Mario Apuzzo

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44005
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2201

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:04 pm

Blovario is no longer worth trolling. And was never worth reading.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9049
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2202

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:57 am

I'm grateful to Bob for keeping up with them, so many laughs over the years not only with the content but also the commentary! Thank you Bob!

Hardly ever read his blog but just reading here has been enough. :lol:

Birthers have gone underground for now but No Nonsense Nancy is seething somewhere.
Avatar Photo: Current Logo for Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2203

Post by bob » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:06 pm

So Apuzzo wrote some words on his blog. About Cruz's "ineligibility." Basically the same words; nothing, like you seen before.

What is notable is that Apuzzo has essentially given up. Apuzzo isn't haunting random articles' comment sections. His output on his own blog has so dropped off that it is now notable when he bothers to write at all. (His last actual article, about his failed Cruz ballot challenge, is nearly a year old.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44005
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2204

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:11 pm

bob wrote:So Apuzzo wrote some words on his blog. About Cruz's "ineligibility." Basically the same words; nothing, like you seen before.

What is notable is that Apuzzo has essentially given up. Apuzzo isn't haunting random articles' comment sections. His output on his own blog has so dropped off that it is now notable when he bothers to write at all. (His last actual article, about his failed Cruz ballot challenge, is nearly a year old.)
Apuzzo is right. But for the wrong reasons. We don't call him Blovario for nothing.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2205

Post by bob » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:21 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:Next time try saying something that is substantive.

* * *

It would be nice if I could make any sense out of what you wrote.
Oh, the irony.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2206

Post by bob » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:58 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:You still do not understand the difference between cheerleading and actually playing the game.
:confused:

And:
Apuzzo wrote:Based on your statement,[*] the Constitution has no meaning because "many individuals were Framers."

Also, you state there is no evidence as to the meaning of natural born citizen, yet you argue that my meaning is wrong.

Finally, you act as though I am the only one with any burden of proof. You are the one advocating a position which since the Founding of our nation and only until recently has been rejected, i.e., that a person born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to be President.
* I.e.:
Unknown wrote:The extant evidence indicates that there was little or no discussion on the meaning of [natural-born citizen], so, considering how many individuals were Framers, the notion that they were of one mind is far-fetched.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12027
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2207

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:05 pm

I can't say that little Blovario monologue is anything new, or even different fro mall the others. The last comment however is a bit off to my eyes.

The reason there is no extent discussion about the term is simply because everyone there knew what the term meant, the same thing it had meant to previous generations of Englishmen someone born in England or within the King's allegiance. It was ingrained within their very psyche's.

Let me give you three examples, the first two are actual recipes from one of my favorite cookbooks the third is a modern term:
  • 1) make puff pastry and...
    2) make a gelatine and ...
    3) a phone
Now tell me what those three things are off the top of your head without looking anything up?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2208

Post by bob » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:41 am

That natural-born citizen was a known term of art derived from English Common Law has been presented a zillion times to Apuzzo. I added Unknown's comment only to give context to Apuzzo's response.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12027
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2209

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:45 am

I agree, but I provided the examples for a reason, actually the same reason NBC is such an issue today.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6897
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2210

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:29 am

bob wrote:That natural-born citizen was a known term of art derived from English Common Law has been presented a zillion times to Apuzzo. I added Unknown's comment only to give context to Apuzzo's response.
The endless discussion I have read here over the years has not convinced me that it is a term of art in the "natural born" part. Rather, it seems probable to me that the phrase simply retains the plain meaning of "born with the nature (condition) of being a citizen" and too many readers and lawyers cannot appreciate that what sounds to modern ears as a clumsy archaism was ordinary English of its time. There is no definition to be found because no definition was required. Its meaning was clear and uncontroversial. If it were a term of art, one would expect to find explicatory definitions somewhere contemporary.

Plain English seems to me to be the null/fallback hypothesis and I have not read any argument that shook that hypothesis, in my evaluation. The burden of proof (birther or anti-birther) lies with anyone who contends that it is anything other than plain, mildly archaic, English.

That of course is about the "natural born" part. Who is a "citizen" is a matter of law, and I have no expertise in that matter. But for any X, a natural born X is someone who was X at birth.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44005
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2211

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:17 am

No. "Natural" was a synonym in the 1700s for "native." The Oxford English Dictionary provides the contemporary meaning. I started a thread about it in 2008 which took 4 pages to take off. (Before then were 3 1/2 pages of threadjack.)

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7807
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2212

Post by RoadScholar » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:48 am

On RC's blog I once reminded Apuzzo that natural, native, neo-natal, nation and so on are all based in the same root "nat-" referring to birth.

Crickets.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7869
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2213

Post by Northland10 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:21 pm

RoadScholar wrote:On RC's blog I once reminded Apuzzo that natural, native, neo-natal, nation and so on are all based in the same root "nat-" referring to birth.

Crickets.
I must be more special because Apuzzo would often respond when I explained where he was wrong. The response usually consisted of him calling me a stupid poopy head who doesn't know anything because I am not a lawyer like him. He got me on that one.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44005
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2214

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:03 pm

RoadScholar wrote:On RC's blog I once reminded Apuzzo that natural, native, neo-natal, nation and so on are all based in the same root "nat-" referring to birth.

Crickets.
Explain the verb " to naturalize," then. It's also a word ("naturalization") mentioned in the Constitution. (Art. 1, sec.8.)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15455
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2215

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:46 pm

Does Apuzzo have any appeals going right now? Brooke Paige said in a comment on my blog that he will probably not try to appeal his case to SCOTUS but he may file a motion for reconsideration with the Vermont Supreme Court. I think Apuzzo filed an emergency appeal after Judge Masin denied his challenge in Williams v Cruz last year. Williams said that was also denied.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2216

Post by bob » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:33 pm

Reality Check wrote:Does Apuzzo have any appeals going right now?
None of which I'm aware.
I think Apuzzo filed an emergency appeal after Judge Masin denied his challenge in Williams v Cruz last year. Williams said that was also denied.
Where did Williams say that? Apuzzo was doing his usual bluster that he had filed an appeal (but was getting shrouded). (See this April 2016 P&E article.) Then Apuzzo just stopped talking about it. (And, until very recently, stopped talking in general.) So I inferred it was quietly denied, and that Apuzzo Williams decided against further appeals.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7807
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2217

Post by RoadScholar » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:50 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
RoadScholar wrote:On RC's blog I once reminded Apuzzo that natural, native, neo-natal, nation and so on are all based in the same root "nat-" referring to birth.

Crickets.
Explain the verb " to naturalize," then. It's also a word ("naturalization") mentioned in the Constitution. (Art. 1, sec.8.)
"To confer many of the rights and privileges upon a foreigner that someone born here would have."
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2218

Post by bob » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:41 am

At Apuzzo's!:
Carlyle wrote:I was particularly fascinated by these comments [at the P&E].
I suspect about 90% of the sheep believe like this guy:

=====================================================
[some jerk*] wrote: * * *
:thumbs:

Apuzzo's is rapidly turning into tumbleweeds: Apuzzo hasn't posted an article since July 2016 (to reluctantly acknowledge that SCOTUS wasn't interested in his Cruz challenge); Apuzzo hasn't even commented since July 2017; and the last comment before this latest one was left on August 1.


* :-
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2219

Post by bob » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:48 pm

Apuzzo awakens!:
Apuzzo wrote:Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on what definition of the clause one accepts. The historical and legal evidence demonstrates that a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth. Hence, this is the original meaning of the clause under the Constitution.

While Nikki Haley was born in the United States, she was born to parents who were both non-U.S. citizens. She is therefore a "citizen of the United States" at birth under the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment which did not amend the natural born citizen clause. Not also being born to U.S. citizen parents, she is not an Article II natural born citizen.

[ * * * ]
Unknown wrote:At this point, Esquire Apuzzo, I don't actually want you guys to accept reality. I told you to "cry hard" and you obeyed. Please continue.
Apuzzo wrote:You have asked me to continue, so here we go.

Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on what definition of the clause one accepts. The historical and legal evidence demonstrates that the Founders and Framers in matters of allegiance and citizenship took their legal norms and definitions from the law of nations and the common law thereunder. That body of law defined a natural born citizen as a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth. The first Acts of Congress in matters of naturalization reflect this definition when they provided for the naturalization of all others not born under such circumstances. Hence, the original meaning of a natural born citizen under the Constitution is a child born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth.

While Nikki Haley was born in the United States, she was born to parents who were both non-U.S. citizens. She is therefore a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment (not the common law) which did not amend the common law definition of the natural born citizen clause. Not also being born to U.S. citizen parents, she is not an Article II natural born citizen.

As you see, there is no crying involved, just historical and legal evidence and reason.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2220

Post by bob » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:52 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Unknown wrote:
Apuzzo wrote:"Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on"...
It sure doesn't depend on what you say, Esquire Apuzzo. Here we are, over two hundred comments under an article you wrote a year and a half ago about challenging the Article II eligibility of Ted Cruz. Need I remind you of your results on that?

We all know that Ted Cruz was a tangent for you, as is Nikki Haley, but he was by far the best chance you ever had. Your perfect test case: a Canadian-born son of a Cuban. You vandalized your client's efforts with your crank nonsense, but the arguable notion that a good lawyer might have done better against Cruz will not help against Haley. I don't know whether Ambassador Haley will run for our highest office, but I can safely predict that she will *not* run for president of your fantasy world.
Apuzzo wrote:It must really smart losing your arguments here.
As opposed to Apuzzo's losing his arguments in every court that has been disgraced by his presence.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44005
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2221

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:45 pm

Why is Blovario responding to someone who abusively calls him "Esquire Apuzzo." Isn't that a hint that he's going to be wrestling with a pig in mud. (Although the "pig" does make some incisive points.)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2222

Post by bob » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:51 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:45 pm
Why is Blovario responding to someone who abusively calls him "Esquire Apuzzo." Isn't that a hint that he's going to be wrestling with a pig in mud. (Although the "pig" does make some incisive points.)
Apuzzo likes mud wrestling (and it is his blog, so he can never lose). One of Apuzzo's "virtues" is the ease in baiting him.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2223

Post by bob » Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:22 pm

Apuzzo's!:
ajtelles wrote:Mario, here is the url for the "Originalism and Corpus Linguistics" abstract.

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... stics.html
Apuzzo wrote:Thank you for sharing this article with us. I took a quick look and will examine it in more depth.
That was two months ago. Crickets since.

Apuzzo's out. :crying:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26424
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2224

Post by bob » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:28 pm

Apuzzo's!:
John C. Moritz of the Caller Times and USA Today Network argues that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.[*] [ . . . ] He is mistaken.

To throw off all vestiges of a monarchy and to assure absolute loyalty to and thus survival of the constitutional Republic, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that today the President of the United States, who also serves as the Commander in Chief of the Military, must not only be a "Citizen of the United States." Rather, the President must be a "natural born Citizen."

Under the law of nations and the applicable common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, an Article II natural born citizen was a person born or reputed born in the county to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. Hence, a natural born citizen became a citizen of the country in which he or she was born by virtue of birth circumstances alone and not by the aid of any positive law. The Framers adopted this definition into the Constitution and to date it has never been changed.

Senator Ted Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen. Senator Cruz was born in a foreign country (Canada) to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother. In other words, he was born not only in a foreign nation, but also to a non-U.S. citizen father. Being born to a U.S. citizen mother alone is not sufficient to make him a natural born citizen. It is not enough to give him that allegiance or tie to the United States which a natural born citizen has and which the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military must have, i.e., unwavering attachment to the nation by being born in it to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

A naturalization Act of Congress made Senator Cruz a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” Without this positive law, he would not have been a U.S. citizen at all, let alone a U.S. citizen at birth. One does not become a natural born citizen by way of a naturalization statute passed by Congress. Rather, one becomes a natural born citizen under the common law by the circumstances of birth alone, i.e., being born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Hence, Senator Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (a positive law), not an Article II natural born citizen by virtue of his birth circumstances alone. Senator Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. Senator, who needs to be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 9 years, but not the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military who must be a “natural born Citizen.”
Hasn't changed! :thumbs:

* Here's what woke Apuzzo up:
The whole born-in-Canada thing became something of an issue during the 2016 presidential race, but the law is pretty clear that he meets the constitutional requirement that a president be a natural-born citizen because his mother was a natural-born citizen.

But that little fact gives Cruz something in common with Barack Obama, even though he and the former president have nearly nothing in common when it comes to politics. When some, including Trump, tried to undermine Obama's eligibility for the White House by erroneously asserting that he was born overseas, the argument couldn't hold up because the 44th president's mother was a natural-born citizen.
:brickwallsmall: Obama is a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2225

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:37 pm

For his Obama nonsenses, Mario did not read Wong Kim Ark thoroughly, particularly the paragraph that says US law follows the British Common Law and being born in the US makes you Natural Born. I am not a lawyer, but for Cruz, I doubt there is reliable jurisprudence that says that “born a citizen “ is different from “Natural Born Citizen”.

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”