Mario Apuzzo

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2401

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:25 pm

Sometimes it is nice to refresh one's memory of what is actually said in Minor v. Happersett. This section discusses the TWO ways that additions may be made to the citizenship of the U.S (i.e. by birth and by naturalization). Now a bloviator such as Esquire Apuzzo may exclaim (with little to no merit) that there is a difference between citizen and natural-born citizen, but Chief Justice Morrison Waite didn't share Mario's concern.
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 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," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens maybe born or they may be created by naturalization.
A plain reading of the next paragraph dispels any nitwitted notions that Minor v. Happersett defined the term "natural-born citizen." The highlighted text is clear. The court did not make a determination of all the "people" that are natural-born citizens.
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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
The clear language in Minor demonstrates that the court made no attempt to define the term "natural-born citizen," only that Ms. Minor was a natural-born citizen. Anyone that cites Minor as defining the term is full of :shit:

As for Mario, he can pontificate that his opinion is correct and that he wins, but who cares (other than Mario and a couple of birthers that still visit his blog)? His logorrhea may be precedent on his microverse blog, but nowhere else.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8604
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2402

Post by Northland10 » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:15 pm

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


North-land: of the family 10

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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27370
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2403

Post by bob » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:15 pm
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
:fingerwag: : Apuzzo's too bizzy with the :yankyank: :
Apuzzo wrote:1. I am happy to see that Reality Check has made progress in his understanding of Minor. Now he finally concedes that “the most obvious criteria to determine that Virginia Minor was a citizen, that was she was a natural born child under common law at the time of her birth.”

2. But then he goes wrong when he says: “The court [Minor] made no ruling as to whether citizens born with foreign parents after the adoption of the Amendment XIV were or were not natural born citizens.”

The Court made no ruling as to whether those children were “citizens” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether they were natural born citizens under the common law. Here is the quote from Minor which clearly demonstrates that it left open the Fourteenth Amendment question regarding who was to be included as a “citizen” thereunder:
Some authorities go further and include as “citizens” children born within the “jurisdiction” without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor, at 167-68 (emphasis supplied). [There's no emphasis; it is plain text.]

[ * * * ]

Justice Gray refers to “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens” which he used previously and defined under the common law. He also uses “jurisdiction,” a word that is found in the Fourteenth Amendment and not in the common law definition of a natural born citizen.

3. Reality Check also errs when he said: “Justice Gray in his opinion in WKA cited Minor to show that the court had left that question open in that case as well as others.”

No, Justice Gray said that Minor had left open the Fourteenth Amendment question, not the natural born citizen question.

Commenting on Minor, Justice Gray said:
The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94.
Id. at 680.

Justice Gray explained that the Fourteenth Amendment “put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. Id. at 676.

Justice Gray further said: “These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth [p688] Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.” Id. at 687-88.

And again:
By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’"
All this proves that Minor made a “decision” (not dicta) on both natural born citizenship and voting rights. It also proves that Minor, which came before Elk, made no decision on how to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment which makes no reference to a natural born citizen. Indeed, Justice Grey told us that Minor did not address the Fourteenth Amendment question. A child born in the U.S. to alien parents could not be a citizen under the common law natural born citizen clause. Minor explained that some authorities maintained that such a child could be a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It said that there were “doubts” whether that was correct. But since it was not necessary for the Court to reach that decision given that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen, it left it open for another day. That other day came with Wong Kim Ark which explained that the Fourteenth Amendment removed all the “doubts” regarding whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” of the United States.

[ * * * ]

Additionally, Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent in Wong explained that the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) had stated that children of "’citizens or subjects of foreign States,’" owing permanent allegiance elsewhere and only local obedience here, are not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States than are their parents” and therefore not “citizens” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 724. He then added that he was not insisting that the statement was essential to the Slaughterhouse Cases’ decision, especially given that just two years later “Chief Justice Waite in Minor . . . remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. But that solution is furnished in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101.” Fuller then went on to explain how Elk addressed the Fourteenth Amendment question. Hence, we can see that Chief Justice Fuller saw Minor’s “doubts” as referring to the Fourteenth Amendment and not about defining a natural born citizen and that Minor left open the Fourteenth Amendment question and not any question about how a natural born citizen should be defined.

So, we can see that Minor did not say that there were any doubts about what a natural born citizen was or about whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a natural born citizen. The only doubts that existed in Chief Justice Waite’s mind were about whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was now a “citizen” of the United States given the new Fourteenth Amendment. He did not address those doubts. Wong Kim Ark did. Unlike Virginia Minor who was a “natural born citizen” and therefore not in need of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong was not a natural born citizen and so the Wong Kim Ark Court had to address the question of whether he was a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Finally, it is absurd to expect Chief Justice Waite to refuse to swear in President Chester Arthur even if he believed that he was not eligible. The Constitution does not give any single Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court any such authority. The role of the Chief Justice was to administer the oath for the President-elect. That did not include any jurisdiction to singly make a decision on whether he was eligible or not for the office.
Apuzzo wins again!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15897
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2404

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:38 pm

dunstvangeet wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:53 pm
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:49 pm
But the 19th Amendment overruled it by constitutional amendment.
Technically, the 19th Amendment did not overrule Minor. Minor is still one of those travesty of a case that is still case law and still is upheld to this day. The central holding in Minor was voting is not part of the constitution, so there is no right to vote in the Constitution. Therefore, the right to vote can be denied, as long as it is not denied by one of the prohibited reasons (15th Amendment with Race, Color, and Previous status of servitutde, 19th Amendment with Gender; 22nd Amendment with age (over 18). As long as you don't deny the right to vote on one of those things, it's still legal to deny the right to vote, and Minor is still cited as case law to that effect.

The 19th Amendment didn't put the right to vote in the Constitution (therefore overruling the central premise of Minor v. Happersett). It just prohibited denying the right to vote on the basis of gender.
Check out Reynolds v Sims, 1964. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
In a decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court ruled that Alabama's apportionment scheme did violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Because "the right to exercise franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights," the Court argued, the right to vote is a "fundamental right" strictly protected by the Constitution. And because the United States is a democracy based on equal representation of the people in government, an apportionment scheme that gives more weight to some votes than others violates the Equal Protection Clause, which forbids a state from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because the right to vote is so fundamental to securing protection from the laws, the clause inevitably guarantees "the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislatures."
In his dissent Justice John Marshall Harlan lamented that the court had silently overruled previous rulings including Minor v Happersett:
Mention should be made finally of the decisions of this Court which are disregarded or, more accurately, silently overruled today. Minor v. Happersett, supra, in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not [p613] confer the right to vote on anyone, has already been noted. Other cases are more directly in point. In Colegrove v. Barrett, 330 U.S. 804, this Court dismissed “for want of a substantial federal question” an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint alleging that the Illinois legislative apportionment resulted in “gross inequality in voting power” and “gross and arbitrary and atrocious discrimination in voting” which denied the plaintiffs equal protection of the laws. [n71] In Remmey v. Smith, 102 F.Supp. 708 (D.C.E.D.Pa.), a three-judge District Court dismissed a complaint alleging that the apportionment of the Pennsylvania Legislature deprived the plaintiffs of “constitutional rights guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 709. The District Court stated that it was aware that the plaintiffs’ allegations were “notoriously true” and that the practical disenfranchisement of qualified electors in certain of the election districts in Philadelphia County is a matter of common knowledge.
I wouldn't say it exactly overruled Minor but the ruling definitely applied the Equal Protection clause in a case involving voting rights.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27370
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2405

Post by bob » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:43 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:38 pm
In his dissent Justice Marshall Harlan lamented that the court had silently overruled previous rulings including Minor v Happersett
True, but dunstvangeet's essential point is still correct: Minor occasionally still is cited for the proposition that there is no constitutional right to vote.

But between the 19th Amendment and the voting right cases of the 1960s, its holding (regarding women's right to vote) has been overruled (or at least superseded).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34973
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2406

Post by realist » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:01 pm

I’ve always preferred to use the term abrogate. The 19th Amendment abrogated Minor.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15897
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2407

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:58 pm

Mario made an appearance at John Woodman's blog in the comments in 2012. He got his ass handed to him by several folks. His arguments are no better now than they were then.

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www ... ommon-law/


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13026
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2408

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:28 pm

Happersett still has one act left to it. Age is still in play as there has been some talk in some states of granting the franchise to 16 year olds.


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.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2409

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:38 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:58 pm
Mario made an appearance at John Woodman's blog in the comments in 2012. He got his ass handed to him by several folks. His arguments are no better now than they were then.

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www ... ommon-law/
Apuzzo had just lost his New Jersey challenge, and his two citizen parent argument at that point. (Purpura and Nolan)



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8604
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2410

Post by Northland10 » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:54 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:27 pm
Northland10 wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:15 pm
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
:fingerwag: : Apuzzo's too bizzy with the :yankyank: :
For the record, the comment did make it past moderation but the commenter is often Mr. Cellophane so he/she has not been rated as response worthy.

https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the- ... 3978610874


North-land: of the family 10

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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27370
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2411

Post by bob » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:07 am

Northland10 wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:54 pm
For the record, the comment did make it past moderation but the commenter is often Mr. Cellophane so he/she has not been rated as response worthy.

https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the- ... 3978610874
:fingerwag::
Apuzzo wrote:You have presented a straw man argument, for I have never interpreted Minor in such a way as to produce the conclusion that “only apples are fruits.” Allow me to demonstrate.

First, you maintain that Minor said:

All apples are fruits.

Other things are fruits.

Then you put forth the proposition that the way I interpret Minor produces the following conclusion from those premises:

Therefore, only apples are fruits.

Such a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, for clearly, the set of fruits is much larger than the set of apples and therefore includes more than just apples. In other words, other things can also be fruits and not just apples.

And this is exactly how I have interpreted Minor. I have not interpreted Minor to say that only natural born citizens (apples) are citizens (fruits), which I have shown is erroneous. Rather, I have interpreted Minor to say that other things can be citizens (fruits).

To prove my point, Minor added that there had been doubts whether a child born in the jurisdiction to alien parents was a citizen (fruit). Minor was correct in saying that such doubt existed given that such a child did not satisfy the common law definition of a natural born citizen (apple) and therefore we could not a fortiori conclude that he was a citizen (fruit). Not being a natural born citizen (apple), he[*] had to demonstrate some other way by which he was a citizen (fruit). Minor did not say that there was any doubt whether he was a natural born citizen (apple). Such a question would be erroneous since such a child could not be a natural born citizen (apple) if he or she were not a citizen (fruit). But at the same time, even if he were a citizen (fruit) that did not mean that he was necessarily a natural born citizen (apple).

So, what I have maintained is that Chief Justice Waite defined under the common law a natural born citizen (apple) to be a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens (fruits). Under the common law, this was a natural citizen (fruit). Minor said that all the rest of the people who did not satisfy this definition of a natural born citizen (apple) were “aliens or foreigners” (not fruits) and could become citizens (fruits) by operation of some law. I have further maintained that he said that there had been doubts whether children born in the U.S. to alien parents were citizens (fruits) under the new Fourteenth Amendment. He did not say that there were doubts whether they were natural born citizens (apples), for clearly under the common law definition that it confirmed they were not.

Chief Justice Waite did not answer the question of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a citizen (fruit) under the Fourteenth Amendment. That question was answered by Wong Kim Ark which for policy reasons ruled that he was (if blacks born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents were citizens then so were Asians and whites born under the same circumstances). But then concluding that such a child is a citizen (fruit) of the United States does not equate to concluding that such a child is a natural born citizen (apple). In fact, not meeting the definition of a natural born citizen (apple), while such a child can be a citizen (fruit), such a child is not and cannot be a natural born citizen (apple).

My argument, therefore, does not equate as you maintain to saying that only natural born citizens (apples) are citizens (fruits).
Apuzzo wins again!


* Apuzzo's so bizzy :yankyank: ing, he forgot that Minor was a woman; her womanhood being why the case existed. :brickwallsmall:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2412

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:11 am

bob wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:07 am
* Apuzzo's so bizzy :yankyank: ing, he forgot that Minor was a woman; her womanhood being why the case existed. :brickwallsmall:
:rotflmao: :lol: How precious! Apuzzo sees himself as the one true arbiter of citizenship law, yet he cannot even get simple, essential facts straight!

I wondered whether to poke him by repeating my request from some years ago that he cite current legal scholars, law professors, etc. who explicitly support his view, y'know coz that would be helpful, innocent smile … ooo, he didn't like that! It was apparently up to me to refute his nonsense to his satisfaction (that's how debate in The Apuzzone works :bag: ).

But then I thought "have I better things to do with my time?", rephrased that question to myself as "is anything a worse use of my time than engaging with Apuzzo?" and answer came there none.

Keep pokin' guys :thumbs: , asses like Apuzzo deserve to be frustrated.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8604
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2413

Post by Northland10 » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:28 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:11 am
Keep pokin' guys :thumbs: , asses like Apuzzo deserve to be frustrated.
I probably won't bother with another one. I was more curious at how he would handle the fruit analogy since I had not used it in years past when poking Mario on other blogs. He did not disappoint. He did lovingly demonstrated that he has his own interpretation of the actual opinion and entirely ignores the plain text.
Mario wrote:Then you put forth the proposition that the way I interpret Minor produces the following conclusion from those premises:

Therefore, only apples are fruits.
He did get that part right.


North-land: of the family 10

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

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2414

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:28 pm

Congrats, Northland10. You got Blovario to make a whole bunch of apples into apple sauce! He got all confuzzled in his logorrheic rhetoric ascribing both NBC and citizen to parenthetical fruit, but only NBC is an apple. :dazed: :crazy: In fact, his argument was so inartfully done, that his recipe for apple sauce is nothing more than "squish a bunch of apples and scrape it off your shoe."

He's an ungifted attorney who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of understanding the holding in Minor. On his blog Mario rules and therefore, he wins with his Earth shattering conclusion that natural-born citizen means ONLY a person born in the US whose parents are both citizens. In the real world, Minor went beyond the necessity of determining whether Virginia Minor was a citizen and stated that she was a natural born citizen (dicta). The determination that Minor was an NBC was dicta. Chief Justice Waite said that the court did not look at other situations like a person born in the US to non-citizen parents as to whether they were natural born citizens because, "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

In other words Putzy, they did not define all the situations in which a person is a natural born citizen. Instead of your tortuous illogic, it is plain that anyone born in the US (except those specifically exempted from citizenship like the children of foreign diplomats) can become POTUS.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45308
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2415

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:37 pm

Bonus: from what I have previously read, both sides in Minor had stipulated she was a natural born citizen. So that issue was never "adjudicated" in any way. It was a given. And it was irrelevant to the decision if she had been a natural born citizen, an Apuzzo 14th amendment citizen or an immigrant who had become a naturalized citizen. A citizen of any species who was a woman would have lost that case.

But let me just add: Blovario wins again! So much winning. It's amazing he doesn't tire of it. :yankyank:



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34973
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2416

Post by realist » Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:55 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:37 pm
Bonus: from what I have previously read, both sides in Minor had stipulated she was a natural born citizen. So that issue was never "adjudicated" in any way. It was a given. And it was irrelevant to the decision if she had a natural born citizen, an Apuzzo 14th amendment citizen or an immigrant who had become a naturalized citizen. A citizen of any species who was a woman would have lost that case.

But let me just add: Blovario wins again! So much winning. It's amazing he doesn't tire of it. :yankyank:
Absolutely true. it was a stipulated fact
In the lower court. The question was never before SCOTUS nor any other court.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2417

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:03 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:37 pm
Bonus: from what I have previously read, both sides in Minor had stipulated she was a natural born citizen. So that issue was never "adjudicated" in any way. It was a given. And it was irrelevant to the decision if she had a natural born citizen, an Apuzzo 14th amendment citizen or an immigrant who had become a naturalized citizen. A citizen of any species who was a woman would have lost that case.

But let me just add: Blovario wins again! So much winning. It's amazing he doesn't tire of it. :yankyank:
Thanks for the correction Stern. So, the court merely recited a stipulation agreed to by both parties. Sheesh, Mario!



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13026
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2418

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:16 pm

Minor wasn't about citizenship other than whether ALL citizens had a right to vote, and the answer was NO. I don't know why that is so complicated for the Birferatti to comprehend, but they want it to read differently and be about something other than what it was. I do think reading comprehension is one of the BIG items here since it seems to be a consistency running through the entire community, the inability to parse even a simple sentence for meaning. I don't get how you can get through law school and not be able to, maybe that's how you end up being a DUI/ambulance chaser.

I don't argue the comments on Blovario's talent and ability, I think that is a given. I am still on the fence about whether or not he actually believes his claims or not. I don't know if it is attention seeking or something more complicated. Doesn't make him less of an idiot.


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.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2419

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:21 pm

Courts are so mean to Mario, always denying his brilliance, so he has to win in his own small reflecting pool.

It reminds me of Klayman's magnificent wins.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10431
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2420

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:32 pm

How can Apuzzo keep saying all this when he was spanked out of court because he's wrong? Those who matter said GTFO didn't they? Is he stuck on stupid? Didn't he go all the way and lose? He seems to be having trouble getting past this :lol:


Photo: Merry Christmas from the titular Mama June. Santa (aka Sugar Bear) and her lovely family!
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27370
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2421

Post by bob » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:37 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:16 pm
I don't argue the comments on Blovario's talent and ability, I think that is a given. I am still on the fence about whether or not he actually believes his claims or not. I don't know if it is attention seeking or something more complicated. Doesn't make him less of an idiot.
I believe he's a believer; the attention seeking is a bonus to his otherwise meaningless life.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15897
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2422

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:35 pm

Reality Check said...

Part I:

The main problem Apuzzo has is that the terms of the Constitution are defined by English common law.

We know this from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
Wong Kim Ark wrote: In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

124 U.S. 478.

II. 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. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King
So WKA clearly points us to a definition of "natural born". And that definition in English common law included "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."

So the authors of the Constitution clearly understood this definition of "natural born". It was so ingrained in the common law that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were equivalent terms that multiple published legal documents on citizenship contained the phrase "natural born subject" even after the adoption of the Constitution.
July 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM

Reality Check said...

Part II:

Now Apuzzo has ineffectively tried to explain this devastating set of facts by claiming that the common law had changed by the time the Constitution was written and that in Minor the Supreme Court was referring to "American Common Law". Aside from the fact that the court in WKA quoted Smith v Alabama and that would have negated Apuzzo's claim that the definition of "natural born" came from American common law and for there have to have been a change in the common law definition of natural born it must have been predicated upon a court ruling in colonial times up to the writing of the Constitution requiring that a child must have two citizen parents to be natural born.

Now way back in 2012 blogger John Woodman asked Apuzzo to cite just such a list of cases. He asked Apuzzo for a list of all court decisions prior to 1787, that established the American Common Law definition of “Natural Born Citizen". So how many of those cases did Apuzzo name? If you guessed exactly zero give that man a cigar.

So let's see how Apuzzo can do now that he has had 7 years to do the research. How many can he name?

Woodman gave Apuzzo an even easier task. He asked him to supply "The Quotes from American Colonial, State and Federal Judges, Prior to 1787, that Make Clear the American Common Law Definition that Being a “Natural Born Citizen” Requires Two Citizen Parents". Again the mighty Apuzzo struck out. Surely after 7 long years he can now supply those quotes.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45308
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2423

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:56 pm

Who's the better lawyer? In my opinion a dead Melville Fuller is a better lawyer today than a living Mario Apuzzo.

Edit: By the way, the reason I didn't want to engage Blovario beyond pointing out what Chief Justice Fuller thought the Wong decision meant was because I didn't want to re-invent the wheel. We had lengthy discussions in 2009 -- ten years ago -- that pretty much resolved the issue. Using originalism as our interpretive guide, "natural" in 1789 was a synonym for "native." The masters of style who wrote the Constitution thought "natural" sounded better than "native," I suppose, and the phrase "natural born subject" had a specific meaning in the English common law.

Here's one of our threads on the subject: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=1192&hilit=oxford+ ... atural#top

A search here of "Oxford+ Dictionary+natural" will bring up many discussions. Apuzzo has been using a version of originalism to guide his approach. He's just not any good at it. It requires looking in a contemporary dictionary and reading it.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13026
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2424

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:19 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:56 pm
Who's the better lawyer? In my opinion a dead Melville Fuller is a better lawyer today than a living Mario Apuzzo.

Edit: By the way, the reason I didn't want to engage Blovario beyond pointing out what Chief Justice Fuller thought the Wong decision meant was because I didn't want to re-invent the wheel. We had lengthy discussions in 2009 -- ten years ago -- that pretty much resolved the issue. Using originalism as our interpretive guide, "natural" in 1789 was a synonym for "native." The masters of style who wrote the Constitution thought "natural" sounded better than "native," I suppose, and the phrase "natural born subject" had a specific meaning in the English common law.

Here's one of our threads on the subject: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=1192&hilit=oxford+ ... atural#top

A search here of "Oxford+ Dictionary+natural" will bring up many discussions. Apuzzo has been using a version of originalism to guide his approach. He's just not any good at it. It requires looking in a contemporary dictionary and reading it.
I don't think there is any question there at all. Blovario just repeats his past failures and glories in them without seeing them for what they are.


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: 27370
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2425

Post by bob » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:06 am

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:I am giving Reality Check only a short response knowing that he, like John Woodman, cannot take a long one.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset (1875) defined a natural born citizen under the common law the nomenclature with which the framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It said:
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.
Minor, at 167.

This definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens” is almost a quote from Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"), a text which our U.S. Supreme Court in several past and current decisions has informed was highly regarded and used by the Founders and Framers. In fact, Section 212 defined the “natives, or natural-born citizens,” the exact same nomenclature used by Minor. Since the common law definition of a natural born citizen that Minor provided has its source in the law of nations, that common law was American national common law and not English common law. To give you some examples why this is so and there are many more, Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) relied on the law of nations to define a natural born citizen. In The Nereide, 13 U.S. 388, 423 (1815), Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” Justice Daniel in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) also used Emer de Vattel and Section 212 of his The Law of Nations to define a natural born citizen. None of these decisions mentioned Blackstone's name when doing so, let alone anything that he or any other commentator on the English common law said on the subject.

Indeed, under Minor’s definition as provided by that common law, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to citizen parents and all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized under positive law such as naturalization Acts of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, which used the English common law as an aid to interpreting the “jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cited and quoted Minor’s definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens” and did not disagree with Minor on how it defined those terms under that common law. Your complaint regarding American common law v. English common law is therefore with Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Daniel, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark, not with me.
Apuzzo wins again!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”