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!
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:
And here is the pdf:
Apuzzo Motion For Reconsideration
June 25th, 2013 at 10:30 pm
The Honorable Squeeky wrote:
“The above two page summary fairly distills the essence of over 350 pages of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motions, and Briefs, along with the relevant facts in this case.”
🙂 Yes, that’s perfect.
June 25th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
That was a little snarky, wasn’t it? But true.
June 26th, 2013 at 12:35 am
I used to believe that way especially since it effected me personally but others persuaded me that I am not an NBC and I am not entitled to the protections afforded by the second sentence of the 14th Amendment.
Since my citizenship, as well as Cruz’s and McCain’s, are the result of a Congressional Act so it must be considered citizenship through naturalization because Congress only has power under the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Sec. 8 Par 4).
The Supreme Court ruled during the 1970’s that persons who were not “born or naturalized in the United States”, like McCain, Cruz, and myself are not guaranteed the protections of the second sentence of the 14th Amendment.
June 26th, 2013 at 1:04 am
Well, on some of this stuff, a court just has to decide it. But, there are some things that are certain. There is no two citizen parent requirement for persons born inside the U.S., and since citizenship for those born outside the U.S. is decided by Congress, they can pretty much make the rules as they see fit.
The problem is, that we are dealing with concepts, and sometimes concepts don’t react well with either-or analyses or super hard and fast rules.
This is why we have judges. And a good part of the time, judges don’t even agree. That is why you get 5-4 decisions from the Supreme Court. It is the nature of human life. For example, suppose you are mowing yards for a living. You knock on a door and say to the man who answers it, “Would you like your yard mowed for $10?”
The man says, “I would love to have my yard mowed. I have sooo much to do this weekend.”, and closes the door. You mow the yard, and when you go to collect, the man says, “WTF??? I didn’t tell you to mow the yard. I just made a general statement that I would love to have my yard mowed. Who wouldn’t love to have their yard mowed???”
A machine can not decide that case with any view toward fairness or justice. It takes a human being to put things into perspective. A judge would look at that situation and probably decide the guy owes you $10 based on the circumstances, and the fact that you performed the services.
The same thing holds true with citizens at birth who were born outside the U.S. A judge might indeed decide that this is naturalization, and that Cruz is not eligible. BUT, that is why we have courts, and why we have lawyers who argue the pro and cons in front of the judge. At the end of the day, a judge is going to give his OPINION. And they are indeed called OPINIONS.
Most learned people who look at the situation, think the likely outcome is that at-birth citizenship is legally equivalent to natural born citizenship. That is not a fact, that is simply their OPINION. Apuzzo does the same thing—he expresses his opinion.
But, there are more and better reasons to suspect that a Court will decide at-birth citizenship, as contemplated in this example, is a full transmission of citizenship rights, including the right to be president, and not a partial or reserved set of rights.
Don’t get caught up thinking this is science or something. It isn’t. It is just people’s opinions. You have to look at the underlying reasons and observations. Watch Judge Judy sometimes. She comes right out and tells people, “I am the judge, and this is what I think! Right or wrong.” She will come right out and tell people she doesn’t believe them sometimes. That a story just doesn’t make sense. The same thing is true here.
That is why judges get the big paycheck. They are paid to make decisions. Based on the best arguments and best reasons possible. Somebody has to do that job.
June 26th, 2013 at 3:02 am
Nice analysis Squeeky, but your editor might be curious as to whether his ace girl reporter was assisted to a shadowy source who must not be named, perhaps a legal super-hero in lycra. You weren’t, were you?
I don’t fully understand TomTech’s issue but a person who is a citizen when born may also be described as “naturalized at birth”. People tend to use the term “naturalization” to refer to the process of acquiring citzenship later in life, but it actually refers to the process at ANY point in life, including at birth. Congress’s power includes naturalization at birth.
Apuzzo doesn’t understand that the terms “natural born citizen”, “native born citizen”, “citizen at birth” and “naturalized at birth” (with or without upper case letters and hyphens in any of these) ALL refer to the same situation: a baby which has U.S. citizenship when it draws its first breath. Apuzzo bloviates his repetitious buffoonery but cannot hide the fact that not one competent legal authority has agreed with his contorted nonsense and his misrepresentations of both the facts and the import of older cases. Apuzzo is a loser; he NEVER wins an argument on this issue, in courts or elsewhere, despite his blustering about how others are wrong. He is wrong again.
June 26th, 2013 at 5:42 am
Another excellent article. I wish I had read it before the show last night. I would have mentioned it. I think I saw you post a link in the chat though.
I would change one thing. I do not see Mario actually running and filing pro se. He would let Kerchenr run then pay him to file the motion.
June 26th, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Originally I had Kerchner in there as a Plaintiff, but I think Kerchner is going to have an apoplectic fit or something by 2020 because he is waaaay too intense about this stuff. He is like Type A to the max.
Plus, The Once and Future Apuzzo sounded better than The Once and Future Kerchner, or The Once and Future Birther, which is what it was on one draft. Like I said, I started that post on Sunday.
Right before that, I did The Natural Born Prince, which was also a very hard one to write for some reason. That took about 10 hours off and on trying to get the story to flow, and the circumstances semi-respectable.
Sooo, that is why I was exhausted after finishing this one.
June 26th, 2013 at 8:01 am
Great read, Squeeky. 🙂
Mario’s MtR will be denied.
June 26th, 2013 at 8:53 am
I have posted my response to your decision in the case of Mario Apuzzo, pro se, v. Senator Ted Cruz et al. It may be read at my blog,
Now let us see what kind of a judge you really are.
P.S. I also disagree with your judicial decision regarding the grass mover who I think should lose the case, not win as you think. The issue is whether the two parties entered into a binding agreement. For there to be a binding agreement, whether oral or in writing, there must be a meeting of the minds with respect to an offer, acceptance, and consideration. In your hypothetical, there was no meeting of the minds as to all three elements. The homeowner’s general statement followed by abruptly closing the door in the face of the worker was sufficient to convey to a reasonable person that the homeowner had not agreed to the terms and conditions of the proposed work. The homeowner did not tell the worker specifically to do the work. He just said that he would love for the work to be done given that he was so busy that weekend. But what is really damaging for the worker collection case is that the homeowner abruptly shut the door in his face without saying more. If anything, the worker should have confirmed that he had a deal before doing the work. The more so he should have taken such reasonable commercial steps given that he moved yards for a living. His failure to take reasonable steps in light of an ambiguous situation is cause for him to suffer the loss. The homeowner’s receipt of a free lawn cut is not unjust enrichment, for the homeowner did nothing unjustly to cause him to receive the benefit.
June 26th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Hi Mario Apuzzo, Esq.!!!
I posted your response last night with big UPDATE on it. I am reviewing your Motion.
Now, as to the Lawnmower Case. You said:
“The homeowner’s general statement followed by abruptly closing the door in the face of the worker was sufficient to convey to a reasonable person that the homeowner had not agreed to the terms and conditions of the proposed work.”
Perhaps. But wasn’t the statement also:
. . . sufficient to convey to a reasonable person that the homeowner had agreed to the terms and conditions of the proposed work.
A judge would have to weigh the circumstances. Suppose, the homeowner was well known as a person who was always trying to get something for nothing. Suppose character testimony was elicited that he always filled his pockets up with ketchup at McDonalds, and stuffed toilet paper in his coat from public restrooms.
See, that was the point of what I said. That sometimes you need a human being to put things into perspective. With the naturalized versus natural born characterization of Ted Cruz, I don’t think it is a matter of simplistically sticking a linguistic label on the issue. Because I think this is pretty much a matter of first impression.
Unlike the two citizen parent stuff, I do not find this argument facially silly or anything. But, I don’t think it is going to win either. Like Maskell said, the “great weight” thinks citizen at birth are going to be the equivalent of natural born.
I tried to give some reasons why I agree, and some of the things that might sway a judge. Like packets of ketchup and rolled up toilet paper. Indicia of whatever.
June 26th, 2013 at 6:31 pm
When I first read the “Motion for Reconsideration” I thought it was a Squeeky parody of what Mario would have written if he had written a Motion for Reconsideration on his blog. 😆
June 26th, 2013 at 10:43 pm
June 26th, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Hi Mario Apuzzo, Esq.!!!
Did you know there was another YOU in Italy who is a very talented and artistic person??? I used him in the Notes From A Parallel Universe article tonight, and you might be interested:
August 23rd, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Hey Squeeky Fromm,
As someone who has poured over the Constitution, and Articles to it. Add to that recorded congressional documents of old in regards to natural born citizenship, US citizenship and anchor babies. Plus what is written by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and most of his documented references.
That outlay of time started in 2008.
What was set out by the founders was fairly simple “SEE SPOT RUN”.
It gets complicated when today’s society either failed “see spot run” reading comp 101 or tried to explain to others what they themselves DID NOT understand.
Apparently YOU have fallen into the “it’s complicated” trap.
So let me speak to you in “see spot run”
1. To be a US “natural born citizen” … one must be born in the USA of PARENTS (note that is plural … meaning one daddy and one mommie).
2. To be a US Citizen … one must be born in the USA of at least ONE citizen parent.
3. Illegal Jose and Juanita dropping little Jesus on US soil DOES NOT make him a US citizen … no matter how much they hope we are all stupid enough to accept and treat him as such.
If perhaps this logic still does not compute?
1. Perhaps a new crystal ball will help?
2. Hitting the congressional records (which actually record what the founders thought and said) will shed the light for you.
3. Simply stick to your guitar playing 😉