Luckily for us, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq., was overheard blabbing the plans of the next legal case he plans to mangle to a crony. I guess the Minor v. Happersett case must have keeled over from the ill treatment he gave it, and Apuzzo needs a new case – – – one ripe and ready for the mangling. From the comments at his website we know that he is stalking the poor 1964 SCOTUS case of Schneider v. Rusk. Apuzzo already has his duct tape, blowtorch and pliers ready to give it the business. Here is the link to the comment:
And here is what Apuzzo blabbed to Texoma:
I agree with your interpretation of what Schneider v. Rusk meant when it said:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”
I have an essay that I will be publishing shortly which you should find very interesting. In my essay I have the following argument on what the Court meant by its statement:
“In this sentence, the Court explained that just being a “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is equivalent to being a naturalized citizen, is only a “start” and not the same as being a “natural born Citizen” because the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. Hence, the Court also said that after that “start,” we must move on and recognize that a “natural born Citizen” is different from a “native born” citizen in some material way. That material difference can only be that not only is a “natural born Citizen” born in the United States (making him or her “native born”), but he or she is also born to citizen parents (making him or her a “natural born Citizen”).”
It is really fun to have this information in advance, where you can read the case before Mario gets his mitts on it and mangles it beyond all recognition. Sometimes he butchers legal cases sooo badly, a forensics unit has to come in and get DNA to identify it. But, I digress.
In this particular case, a naturalized citizen was deprived of her citizenship because she had remained overseas for a long period of time. The Supreme Court ruled this violated her due process rights because there was no requirement that native born citizens had to live in this country or risk losing their citizenship. The Court said that there were no differences between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens except when it came to the Presidency. This was a very short case and the link to it is here:
What Apuzzo does, is manage to screw up the interpretation of these two simple sentences:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.
Apuzzo contorts the meaning to read it as setting forth three distinct types of citizen: native born, naturalized, and natural born. As he says above:
In this sentence, the Court explained that just being a “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is equivalent to being a naturalized citizen, is only a “start” and not the same as being a “natural born Citizen” because the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. “
Clearly the Court explained no such thing. It simply divided citizens into two categories, native born and naturalized and said the the only difference between those two classes was that only the natural born citizen, that is the native born, is eligible to be President. In this instance native born and natural born are being equated as the same thing by the Court.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is just trying to confuse the issue by claiming native born and naturalized person constitute one class, and then positioning natural born citizens as a whole ‘nother separate class. He does this to play silly word games and to fool people into thinking it is the difference between those two classes that the court is discussing. It is the same sort of sophistry trick of confusing the antecedent that I discussed in A Vattel Birther Tackles The Bible:
It is pretty hard to screw up two simple sentences, and what Apuzzo needs an imaginary sentence in between them. Let’s try to line it out like Apuzzo wants us to believe:
Real Sentence Number 1: We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive.
Imaginary Implied Apuzzo Sentence: There is another distinct class of citizen called the natural born citizen.
Real Sentence Number 2: The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.
The first problem one has with the imaginary sentence is that it is well. . .uh . . . imaginary. It simply is not there. But look more closely, and you will see that Apuzzo has dug himself other holes. First, there is no reason for the Real Sentence Number 2 to be in the case at all. The Plaintiff was not running for the Presidency. If the term natural born citizen does not refer back to the term native born, then why is it even there?
Then, Apuzzo runs into another problem. He doesn’t have enough Imaginary Sentences. By creating his imaginary difference between native born and natural born citizens, he leaves the Court saying nothing at all about requiring two citizen parents. Sooo, you need to add another Imaginary Sentence or two to explain that. And, since that conflicts with Wong Kim Ark, and other cases, you need a whole lot more Imaginary Sentences to explain that.
And, if Schneider v. Rusk becomes the new Birther precedental case of the month, replacing Minor v. Happersett, then you still have to explain little thingies like Edward Meese, Reagan’s attorney general writing this for the Heritage Foundation 41 years later:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President.
and, a whole host of other anomalies and inconsistencies.
These are the inherent problems that you encounter when you try to make tortured and distorted legal interpretations. Get one piece in and then all the other pieces don’t fit. But I predict this will not stop Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. from doing his very best to cram 100 pounds of poopy into a 5 pound bag. He will pound the poopy with his fists, he will mash it up and roll it around in his hands, and he will jump up and down on it trying to stomp it and cram it into that bag.
And, in the end, there will be more poopy on him than there is in the bag.
Note 1: The above image is Rene’ Magritte’s “The Return of the Flame.” The figure is Fantomas, which you may read about at this link, and is also the source of the quotes below:
They also shared a boundless love for the pleasures of the cinema, avidly following the famous Fantomas series in 1913 and 1914, which had been inspired by the novel by Souvestre and Allain. Their Thursdays and Sundays were filled with the heroic deeds of this enigmatic being. Fantomas was a sinister hero without identity, totally criminal but highly popular, who in some enviable way had succeeded in becoming revered precisely because of his disgraceful deeds. There can be no doubt that this mysterious challenge to the established order and the laws of the ruling class represented a rich source of inspiration for Magritte, one which also played a role in the subject matter of some of his pictures: one thinks, for example, of such pictures as The Return of the Flame or The Threatened Assassin.
I chose this image for several reasons. First, I really love Magritte’s works. Next, The Return of the Flame works in well with the caption and it’s imagery of something being so stupid – – – it burns. Finally, the figure wears a tuxedo, as Apuzzo does in a photograph at his website. Additionally, the whole concept of Surrealism is a disconnect from reality, which certainly applies to the Birthers. Curiously, the second Fantomas piece done by Magritte, which is also at the link above, is captioned:
He has turned his back upon those watching him, nor does he notice those seeking to overcome and apprehend him. He is observing musical sounds. He is functioning in another way, conducting himself with indifference towards the obvious threat posed by reality.
This also applies to Apuzzo and many other Birthers who get hung up and lost in the words, themselves, oblivious to the meanings and concepts expressed by the words.
Note 2: Casing the joint. Another play on words. Casing is a slang term which means:
1. Sl. to look over some place to figure out how to break in, what to steal, etc. (Underworld.) First of all you gotta case the joint to see where things are. You could see he was casing the joint the way he hung around.2. Sl. to look a place over. The dog came in and cased the joint, sniffing out friends and foes. The old lady entered slowly, casing the joint for someone of her own age, and finally took a seat.
I view Apuzzo as casing (looking over) the joint in the sense of searching for legal cases to mangle and try to confirm his theories.
Note 3: Give . . .the business. From Urban Dictionary, a slang term for beating somebody up, usually combined with taking the subject “out back.”
Scott wouldn’t pay his tab, so we took him out back and gave him the business.