Tag Archives: Natural Born Citizen

Birthers Is OK People! Obama Are All Null And Void!!! (IMPORTANT UPDATE!!!)

assad 2

Long Live Syrian Electronic Army!!!

Birthers is OK People who are right Obama is not illegible for President Office! You Americans listen long time to very smart Orly Taitz lawyer and dentist person! Listen long time to Markio Apuzzo two he is LAWYER!!! Make Obama leave office like frog! All Tommyhawk Missiles fired will be null and void! All bombs will be null and void! Everything all null and void!

You IMPEACH him now from overpasses! You are to make plenty big signs! America listen to Birther people! Listen to Sheriff Apuzzo also and cowboy posse people with hats!

Long Live Syrian Electronic Army who hacks up this website with very good hack with easy to guess password!

Hah!!!

SEA

UPDATE!!!

Holy Crap!!! Apparently The Birther Think Tank was hacked two hours ago by the Syrian Electronic Army!!! I guess ” _ _ lter_ _ _ lter” wasn’t a very good password after all. I have changed it, and my email accounts to be on the safe side! I am back in control of my website and hopefully the Syrian Electronic Army will not come back. I am going to leave this post up because I am not one to let a good crisis go to waste! If the pro-Assad Syrians think that Orly Taitz is very smart, and also Mario Apuzzo, then that is certainly worth noting! I think they meant to say Sheriff Arpaio, not Sheriff Apuzzo. And eligible instead of illegible. Other than that, their grammar and sentence structure are no worse than I see from many American Birthers. I am going to add some tags to this so that other unsuspecting Americans will be alerted.

Sooo, let this post serve as a warning to everybody to make sure your passwords are not too easy to guess, or else the Syrians may come after you, too!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


After Prof. Jacobson, The Birthers Need A Group Hug!!!

ghostbusters_Larry_Storch_Forrest_Tucker

As Soon As He Replaced The Batteries In His Head-Cooling Propeller Beanie, Apuzzo Was Planning On Some Heavy Duty Thinking!

Well,  Cornell Law Prof. William Jacobson finally weighed in on Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility and as expected, the Birthers are going to need a great big group hug. Because they are in some major emotional pain! Here are some excerpts from his long analysis:

The key to understanding why I reach that conclusion that Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are “natural born Citizens” requires understanding the problem.

There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth.  Their “natural born Citizen[ship]” also is consistent with the concepts, respectively, of citizenship by birth place (Rubio, Jindal) and parentage (Cruz), from which the term “natural born Citizen” is believed to derive historically.

and significantly, he finds there is no two citizen parents requirement:

8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens

One common phrasing of objections to Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being deemed “natural born Citizens” is that, regardless of where they were born, both parents would have had to be citizens.

That argument is devoid of almost any support.  The text does not say so.  There is no demonstrable evidence that is what the Framer’s intended, or that’s how the term was commonly understood at the time of drafting.  Such a requirement also is not found in the almost contemporaneous, or even in British law which (as described in the section above) was confused and changed over time, but typically followed the father’s lineage for children born abroad.  See also discussion of Supreme Court cases below.

and, in his conclusion at 14:

A reasonable reading of the plain text of the Constitution supports Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being “natural born Citizen[s]” because they were citizens by birth.  There is no clear, demonstrable intent otherwise from the Framers or clear, commonly understood use of the term to the contrary at the time of drafting the Constitution.  The British term “natural born Subject” as well as concepts of “natural law” were not clearly relied upon by the Framers, and are in themselves not clearly contradictory to this plain reading of the text.

The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified.  That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen.

The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices.

It is for these reasons that I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are eligible to be President.

Here is the link to his findings:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

One thing I disagree with Jacobson about is his treatment of the Wong Kim Ark case. I do not think he read the case enough to realize that the Court made separate findings throughout the seven part decision which takes its statements on natural born citizenship out of the “dicta” category. I will do a separate article on that. However, he did dispose of the Emer de Vattel nonsense. He also speared Leo Donofrio a few times.

It’s a good read!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from, The Ghost Busters TV show, about which Wiki says:

The Ghost Busters was a live-action children’s television series that ran in 1975, about a team of bumbling detectives who would investigate ghostly occurrences. Only 15 episodes were created.

This series reunited Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch in roles similar to their characters in F Troop. Tucker played Jake Kong (his first name is never actually given in this series), and Storch played zoot suit-wearing Eddie Spencer. The third member of the trio was Tracy the Gorilla, played by actor Bob Burns (credited as Tracy’s “trainer”).

The series was unrelated to the 1984 film Ghostbusters (though Columbia Pictures did pay Filmation for a license to use the name).

Each episode would always begin with Spencer and Tracy stopping at a convenience store to pick up the tape recording (recorded by co-executive producer Lou Scheimer) that explained their mission for the episode, in a parody of Mission: Impossible. It would be hidden inside a common object such as a bicycle, typewriter or painting. The message would always end by saying, “This message will self destruct in five seconds.” It would then explode in Tracy’s face for comic effect. Their investigation would take them to the same “old castle” on the outskirts of the city, and after a series of chases and pratfalls the Ghost Busters would corner the ghost (and his/her “sidekick”), which they would dispatch back to the afterlife with their Ghost Dematerializer.


The Great Freeper Birther Purge Of 2013 (Too Little, Too Late???)

Purge 2

They Were Each Sentenced To Ten Years Of Cleaning Up Steaming Piles Of Vattel

Following up on a story of a few days ago (see Note 2 below), Jim Robinson, the Eugene H. Krabs of the Free Republic Krusty Krab, is threatening to purge the place of any two-citizen parents Birthers who say mean things about either Ted Cruz or Mark Levin, Esq. Robinson has put up his own post based on the Cato Institute report which opined that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. There is a link below, but the actual story ran here a few days ago. What is fun is the comments! Here are a representative few:

Jim Robinson Comment# 1: As I’ve stated elsewhere on this forum many times, I have infinitely more confidence in Mark Levin and the CATO Institute than I do in legions of internet sea lawyers and bloggers.

If Ted Cruz decides to run for the Presidency and he appears to be the strongest conservative running, I will support him to the hilt. He’s one of the few conservatives in the Senate who actually has the balls to stand up for conservatism and against Obama and the GOP-e RINOs. This is a battle for the survival of America as a free nation. If we allow the democrats and the GOP-e statists to select our next opposition candidate for us, ie, Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, this nation is kaput.

We stand united or we fall. We cannot afford to destroy our best candidates or to split our conservative vote to the point that the likes of Christy or Bush gets the nod and someone like Hillary waltzes into the White House.

Supporting the “electable” Dole, McCain and Romney gave us Clinton and Obama. Supporting the crazy conservative gave us President Reagan.

and, in support of the author of the Cato Institute Piece:

Jim Robinson at Comment#  56: Looks like he’s a natural born citizen according to this author and I like his credentials as opposed to the usual internet blogger. Mark Levin likes him too. And I have much more faith in Mark Levin than your average anonymous sea lawyer/blogger.

CATO’s Ilya Shapiro: [long list of Shapiro's qualifications omitted]

and, in response to the usual Birther “But, but, but . . . what about the Constitution?” crap, he says in six different comments:

B/S

Give us a break. No one but you is good enough for you.

Cruz is a natural born citizen. Get over it.

So those of us who support the grassroots tea party conservative and probably strongest conservative in the senate if not the entire Republican party are now considered to be moderates by birthers? Don’t look now, but I’m beginning to think the people who say birthers are nutcases aren’t that far off base. You people are imploding. Best rethink your strategy.

I’m not implying any such thing. I’m stating that if you post another slanderous attack on Mark Levin or Ted Cruz like you did earlier today, your ass is zot. If you wish to attack good conservatives, start your own damned website and have at it. You’re not going to do it here. Good luck with that. [this was to Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Either give it a rest or go somewhere else to post. I’m not interested in your slander of two great conservatives (Levin and Cruz). Drop it or begone!!

Robinson has a lot more to say, but you can read the thread yourself if you  are interested. It is still going on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts

In his usual subtle and understated way, Robinson also put a separate link up on the Forum, in Big Red Letters. The arrow and the box around the link are mine:

Free Republic Cruz Link

(Click on Image Once or Twice to Make It Larger.)

What I find interesting is that Robinson is only rehashing the same arguments that many people there, including me, made before we were zotted.  He does not appear to be well versed in the topic, and just bases his opinion on Levin and the Cato Institute Report. Here is what I predict is going to happen.

First, the “birth certificate” Birthers will continue posting as usual because the basis of their belief is simply suspicions about Obama’s roots, and not the Vattel stuff. Meantime, the two citizen parents Birthers will simply continue to peddle their nonsense against Obama, while laying off of Ted Cruz and Mark Levin.  I look for them to escalate their efforts to make up for the fact that they have to STFU about Cruz. Either Jim Robinson will get the fact that a Birther Mack Truck is driving through his living room, or he won’t.

Either way, the damage is already mostly done. Over the last five years, the idiots have been busy promulgating the two citizen parent crap at Free Republic, and from there little piles of the doo-doo have been spread to blogs and forums all across the Conservative blogosphere.  And from thence, thousands of poisonous mushrooms have blossomed. I wonder if Jim Robinson understands that what is wrong with the two citizen parents theory isn’t that it hurts Ted Cruz, but that it is nothing but a stupid lie, and never was anything but that.

Like Edmund Burke said, “Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle which fits them all.”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a photograph from the Soviet purges under Stalin. I was not able to determine its origin.

Note 2. Previous Posts: Here is the link to the previous Free Republic story:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/jim-robinson-fires-cruz-missile-at-free-republic-birthers/

And here is the link to the Cato Institute Story:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/cato-institute-busts-birthers-chops/

Note 3. For ESLs. The Image Easter Egg is a word play on seersucker, a type of cotton fabric often used in robes and sheer sucker, one who is utterly and completely fooled.

Note 4. Photographs of Free Republic Birthers. I have to admit that I LMAO every time I read this post, with its photographs of the Freeper Birthers. I know, I’m vain. Please forgive me.

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/zot-free-republic-birthers-run-in-panic-stricken-terror-from-the-truth/

Note 5.  Let A Hundred Flowers Bloom. This is the phrase behind the thousand poisonous mushrooms term I used.  It has to do with purges, or ideological cleansing. Wiki notes:

The first part of the phrase is often remembered in the West as “let a hundred flowers bloom”. It is used to refer to an orchestrated campaign to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime, and then subsequently imprison them.

This view is supported by authors Clive James and Jung Chang, who posit that the campaign was, from the start, a ruse intended to expose rightists and counter-revolutionaries, and that Mao Zedong persecuted those whose views were different from the party’s.


Cato Institute Busts Birthers’ Chops!!!

kato_phixr

Kato Tries To Slap Some Sense Into An Unidentified Birther

Ilya Shapiro of The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, busted the chops of the two citizen parents with a recent post on Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Here are a few excerpts:

What’s a “natural born citizen”? The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents — in a manner regulated by federal law — and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

There’s no ideological debate here: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson — who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases — co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain — lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists — was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth — as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (“naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all — can be president.

So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president

Of course, Ted Cruz meets those qualifications! Sooo, my hat is off to a fellow Think Tanker for getting it right!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Bruce Lee playing the role of Kato in The Green Hornet TV series. I am not sure who the guy in the mask is. Just for what it is worth trivia-wise, the Green Hornet was a relative of The Lone Ranger!

Note 2. Busting Chops. For ESLs, the Free Dictionary defines chops, and busting someone’s chops  as:

chops (chps) pl.n.
1. The jaws.
2.a. The mouth.
b. The lower cheeks or jowls.
c. Muttonchops.
3. Slang The technical skill with which a jazz or rock musician performs.

Idiom: bust (someone’s) chops
1. To scold or insult someone.
2. To disappoint or defeat someone.
3. To hold a building contractor to the letter of an agreement.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chops

The Image Easter Egg is a word play on the “Oh Hai” Internet meme, and the word “Hai” which is loudly expressed during Karate and Kung Fu strikes. “Hai” means “yes” in Japanese.


Jim Robinson Fires Cruz Missile At Free Republic Birthers!!!

USS Jim Robinson 2

It May Have Looked Like A Destroyer, But It Was Really A Cruz Ship

The Free Republic Birthers got a wake up call yesterday from Jim Robinson, the crusty owner of the website.  On a thread about the individual who made a Birther out of himself at a Mark Levin book signing,  Judge Robinson settled the Ted Cruz eligibility question for the Freepers:

Jim Robinson at Comment 43: Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. He’s a natural born citizen and patriot in every sense of the word and I will support him to the hilt if he decides to run and is the strongest conservative running!! In fact, if that happens, FR will be Cruz Country!!

Go, TED, GO!!

FU Tokyo Rove, Chris Cristy, Jeb Bush, McCain, McBoehner, McGrahammesty, McFlake, McConnell and ALL GOP-e RINOS!!

The tea party rebellion is on!!

Anyone can’t live with that (as the say in Russia) tough shitski!!

and, when hit with the typical Birther ” But we’re just constitutionalists!” claims:

Jim Robinson at Comment 89: I’m upholding my oath. Cruz is a natural born citizen despite any claims to the contrary from the legions of internet “sea lawyers!”

and again, when asked, “Do you intend to ban those Conservatives that disagree with you on this matter”

Jim Robinson at Comment 91: Depends on the degree of nastiness. Don’t get nasty against our freepers or our conservative candidates.

and, when pushed some more:

Jim Robinson at 126: I said if Cruz is the strongest conservative running. But neither Cruz or Palin have declared. We’ll have to wait and see. And as far as I’m concerned, I’ll go with Levin and others who say Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Robinson had more to say, but I just wanted to provide enough to get across the gist of what happened. Here is a link to the thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3059395/posts

I was once a Freeper, but when I jumped on the two citizen parents Birthers there, I got the ZOT! There is a link in Note 1 below to the article I wrote in response, which has some undercover photos of the Freeper Birthers in full whine mode.  Jim Robinson has several problems on his hands, and not easy ones to solve. He has flatly decreed, and correctly, that Ted Cruz is eligible. Yet, he has not come right out and told the Birthers to knock off all the “two citizen parents” stuff.

By the very nature of things, it is not the “birth certificate” Birthers who have a problem with Cruz, unless they are also “two citizen parents” type Birthers.  And frankly, the two citizen parents Birthers are beyond reasoning with. They have repeatedly lost in court, and are not fazed.  Their argument is nonsensical to begin with. What person with a functioning brain really believes that Emer de Vattel is the source of American citizenship law??? Yet, they persist in the silliness.

What reasonably intelligent person can’t read the Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case a half dozen times and get the point, that the 14th Amendment put natural born citizenship for those born inside the country into the Constitution, where it would be safe from both either state and Congressional tinkering? It make take several readings, but goodness, two of the seven sections are dedicated to natural born subjects and natural born citizens. Another section is dedicated to showing how the 14th Amendment affirms and incorporates that previous law into itself. And still, the two citizen parents birthers are out there trying to defeat an 1898 SCOTUS holding with a 1758 legal treatise by a Swiss guy. Or some legal dictionary they found at a garage sale. Or, some case prior to 1898, which even if they were reading it correctly, would be reversed by WKA.

To paraphrase John Donne, from his Love’s Alchemy poem, “Hope not for mind [reason] in Birthers!” And to make it worse, it is not as if the Obots and Anti-Birthers aren’t doing their best to educate the poor addled two citizen parents birthers.  We write words enough to stretch to Pluto and back, and they still ignore us.  Jim Robinson is delusional if he thinks anything short of banning them or completely censoring them for preaching their nonsense is going to stop them.

That is where his second problem comes in. Because the longer they preach the “two citizen parents” nonsense, the more it sinks into the minds of low information voters. It will not matter to many of them that the nonsense is being presented against Obama, and not against conservative candidates. They will repeat the nonsense as if they know what they are talking about, and then refuse to vote for people like Bobby Jindal, Marc Rubio, or Ted Cruz. If he cares about his conservative causes, Robinson must tell them to knock off all the two citizen parents nonsense period, or get banned.  He has already let this nonsense go on for too long, and the longer it goes on, the worse it gets for Cruz and others.

Finally, he has the problem of how to go about banning or zotting them with a straight face.  He had no problem setting forth restrictions on rampant paranoia like Alex Jones’ Prison Planet, and overtly sovereign citizen theories. He didn’t let that stuff ever take hold at his website. It is different with the Birthers because he shares responsibility for letting them get to this point. At Free Republic they formed a clique and went around screaming Troll! and Obot! at people who disagreed with them.  Some of us got zotted. Free Republic became Birther friendly territory.

And fertile ground it was. Some of the dumbest Birthers I ever met  took root and grew at Free Republic, including but not limited to: Edge919, DiogenesLamp, and Butterdezillion. Robinson should have put his foot down a long time ago, the same as he would have if a group was telling Freepers they didn’t have to pay income taxes. But he didn’t,  and now the place is full of them.

In summary, half measures won’t work, the Birthers continue to do damage to the conservative cause, and they are in large enough numbers that it will hurt the website to ZOT! them all.  The best alternative I can see is for him to resort to outright censorship. He needs to flatly state that the two citizen parent stuff is complete bullsh*t,  and anybody who preaches it, and misleads other conservatives, even if it is in relation to Obama, is going to get the ZOT!.

It should be interesting to watch.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1.  Squeeky’s Free Republic ZOT!: Like I said above, there are photographs of the Birthers!

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/zot-free-republic-birthers-run-in-panic-stricken-terror-from-the-truth/


Birthers Raise The Dickens With Mark Levin!!! (Or, Levin Let Live???)

Scrooge

The Birthers Kept Dragging Up The Ghost Of Poor Emer de Vattel To Scare People

Once again, an insistent Birther crashes another party and provides a good dose of buzzkill. This time, it was Mark Levin’s book signing tour for The Liberty Amendments. Here are a few excerpts, that I paragraphed to make easier to read, and the entire transcription is at the link below:

Mark Levin:  Before we jump in, all I can say is, Wow!  You guys, open your microphones a second.  Thousands of people at both booksignings.  Wasn’t that unbelievable?

Staffer: There were a lot of people there, it was great.

Mark Levin:  And the people were just spectacular, weren’t they?  Except for one guy in New Jersey which I’ll talk about later.

Staffer:  [chuckles]

Mark Levin:   This… this birther stuff is way, way out of contr…”Now Ted Cruz” … I swear I almost hit this guy… “Ted Cruz is not a citizen!”  No, he’s born to an American mother, no he’s born in Canada to an American mother.  So all you pregnant ladies traveling overseas:  According to certain birther, uh, groups, if you have a child while you are on vacation, they’re not Americans.  They’re not natural-born Americans.  I just thought you’d wanna know, if you were thinking of your kid as a potential presidential candidate, uh, because they say so.  They have no historical background whatsoever… None!  But it’s, it’s just amazing!  Absolutely stunning!

and:

Mark Levin: Just a wonderful group of people, uh, we were in Bookends, Ridgewood, New Jersey, and everyone was respectful until…and it was hot outside, it got hot, hotter than uh originally forecast and it was a very long line, and you know we try to go through it quickly out of respect for everybody in line, but I also try to be respectful to everybody in line.  Um…but this fella [breathes out] gets in my face and first of all he points to some obscure note on page I don’t know whatever and he said [cough] excuse me folks, and he says “You were wrong about this, you were wrong about”, and honestly I, I, I didn’t have time to read it, and I’ll go back and check it, if I’m wrong about it I’ll fix it, and that happens sometimes in these books when you’re going into the notes, you might put a word when you mean another word, or a state when you mean another state, so I’m going to check it out, I just haven’t had time.

And then he goes, he says uh “And Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president.  He’s not a natural-born Citizen.”  And I thought to myself, you know I, this is not a subject that I have studied so thoroughly, but he’s born of a mother who is an American citizen.  Doesn’t that make him a natural-born Ci…  “No, but he was in Canada when he was born!”  Okay, but she wasn’t Canadian, she was an American citizen!  She was an American citizen.  And so, the issue isn’t what the Constitution says in that regard, the issue is how do we interpret that.  And the way I interpret it is, his mother’s an American citizen, so he’s an American citizen!

That’s not a constitutional issue, that’s an interpretive issue… or, a statutory issue if Congress has passed some law subsequent to that to enforce that provision of the Constitution.  So, the face of the Constitution isn’t terribly helpful.  If he was born of non-citizens in a foreign country that would be easy, and there’s a lot of easy cases.  So the guy gets in my face, and he starts pointing and pointing, and I looked at him and I pointed back, and I cursed, unfortunately, but the, because, uh you know, he was…he was a nutjob.  And I thought to myself: Why do you come here and do that?  Is this, is this sort of the way you…you  excite yourself or something?

and finally:

Mark Levin: But what particularly bothered me about this guy…he was disrespectful in his conduct to everybody else standing there. They were pleasant, talking to each other, you know…listening, watching and so forth.  I’m a big boy; I’ve seen this and a thousand times worse.  But he was quite obnoxious.

There is a lot more at this link:

http://theridgewoodblog.net/radio-host-mark-levin-addresses-ted-cruz-eligibility-issue-with-ridgewood-resident/

This is not something new with the Birther issues.  I don’t knock the Birthers for expressing their opinions with passion, but it would be nice if they occasionally took the time to remember that all they have really, truly are just. . . OPINIONS. And when it comes to the value of those OPINIONS, these little things we call COURTS and JUDGES have a whole lot more relevant and meaningful OPINIONS. For the same reasons that an Umpire’s OPINION that the runner is safe, or out, is a lot more relevant and meaningful than either the players’ OPINION or the people in the stands’ OPINION.

Whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible is not yet chiseled in stone. After a court decides, and the appeals are settled, then the question will be answered. In the meantime, most people who have read the various legal cases think that he is.  In a previous post, I took the time to frame the question in the way I see it being framed in a future lawsuit, and then I answered the concerns the way that I think a real judge would.

http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/apuzzo-order1.pdf

This is also another reason why the Birthers are so stuck in their rut. They have way too much passion, and way too little detached reflection about the issue. They are so convinced that they are right, that they aren’t able to read and comprehend what decisions like Wong Kim Ark (1898) are really all about. At least, that is my OPINION. But when it comes to Ted Cruz, there hasn’t yet been a candidate with his particular background.  There hasn’t been a candidate born overseas and made a citizen by an act of naturalization. There isn’t a judicial decision which directly covers him. So, his eligibility is still an open question.

Or as Mark Levin said above:

And so, the issue isn’t what the Constitution says in that regard, the issue is how do we interpret that.  And the way I interpret it is, his mother’s an American citizen, so he’s an American citizen! That’s not a constitutional issue, that’s an interpretive issue… or, a statutory issue if Congress has passed some law subsequent to that to enforce that provision of the Constitution.  So, the face of the Constitution isn’t terribly helpful.

That is not an OPINION. That is a FACT!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Ebenezer Scrooge and the Ghost of Jacob Marley from Charles Dicken’s A Christmas Carol. I could not trace it back to a particular production.

Note 2. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s response to the above Order. The above order generated a response from Mario Apuzzo, Esq. His response is linked, and included in the original post here:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/

Note 3. The Dickens. For ESL’s this is a word play on Charles Dickens, the author of A Christmas Carol, and the phrase, raise the dickens, which means:

raise the dickens (with someone or something)

to act in some extreme manner; to make trouble; to behave wildly; to be very angry.

John was out all night raising the dickens. That cheap gas I bought really raised the dickens with my car’s engine.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dickens

Note 4. Puns That Might Have Been. Well, I checked out the map, because I was really hoping that Ridgewood N.J. was a suburb of Philadelphia. I was just dying to make the Image Easter Egg:

“He’s Been Phil. Spectred???”

(from the Simon & Garfunkel song.)

Note 5. The Prequel. Mark Levin is not real fond of Birthers in the first place, having once said on his radio show:

I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . . this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . . got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that.

Mark Levin
Sept. 28, 2011


Kangaroos On Mars!!! Are They Naturally Born???

Captain-Kangaroo-cast-jpg_172503

The Crew Of The Ten Year Long Mars Explorer Mission Weren’t Sure How Their Kids Would Be Received Back On Earth

Adrian Nash, of the h2ooflife Blog, and frequent commenter here, has written a new post, and here are a few excerpts:

Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born.  It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.

An example is the Kangaroo.  Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia?  But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right? That couldn’t be more absurd.  Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents.  Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant.  But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.

If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth?  Would they be natural born Earthlings?  Would they be natural born humans?  Would they be natural born Americans?  Or something else…-something different?

Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child.  His father was not a North American.  He was not an American citizen.  He was not an America immigrant.  He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.

If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else?  According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.

Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law.  All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/martians-koreans-natural-citizens/

What Mr. Nash argues for is a more logical basis for citizenship than place of birth.  That isn’t necessarily a bad argument, but it is simply not the current state of American law. Almost two years ago I wrote a post which directly addressed this point and which cited an 1898 American Law Review article written shortly after the Wong Kim Ark case was decided. To make it easier to copy and paste,  I have transcribed most of page 8 into text:

But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.

It was only an eight page article, and it is reproduced in image form here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/

The author of that article, Marshall B. Woodworth, actually agreed with Mr. Nash that using parentage was preferable to using place of birth. However, unlike Mr. Nash and all the other two citizen parent Birthers, Woodworth also recognized the actual state of the law. And, in these lines from above,

the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

Woodworth also recognized that common law controlled the question, not something like Vattel’s The Law of Nations. And what was that common law??? From Wong Kim Ark:

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

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

Nothing there about any two-citizen parents requirement. Which all leads back to questions I once posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Why don’t you just admit that Obama was and is legally eligible for the office? Why don’t you just admit that there currently is no two-citizen parent requirement? Then, why don’t you work to change the law?

I submit the same questions to Mr. Nash.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the cast of Captain Kangaroo, about which Wiki says:

Captain Kangaroo was an American children’s television series which aired weekday mornings on the American television network CBS for nearly 30 years, from October 3, 1955 until December 8, 1984, making it the longest-running nationally broadcast children’s television program of its day. In 1986, the American Program Service (now American Public Television, Boston) integrated some newly produced segments into reruns of past episodes, distributing the newer version of the series until 1993.

The show was conceived and the title character played by Bob Keeshan, who based the show on “the warm relationship between grandparents and children.” Keeshan had portrayed the original Clarabell the Clown on The Howdy Doody Show when it aired on NBC. Captain Kangaroo had a loose structure, built around life in the “Treasure House” where the Captain (the name “kangaroo” came from the big pockets in his coat) would tell stories, meet guests, and indulge in silly stunts with regular characters, both humans and puppets.

This show was before my time, but I think I must have had some videotapes, because the Dancing Bear really seems familiar. And for all the Birthers, I present:

Note 2. The Image Easter Egg. For ESLs, Mr. Green Jeans was a regular character on the show, and Martians are often presented as Little Green Men, sooo it was just a silly word play about the alleged Martian children in the Image.


Time Enough At Last??? (Or, Prof. Jacobson Enters The Birther Zone!!!)

jacobson 2

Prof. Jacobson Wins His Place In The Guinness Book Of World Records After Successfully Dodging 1,749 Copies Of  Vattel’s The Law Of Nations!

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Birther Zone.

Professor William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor, is finally ready to take on the question of whether Mark Rubio and Ted Cruz are eligible for the Presidency. Here are a few excerpts from an August 13, 2013 article:

Ted and Marco Eligibility – I Can’t Put It Off Any Longer

The analysis of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution as it applies to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

I promised to do this long ago, and did the research with the assistance of a former student, but couldn’t bring myself to actually write it up for multiple reasons:

(1) it’s a subject which brings out the most vitriolic commenters and e-mailers (hey, why don’t we talk about a non-controversial subject instead, like Islam or Gay Marriage?) and I haven’t been in the mood;
(2) views on the subject have become like religion, incapable of disproving;
(3) I’ve generally been distracted, with each week bringing some new “crisis” to write about;
(4) I’m lazy by nature;
(5) the process of relocating from RI to NY started in March and continued through July, and sapped what little free time I had;
(6) this isn’t actually my job,
(7) I’m lazy by nature (but I repeat myself); and
(8) bullet-proofing the analysis against the inevitable criticisms requires more painstaking drafting than normally takes place on the internet.

But it can’t be ignored anymore.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/ted-and-marco-eligibility-i-cant-put-this-off-any-longer/#comments

The links there to a previous article in, February 2013,  reveal some of what he has been going through:

The nature of the hostility directed at me has changed over the years.

In 2008-2010, it was mostly Obama supporters upset that someone who taught at an Ivy League law school would dissent.  I guess they figured their love letters weren’t working, so that has mostly (but not completely) stopped.

The most unhinged of late are Elizabeth Warren supporters.  (More on that, perhaps, in a later post.)

But along that road, there has been a consistent allegation that I was part of some vast conspiracy to conceal Obama’s alleged lack of constitutional qualification, first on birth place grounds and then on “natural born citizen” grounds.

That, even though I was one of the few people to defend the right of anyone to question the constitutional qualifications of any presidential candidate, so long as the challenge was not based on conspiracy theories and making stuff up.  I never accepted the Barack Obama birthplace conspiracy theories any more than I accepted the Trig Palin birth mother conspiracy theories.

I, almost alone, delved into the history of constitutional challenges, dating back to Chester Arthur on through George Romney and John McCain, with others along the way, to show that challenging constitutional qualification was not inherently racist and did not begin with Barack Obama.  No one pushed back against the abuse of the “Birther Card” more than I did.  (On the flip side of the coin, some left-wingers accused me of being a “Birther” because I refused to buy into the race card use.)

He then goes on to discuss the hostility in more detail. There are a lot of good comments at both stories. I read his blog regularly, although I usually don’t comment very much. Two of his excuses for putting this off will strike a chord with both Obots and Anti-Birthers, to wit:

(2) views on the subject have become like religion, incapable of disproving;

(8) bullet-proofing the analysis against the inevitable criticisms requires more painstaking drafting than normally takes place on the internet.

Those two items lead me to suspect that he has had a whole lot more run-ins with the Birthers than I ever expected. Personally, I am curious what verbal canards the Birthers will lob at him and whether they will also chunk physical copies of The Law of Nations at him, in the manner of Arabs throwing shoes. I can hardly wait to read his analysis, which I suspect is not going to make Birthers very happy.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the TV series, The Twilight Zone. This episode is called “Time Enough At Last.” About which Wiki Says:

It was adapted from a short story by Lyn Venable (Marilyn Venable), which had been published in the January 1953 edition of the science fiction magazine If: Worlds of Science Fiction. “Time Enough at Last” became one of the most famous episodes of the original Twilight Zone, and has been frequently parodied since. It is “the story of a man who seeks salvation in the rubble of a ruined world” and tells of Henry Bemis /ˈbiːmɪs/, played by Burgess Meredith, who loves books, yet is surrounded by those who would prevent him from reading them. The episode follows Bemis through the post apocalyptic world, touching on such social issues as anti-intellectualism, the dangers of reliance upon technology, and the difference between aloneness (solitude) and loneliness.

There is more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_at_Last


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part II, On Cruz Control???)

witch trial

Fabia Sheen, Esq. And Squeeky Fromm Could Handle This With One Hand Behind Their Back

This is Part II of my response to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and his latest critique of me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

In Part I of my response, I covered the syllogistic aspects of Apuzzo’s argument, and the inapplicability of logical syllogisms to the question of whether or not a citizen at birth is the legal equivalent of a natural born citizen.  This article will deal with Apuzzo’s alleged substantive arguments found in Section III of his post,  which includes, but is not limited to the Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, and Rhodes v. U.S. cases,  his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the writings of Emer de Vattel. Because of length, I will probably have to write a separate post to cover his claims in Section IV of his argument.

For a brief history, this whole episode began when Apuzzo weighed in with his opinion that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.  My substantive counter-attack was written in the form of a hypothetical judicial opinion rendered 7 years hence, in the year 2020, occasioned by  Apuzzo challenging Cruz for the Republican nomination.  Doing things in this fashion forced me to think about the specific legal nature of the Birther challenge. And have no fear,  if Cruz  runs, there will be Birther challenges, and to obtain legal standing,  Birthers will file to be placed on the ballot.

This method also forced me to go ahead and craft a judicial response. This was necessary because current case law does not directly provide an answer as to whether or not Cruz is a natural born citizen. However, the case law does give a pretty good indication how a court will rule. In addition to Ted Cruz, Jack Maskell also believes this, writing:

[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Sooo, I am in good company. A copy of Maskell’s Congressional Research Memo may be found above, in the header under “Natural Born Citizenship.”

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizenship/

Now, here was my original substantive response, the hypothetical Order, in pdf form, which I will recap a little:

Apuzzo Order

My GUESS, as to the form of the Birther challenge was:

1. Sen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution because he does not have two citizen parents.

2. Sen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada, outside the boundaries of the United States, thus necessitating naturalization to make him a citizen.

I dealt with the first objection in the same way as the various courts who have heard the issue have dealt with it, that is, with a good whopping strong dose of Wong Kim Ark. There is no need to repeat it here since it is in the Order above. The second argument is more difficult, because the courts haven’t directly ruled on this point. My arguments were:

1.   From, 8 USC § 1401(g), only one parent is required for someone born outside the country t0 be a citizen at birth, so that if a citizen-at-birth is legally equivalent to a natural born citizen, it clearly doesn’t take two citizen parents;

2. From Wong Kim Ark (WKA), a nation has the right to make it’s own citizenship laws;

3. From WKA,  the Court recognized, without objection, that in the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress provided that Americans born abroad  were natural born citizens;

4. From WKA, Congress was recognized to have broad authority to bestow citizenship on those born abroad;

5. From Book 1, The Law of Nations, § 214. Naturalization, Emer de Vattel recognized that countries may grant citizenship to those born abroad in varying degrees;

6. Apart from any judicial recognition or notice, The 1st United States Congress itself, in The Naturalization Act of 1790, believed it possessed the authority to grant natural born citizenship status to certain children born outside the United States;

7. The USCIS does not believe that granting the status of citizen-at-birth, is the same as naturalization, to wit:

Note: You may already be a U.S. citizen and not need to apply for naturalization if your biological or adoptive parent(s) became a U.S. citizen before you reached the age of 18. For more information, visit our Citizenship Through Parents page;

8. [A]s a matter of statutory construction,  Congress is presumed to act with awareness of relevant judicial decisions, and knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts; and

9. With No. 8 in mind, through the provisions of 8 USC § 1401(a), numerous classes of persons are listed who are citizens at birth. The first of these is:

a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Therefore, when Congress lumped all other citizens-at-birth into the same class with these persons, it must be presumed

i.  To have known that these persons were natural born citizens through the provisions of the 1th Amendment, and judicial holdings such as WKA; and

ii.  By so including them, without restriction or limitation, therefore  intended the other described classes were also natural born citizens.

Here is a link to 8 USC § 1401 et.seq.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

All of the above are factors which I believe will mitigate in favor of Crus being found a natural born citizen. I put them in list form here to better compare them with Apuzzo’s reasoning.  Rather than recognize that Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen is a question more subject to statutory construction, Congressional intent, and previous cases on natural born citizenship,  he continues to thump hard and fast on the same definitions he has utilized to dispute Obama’s eligibility. Here is his first bad step:

She [Squeeky] attempts to dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that Minor did not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect.

Duh! And how does Minor have anything significant to do with a person born in Canada and made a citizen at birth by statute??? Minor was an 1875 female voting rights case out of Missouri. The Minor Court didn’t even find it necessary to deal with doubts about the children of aliens and foreigners born inside the country, much less those born outside the country. Supposedly, Apuzzo finds Minor relevant because he wants to establish that common law does not cover people born outside the country.  Well, why not use Wong Kim Ark (1898)???  Not only is it a later case, it contains much more information about naturalization than Minor.

If his over emphasis on Minor was a bad step, his next argument is like falling off a mountain top, and tumbling about 2 miles down the hill, wrapped up in a big snow ball:

She states that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English “natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.”  Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.  . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”  Id. at 788.  So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law. 

Huh??? Is Apuzzo trying to be tricky, or is he really confused? Of course English common law did not cover natural born CITIZENS. It covered natural born SUBJECTS. Which the WKA Court, and others before it, found to be similar concepts. The entire “II Section” of WKA was about natural born subjects, followed by Section III which set forth the American version, natural born citizens:

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

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

And, Mr. Justice Swayne, in the Rhodes case mentioned above by Apuzzo:

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

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41

So, in those two brief excerpts, you get a definition of natural born citizen, good until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Namely, someone born in the country, under its allegiance, meaning neither a diplomat, or hostile invader. WKA took it a step further, and held in Section V, that the 14th Amendment was just an affirmation of this principle:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions [three exceptions omitted]  The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

How does Apuzzo read this?

Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

Uh, Mario, the WKA Court just said that it did. The Courts who have addressed the two-citizen parents think it does. That “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions [three exceptions omitted]” and “those children are natural born. And those exceptions are diplomats, hostile invaders, and wild Indians NOT. . . children without two citizen parents.

If natural born citizenship did actually require two citizen parents, then WKA should be the case where that alleged requirement would show up. But WKA goes far beyond that and flatly comes right out and states that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant for children born here. The Birther refusal to recognize this simple fact is what guaranteed every loss they have experienced in court, and will continue to guarantee future losses.

Apuzzo does not stop there. Here is his next brush with reality:

Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress.  Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”  She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.

But isn’t that the issue at question??? Whether or not Congress can decree a natural born citizen out of someone born overseas to American parent(s)? What Apuzzo does once again is to just argue his conclusion. He doesn’t argue to a conclusion. He just jumps straight to a conclusion. He argues that when Congress did not include the natural born citizen language in its 1795 enactment, it did so because they did not intend for them to be considered natural born citizens. Maybe.  Or maybe it just seemed obvious to the 1795 Congress that those foreign born children to whom they were extending citizenship, were being granted the full spectrum of American rights, including the right to become President. The Constitution itself contemplates the eligibility of  a 35 year old President who has only spent 14 years of his life inside the United States, and the remaining 21 years in a foreign land.

What Apuzzo completely fails to do is present any kind of respectable case that Congress is prohibited from extending natural born citizenship status to children born of American citizens when they are outside the country. I presented 8 or 9 indicia which I think stand for the proposition that Congress has that power, and has exercised it.

That is how non-Birther legal minds work. Examine the law and history, and then reach a conclusion. Birther minds work differently. Pick a conclusion, then ignore anything which conflicts with that conclusion. Here is another exercise in that vein:

Squeeky Fromm also fails to understand this fundamental truth–that one becomes at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean that one was not naturalized. See Calvin’s Case (1608) which was decided in England in 1608. That case proves that being a “citizen at birth” can entail having been naturalized at birth which necessarily excludes one from being a true “natural born citizen.

I am not sure what point Apuzzo is trying to make here. Calvin was declared a natural born subject by common law, not naturalization statutes.  In one sense of the word, all people everywhere are naturalized, that is, made a citizen by some statute or law. I don’t think that it is the soil itself which reaches up and coats a baby. If it did, it must be some pretty smart dirt that can tell the difference whether or not a child is the offspring of a diplomat or hostile invader.

More to the point, it is law itself that naturalizes. In some countries, it is by parentage, other countries by place of birth, and quite often some combination of both.  There is no immutable Law of the Universe which dictates that American law must be that  anyone born here, with the two exceptions,  is a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency. Neither does the study of physics indicate there is a Vattel Particle which requires two citizen parents lest matter and anti-matter collide and blow us all to smithereens. What each country has is its own laws and legal concepts regarding membership in that country.

Our country sets forth a membership standard which is most usually met by simple birth inside the country.  We also have a form of junior membership called naturalization. And these junior members have freedom of the grounds everywhere except the White House. Our laws also provide membership benefits to those born of our citizen(s) who are overseas at the time. There is not much which indicates that particular membership is of the junior kind, and as detailed above, many indicia that just the opposite is true. Mario Apuzzo has not yet set forth anything substantial to rebut those arguments.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part I, The Witch Test)

witch ski

Apuzzo Suddenly Realized That He Wasn’t On Solid Ground

Well, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. once again takes issue with my assessments of his arguments. Here is a link to his latest broadside at me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

For purposes of space, this article will only discuss his syllogisms, or logical form arguments. Part II will cover his substantive arguments. Before we discuss his arguments, let’s do some analogizing about tests! Back in Ye Olde Witch Hunting Days, there was a test designed to determine if a woman was witch. It was called dunking. The alleged witch would be trussed up, taken to the nearest river or pond, and tossed in. If she floated, she was a witch. If she sank, she was innocent. There was usually a rope attached, and the witches, innocent and otherwise, were pulled back up in the boat. This was a respected, and well established test dating back to the days of Babylon. Personally, I think it was more of an ancient form of the Wet T-Shirt Contest, but I believe a lot of Jungian stuff, so who knows.

Anyway, from a modern perspective, we can see that this test had absolutely nothing to do with proving whether or not the subject was a witch, and a lot more to do with Body Mass Index (BMI). A voluptuous, buxom woman, with ample hips, would be more likely to float, whereas scrawny little Girl Reporters would end up noodling catfish on the bottom. Theoretically, it would be possible to rig these tests. For example, if it was me, and a Mob of Angry Birthers said I was a witch, then I would put on my cast iron chastity belt, and slip some diving weights into my undies. I do not put this kind of thing past people in that day, either.

This may make it easier to understand what I was griping about when I wrote my “stabs.” They were in response to an Apuzzo article critical of Jack Maskell, who had written a 50 page memo for the Congressional Research Service, and Bob Quasius, a blogger at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, who relied on that memo to conclude Ted Cruz was most likely a natural born citizen. A copy of Maskell’s memo, and a pdf of it for easier reading, may be found here:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/natural-born-citizenship/

Apuzzo attacked Maskell by using logical syllogisms.  I counter-attacked Apuzzo by pointing out that syllogisms are basically useless when it is the major premises themselves that are issue. And even more useless when an author plays fast and loose with them. That was the point that I made in my first article on this:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

Perhaps it is my inherent witchiness, but neither that article nor the subsequent rebuttal article sank in.  So, that is why I am trying this analogy. The Dunking Test is a lot like those Logical Syllogisms. Neither are accurate tests of the truth, and both are subject to being rigged. This was the point that I made in my articles.  That syllogisms are as unreliable in determining the TRUTH of an argument, as tossing a witch into yon pond. Take for example this perfectly logically valid syllogism:

Major Premise:   All dogs can fly
Minor Premise:   Fido is a dog
Conclusion:          Fido can fly

While this passes the logically VALID test, in that its FORM is correct, it does not pass the TRUE test. How do we know that it is not true??? We must go outside the syllogism for that. It is our experience, and our judgement which tell us that dogs can not fly. Therefore, facts outside of the syllogism itself are necessary to determine the truth. That was the point I made to Apuzzo. That his methodology was flawed, and that by using syllogisms he would be unable to shine any light whatsoever on the issue, particularly because it was the major premise itself that was the subject of contention.

In the context of determining whether citizens at birth are legally equivalent to natural born citizens, using syllogisms is like using the Dunking Test.  You will get a result, but that result doesn’t mean anything.  But Apuzzo is not keen on the whole judgement external to the syllogism thingy. He complained:

And even though Squeeky Fromm comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Squeeky Fromm has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails

Nope. It is Mario Apuzzo, Esq. who does not understand. As in the Fido Syllogism above, where else could one go if one finds the conclusion that Fido can fly troubling??? And not something you wish to discuss deeply with Mental Health professionals. Here, between the double lines, is what I wrote which prompted that response:

====================

Now, lets assume that Apuzzo is wrong about CABs and NBCs and that they are both exactly the same thing as believed by Maskell and the Great Weight of Legal and Historical Authority. Then let’s put the matter to the logic test in proper logical form:

Major premise:       All NBCs are CABs
Minor premise:      Cruz is an NBC
Conclusion:             Therefore, Cruz is a CAB

Major premise:       All CABs are NBCs
Minor premise:       Cruz is a CAB
Conclusion:              Therefore, Cruz is an NBC.

Yes, I can live with either conclusion. Neither strikes me as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue. It would all depend on the truthfulness of the premises. For example, if a court ruled that all CAB are NOT NBC’s, then Cruz may or may not be an NBC. Which brings you to the second big problem with Apuzzo’s whole approach to this thing. Which is, his whole approach to this thing.

====================

Summarizing this point, to determine whether or not a syllogism is TRUE, you have to go outside the syllogism. While outside, if something looks STUPID, then the syllogism is probably neither TRUE  nor SOUND.  Sooo, Fido can fly . . . strike[s] [me]“as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” With Maskell and Quasius, there were no such vibes.  There might be disagreement from the Birthers, but once again, that is why you don’t use syllogisms in situations like this. They are about as useful as trussing Maskell up, and  chunking him into a river to see if he floats.

Now, to discuss Apuzzo’s initial rigging of Maskell’s Dunking Test. In his original article, Apuzzo characterized Maskell’s take on this as:

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This is the same FORM, as Apuzzo’s Bubbles the Poodle example:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

This is  a NOT VALID form, and it is also NOT the manner in which either Maskell, or the blogger Bob Quasius presented the argument. There was no reason to ever present Maskell’s argument in that particular form, except to set up a straw man.  Maskell’s position could be accurately presented by the two proper forms above. Apuzzo simply slipped some floaties on Maskell, tossed him in the drink, and then hollered, “Witch! Witch!” when Maskell floated to the surface.

That was my point. That was also what I said in my first rebuttal response to Apuzzo:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/

In his latest article, Mario Apuzzo tangentially deals with these criticisms:

Squeeky Fromm tries to persuade that she successfully addressed my criticisms of Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell’s thesis (his major premise) that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  From her article we can see that she is starting to understand the world of logic a little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first part of my logical presentation in which I expose why to argue, that since all “natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Barack Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen,” is logically invalid.  We have to recognize this argument and show that it is invalid because it is one of the means by which Maskell arrives at his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Second, Squeeky Fromm, underplays the second part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid argument into a valid argument, that Maskell’s second argument is unsound because the major premises is false.  Maskell’s second argument can only be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens,” and since Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born citizen.”  Maskell’s major premise in this argument would be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Squeeky Fromm fails to understand the importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making [it] valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is false and therefore also his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Huh??? Well, if you can wave your hands and, “PRESTO CHANGE O!!!” make the syllogism VALID, why did you ever present the INVALID form??? Because we have already established that the TRUTH of a syllogism comes from outside the syllogism, because the TRUTH of the premises comes from outside the syllogism. Let’s go grab Bubbles, and see how this works:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Is Bubbles a poodle??? Who knows. The FORM of the syllogism is INVALID, but that does not mean the conclusion is false. That just means that you can’t get to the truth of the conclusion through the argument. Somebody has to outside, in the yard, and check Bubbles. Who may or may not be a poodle.

Now, let’s do an Apuzzo Abracadabra, and make the form VALID:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a poodle.
Therefore, Bubbles is a dog.

Now, the FORM is VALID, but is the conclusion TRUE??? Who knows? Is Bubbles a poodle? Perhaps Bubbles is a cat. The point is, you still have to go outside the syllogism to check whether or not the premises are true. Now, as a matter of Advanced Syllogisms,  I will tell you, that even if both premises are TRUEish, and the form VALID, the conclusion could be false. Here is a picture of Bubbles, the poodle. She is on the right:

lackey

[Robert Byrn (Sir Kay, The Seneschal) and Mimi Berry (Bubbles, Hand-maiden to Queen Morgan Le Fay) in the 1943 revivial of A Connecticut Yankee. Creator: Valente, Alfredo -- Photographer. Created Date 1943.

Because, a poodle is also a lackey, or a servile person.  So, some poodles are dogs. Some aren’t. This isn’t just nitpicking. Syllogisms come in flavors, or moods. About 256 of them, t0 be precise. Out of that 256 possible moods, only 19 forms are considered VALID. Personally, I haven’t counted them.

http://math.fau.edu/schonbek/mfla/mfla1f01syl.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

The relevance here is, that there is a very good chance a premise on the Ted Cruz issue would come out as, Some Citizens-at-Birth are natural born citizens. The law is not a real good place for logical FORMS. One reason is that classifications change. Another is that words are often subjective in meaning, or admit to having more than one meaning. For example, is naturalization a statute to be viewed separate and distinct from the Article II natural born citizen characterization, or is naturalization more properly viewed as a process,  complete with citizenship tests. In the law, lines are seldom hard and fast. This is why you have judges and juries. Somebody has to look at laws and decide what the words mean, and how they are to be applied, and to what facts they should be applied.

That was my point to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Regarding Ted Cruz, the question of whether or not he is a natural born citizen, is open. Most people, myself included, think this will resolve in his favor. But it will not be resolved from presumption and the making of syllogistic premises. It will be decided by going to the law, and trying to decide the meanings of the words, and the intent behind them. If he wishes to be relevant in that process, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. needs to forget Aristotle, and start reading up on case law and statutory construction.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Alfredo Mendoza, a former water skiing champion.

Alfredo Mendoza was the premier male water skier in the world during the early 1950s and he turned his tournament successes into a professional career as a skiing star at Florida’s Cypress Gardens. Mendoza first learned to water ski at Lake Tequesquitengo southwest of Mexico City in 1949. His fascination with the sport, coupled with his viewing of a film of show skiing at Cypress Gardens, convinced him to change from his earlier ambition of becoming a bullfighter. Mendoza captured the jumping and overall gold medals at the 1953 World Championships in Toronto, Canada. He repeated as jumping and overall champion at the world meet in Beirut, Lebanon two years later and added the slalom gold medal to his victory string.

http://www.iwsf.com/halloffame/89AlfredoMendoza.htm


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers