Apuzzo Finally Found The Bench Which Supported Him!
I guess Mario Apuzzo, Esq. read my “A Pazzo” article. Today in his blog comments we find:
- I of IISqueeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, the artsy fartsy Obot queen, has taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article. You can read her haughty prose here. https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/
She says that I have misread Minor v. Happersett because the Court said that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also said: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Hence, the Court said that at common law, if you were not born in the country to citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner. This is the same exact thing that Congress reflected in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. So Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has proven nothing but to show that she does not understand what she reads.
Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell argument. In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):
All NBCs are CABs.
All X’s are CABs.
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:
All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing by use of some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I said that this Maskell argument is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle and also is fallacious for affirming the consequent. I said that this is the argument presented by Maskell. So, what is ironic is that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.
Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, takes a shot at the second part of my logical analysis of the Maskell argument:
All CAB’s are NBCs.
All X’s are CAB’s.
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.Continued . . .
-
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said… - II of III explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” And even though Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, 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 Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, 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.
I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his adjusted major premise is true. I have also presented my evidence that shows that the adjusted major premise is false. I have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the adjusted Maskell major premise, i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just says a lot of mixed up nothing (like her art work), demonstrates how incapable she is of understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4091601506130883249
Blah. Blah. Blah. Well, once again Mario Apuzzo MISSES THE WHOLE DARN POINT of my article!!! I clearly said that I was saving a substantive refutation for later. The point of the Apuzzo/A Pazzo post was to show how Apuzzo’s use of syllogistic forms was misplaced and darn near useless when it is the major premises themselves which are at issue.
Apuzzo says the same thing but just doesn’t understand the impact of his own words. This is from his original article:
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.
Notice how Apuzzo admits that in this proper logical form, Maskell’s argument is LOGICALLY valid. In Mario’s mind, what is it that renders the conclusion UNSOUND? Is it LOGIC??? Is it Aristotle speaking from beyond the grave??? Naw. It’s just that Mario disagrees with the Major Premise. That’s it! Maskell thinks one thing, and Mario thinks something else.
BUT, that is NOT the stuff of which logical fallacies are made. It’s just a disagreement. It happens all the time. I don’t think Mario Apuzzo is wrong because he violates forms of logic. I think he is wrong because he misinterprets applicable law, bases conclusions on inappropriate legal authorities, and flatly doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I guess you could put some of that into syllogistic form, to wit:
Major Premise: People who think earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898) are wrong;
Minor Premise: Apuzzo thinks earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898);
Conclusion: Apuzzo is wrong.
But why go through all that??? It isn’t necessary. It is simple enough to say, “Apuzzo commits error by focusing on earlier cases to the exclusion of subsequent cases. DUH! If I did utilize syllogisms in that fashion, it would not be for illumination, but obfuscation. That was my whole point with the earlier article.
Sooo, let me close with an Artsy Fartsy Irish Poem:
Losing To Wit
Apazzo ignores the courts’ rulings,
To busy himself with his droolings.
To Wit: he’ll keep losing,
‘Cause he keeps refusing
To listen to Squeeky Fromm’s schoolings!
Squeeky Fromm
Artsy Fartsy Girl Reporter
Note 1. Undistributed Middle/Distributed Muddle. For ESL’s, this is a word play on logical fallacies (Undistributed Middle), and confused messes (Distributed Muddle).
mud·dle (mdl)
n.
1. A disordered condition; a mess or jumble.
2. Mental confusion.v. mud·dled, mud·dling, mud·dles
v.tr.
1. To make turbid or muddy.
2. To mix confusedly; jumble.
3. To confuse or befuddle (the mind), as with alcohol. See Synonyms at confuse.
4. To mismanage or bungle.
5. To stir or mix (a drink) gently.v.intr.
To think, act, or proceed in a confused or aimless manner: muddled along through my high-school years.
Note 2. The Image Caption. The Bench also means:
World English Dictionary
bench (bɛntʃ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]— n
1. a long seat for more than one person, usually lacking a back or arms
2. a plain stout worktable
3. ( sometimes capital ) the bench
a. a judge or magistrate sitting in court in a judicial capacity
b. judges or magistrates collectively
4. sport the seat on which reserve players and officials sit during a game
5. geology a flat narrow platform of land, esp one marking a former shoreline
6. a ledge in a mine or quarry from which work is carried out
7. (in a gymnasium) a low table, which may be inclined, used for various exercises
8. a platform on which dogs or other domestic animals are exhibited at shows
9. ( NZ ) a hollow on a hillside formed by sheep
Note 3. The Image Easter Egg: Malt does more than logic will, to justify Apuzzo’s swill.
This is a word play based on two lines from A.E. Housman, in A Shropshire Lad, XLII (#62) the one which begins, “Terence, this is stupid stuff”. Here is an excerpt:
Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God’s ways to man.
Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world’s not.
http://www.bigeye.com/housman.htm
Note 4. To Wit. The Irish Poem is based on a punning use of the legalistic phrase “To Wit” (Namely) with the general meaning “To Wit” (To Humor) being the clear winner in many arguments.
The phrase to wit, meaning namely or that is to say, is primarily used in legal texts and speech, though it sometimes spills over into other types of writing. In general, unless you’re going for a formal tone, to wit bears replacement with one of the many alternatives, such as namely, specifically, in other words, more precisely, or to clarify.
Here’s an example of to wit used in a legal context:
The indictment charged that Broadnax “did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate commerce, a firearm, to wit: a RG Industries, Model RG 31, .38 caliber revolver, serial number 019420.”
The Birther Think Tank 
June 12th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
A key point is that Apuzzo and his ilk ALWAYS skip the next line in the Minor v Happersett ruling: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Yes, Mario. That’s what they said. And these authorities would soon prevail in the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
The balance of the paragraph:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
They specifically say the Court is NOT issuing an opinion on the Natural Born Citizen status of children born here who do not have two citizen parents.
Even without Formal Logic, it is plain that Mario is saying the case defined NBCship decisively even though the text unambiguously states that it does not.
June 12th, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Unfortunately, Mario (pretends to) believes that last sentence means there were doubts that those children were citizens at all. I have discussed with him, at length. Time poorly wasted.
June 12th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
True. I was reading on Fogbow that Apuzzo admitted he hadn’t read WKA yet. I will try to find that again, and put the mp3 on here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
June 12th, 2013 at 5:47 pm
I wrote an article about Mario that contains a link to the clip from the Momma E show back in 2009. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/mario-time-to-putz-up-or-shut-up/
June 13th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
But that’s a bit off, isn’t it? I mean, the “next line”, it specifically states “Citizen”, no? Not Natural BORN Citizen, which was in the previous line which you refer to made my your nemesis, right?
So the effect, that “some” authorities consider a child born within the “jurisdiction” of the USA, to parents who are traveling in the country to visit Mickey Mouse, that the child is a US Citizen, even though its short visit within the border was a mere 2 day jaunt. That child, technically was under the jurisdiction of the United States, but under the law, the US had absolutely no jurisdiction over the child, at all. Yes, I suppose that if the infant jumped off his mother breast, and robbed a bank, we could lawfully engage absolute jurisdiction over the child, but that’s a leap of imagination, isn’t it.
The 14th amendment was created because the southern states refused to give citizenship rights to the black people. Most of them were born in this country, and as slaves, we deemed property. After the civil war, the 14th amendment was established to insure that any child, born under the jurisdiction of the US Government, was a citizen. It guaranteed that the children of these people, who themselves were totally under the jurisdiction in every way, were considered US Citizens. The 14th Amendment, the debates the lead to its development, and its presentation to the states, and effectively as it was passed into a legal and binding amendment to the US Constitution, all demonstrate without question, that the amendment didn’t include children whose father held allegiance to a foreign nation. It certainly didn’t create a natural born citizen, as the term is absent from the amendment altogether.
Stop confusing the issue with petty BS. If you have any intent to honor this country, you need to include every aspect in the work that you do on these issues, because when we omit facts, and use the alteration of the truth, then we know it, and its nothing more than a lie.
Why would anybody stand on that ground, and claim to love this nation, to be a patriot of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the land of our birth, and of our birthright, knowing that in their hearts they gave assent to corrupt the Constitution that made this nation what it is. People from all over the world came to America because of the dignity, the sacred honor, and the justice, that our nation stood for. When we grovel over lies, it does nothing but prove that we don’t know what it means to be an American.
June 13th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Hi Js03!!!
Well, then important thing is that 23 years after Minor v. Happersett, the WKA Court resolved all those doubts for everybody. People born inside the U.S., including Chinese kids, were natural born citizens.
Now, there may be discussion as to whether that is a good system or not, But there shouldn’t be any doubt as to whether the kids born here are natural born citizens. And certainly not any question of Vattel applying to any of this.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
June 14th, 2013 at 10:50 pm
No, they were “citizens”, not Natural Born Citizens.
Why would you want to lie about that? The only reason that the SCOTUS went with WKA was because his parents had established a permanent residence in the US, and ran a business, putting the whole family under the complete jurisdiction of the USA, IAW the 14th amendment.
See, the 14th amendment doesn’t award natural born citizenship, the term isn’t used a single time in the act.
And in US vs WKA, the SCOTUS didn’t award WKA NBC status. That FACT becomes clear in the 1st paragraph of the Syllabus.
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The only doubt that the SCOTUS cleared up was that a permanent resident in the USA was considered under the “complete” jurisdiction of the Unites States, and that their children are citizens, not natural born citizens.
Its shameful that you would even try to pull that off. WKA was also a citizen of China at birth, holding to the purpose that the founding fathers established the natural born citizen clause to insure that the Highest Office in our Government would not “devolve” to any but an NBC, that being, a person without any loyalties to any government other than the USA at birth.
Whats the use of debating a lie? The simple purpose that they used to insert that phrase into the qualifications for POTUS is to KEEP OUT any foreign influence, by their standard, at birth. So the situation must be present at the time of the birth, and absence of any allegiance to any nation other than, the USA.
(ie..John Jay to George Washington .”a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.)
June 14th, 2013 at 11:02 pm
more on that from the federalist blog;
“Fourteenth Amendment
Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization.
Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.
This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance……”
June 15th, 2013 at 7:58 am
At FREE REPUBLIC
Nov 13th-Post#173
Squeeky: Citizen pursuant to a statute means naturalized citizens. People born inside the U.S. do not need a statute to naturalize them or make them natural born. They are that way simply by being born here.
[Ike- Typical Obot Dogma: Only 2 types of citizens; (1) naturalized, or (2) everyone else born in the U.S. are natural born]
Nov 13th- Post#185
Squeeky: …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.”
[Ike- Is this a contradiction of post#173? Looks like Binney is saying there’s more than 1 native-born citizenship]
June 12th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Spot on! I would suspect a response like that from Mario. It is just so … Apuzzo. He exemplifies an unfortunate combination of ignorance and arrogance. I hope it is not the result of a gene mutation or über virus. Sigh.
Can’t tell you enough how glad I am that you are back.
June 12th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Wonderful article as usual Squeeky! I would note that while your point about Mario’s gratuitous use of syllogisms is well taken (at least by people who can understand formal logic—e.g. non-birthers), Mario outright admits that Mr. Maskell’s reasoning is correct in his first article before burying his admission with his trademark bullshit.
As you point out, he accepts that Mr. Maskell’s argument is valid and goes on to attack the premise of said argument, giving the appearance of rational debate. However, earlier in his original post, Mario says:
“First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.”
In other words, in a statement against his own interest, Mario has accepted that one is a “natural born Citizen” if and only if one is born a citizen. Or, in Mario’s gratuitous logical symbols*:
NBC iff CAB
Since this implies the statement “CAB if NBC” we see that, as is typical of birthers, Mario has shot his own conclusion in the head (NADT) if you follow the logic of his argument.
Anyway, it’s great to have you back poking birthers with a stick and showing how impotent and harmless they are.
* Normally, one uses symbols and formal semantics to precisely specify one’s argument in order to communicate more clearly. Mario, on the other hand, likes to use it to obfuscate the flaws in his reasoning. This, more than anything else, makes me think that Mario knows that he is wrong (and bolsters my suspicion that he is being paid to birf rather than being a true believer.
June 12th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Whoops, I should have said that “NBC iff CAB” implies “NBC if CAB” rather than the converse (although both are true statements).
June 12th, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Hi Slarti!
Good point you made:
“First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.”
In other words, in a statement against his own interest, Mario has accepted that one is a “natural born Citizen” if and only if one is born a citizen. Or, in Mario’s gratuitous logical symbols*:
NBC if CAB
Since this implies the statement “CAB if NBC” we see that, as is typical of birthers, Mario has shot his own conclusion in the head (NADT) if you follow the logic of his argument.”
For Mario, all this LOGIC stuff is just smoke, and fire-belching like the Wizard of Oz behind the scenes trying to impress and/or intimidate his fans. Not even the illogical Birfers want to be known as illogical.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
June 14th, 2013 at 2:48 pm
I think that the Putz really sucks,
and has the wit of hockey pucks.
But the laugh’s on me
In the end, you see
He’s raking in birther bucks.
June 15th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Js03:
Here is where you go astray. YOU said:
“See, the 14th amendment doesn’t award natural born citizenship, the term isn’t used a single time in the act.”
However, here is what the WKA Court said:
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 or qualifications (as old as the rule itself)
What that means is that the 14th Amendment IS IS IS IS the placing of natural born citizenship into written statutory law (in the Constitution) from common law where it had been for centuries. You are entitled NOT to agree with this. . . BUT the courts have all read it the correct way which is clearly what I just said.
One of Apuzzo’s own sources, Gordon 1968, agrees with me, the courts, and 99.9999% of the lawyers in the country:
“The decision turned on the fourteenth amendment’s declaration that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.»123 The only question for decision was whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded the children of aliens.
In answering that question negatively, the Court found that in recognizing the citizenship of all native-born “subject to the juris diction of the United States,” the fourteenth amendment had adopted the common law precept of jus soli, which conferred nationality upon all persons born in the realm except children born to foreign monarchs or ambassadors, or to alien enemies in hostile occupation, or on foreign public vessels.
Wong Kim Ark was truly a landmark in American constitutional law, and its basic holding was unquestionably correct. Moreover, its recognition of universal citizenship conferred on those born in this land, although adopting a doctrine developed as an adjunct of feudalism, was eminently suited to – perhaps even demanded by – the needs of a homogeneous nation, which has welcomed millions of immigrants who sought a life of freedom and opportunity. ”
Why you Birthers stay stuck in reverse, is that you refuse to recognize the legal definition of natural born citizen as established by the Courts, that is “persons born inside the country, whose parent are neither diplomats or invading soldiers” For some reason, you guys have to keep trying to mix in the parentage over and above that required by the court.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
June 17th, 2013 at 5:58 pm
That is well put Squeeky. Justice Gray even included the quote from Minor with the “doubts” to show that the court had never excluded in any previous ruling the children of foreign citizens from US citizenship except the children of ambassadors and such.
June 18th, 2013 at 2:55 am
Freeper: Can you tell me what law it is that confers NBC status to an anchor baby?
Squeeky: The 14th Amendment
June 17th, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Well Squeeky I managed to get on Mario’s list too. I am disappointed however. Instead him calling me something something like your cool Artsy Fartsy moniker I am just Professor Fabricator.
September 24th, 2015 at 7:55 am
Why would any reasonable, sane person name herself after Lynette Fromme?
“Lynette Alice “Squeaky” Fromme is an American would-be assassin best known for attempting to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford in 1975″. Wikipedia
She was also a member of Charles Manson’s “family”.
Citizen-at-birth does NOT equal natural born citizen!