Tag Archives: two citizen parents

When First You Practice To Deceive!!!

zot3

The Great Freeper Birther Purge of 2013 is still going on over at Free Republic. The forum owner, Jim Robinson has decreed that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency.  He has put up another post, his second so far, about the issue. This latest one, cited to the Dallas Morning News, adds no new scholarship to the conversation.

Is he a natural-born citizen or isn’t he? The question has been a nagging part of Barack Obama’s life ever since his first presidential campaign. No amount of birth certificates and sworn statements from state officials in Hawaii, his birthplace, seemed capable of putting the issue to rest. The “birther” movement continues pressing the question even today, five years after Obama’s election to the presidency.

The question nags anew, but this time Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is the focus because he was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. By law, his mother’s U.S. citizenship automatically confers natural citizenship to Cruz, just as — for those who continue to doubt the location of Obama’s birth — the citizenship of Obama’s American mother conferred it to him.

This is such a nonissue, regardless of whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat. Nevertheless, narrow-minded individuals, including some prominent personalities such as billionaire former presidential contender Donald Trump, are doggedly trying to concoct controversy and introduce doubt where there should be none.

These men have been natural U.S. citizens from birth and have every right to seek the nation’s highest office. Article II of the Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be president: that the person be at least 35 years old, a resident within the United States for 14 years and a “natural-born citizen.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3061738/posts

Robinson is making it clear that the Free Republic birthers had better not latch on to any Ted Cruz threads to spread their quackery. However,  Robinson’s position on Obama is still unclear.  He does not appear to be too well versed on the whole issue and has just decided to accept Mark Levin and Ted Cruz’s assurances. However, Robinson did make this comment, at number 103:

To: sten

Of course I believe in the constitution. Cruz was born to a qualified American mother while temporarily working in Canada. He meets all the legal requirements. Don’t know if that same standard can apply to Obama (if he was not born in the US). His mother does not qualify (according to some of the posts on these threads).

103 posted on Monday, September 02, 2013 9:14:12 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)

And, by way of update, he made this comment at 35:

To: ConorMacNessa

That’s true, but they are leftists.

And unfortunately, there are lots of folks who have too much invested emotionally in Obama’s ineligibility, that they’re afraid Cruz will destroy their case. But I don’t know. As they’re pointing out on this very thread, Ann Dunham was not old enough at Obama’s birth to satisfy the law. [if Obama was born outside the country.]

35 posted on Monday, September 02, 2013 7:16:33 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

And, on a different thread, at comment #94:

Conservatives to Cruz: ‘Run, Ted, run’

Monday, September 02, 2013 12:15:45 PM 94 of 275
Jim Robinson to Col Freeper

I suspect some posters don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the actual law and the constitution but they have so much invested emotionally in the crackpot birther conspiracy theory that they’re caught in a trap of their own making. Gonna have to chew their own leg off to get free.

I am still waiting to see if he ever fully addresses the last five years of the Freeper Birthers dissembling about the need for Obama to have two citizen parents.  It seems too much to just sweep under the rug.  If Cruz decides to run,  the question of his citizenship is certainly going to come up. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is certainly not going to let go of the issue. Nor will CDR Kerchner.  How much credibility is Jim Robinson and Free Republic going to have in that battle with other conservative types?

Probably none.  Walter Scott provided the reason why in his poem, Marmion:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the B.C. comic strip by Johnny Hart. My father used to have a lot of his paperback books, including The Wizard of Id. I loved them! Here is the original strip before I did my thing to it:

zot2

Note 2. Marmion.  I never read the poem, but it sounds like a real drama-fest. Wiki says,

Marmion is an epic poem by Walter Scott about the Battle of Flodden Field (1513). It was published in 1808.

Scott started writing Marmion, his second major work, in November 1806. When Archibald Constable, the publisher, learnt of this, he offered a thousand guineas for the copyright unseen. William Miller and John Murray each agreed to take a 25% share in the project. Murray observed: “We both view it as honourable, profitable, and glorious to be concerned in the publication of a new poem by Walter Scott.” Scott later said that he thoroughly enjoyed writing the work. He told his son-in-law, Lockhart, “Oh, man, I had many a grand gallop among these braes when I was thinking of Marmion.”

In 1807 Scott practised manoeuvres with the Light Horse Volunteers (formed to defend an invasion from France) in order to polish his description of Flodden. Marmion was finished on January 22 and published on 22 February 1808 in a quarto first edition of two thousand copies. This edition, priced one and a half guineas, sold out in a month. It was followed by twelve octavo editions between 1808 and 1825.

The poem tells how Lord Marmion, a favourite of Henry VIII of England, lusts for Clara de Clare, a rich woman. He and his mistress, Constance De Beverley, forge a letter implicating Clara’s fiancé, Sir Ralph De Wilton, in treason. Constance, a dishonest nun, hopes that her aid will restore her to favour with Marmion. When De Wilton loses the duel he claims in order to defend his honour against Marmion, he is obliged to go into exile. Clara retires to a convent rather than risk Marmion’s attentions.

Constance’s hopes of a reconciliation with Marmion are dashed when he abandons her; she ends up being walled up alive in the Lindisfarne convent for breaking her vows. She takes her revenge by giving the Abbess who is one of her three judges documents that prove De Wilton’s innocence. De Wilton, having returned disguised as a pilgrim, follows Marmion to Edinburgh where he meets the Abbess, who gives him the exonerating documents. When Marmion’s host, the Earl of Angus is shown the documents, he arms De Wilton and accepts him as a knight again. De Wilton’s plans for revenge are overturned by the battle of Flodden Field. Marmion dies on the battlefield, while De Wilton displays heroism, regains his honour, retrieves his lands, and marries Clara.


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/


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.


With 2020 Foresight – The Once And Future Apuzzo!!!

fortuneteller

Hmmm, I see Mario Apuzzo, An Old Hat, And A Huge Stack Of . . . Bird Cage Liners???

Well, I have been working my tail off on this one! I got to asking myself what would happen if Sen. Ted Cruz, or some other person who was born outside the country, ran for the presidency.  Surely if the parents weren’t both American citizens, the whole silly two citizen parents stuff would rear its goofy head again.

But exactly how would the Birthers frame the argument? And how would the Defendants respond? Reading the law review articles would help with spotting the issues, but there is nothing like getting your hands dirty to get a good handle on things. The standard responses to date would not apply across the board in this case.  For example, the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on a person who was born inside the United States. This was Obama’s situation, also.

Sooo, I pretended it was the year 2020, and Sen. Ted Cruz was running for office.  Cruz was born in Canada and became a citizen of the United States at birth. It is easy to imagine a Birther(s) signing up to run for President, as some did this last year, in an effort to pass the standing hurdle. It is also reasonable that an Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief would be filed in an attempt to remove Cruz from the ballot.  As a method to present the scenario, I chose to write a decision as a United States District Judge denying this Injunctive Relief to the Birther. This method would present the main points of both sides, and a possible result.

For purposes of illustration,  I chose Mario Apuzzo, Esq. as the Imaginary Birther, representing himself pro se. This is because he is sooo predictable, and sooo old hat. The old hat idiom means, “seen or done many times and no longer interesting. Trite. Stale. Predictable.”  There is another meaning for those who have vulgar tongues, but I will skip that because this is mostly a G rated place.

Below is a pdf of my decision. I left out some of the things you normally find in a decision such as the procedural stuff. This was done to keep it shorter and simpler to read. I hope from the decision the reader can get a feel for how the Birther argument would be structured, and how a Defendant would respond.

This is strictly my opinion, and there are certainly other legal strategies that could be utilized by the Birthers or Defendants. I invite my readers, Obot, Anti-Birther, and Birther to submit their own thoughts via email attachment.  I will be glad to update this article with their work along with proper attribution.

While this may not seem like the height of fun,  it has to be better than a surprise visit from the Secret Service such as experienced by the readers of  other websites. Enjoy!

Apuzzo Order

UPDATE 1:  June 26, 2013.,

Well, that was quick. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. burned the Midnight Oil and made a Motion for Reconsideration. Here is the link to his website. Go to comments #168-#170:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4091601506130883249

And here is the pdf:

Apuzzo Motion For Reconsideration

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Mario Apuzzo’s “Schlock And Awe” Attack Fizzles!!!

alien 2 mexico vs monsters

She Made A Mental Note To Never Date A Guy She Heard On The Radio, Unless She Ran A Background Check First

Well, I have just listened to Fogbow Foggy’s radio rebuttal to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. on Immigration Lawyer Charles Kuck’s radio show. Foggy did a fantastic job of correcting Mario Apuzzo’s numerous legal errors on the previous week’s show, such as Emer Vattel’s treatise on French law being the basis of our Constitutional requirement that President be a natural born citizen. I am sure that Mario Apuzzo is squirming mad after Foggy’s  devastating barb that  “Apuzzo thinks the right to remain silent was put there to protect mimes.” OUCH!!!

Anyway, RC Radio Blog has a link up to the show, along with more of the background:

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/immigration-attorney-charles-kuck-says-apuzzo-is-wrong-on-nbc/#comments

Dr. Conspiracy has a post up with Apuzzo’s original appearance:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/charles-kuch-interview-with-mario-aupzzo/

Kuck was apparently unprepared for Apuzzo, and seemed to take much of what he said at face value. I think that happens a lot with people who don’t know what is going on, in a legal sense. Most people, even lawyers, haven’t spent much time on the meaning of natural born citizen as it relates to the presidential requirement. It just has little application in a day to day law practice.  Here comes Apuzzo with 200 pages of schlock, and it can kind of be overpowering if you haven’t read and studied the case law.

After that initial show, Kuck got busy reading the cases, including Lynch v. Clark (1844 NY), Wong Kim Ark (USSCt. 1898), and Ankeny v. Daniels (2009 Indiana). Yep, after reading those cases, the whole two citizen parent silliness gets tossed out the door with the garbage.

Except up there in Paterson, New Jersey, and other places  where Birthers dwell in their self-imposed exile to LaLa Land.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Schlock. Free Dictionary defines the word as:

schlock also shlock (shlk) Slang

n.       Something, such as merchandise or literature, that is inferior or shoddy.

adj.   Of inferior quality; cheap or shoddy.

[Possibly from Yiddish shlak, apoplexy, stroke, wretch, evil, nuisance, from Middle High German slag, slak, stroke, from slahen, to strike, from Old High German slahan.]

Note 2. Here is a link to Kuck’s legal website:

http://www.immigration.net/


He Says Apuzzo, I Say A PAZZO!!!

la bete

Apuzzo Was Pretty Sure This Wasn’t A French Poodle

First, why do I say a “PAZZO”??? In Italian, “pazzo” as a noun means a madman, lunatic, or bedlamite. As a phrase, “pazzo” means “off one’s rocker.” Some of the adjectival meanings are even more fun, including, but not limited to, “moony” and “batty.” If you don’t believe me, there is a Google Translate screenshot, redacted for sizing, at Note 2. below:

Next, I need to explain why I prefer the Apazzo  pronunciation and spelling. Here is a link to his latest bit of drooling:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

Once again he dives head first into a four inch deep pool of Aristotelian Logic to critique one, Bob Quasius of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”

http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen

The purpose of this article is not to discuss all that is substantively incorrect with Apuzzo’s argument. I will save that for a future post.  To show the problems with his logic it is only necessary to lift the legal covers enough to properly frame the issue.  Since Poor Mario spends a lot of time jumping up and down about an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, let’s use it to set the stage:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

It is clear that the Minor Court views citizenship as natural born versus naturalized, since by 1875  most of those alive 88 years earlier on September 17, 1787 had died.  What really wads up Apuzzo’s pantaloons is this statement from the 2011 Maskell Congressional Research Service  memorandum, wherein the :

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”  In this memo, he also added:  “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

See the Natural Born Citizenship link in the website header above for the entire memo.  All that Maskell says is that most legal authorities think if you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen. The Minor Court seemed to adopt the same view. That is a logical conclusion since the whole purpose for such laws in the first place was the desire of Congress (or before Congress, English kings and English parliaments) to extend the same rights of citizenship to those Americans born overseas as they would have had if they had been born inside the country. I would feel comfortable making that argument in court.

To attack this conclusion Apuzzo resorts once again to the FORMS and STRUCTURES of logical arguments. Here is what he does:

First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form.  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at birth=CAB

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.

First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.  Second, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one is a NBC).  Third, this argument suffers from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of NBCs).  So, while the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false.  We should see intuitively that the conclusion does not follow from the two premises.  An easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following:

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

We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.

Poodles??? The first thing that Apuzzo screws up is the form of such statements which is usually. Any undistributed middle is by his own hand.  Let us obtain the proper logical FORM from here:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Syllogism

A properly constructed syllogism consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The conclusion has a subject (S) and a predicate (P) which are derived from the premises. The major premise addresses the predicate, the minor premise addresses the subject and the two premises share a minor (or middle) term (M) which connects them. For example:

Major premise:  All M are P.

Minor premise: All S are M.

Conclusion:        All S are P.

Let’s compare this with Apuzzo’s form!  Let M = poodles, P = dogs,  S=Bubbles

                          Proper Logical Form         Apuzzo Logical Form

Major Premise        All M are P                             All M are P
Minor Premise       All S are M                              All S are P
Conclusion              All S are P                               All P are M

Major Premise       All poodles are dogs              All poodles are dogs
Minor Premise       Bubbles is a poodle               Bubbles is a dog
Conclusion              Bubbles is a dog                     Bubbles is a poodle

Properly executed, you discover that Bubbles is both a poodle and a dog.  In Mario Universe, assuming that Bubbles is a pit bull,  then you end up giving a small child a pit bull for Christmas.  But, even if Bubbles were a poodle, it would simply be a lucky guess because of the FORM.  Apuzzo’s form is logically invalid and can not be relied upon to provide true answers.

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.

Not only was his logical form screwed up, but the entire process of using syllogisms to provide an answer or enlightenment in this case is logically of little probative value.  That is because it is the major premises themselves which are at issue. Are all natural born citizens also citizens at birth? Are all citizens at birth natural born citizens?  If the major premise is incorrect, then the correctness of any  conclusion arrived at as a result of that error would fall into the Lucky Guess category. Amazingly, Apuzzo gets to this exact same point when he says:

Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the Maskell/Quasius statement.  Now we will test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument.  To do that, we need to help Maskell and Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one.  Here we go:

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false.  This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.

Yeah. Duh. If one’s major premise is screwed up, the conclusion may or may not be screwed up, but one is logically incapable of determining that fact from the form of the argument itself.  One can construct valid arguments based on false premises and resulting in silly or sane conclusions all day long and end up nowhere. Sooo, what does Mario Apazzo, Esq. do after reaching this state of enlightenment???

Does he say to himself, “Well, CRAP!  This process is getting me nowhere fast. Maybe I need to do a re-write because whatever I syllogism out is going to be totally dependent on the truth of the premises  the person uses. Which is what we’re all fussing about in the first place. Back to the drawing board!”

OH Hell No!!! He goes on to construct a whole new set of major and minor premises and starts syllogizing all over again.  He isn’t destroying Maskell or  Quasius with LOGIC. . . He admitted  himself that using logical forms doesn’t work unless one accepts the underlying premises. So all he is doing is just spouting off his opinion and glossing it over with some if, thens, equals, and therefores like he is Mr. Logic or something.

He’s PAZZO for doing it, PAZZO for doing it wrong, and PAZZO for thinking nobody would notice.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Also see this from Wiki:

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

Note 2: Pazzo, in translation:

pazzo translate

Note 3. The Image. This is La Bete, the Beast, from the French film, La Belle et La Bete (1946). This is an absolutely beautiful and fantastic film and if you have never seen it, please remedy that. Here is a little about it from Wiki:

Beauty and the Beast (French: La Belle et la Bête) is a 1946 French romantic fantasy film adaptation of the traditional fairy tale of the same name, written by Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont and published in 1757 as part of a fairy tale anthology (Le Magasin des Enfants, ou Dialogues entre une sage gouvernante et ses élèves, London 1757). Directed by French poet and filmmaker Jean Cocteau, the film stars Josette Day as Belle and Jean Marais.

The plot of Cocteau’s film revolves around Belle’s father who is sentenced to death for picking a rose from Beast’s garden. Belle offers to go back to the Beast in her father’s place. Beast falls in love with her and proposes marriage on a nightly basis which she refuses. Belle eventually becomes more drawn to Beast, who tests her by letting her return home to her family and telling her that if she doesn’t return to him within a week, he will die of grief.

Upon the film’s December 1947 New York City release, critic Bosley Crowther called the film a “priceless fabric of subtle images,…a fabric of gorgeous visual metaphors, of undulating movements and rhythmic pace, of hypnotic sounds and music, of casually congealing ideas”; according to Crowther, “the dialogue, in French, is spare and simple, with the story largely told in pantomime, and the music of Georges Auric accompanies the dreamy, fitful moods. The settings are likewise expressive, many of the exteriors having been filmed for rare architectural vignettes at Raray, one of the most beautiful palaces and parks in all France. And the costumes, too, by Christian Bérard and Escoffier, are exquisite affairs, glittering and imaginative.”[2] According to Time magazine, the film is a “wondrous spectacle for children of any language, and quite a treat for their parents, too”; but the magazine concludes “Cocteau makes about a half-hour too much of a good thing—and few things pall like a dream that cannot be shaken off.”[3]

In 1999, Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert added the film to his “Great Movies” list, calling it “one of the most magical of all films” and a “fantasy alive with trick shots and astonishing effects, giving us a Beast who is lonely like a man and misunderstood like an animal.”[4] A 2002 Village Voice review found the film’s “visual opulence” “both appealing and problematic”, saying “Full of baroque interiors, elegant costumes, and overwrought jewelry (even tears turn to diamonds), the film is all surface, and undermines its own don’t-trust-a-pretty-face and anti-greed themes at every turn.”[5] In 2010, the film was ranked #26 in Empire magazine’s “100 Best Films of World Cinema”.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast_%281946_film%29

This also explains the Image Easter egg.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers