does point out to him wanting to make a quick buck, no matter how unsavory the client. OK, so maybe he isn’t being paid as much as I originally thought he was, but I still think there’s a profit motive here driving his cart.

    If Mario was a constitutional lunatic like the folks who refuse to pay taxes, etc. he would have left traces before this Obama case, wouldn’t you say? But no, he just sprang out of nowhere, a ready-made constitutional lawyer.

    I think he was HIRED to promote an agenda; that he has since become emotionally involved with his cause — too much so, I’d say — is just a by-product, IMHO, but not the original intent.

    I think you’re correct when you say that his paymasters “were unable to find anyone else that would touch this stinking pile of bovine excrement.” I think that, given the brief, Mario was the best they could find. Also, perhaps, if not that much money is being offered, the only one who would even consider taking the job.

    There is also a cageyness about Mario that seems to me to argue against him being in the same category as the self-aggrandizing other lunatics like Orly, Berg, Donofrio, etc. They like to drape themselves into the (Confederate) flag and speechify from the top of their soapbox. Mario isn’t like that: we’ve seen his meek (some might say weaselly) demeanor in Court appearances, and his groveling out of sanctions.

    I mentioned once that I had a single opportunity in my career to deal with what might loosely be termed “mob lawyers” in the Credit Lyonnais/Parretti case. Arguing the indefensible in pure bad faith while skirting around sanctions is different from being a crazy man. On a much smaller scale, Mario reminds me of this, hence my (admittedly purely hypothetical) conclusions.

    That’s my two cents worth.

  515. EPU says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:15 am  (Quote)

    I don’t know if he is a mere paid propagandist or a true believer, or a mix or what. Those aspects are more about his motivation or identity or character. I was discussing, I think, his tactics, at least in these kinds of discussions. He talks a lot about winning and debating, and it seems to me he doesn’t do much of either.

    Lupin:

    Mario might be a pure polemicist, as you describe, but in lighthis rather business-driven past (DUI attorney), I myself am inclined to think that he is a propagandist, paid by others to articulate and promote certain ideas (we all know what they are) amongst the masses.

  516. Majority Will says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:17 am  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    No, I think Mario is just lonely old man hungry for attention We may be the closest thing he has to friends in this vale of tears.

    Nail hit squarely on the head. Add in angry, intolerant bigot with delusions of grandeur.

  517. Scientist says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    Lupin-I’m certainly not saying Apuzzo is opposed to making a quick buck. I’m questioning why anyone with actual cash to dispense would hire him. Tax protestors and sov cits and the like with disposable cash all manage to find attorneys. The crap the Vattelists peddle is no more disreputable than that, so it’s hard to imagine the lawyers who have taken those cases turning down a birther case. What would they have to lose?

    Moreover, I could imagine someone paying him to run his own blog. But look at all the time he has spent posting here. Many hours certainly. I really can’t imagine someone paying him at the going rate for billable hours to argue with us on Dr C’s blog. No, I really believe we lucky folks here are getting the “benefit” of Apuzzo’s “wisdom” gratis.

    As mob lawyers, surely they were 10,000 times more competent than Apuzzo?

  518. Scientist says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    EPU: I don’t know if he is a mere paid propagandist or a true believer, or a mix or what. Those aspects are more about his motivation or identity or character. I was discussing, I think, his tactics, at least in these kinds of discussions. He talks a lot about winning and debating, and it seems to me he doesn’t do much of either.

    But really, what meaning does a “debate” on a blog on the meaning of natural born citizen have. A real debate in, say, a college forensics meet, has an impartial panel of judges who render a verdict. None such exists here. So Apuzzo can claim “victory”, as can any of us. So what.

    In the law, of course, the “debate” is decided by judges. And lower courts do count (sorry, Mario). Their decisions can, of course, be appealed to higher courts, but if they decide not to hear the appeal, for any reason or none at all, the matter is decided. Could the courts be “wrong”? Philosophically speaking, sure, because all courts, up to and including the Supremes, are made up of fallible human beings. But, all functioning legal systems have to have finality somewhere. Or, we could say that the final verdict rests with the voters and Congress. Again, they could be “wrong”, but we have to accept finality there as well.

  519. bovril says:
    December 12, 2012 at 11:00 am  (Quote)

    Mario reminds me of the worst examples of outsourced software development to India I have seen before.

    Overly granular and poorly linked work segments
    Poor to no source code management
    Poor to non existent documentation
    Poor management
    Inadequate quality control
    Work performed on a piece work basis, “pile high, bill cheap”
    Repetetive reuse of inappropriate code
    Lack of ownership

    So we now have Mario the Masochistic Code Monkey with his Malodorous Methodology

  520. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 12, 2012 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    Thanks for Mr. Foucault’s comments, which mirror my own feelings (on a good day).

    In a formal debate there are rules and judges. Here we have neither. Because we have no rules, polemic (or bickering) results. Because we have no judge, nothing is ever settled, and both sides proclaim victory.

    The reason that I appeal to the 8 lower court decisions that say the children of aliens born in the US are natural born citizens is that those are the impartial judge ruling on the argument some directly on the text Apuzzo’s argument. Apuzzo seems to be saying essentially that “I haven’t lost the debate because there exist better debate judges somewhere.” I call that being sore loser.

    EPU: After some pondering, I believe Apuzzo’s posts at best are polemics. That would be on the high-end. I doubt they rarely go beyond even that level, laden as they are with belligerent, false assertions and teenage-style insult-fests.

  521. The Magic M says:
    December 12, 2012 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know what her issue is, but whenever you comment, rather than seeing the comment, it takes you to the top of the page, making it look like the comment has not been posted.

    This usually happens when you’ve been banned (by name/email) at her site. Her blog will still redirect to the posting’s anchor,e.g. “url.php#comment-id-12345”, but since the article wasn’t posted (not even as in “in moderation”), the anchor itself will not exist, leaving you at the top of the page.

  522. The Magic M says:
    December 12, 2012 at 11:51 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Could the courts be “wrong”? Philosophically speaking, sure, because all courts, up to and including the Supremes, are made up of fallible human beings.

    It depends on what the meaning of “wrong” is. 😉

    Some people only rely on observational confirmation (usually when it suits their need to disqualify any other evidence) – as in “nobody has seen Earth being formed”, “nobody has watched evolution happening before his eyes” or “nobody has seen baby Obama pop out of his mother in Hawaii”.

    That way you can make up arbitrarily high (and potentially impossibly to meet) standards as to what you would consider “sufficient to refute you”.

    Birtherism is a good example, as is any crank theory:

    1. Appeal to authority is applied selectively (“SCOTUS defined NBC in Minor, and was correct in doing so” vs. “SCOTUS has ruled differently in WKA and was wrong” / “SCOTUS has denied cert to birther cases and thus is comprised of traitors”; ultimately it would be “SCOTUS has decided you need two citizen parents = they are correct” vs. “SCOTUS has decided you don’t = they are traitors”).

    2. Proof by documentation is evaluated selectively (“Hawaii says Obama was born there = liars” vs. “some Kenyans say Obama was born there = proof”).

    3. In general, what’s good for the goose (anything confirming us is “enough” by itself) isn’t good for the gander (anything refuting us is not “enough” and never will be) – take for example “now that the COLB and the LFBC say he was born in Hawaii, we still need to see … to be certain” whereas just one document claiming he wasn’t born there (like the Lucas BC) are still being touted as “the real thing” or “casting sufficient doubt”.

    You simply cannot argue properly with someone who doesn’t play by the same rules, i.e. accepts a common level of “sufficient proof” instead of ever-moving goalposts.

  523. roadburner says:
    December 12, 2012 at 11:55 am  (Quote)

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Maybe you should study the meaning of “wrong.”

    maybe you should study the meaning of wong

  524. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm  (Quote)

    bovril: So we now have Mario the Masochistic Code Monkey with his Malodorous Methodology

    Don’t forget Meretricious !

  525. Majority Will says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    roadburner: maybe you should study the meaning of wong

    Well said.

  526. Lupin says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Moreover, I could imagine someone paying him to run his own blog. But look at all the time he has spent posting here. Many hours certainly. I really can’t imagine someone paying him at the going rate for billable hours to argue with us on Dr C’s blog. No, I really believe we lucky folks here are getting the “benefit” of Apuzzo’s “wisdom” gratis.

    As mob lawyers, surely they were 10,000 times more competent than Apuzzo?

    Maybe he’s on a flat retainer, so many $$$ per month?

    And yes, Signore Parretti’s US attorneys were top-notch; egregious, but high-end.

  527. nbc says:
    December 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    brygenon: “Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.” (October 21, 2009)
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/court-dismisses-kerchner.html

    Wow…

  528. Keith says:
    December 12, 2012 at 4:28 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: You might, perhaps, argue that they were unable to find anyone else that would touch this stinking pile of taitz.

    FIFY.

    Keep on purpose here. We are trying to Google Bomb this.

  529. Greenfinches says:
    December 12, 2012 at 5:24 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The powers of Congress were modelled on those of Parliament.

    Not sure about that. Parliament claims to be absolutely sovereign; if it chooses, it could say that English law applies all over the world, and nothing else matters. Pity the poor judge who has to deal with the first case on this and find a way of telling the MPs that they are talking nonsense….

    It wouldn’t worry about any idea of constitutional amendments (who has a written constitution??) and who does and does not have power to decide the qualifications for a position – Parliament does!

  530. JPotter says:
    December 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm  (Quote)

    Keith:
    “taitz” is already in the urban dictionary, but with a different definition. I figure that’s OK, lots of words have more than one meaning.

    Keith, thanks for chiming in on IT issues on the other thread last week. Realizing how frustrated I was (enough to spew taitz at strangers online), I gave it another go (“I ain’t puttin’ up with this taitz no mo’, danggit, I’s a man! I’m 40!”), and the browser tyranny came to a swift end.

    Running sweet Chrome at work now. Productivity has been boosted.

  531. nbc says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    Say, what happened to Mario Apuzzo? Taking time off to read US v WKA and its lower Court ruling?

    Or just licking his wounds hoping that we won’t remember next time he shows up 🙂

    Such a funny guy.

  532. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    Obots have long memories.

    nbc: Or just licking his wounds hoping that we won’t remember next time he shows up

  533. nbc says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm  (Quote)

    Epperly is back with a ‘complaint’ to Biden and the Electoral College, complaining about the “Negro”… Sad person really… Who does not understand the 14th Amendment.

    “If a Negro or Mulatto’s citizenship is dependant upon an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. then no Negro or Mulatto can ever have the standing of being a “natural born” Citizen of the United States. Unlike the white male Citizens who have the “Birthright” under the Preamble to the United States Constitution to be Citizens of the United States, the Negro I Mulatto citizenship is a “privilege” that is granted to them by U.S. Constitutional Amendments. In other words, the Negro I Mulatto citizenship is dependant upon the statutory authority of the U.S. Congress to make Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If the U.S. Congress has the authority to grant Negroes I Mulattoes the status of United States citizenship by Constitutional Amendments, then the U.S. Congress has also the authority to rescind U.S. citizenship from Negroes I Mulattoes by repealing the Fourteenth Amendment just as it was done when the U.S. Congress repealed the Eighteenth Amendment with the Twenty-First Amendment. If citizenship is a privilege that may be granted and taken away by the U.S. Congress, then the citizenship status of the Negro I Mulatto is not a citizen that is ” natural bom.”

    Source: Complaint

  534. Keith says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: (“I ain’t puttin’ up with this taitz no mo’, danggit, I’s a man! I’m 40!”),

    Taitz! I’m 60 already. I can’t even remember what you are talking about.

  535. Greenfinches says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:52 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: does not understand the 14th Amendment.

    I think that Epperly’s sadness is of a more fundamental kind. To be so hostile to the non-white is just pitiful these days when he really has no excuse for not knowing better!

  536. JPotter says:
    December 13, 2012 at 12:19 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Epperly is back with a ‘complaint’ to Biden and the Electoral College, complaining about the “Negro”… Sad person really… Who does not understand the 14th Amendment.

    Old Epperley has been railing agin’ dat amendment for many a year. He’s maintained a website dedicated to his obsession since the 90s:

    “Welcome to the home page for the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment – The Amendment That Never Existed.”

    His ‘lawsuit’ from 1995 takes the cake. More organized and better written than a Taitz, yet far more deluded than Taitz.
    http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscellaneous/Articles/Petition/Petition.pdf

    He has many more such flights of fancy posted at his sight.

    Bonus: The site design is quite nostalgic.

  537. misha marinsky says:
    December 13, 2012 at 1:54 am  (Quote)

    nbc: Epperly is back with a ‘complaint’ to Biden and the Electoral College, complaining about the “Negro”… Sad person really

    He lives in Juneau. You should see it. The only way in or out, is by air or sea. There isn’t a road. It’s walled in by mountains, 3K-4K feet.

    It’s tiny and isolated. There are ~17K people in 12 sq mi.

    It’s a horror novel come to life. The place basically drives people nuts.

  538. bovril says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:27 am  (Quote)

    IIRC, this is the muppet who also feels that the 19th Amendment is all null and void and Da Wimmin cannot hold office, vote and stuff

  539. Lupin says:
    December 13, 2012 at 6:26 am  (Quote)

    You see, that is what I meant by Apuzzo “coming out of nowhere.” When you look at the other lunatics, you do find pre-Obama eruptions.

  540. Majority Will says:
    December 13, 2012 at 10:27 am  (Quote)

    Re: TQOD

    There will come a time that Dr. Orly will find herself in a courtroom. She will look over at the defense table, and see a rhesus monkey in a suit, sitting next to an empty chair.

    Confused, she will look up at the judge, and see a plate of pancakes instead.

    That’s when she’ll wake up screaming.

    –Patrick McKinnion
    –BadFiction

    That is an instant classic. Bravo, Patrick!

    I must get this engraved onto a plaque and proudly display it in my home next to portraits of Groucho Marx and John Lennon.

    : – )

  541. The Magic M says:
    December 13, 2012 at 11:50 am  (Quote)

    The fact that I haven’t had a single birther-related dream in 4 years (or maybe one, I’m not sure) proves my heart isn’t fully in it. 😉

    Actually, I would much more like to see Orly in the defendant’s seat for her shenanigans. In front of a black judge and a sufficiently mixed jury. With a fringed flag on the wall. That would be priceless.

  542. misha marinsky says:
    December 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: portraits of Groucho Marx and John Lennon

    Here you go: http://www.flickr.com/photos/magpie-moon/113326203/

  543. Majority Will says:
    December 13, 2012 at 2:58 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Here you go: http://www.flickr.com/photos/magpie-moon/113326203/

    That’s exactly what I had in mind.

  544. Daniel says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:32 pm  (Quote)

    Cody Robert Judy is announcing to both his facebook followers that SCOTUS has agreed to hear his case……

    Don’t these people ever learn?

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/12/scotus-agrees-to-hear-elation-breaks.html

  545. Daniel says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm  (Quote)

    No. 12-5276
    Title:
    Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
    Docketed: July 17, 2012
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Georgia
    Case Nos.: (S12D1584)
    Decision Date: June 21, 2012

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jul 2 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 16, 2012)
    Jul 16 2012 Supplemental brief of petitioner Cody Robert Judy filed.
    Jul 25 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.
    Aug 30 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
    Oct 1 2012 Petition DENIED.
    Oct 6 2012 Petition for Rehearing filed.
    Nov 28 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.

  546. donna says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:

    ANOTHER case of “i’m (NOT) winning”

  547. Rickey says:
    December 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    Cody Robert Judy is announcing to both his facebook followers that SCOTUS has agreed to hear his case……

    Don’t these people ever learn?

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/12/scotus-agrees-to-hear-elation-breaks.html

    I posted a note at his blog, but I doubt if it will make it past moderation.

  548. Majority Will says:
    December 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    Cody Robert Judy is announcing to both his facebook followers that SCOTUS has agreed to hear his case……

    Don’t these people ever learn?

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/12/scotus-agrees-to-hear-elation-breaks.html

    That is one seriously delusional nut bag.

  549. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    December 13, 2012 at 9:42 pm  (Quote)

    I’m sorry Cody, but America isn’t ready for President who looks like he lives on his best friend’s sofa.

  550. brygenon says:
    December 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracywrote: Obots have long memories.

    And highly machine-augmented, speaking for myself at least.

  551. brygenon says:
    December 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I’m sorry Cody, but America isn’t ready for President who looks like he lives on his best friend’s sofa.

    Nor for a candidate who would… oh… let’s say… walk onto a stage carrying what he claimed to be a bomb and threaten a speaker and his audience of about 15,000, unless the speaker would read the (fake) bomb-wielding future presidential candidate’s statement of how God wanted him to lead their Church.

    Yeah Andrew, Cody Judy does kind of look like he might live on his best friend’s sofa. That too.

  552. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    December 13, 2012 at 11:08 pm  (Quote)

    Holy crap! He actually did that?!

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.