Well, Somebody Had To Clean Up All The Water The Brief Didn't Hold
Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. just filed a 199 page single-spaced brief in the Pennsylvania eligibility suit, Kerchner/Laudenslager v. Obama. Well, for your entertainment, amusement, and overall mental health, I prepared this Speeder’s Digest Condensed Version. I call it that because you can speed right on through this and not spend all those mind-numbing hours. Plus, I call it Speeder’s Digest because Reader’s Digest would have probably pulled some SOPA Stuff on me if I had borrowed their name.
Anyway, there is a whole lot of water in this Brief and the biggest criticism I offer is the excessive length. I do some legal typing for my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, and this brief could benefit from some heavy duty editing and re-organization for easier reading and comprehension. As far as the content, those of us who follow this issue have seen all of these arguments, or some incarnation thereof, numerous times. However, Apuzzo has managed to gather them all into one big document. I suspect this Brief will be re-titled The Birther Manifesto at some point in the future. Here are the main arguments and points:
1. The Founders were really, really scairt of FOREIGN INFLUENCE.
2. Natural born citizens are NOT the same as citizens at birth or citizens by operation of the 14th Amendment.
3. Sooo, therefore a natural born citizen is what the Founders thought it was.
4. Which to them, would have meant somebody born of two citizen parents.
5. They would have gotten this concept from Natural Law, Vattel, The Bible, lions, Indian tribes, Whigs, Ancient Greeks and Romans, and some guy named Quintilianus;
6. And also by translating terms and phrases back and forth between French, Latin and Greek a few times for good measure.
7. Plus, the Minor v. Happersett Court said there were doubts whether kids born here of foreigners were citizens, so there should certainly be doubts about them being natural born citizens.
8. The Founders did not look to English Common Law to define natural born citizenship.
9. And anyway, natural born citizens are not the same as natural born subjects.
10. Plus, there was the James McClure Case, and since he was born around the time of The American Revolution, this shows how the Founders viewed this issue.
Aside: Apuzzo Shouts out to Freeper Rxsid and Leo Donofrio!!!
11. Just ignore the Wong Kim Ark stuff because that court had it all wrong.
12. Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a very important book, and it was used as a reference a lot back in those days.
Aside: YEAH!!! On page 68, Apuzzo uses my “Swiss guy” language!!! Plus, I see Apuzzo shadowboxing some other arguments from my Internet Article here, “A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship.”
13. Indigenes means “natural born” in French.
14. Vattel and his book were very popular with the Founders.
15. Some Saint, named George Tucker, thought you should be able to quit being a citizen if you wanted to.
16. The Ankeny Court was wrong in 2009 , and so was the Lynch v. Clarke Court back in 1844.
17. There are some cases which back up the Natural Law Definition, including Venus Case (1814) , The Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor Case (1830), the Shanks Dupont Case (1830) and Dred Scott (1847) (which earns an extra Rictal Scale point!)
18. Some speeches by Congressmen, legal articles, legal dictionaries, and Jefferson’s Citizenship Statutes back up the two citizen parent theory.
19. Naturalization Statutes and The James McClure case (again) back up the two citizen parent/natural law theory.
20. The 14th Amendment didn’t do nothing, vis a vis natural born citizenship, and several SCOTUS cases proved it.
21. Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett.
Aside: An extraneous discourse on lactation and coconuts??? With something cut and pasted from the comments section of his blog??? (Who is the “Your” he is referring to???) (Page 138-139)
22. Contrary to popular belief, the Wong Kim Ark case affirmed Minor’s two citizen parent theory, and distinguished between a 14th Amendment born citizen and an Article II natural born citizen.
23. Being European, Emer Vattel realized it took both a man and a woman to make a baby.
24. There are a couple of cases that the Obama Enablers cite to show Obama is a natural born citizen, including Calvin’s Case, Lynch v. Clarke (1844), Kwock v. White (1920), and Ankeny v. Governor (2009).
25. Obama still has to prove he was born in the United States, but even if he does, he can’t prove he was born to two citizen parents, plus he is British, to boot.
Well, that is pretty much a run down of The Apuzzo Brief. Even in this condensed version the repetition is obvious. All in all, the Brief is well written as far as grammar and syntax. It far surpasses wussy Leo Donofrio’s recent 209 page Brief, of which 3/4 are photocopied attachments. Apuzzo did not stoop to photocopy filler. Or even double-spacing. Say what you will, Apuzzo manned up.
Parts of the Brief are actually interesting. As far as legal ooomph, there isn’t much. Apuzzo just can’t twist Minor v. Happersett into positively saying what he wants it to say, although he does make a Herculean effort. Conclusions and rationalizations about what the Founders meant by natural born citizen do not negate the precedental value of Wong Kim Ark. But, unlike the Ankeny Birthers, Apuzzo does meet the issue head on and he doesn’t try to ignore the case altogether.
I do not believe the Apuzzo Brief was written for lawyers, judges and courts. It is far too long, and there is way too much irrelevancy and conclusory reasoning. For example, Apuzzo knows that Quintilianus doesn’t trump Coke or English Common Law. All that stuff, and all the multi-lingual translational quips are meant for the Birther Hordes, who hunger for copy and paste material with which to clobber the smart-alecky Obots and Anti-Birthers out there on the Intertubz. Apuzzo has given them their money’s worth, with 199 pages of single-spaced legal jargon cum Birther sound bites.
For Apuzzo, this may very well prove to be a wise move and if he can continue to push the Constitutional Article II Expert appellation, I predict this will serve to repair some of his damaged legal credibility. This is not because of any brilliant legal insight, but because of his move from practical reality-based law toward the realm of ersatz academic law. Think about it. A law professor who writes a paper on why we should not enslave killer whales is considered trendy, if eccentric. He will be invited to give speeches. The working lawyer who actually sues Sea World on behalf of Shamu just gets 12(b)6’ed while his friends snicker and make the crazy horizontal rotating finger sign behind his back.
Like I said above, prepare to see this Brief come out in book form with the title, The Birther Manifesto.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1. The Image. This is from Disney’s Fantasia, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice vignette. Disney’s tale is based on Goethe’s Zauberlehrling, about which Wiki says:
The poem begins as an old sorcerer departs his workshop, leaving his apprentice with chores to perform. Tired of fetching water by pail, the apprentice enchants a broom to do the work for him — using magic in which he is not yet fully trained. The floor is soon awash with water, and the apprentice realizes that he cannot stop the broom because he does not know how.
Not knowing how to control the enchanted broom, the apprentice splits it in two with an axe, but each of the pieces becomes a new broom and takes up a pail and continues fetching water, now at twice the speed. When all seems lost, the old sorcerer returns, quickly breaks the spell and saves the day. The poem finishes with the old sorcerer’s statement that powerful spirits should only be called by the master himself.
It is generally presumed that the story embodies some maxim or moral, and that it is something along the lines of “don’t meddle with things you don’t understand.“
If you are interested in the original poem, see here:
http://german.about.com/library/blgzauberl.htm
Note 2. Not Hold Water. The idiom means not standing up to critical examination, or not being sound and valid, as in “This argument just won’t hold water“, or “Her reasons for quitting don’t hold water.” This negative form of the metaphoric expression alludes to a container that can not hold water without leaking. [c. 1600]
The Birther Think Tank 
February 29th, 2012 at 9:29 am
4. Which to them, would have meant somebody born of two citizen parents.
Yes, this is perhaps my strongest point clearly demonstrating the difference between a A2S1C5 natural born Citizen and a 14th Amendment first sentence U.S. citizen, and that is allegiance and our American Birthright.
Our American Birthright is what makes us free citizens in a constitutional republic rather than a subject in a greater sovereignty than we the People.
Our American birthright is being taken from us even as I speak. At present, U.S. Immigration laws have already fundamentally changed the very basis of America’s exceptionalism and our American Birthright.
Only free, sovereign individuals can actually make a public choice to put down their own allegiances, or give up their former allegiances and pledge fidelity, not to this country, but to a group of words written down on some parchment, and, thus, become themselves free soverign Citizens in our Constitutional Republic.
If the state has the power to bestow “allegiance” something only free sovereigns can do in our Revolutionary government — many would say, “Our exceptional from of government — then we are no longer free citizens but merely subjects to a greater sovereign than ourselves.
If we don’t make a determined stand NOW, any person who happens to be born within our boarders without regard to their parent’s allegiance to our Constitution, can be qualified to become the Commander in chief of all our armed forces as a matter of settled law. This is not a “strong check” against foreign influences affecting the commander in chief of our armed forces, but a weaker check, and is therefore unconstitutional.
ex animo
davidfarrar
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:32 pm
@David Farrar
How is the case going down in Georgia?
February 29th, 2012 at 9:35 am
Nice condensing, Girl Reporter. May I suggest though, we quit referring to the natural born “theory”. Example:
“Some speeches by Congressmen, legal articles, legal dictionaries, and Jefferson’s Citizenship Statutes back up the two citizen parent theory.” should be, “Some speeches……back up two citizen parent fact.” or, “……back up two citizen parent established definition.”
The definition of NBC INCLUDES two citizen parents. That IS the definition. It is not a theory. Those that want to reject the definition or don’t want to use it call it a theory. We do not have to talk of on the rejecters’ terms. No, no, no theory. Fact: it is the definition and not open to interpretation.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Hi WhataHoot!!!
OH, but I am a dedicated anti-Birther on all the two citizen parent stuff. Sooo, I have to call it a “theory.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
February 29th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
One’s theory can be their reality. I suppose it is blasphemes, as a diehard nbc birther, (yikes, bothersome to share an acronym with the msm network; strange bedfollows) but I enjoy your essays. They make me chuckle. Although I don’t share enthusiasm for the thought process, I admire your writing skills, your grammar, your structure, your vocabulary……just a pleasure to read. It is not an easy task to find different ways, on a regular basis, to present fact as fraud. It is not easy to apply logics to an argument refuting fact and defending a recent definition creation. I am sure if someone were to approach you and say they need the masses to believe the sky is lime green with purple polka dot clouds, you could not only prove it to them but they would erase from memory it ever being blue with white clouds. The tragedy would be you, yourself, would also cease to see reality and would move on to discussing the shades of purple of the clouds. Hopefully your talent and skill will only be wasted on the follies of youth and you cut the apron strings (puppet strings) of programmed loyalty to an ideology that, in the end, will eat you alive. (Not snarking when say I enjoy your writng.)
February 29th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Dear ‘What a Hoot,’
The Two-Citizen-Parents Absurdity is most definitely not “fact.” It has never been. For decades, people without two citizen parents have been put in line for the Presidency, by dint of the Protocol of Succession to the Presidency, and by the tradition of Designated Survivors. Tom Vilsack, for instance, is in line to become President in some dire emergency wherein those ahead of him are not available. He was abandoned at birth and adopted, so his parents are unknown. All that IS known about him is where he was born.
In the past three elections alone, BOTH Parties have entertained Candidates without two citizen parents… twelve or so, to my knowledge. Do you think BOTH Parties know less about Constitutional Eligibility than you do? Really?
You are welcome to think that’s the way it SHOULD be, and petition Congress to add an Amendment stating that NBC requires two citizen parents. But asserting (and damned huffily, to boot) that that is the current interpretation of NBC goes beyond incorrect all the way to laughable.
February 29th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Oh, my “and damned huffily, to boot” No huff and puff here. Commenting is huffy? We may be talking two different things and are going to have a difficult time debating/discussing/shooting the breeze if ‘argument’ not established.
You refer to “….without two citizen parents”; am referring to ‘two citizen parent at time of birth’, which reduces the “twelve or so”.
Just because both parties push it and go along with it does not change the established, operating definition. Oh, and a Constitutional Amendment? Can’t amend what is already there. That will be discovered should it ever be attempted. Why? the amendment would end up being written almost word-for-word as presently is in Constitution.
As to knowing more than both parties? We are supposed to just ask the Party what is reality? Who is the Party? Individually or collectively? I don’t know how studied one or all are on the subject. I also don’t know if one/all are studied and don’t give a damn and push for their own way in spte of what they know. I do not ascribe to the elitist thinking that the “titled” are smarter or more learned than I. Information is for anyone that wants to absorb it. I don’t ascribe to the elitist thought that representatives are elected because they are smarter than the masses and smarter than myself.
I do know I have studied sources extensively, not opinions, to the point of confidence that today’s definition is not the definition of the Constitution. I have also applied established logic science to the breakdown of the document word-for-word and phrase-for-phrase. Same with linguistics. I went backwards from the Constitution and then forward. Going forward is fascinating. Contra to popular knowledge, the topic of nbc has been in the courts, in the presidencies of the past, in media and all validate and defend two-parent citizens. Researching was not easy for me as each step of the way I had to detour to learn legal terms and definitions. One thing I had going for me is I love history, especially the obscure, ignored, or hidden. Combine that with a lover of mystery, well, it was enough to keep me motivated (and wanting to prove some people wrong) I had been educated in schools that taught NBC before it evolved to its current definition but accepted the teachings as outdated and propaganda . I spent hours, weeks, years, studying and researching to show it was not two citizen parents and born on US soil (the latter an entire different discussion) and was knocked off my pedestal. I was taught correctly way back in the Dem school. Whether or not I think I know more than the Parties, I don’t know. How would I know? Not applicable. Actually, this entire paragraph is not pertinent to the discussion of two-citizen parents, as was the questioning, but thought I would take the little detour you put in place. After all, inquiring minds want to know.
Me pointing out this article or that court case or this proof or that evidence is not effective. If one wants to go back on their own and investigate, looking at it from both sides, they will come to a conclusion only if they are searching– not defending. Which is why I challenge people do their own research. I do know that anyone who is adamant, either way, without having researched outside of any opinions and the latest blog on the subject, is really just blindly following a group think.
A few things you stated in your comment challenge me. As I never sit back and say, “case closed”, I will research some more and compare. I think, based on research and all the crap rolling in my head about this stuff, it is irrelevant, but I put that aside and go hunt to SEARCH not to DEFEND. Time will tell if the searching leads to defending my stance and refuting yours — or vice-versa.
(apologize for some misfires — keyboard issues.)
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Care to share some of your research? Because equally extensive research points the other way.
February 29th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Squeeky,
you are a really hard-working girl lately !
Sincerely
Your European
(Skol!)
February 29th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Thank you! Oh, I am still worn out from last night but I just got a few hours of sleep and now I feel better. I help my mother in her business, and I couldn’t crash until I finished doing a few things for her.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
February 29th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
There have been seven US presidents who had foreign parents including Obama.
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
Chester A. Arthur
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Obama.
Of these two fell under the grandfather clause, Jefferson and Jackson.
As to the others, the ones who were not under the grandfather clause:
Birthers claim that James Buchanan’s father was naturalized before his birth. Unfortunately for them, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT. No evidence at all.
Birthers claim that Chester A. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Unfortunately for them, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT. There is no evidence that Chester A. Arthur kept his father’s citizenship secret. So, it is likely that people knew about it when he was picked to run as Garfield’s vice president.
And Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers were foreign citizens.
Birthers say that they had been naturalized before the births. Actually, they were only made US citizens due to laws that made women who married US men automatically US citizens. That is hardly the same thing as being naturalized, in which you have to give up your citizenship in the foreign country and swear an oath. Because Woodrow Wilson’s mother never formally gave up her British citizenship, Woodrow was, at birth, a dual citizen.
Turning back to Jackson. BOTH of his parents were not US citizens at the time that he was born. Neither of his parents were US citizens at the time that he was born.
Granted that he was under the grandfather clause. But rationally IF the citizenship of the parents really had an effect on a person’s loyalty Jackson would be the least loyal of presidents, far less loyal than those with two citizen parents and less loyal than those with one citizen parent. Yet Jackson–with two foreign parents–was the most fiercely loyal of them all.
So, there is the argument for biology, which is more rational than law. IF we have a large number of presidents with foreign parents, and there is no evidence that they were more disloyal than presidents with two citizen parents, then what is the evidence that presidents whose parents are not US citizens are more disloyal than presidents whose parents were US citizens. And, if there is no evidence to convince us–then what is the evidence that the writers of the US Constitution believed it either???
If we today do not believe that a US-born child of foreign parents will tend to be less loyal than the US-born child of US parents (and Jackson’s loyalty shows that the US-born children of foreigners can be highly loyal), why believe that the writers of the US Constitution believed it either?
If they had believed it, they would have said it. But they didn’t say it. All that they did was use the term Natural Born, which referred at the time to the place of birth, not to the parents.
So there is no evidence that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the parents. There is evidence, from writings of the day, that it referred to the PLACE of birth. There IS evidence that the founders believed that a person’s loyalty would be affected by the PLACE of birth. In fact, that is what James Madison believed, and there is a quotation to that effect–very similar to one by Blackstone, by the way.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
And, don’t forget that both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had dual (French-US) citizenship when they ran/became president …
February 29th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Re Jefferson and Madison’s dual citizenship. Indeed that is true. Both of them had been made full citizens of France by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Well, the Birthers will just reply that this proves their point, because what did Jefferson do in 1803??? Well he went and gave Napoleon of FRANCE a whole $3 Million for a bunch of worthless land, like New Orleans, which is under water.
I wonder if the Louisiana Purchase is null and void if Jefferson was not eligible??? Maybe France will give the money back and . . .
C’est la vie.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
March 1st, 2012 at 3:05 am
Hi Tes,
good to see you !
You know, a lot of people miss you a lot ….
Sincerely
Your European
February 29th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Ellen,
I believe this is the quote from our second French president, James Madison, to which you were referring:
I’ve found it is fairly effective against birther trolls…
February 29th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Mr. Farrar,
The 14th Amendment neither created a new class of citizens nor did it change the status of any citizen of (solely) white descent. Since you can’t find any counterexample to this in the entire history of US jurisprudence, your racist quest would be doomed even if you and your ex-lawyer were not completely incompetent. Remember, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results–by that measure all birthers are well and truly crazy. Once again, I hope the courts will attempt to teach you the error of your ways with harsh sanctions–you really deserve to understand how shameful your actions have been.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:06 am
Squeeky,
You have done a great service by providing a summary.
Having said that, and having read a good deal of Apuzzo’s brief, I must confess that I am nonetheless a bit disappointed with the apparent respect with which you treat this… this… fallacy-founded, history-hatcheting, bloviating travesty of feigned legal and historical exposition.
In case after case, Apuzzo’s own cited authorities, read elsewhere and/or in context, contradict his claim that the Founding Fathers intended, and a basis in law exists, that birth on US soil plus two citizen parents are required for Presidential eligibility.
Among Apuzzo’s “supporting” sources who in reality deny or present evidence against his claim are the following:
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
St. George Tucker
Lord Coke
Lynch v Clarke
Attorney General Edward Bates
The 1857 New York Statute
Justice Gaston
James Scott Brown
William Rawle
US v Wong Kim Ark
I do not claim that is necessarily an exhaustive list; and those are only selected from among the sources that Apuzzo cites. There are plenty of others that refute his position as well.
I have not gone through the entire thing with a fine-toothed comb, but I’ve been through enough of it that I would be quite surprised to find among its 199 pages a single significant point that cannot be refuted, nullified, or shown to be of little to no value in support of Apuzzo’s proposition.
March 1st, 2012 at 1:11 am
John Woodman:
You said: “I must confess that I am nonetheless a bit disappointed with the apparent respect with which you treat this… this… fallacy-founded, history-hatcheting, bloviating travesty of feigned legal and historical exposition.”
I completely agree with you that it is “fallacy-founded, history-hatcheting, bloviating travesty of feigned legal and historical exposition.”
I could add a great deal many other such descriptions, and fully expect to do so in the future. In fact I have already labeled it “The Birther Bunker Buster Bomb of BeeEss” over at DrC’s. In addition, the Internet Article prior to this one was:
These two, will not be the last ones that I write slamming this. Read this one more closely. You will find:
I do not believe the Apuzzo Brief was written for lawyers, judges and courts. It is far too long, and there is way too much irrelevancy and conclusory reasoning. For example, Apuzzo knows that Quintilianus doesn’t trump Coke or English Common Law. All that stuff, and all the multi-lingual translational quips are meant for the Birther Hordes, who hunger for copy and paste material with which to clobber the smart-alecky Obots and Anti-Birthers out there on the Intertubz.
That being said, what else were you expecting from Apuzzo? If he is going to try to make a legal argument supporting this Birther idiocy, what other choice does he have but to lie, dissemble, bloviate, mislead,confuse,obfuscate, and in general, just try to create a pile of bullshit???
Sooo, I think Apuzzo did a very good job of that. He created a Masterpiece of Bullshit, one which should win awards in the Bullshit Hall of Fame. If they gave a Nobel Prize for Bullshit, I would nominate Mario Apuzzo, Esq., and figure the thing was rigged if he didn’t win.
It is kind of like when you appreciate a really bad movie, like Plan 9 From Outer Space by Ed Wood, for it’s very badness. It even won a Golden Turkey Award as The Worst Picture of All Time. Appreciating something on that basis is a far cry from the type of “apparent respect” you seem to think I am affording Appuzo’s Masterpiece.
With that in mind, I am sure you will agree, that Apuzzo’s Brief represents the very epitome of Birther Legal thought.
And woe unto us Anti-Birthers and Obots who wade through page after page of his monumental epic of bullshit to debunk it.
Does that explain my position better to you??? If not, please let me know.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
March 1st, 2012 at 1:35 am
Yes, Squeeky. Thank you very much.
I can now go to bed and get a peaceful night’s sleep. 😉
March 1st, 2012 at 9:08 am
[…] friend Squeeky Fromm has done a wonderful “Speeder’s Digest Condensed Version” of Mario’s “masterpiece” so you don’t have to slog your way through the […]
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:43 pm
RC,
I’m sure that David is having a sadz right now since Judge Wright said that Judge Malihi should have thrown out his pile of crap for the reasons Jablonski cited in his motion to dismiss. I’m sure once he has a good cry he’ll man up and come back here and admit he’s been wrong all along. He wouldn’t just sneak away like a coward with his tail between his legs or try to rehash the stupid lies, would he?
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I am not taking that fools bet Slarti!
Since the primary is only 4 days away time to get crackin’ on that appeal. I hope Jablonski now goes for costs. It is time for these fools to start paying for misusing the time of state officials for personal agendas.