Mario Apuzzo

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2376

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:15 pm

North and RC - jump in at Blovarios! Give him a chance to win one or two more!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2377

Post by bob » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:20 pm

6. Echo chambers for the :yankyank: ; an aversion to reality.

* * *
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:15 pm
North and RC - jump in at Blovarios! Give him a chance to win one or two more!
Not only does Apuzzo moderate his blog, he requires a google account to even leave a comment. E.g.:
This blog does not allow anonymous comments.
:nope:

Bonus:
Carlyle wrote:I also get very sick of backwards reasoning -- The people clearly want Obama (or Harris, or Haley, or Cruz, etc.) and so therefore they MUST be NBC. Aristotle would be shocked.
Oh, the irony.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13017
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2378

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:46 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Mario and his elk are rather impressive at how easily they disregard everything that does not port with their already decided result. While many authors and politicians from the early US state birth in the country regardless of parentage is the sufficient, which is backed up by various court rulings (Lynch and WKA), the Birthers have:

1. A Swiss philosopher (who NEVER set foot in the US and of whom they are quoting the wrong section, intentionally I believe)
2. The opinion of the person who lost the argument on the seating of a Congressman in the First Congress.
3. The dissenting Judge in WKA.
4. Dicta from a case where the dicta does not even support his position.
5. The racist notion that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of "born citizens" who are not natural born citizens.
6. Echo chambers for the :yankyank: ; an aversion to reality.
With credit to bob and realitycheck. All of the above are true Blovario. I think 5. is the one I find most offensive though.


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: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2379

Post by bob » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:57 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:By now we should understand that the set of natural born citizens is not only a subset but also a proper subset of the set of born citizens. Again, the born citizens are defined by (1) the common law which defines a natural born citizen (by birth in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents), (2) the Fourteenth Amendment (by birth in the U.S. to one or no U.S. citizen parents), and (3) a naturalization Act of Congress (by birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents). Indeed, there are natural born citizens (under Article II) and born citizens (under the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization Acts of Congress), and while all natural born citizens are born citizens, not all born citizens are natural born citizens. These different sets of born citizens are not to be conflated and confounded but rather are to be kept separate and apart and given their own distinct constitutional sphere. It is by recognizing the distinction between these types of born citizens that we give meaning to the word “natural” from the natural born citizen clause. Congress has always recognized this constitutional distinction. In all its naturalization Acts, it has called all born citizens who are not natural born citizens “citizens” of the United States and not “natural born citizens” of the United States. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment, as drafted by Congress, even though a native-born citizen thereunder is a born citizen, uses the nomenclature “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born citizens” of the United States.
The three remaining birthers will be duly impressed. :roll:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2380

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:28 pm

For intellectual consistency Blovario would have to add to the "born a citizen" ledger white people born in a state other than the first 13. Statutes brought those states into the Union and, so, under Blovario's silly rationale they are not "natural born citizens" as that term was understood when the Constitution was ratified. (NB: The 14th amendment wasn't a statute but a constitutional amendment, which ranks higher than a statute.)

Such persons as Richard Nixon (California), Ronald Reagan (Illinois), Abraham Lincoln (Kentucky), Herbert Hoover (Iowa), Dwight Eisenhower (Texas), Lyndon Johnson (Texas) and Leslie Lynch King, Jr. (Nebraska) and probably 25-30 0ther Presidents aren't eligible based on Apuzzo's brilliance. But he never mentions it. That's because he hasn't fully thought out his racist classifications.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13017
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2381

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:42 pm

Blovario's biggest problem is that the US WASN'T founded under French common law or Swiss common law, but instead THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW, and it says so in the Constitution, his interpretation of what is was is simply, completely, and utterly WRONG.


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
Atticus Finch
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2382

Post by Atticus Finch » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:33 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:57 pm
Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:By now we should understand that the set of natural born citizens is not only a subset but also a proper subset of the set of born citizens. Again, the born citizens are defined by (1) the common law which defines a natural born citizen (by birth in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents), (2) the Fourteenth Amendment (by birth in the U.S. to one or no U.S. citizen parents), and (3) a naturalization Act of Congress (by birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents). Indeed, there are natural born citizens (under Article II) and born citizens (under the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization Acts of Congress), and while all natural born citizens are born citizens, not all born citizens are natural born citizens. These different sets of born citizens are not to be conflated and confounded but rather are to be kept separate and apart and given their own distinct constitutional sphere. It is by recognizing the distinction between these types of born citizens that we give meaning to the word “natural” from the natural born citizen clause. Congress has always recognized this constitutional distinction. In all its naturalization Acts, it has called all born citizens who are not natural born citizens “citizens” of the United States and not “natural born citizens” of the United States. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment, as drafted by Congress, even though a native-born citizen thereunder is a born citizen, uses the nomenclature “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born citizens” of the United States.
The three remaining birthers will be duly impressed. :roll:
Apuzzo has a novel legal theory in which he believes that there exists a third type of citizenship he referred to as “naturalized at birth citizen”. This type of citizenship is different from those who are natural born citizens and those who are naturalized citizens. These “naturalized at birth” citizens are those who are born in the United States but whose parents are not United States Citizens. It is his theory that these “naturalized at birth” citizens were created by the 14th Amendment and as such can never be considered natural born citizens even though they are born in the United States. Apuzzo contends that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment that children born in the United States of non-citizen parents were they themselves aliens.

The problem with Apuzzo’s “naturalized at birth citizen” theory is that the courts have never recognized this third type of citizenship. On the contrary, the courts have always recognized two types of citizenships, native/natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. “There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.” Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942); “There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.” Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)

Moreover, courts prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 had recognized that there is no legal distinction between those persons born in the United States to those born to citizen parents and non-citizen parents.

In 1844, a judge in New York noted that a child born in New York of aliens parents during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. He held that she was a citizen of the United States by noting:

“The term citizen, was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. ” No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. SUPPOSE A PERSON SHOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO WAS NATIVE BORN, BUT OF ALIEN PARENTS, COULD THERE BE ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I THINK NOT. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Court of Chancery, State of New York, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 656 (1844) (emphasis added)

Justice Curtis in his dissent in the Dred Scott decision observed: “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 576 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting)

In 1858, a court in New York reaffirmed the citizenship status of those born of non-citizen parents "It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father's domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. . . . In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question.” Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 383. 400-401, (1858)

In the debates to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Senators noted that children born in the United States to non-naturalized parents (i.e. foreign nationals) were citizens of the United States.
Senator Trumbull observed: “I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)

Senator Trumbull further added “There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)

The executive departments of our government have repeatedly affirmed that children born of foreign parents are citizens.
Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, in an instruction to Mr. Mason, United States Minister to France, said: "In reply to the inquiry which is made by you, . . . whether 'the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country to which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their fathers country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,' I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship." Mr. Marcy to Mr. Mason, June 6, 1854, MSS. Inst. France.

Attorney General Black, in 1859, held that "a free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States." 9 Ops. Atty. Gen. 373.

Attorney General Bates, in 1862, held that a child born in the United States of alien parents who have never been naturalized is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen of the United States, entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 10 Ops. Atty. Gen. 382.

Noted legal scholar, William Rawle, wrote in 1829:
“The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States (2nd ed. 1829) page 86

As such, Apuzzo's theory that children born in the United States prior to 14th Amendment to alien parents were considered aliens was not supported by case law, executive orders and legal scholars.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2383

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Atticus - I think Rogers v. Bellei may upset your applecart.

As a bonus, under the decision Cruz isn't a natural born citizen. He was born with a status he could lose.

Tell me what you think.



User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2384

Post by dunstvangeet » 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.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2385

Post by bob » Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:57 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:15 pm
North and RC - jump in at Blovarios! Give him a chance to win one or two more!
Apuzzo's!:
Reality Check wrote: Apuzzo's and his cohort's arguments are based on two major fallacies and that is why Apuzzo has failed multiple times in the courts.

THe first fallacy is that the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett ruled in obiter dicta that the natural born citizens are only those born to US citizen parent(s). First, it is dicta, second it had nothing to do with the question in the case (it's dicta stupid), and finally that isn't what the court said in dicta. A judge told Apuzzo that when he tried to bring up Minor in oral argument.

The second huge fallacy is that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of "born citizens". This is nonsense thinking rooted in racism. As the court explained in the Wong Kim Ark ruling the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to codify what had been in common law for hundreds of years and any one born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States (or on British soil prior to the formation of the USA) was a natural born citizen (natural born subject prior to the formation of the United States).

It became necessary to add the explicit language to the Constitution to neuter the racist Dred Scott v Sandford precedent and ensure that freed slaves became citizens. There aren't "Fourteenth Amendment Citizens" and "natural born citizens". They are one and the same. Any legal scholar worth his salt agrees with that conclusion.

[ * * * ]
Apuzzo wrote:You said: "There aren't "Fourteenth Amendment Citizens" and "natural born citizens"."
Let me help you a bit. If you are going to make that argument, then you have to say: There aren't "citizens" of the United States and "natural born citizen" of the United States. But then that would not work out too good for you, would it?
Apuzzo wins again!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13017
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2386

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:22 pm

Positive suffrage was not a part of the original Constitution, it was left up to the states, thus the states could prohibit blacks and women from voting. Several of the western states passed suffrage for their female citizens well before the 19th. Left to their own devices, and short an amendment, I suspect women would have gotten the vote long before blacks in some states.


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
Northland10
Posts: 8597
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2387

Post by Northland10 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:43 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:15 pm
North and RC - jump in at Blovarios! Give him a chance to win one or two more!
If I jumped in there, I would feel obligated to include his response to me, sort of like a proposed order. Basically, the response consists of telling me I am not a lawyer and stupid so I would not understand his reasoning. It became his stock answer to me in the past.

While looking around Woodman's and Doc's sites, I found this comment I made in response to Mario.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/ ... ent-187884
Northland10 at Doc's wrote:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says: The Fourteenth Amendment brought some closure to the question of which people born in the United States are to be considered “citizens” from the moment of birth. I say some closure because it introduced some doubts by resorting to the vague “subject to the jurisdiction” clause.
Actually not vague at all. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) [emphasis mine]:
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by � 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that

“all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as invoking the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
I think I should just put this one on “speed dial” as many times as I have to cite it. In addition, I am not the only one who has cited this case. It was cited in WKA.

Mario, if you are going to make a claim, it would help to do due diligence, lest a non-lawyer point out that you are wrong about “subject to the jurisdiction” being vague.
Mario's response.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at Doc's wrote:Northland10,

I can see that you are not a lawyer. You cite Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) which is not relevant to my point.
Granted I am not a lawyer, but I still am not quite understanding how Yick Wo v Hopkins is not relative to his point that "subject to the jurisdiction is vague." In any case, actually watching him try to tell Ballentine how he's wrong is quite fun.

I may not be as witty as others but I just giggled at my own statement on the same thread.
Northland10 at Doc's wrote:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says: Poor Poor nbc, he’s been checkmated.
I don’t recall nbc being ruled against by the court today?


North-land: of the family 10

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

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8597
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2388

Post by Northland10 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:53 pm

Speaking about Ballentine, I find this on the same thread mentioned above.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. May 28, 2012 at 9:31 am #
ballantine,

You tell us that Minor v. Happersett was all about voting and not at all about citizenship.
I seriously doubt that if I went to his site, I could find anything more stupid than what he has already stated.


North-land: of the family 10

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

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2389

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:32 pm

:thumbs:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2390

Post by bob » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:05 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Reality Check wrote:Let's see where Apuzzo's twisted logic takes us. Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment all persons born in the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside. Guess who that includes? It includes persons born to one or two parents who are citizens. All modern citizenship statutes are based upon the 14th Amendment.

Therefore, following Apuzzo's twisted logic there are no natural born citizens still alive since all non-naturalized citizens are citizens via the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no other definitions of citizenship in the Constitution. Please show us where the Constitution defines who is a natural born citizen elsewhere? There are not two classes of citizens defined in Amendment 14. There are only the natural born citizens and the citizens as designated by Congress under Article I powers.

The only remaining question is whether someone who is a citizen under the naturalization powers of Congress is also "natural born" if born to a US parent abroad. Ted Cruz was in this category. The few court rulings that were handed down in 2016 seem to suggest that the courts would rule that the answer is yes.

The question of whether someone born on US soil and a citizen via statute and the 14th Amendment is natural born well settled. To continue to argue that it isn't in 2019 is absurd.

[ * * * ]
Apuzzo wrote:I see that you are having difficulty sorting things out. Let me help you.

First, in your attempt to make the Fourteenth Amendment the only means by which one is determined to be a natural born citizen, you said: “There are no other definitions of citizenship in the Constitution.” That is correct but not controlling. Minor instructed that the Constitution does not define a natural born citizen and that there were always citizens and natural born citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It then set out to show how citizens and natural born citizens existed prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It defined the “natives, or natural-born citizens” under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, stating that they were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens. It then concluded that Virginia Minor, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, was by virtue of being a natural born citizen, a citizen. Hence, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that a natural born citizen was defined under the common law and not under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to all those born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Given that broad language, the amendment generally grants U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth to children born in the U.S. to one or no U.S. citizen parents or to two U.S. citizen parents. See Wong Kim Ark. Of those children, those who are born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents are not only “citizens” of the United States under the Amendment, but, satisfying the common law definition of a natural born citizen, also “natives, or natural-born citizens” of the United States. See Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

Third, regarding Senator Cruz, who was born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress and not by virtue of the common law that defines a natural born citizen. See Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that I have cited on this point. Without such naturalization Act, he would have been born an alien. Hence, needing a naturalization Act for his U.S. citizenship, he is not a natural born citizen.
Apuzzo wins again.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2391

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:51 pm

"Common law" was an English invention. Vattel's survey was of European law, which included English law as a subset. Vattel's observations about the application of common law on citizenship is actually found in section 214 of his treatise, not section 212. Most European law is based on a system of adjudication known as "civil law." And, anyway, isn't there some Gladstone or other treatise on citizenship by virtue of place of birth? I've forgotten since I no longer need to remember.

But I don't feel like mentioning it to Apuzzo. I suspect I'd get a 3,000 word exegesis on what he thinks "common law" means and I would be poorer for the experience. And there would be a victory declaration soon thereafter.

From what I've seen Apuzzo's litigation record is worse than Klayman's. And that's a very low barr.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2392

Post by bob » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:59 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:51 pm
I suspect I'd get a 3,000 word exegesis on what he thinks "common law" means and I would be poorer for the experience.
Short answer: Wong Kim Ark's reference "common law" means the colonial/American common law (of 1787), not the British common law. :roll:
From what I've seen Apuzzo's litigation record is worse than Klayman's. And that's a very low barr.
On one hand, Klayman won a six-figure judgment in his defamation lawsuit against Judicial Watch. (He never saw the money, tho, because his ex- won her interpleader, to help satisfy all her judgments against Klayman.)

But Apuzzo probably has negotiated hundreds of DUIs down to (the New Jersey equivalent of) littering.

You tell me who has added more to the profession.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 7214
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2393

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:59 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:51 pm
And that's a very low barr.
I see what you did there.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45296
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2394

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:14 pm

I was feeling snarky.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2395

Post by bob » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:19 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Reality Check wrote:The problem is that Apuzzo is completely wrong on Minor. Remember Apuzzo was told that in court? Guess he didn't listen.

Here is what Atticus Finch wrote about Minor v Happersett in a comment on Robert Laity's joke of a "book" at Amazon:
Atticus Finch" wrote:The case United States supreme court case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) cited by the author had nothing to do with the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution. In fact, the issue in the case was whether a woman who was a citizen of the United States had a right to vote under the privilege clause of the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, held that the "Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, (Id. at 178)" unless specifically mentioned in the 15th Amendment where it provides: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

In his opinion, Chief Justice Waite mentioned in passing the following language that was not germane to the case by noting:
Minor wrote: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. Id 167-168
The above language is a typical example what is refer to as Obiter Dictum or in other words “words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 967 (Fifth Ed. 1979). When there is Obiter Dictum language in an opinion that part of the opinion that contained Obiter Dictum language has no precedent value since it was unnecessary in the court’s decision.

In the Minor case, nowhere in the opinion was the status of Virginia Minor citizenship discussed. Moreover, there was no discussion as to the citizenship status of Minor’s PARENTS. In fact, the court noted “She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Id. at 170.

Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact, he himself remarked “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

As such, the holding in the Minor case was that citizenship does not itself confer the right to vote under the Privilege Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Apuzzo has no definition from the Constitution for "natural born citizen". Therefore he had to invent a phony one. Wong Kim Ark destroyed that fallacy. Most of Justice Gray's majority opinion is spent explaining that in English Common Law a natural born subject was one born on British soil with allegiance to the crown regardless of parentage. This definition was incorporated by the colonies and then by the states of the United States that were their successors. It wasn't until after the Dred Scott ruling and the Civil War that the common law definition was encoded into the Constitution via Amendment XIV.

It's quite simple. US Citizenship is no longer conveyed via common law. It is granted either by Amendment XIV, which codified the prior common law rules, or by an act of Congress through naturalization. All of the former are natural born citizens. Some of the latter might be.
Apuzzo wrote:It looks like Reality Check makes a lot of errors and just stays confused. Reality Check tells us that Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen is “Obiter Dictum” because the Court did not have to reach that issue. But then Reality Check also argues that Wong Kim Ark provided a definition of a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark only had to find that Wong was a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and not also a natural born citizen. Reality Check wants it both ways but he cannot have it that way. This is a fail for Reality Check.

If Virginia Minor was not a citizen of the United States, she would not have been able to claim that she had a right to vote which she maintained came with being a citizen. Hence, before reaching the voting rights issue, the Court first analyzed whether she was a citizen of the United States. So, in the first part of its decision, Minor set out to determine whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a citizen of the United States. After first defining a natural born citizen, Minor reached the conclusion that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” because she was a natural born citizen. All that is not Obiter Dictum. This is another fail for Reality Check.

The doubts that Minor left unresolved were doubts about whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. It left no doubt as to whether such a child was a natural born citizen under the common law that defined the clause, for clearly under the common law which the Court explained defined the clause he was not. This is another fail for Reality Check.

Reality Check tells us that the definition of a natural born citizen is not contained in the Constitution. So, what. Minor and Wong Kim Ark told us that and we all know that. The Constitution does not define most of its terms. Minor told us that we must look outside the Constitution for its meaning. Minor then looked to the common law and said that it meant a child born in a county to parents who were its citizens. Even Wong Kim Ark looked outside the Constitution to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which the Constitution also does not define. Justice Gray looked to the English common law as an aid in interpreting its meaning. This is another fail for Reality Check.

Reality Check says that a natural born citizen is no longer defined by the common law because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. But Minor, which was decided in 1875 (after the Amendment was adopted in 1868) told us that there had been citizens and natural born citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It then said that the definition of a natural born citizen may be found in the common law. It did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment when analyzing whether Virginia Minor was a citizen of the United States. It did not have to because she was a natural born citizen which was defined by the common law and not the Fourteenth Amendment. This is another fail for Reality Check.

Finally, Reality Check says that some persons who acquire their citizenship by naturalization Act of Congress may be natural born citizens. That is a good one (a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen) and another fail for Reality Check.

Reality Check sure fails a lot and just stays confused.
Apuzzo wins again!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10423
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

#2396

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:57 am

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.
Thank you very much for these discussions! I love The Fogbow, so much to learn from terrific people. Hadn't heard it explained that way and it's terrible the denial of rights continues and in some cases is getting worse. Figures birthers would be excited about this case. Mario Apuzzo should get down on his knees and thank God he's being discussed at all.


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: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2397

Post by bob » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:01 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:When Reality Check loses, he gets nasty. So, I decided to publish only that part of his last comment which is acceptable under the rules of this blog.
Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo again distorts the facts. Virginia Minor was born before the ratification of the 14th Amendment so she was a citizen by common law.
Now Reality Check really outdid himself with this one. Virginia Minor was born in Virginia to Warner Minor (a landowner and university hotelkeeper) and Marie (Timberlake) Minor on March 27, 1824. The Minors came from wealthy southern families. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. What Reality Check is saying is that because Virginia Minor was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, she could not benefit from it and had to resort to the common law for her citizenship. Again, we have some more major fails by Reality Check.

Congress first passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to overrule the Dred Scott decision and to assure that the freed slaves were made citizens of the United States. Congress sought to naturalize the freed slaves who were born in the United States through this Act. There were questions whether that Act was constitutional or whether it would be changed by future Congresses. Congress responded with including in the Fourteenth Amendment the first sentence of Section 1 which provides for U.S. citizenship. That sentence also acted to constitutionally naturalize those same freed slaves. The Amendment was adopted in 1868. Those freed slaves were born before the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. If we are to accept Reality Check’s reasoning, neither the 1866 Act nor the Fourteenth Amendment applied to them and they remained persons without any U.S. citizenship. Of course, we can see the ridiculousness of Realty Check’s position that Virginia Minor was a citizen only by the common law, when both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment applied to her just as they applied to the freed slaves.

And there is more to Reality Check’s absurdity. Virginia Minor argued that Missouri could not deprive her of the right to vote because voting was a privilege or immunity that Missouri could not deprive her of given the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition against such state action. Neither Missouri nor the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor argued that the Amendment did not apply to her because she was born before its adoption.

So, Reality Check is really the gift that keeps on giving.

[ * * * ]

Reality Check has posted another comment. I have deleted the last part of it because he continues to try to make personal attacks against me which he wants me to publish in my own blog. Here is the majority of his comment:
Reality Check wrote:The court in Minor v Happersett used 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. The court 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. It said it was demurring on that point. 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.

As has been noted before Justice Waite, the author of the opinion in Minor, swore in President Chester Arthur, who had a foreign father. Waite apparently had no qualms about Arthur being eligible.
With Apuzzo as quarterback and referee, he wins again!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2398

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:04 pm

In the portion of my comment Blovario deleted I noted that his arguments on Minor and definition of natural born citizen have failed consistently in the courts. He is therefore either a poor litigator, wrong, or both.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2399

Post by bob » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:06 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:04 pm
In the portion of my comment Blovario deleted I noted that his arguments on Minor and definition of natural born citizen have failed consistently in the courts. He is therefore either a poor litigator, wrong, or both.
Yabutt: On Apuzzo's moderated blog, Apuzzo alone gets to decide whether acknowledging reality is a personal attack.

A "rule," "oddly," that Apuzzo doesn't apply to himself.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2400

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:16 pm

Deep down, the birthers know they have lost, and will always lose. Birthering gives them something to complain about in order to fill their empty lives.



Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”