Tag Archives: President

With 2020 Foresight! The Ted Cruz Birther Lawsuit

fortuneteller

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

NOTE: I originally published this article in June 2013, but since Ted Cruz announced his Presidency, I presume the Neo-Two Citizen Parent Birthers and some of the old crowd, too will be at it again. Sooo, I decided to dust it off and republish it. It provides my analysis of how a future Birther lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz will work out. So, without further ado:

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


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

ghostbusters_Larry_Storch_Forrest_Tucker

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

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

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

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

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

8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens

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

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

and, in his conclusion at 14:

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

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

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

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

Here is the link to his findings:

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

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

It’s a good read!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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

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

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

Note 2. Ignore This! It is just here to link to:

toad

witchsqueeky

hitler

blue state

Piri_reis_world_map_01

muslim suicide seals

ferguson

farside3

US President Obama pardons the National Thanksgiving Turkey at White House in Washington

hickory

mugme

Mason

muhammad  dutch cartoon islam

Donkey Sewer

jenner

ferguson3

warning sign

A Parody Sign by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

gay wedding chapel 3


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

Purge 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B/S

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

Cruz is a natural born citizen. Get over it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Republic Cruz Link

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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

And here is the link to the Cato Institute Story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

witch trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apuzzo Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does Apuzzo read this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


The Natural Born Prince!!! (A Fairy Tale???)

frog prince 2 maxfield parish

Kermit Tried To Convince His Brother, Prince Hoppy, That Being A King Wasn’t All It Was Cracked Up To Be

Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, there was a wonderfully happy Kingdom known as Carmensita.  The land and people both were fertile. But next to, and a little to the South, of Carmensita lay another Kingdom, Lilypadonia, where things weren’t quite as good.  The land was swampy and full of witches and frogs.  Every time the witches gathered at night with their big cauldrons, shrimp, crawfish, and Abita on ice, the frogs would begin their incessant croaking and ruin the whole affair.

The witches, not wishing to be cruel, and usually attending stag,  discovered a pleasant way to kill two birds with one spell. They simply turned the frogs into Princes. For the most part they were pretty normal as Princes go.  They were easily distracted by flying insects and their tongues were all a little on the long side, but they were handsome enough.

In the morning, the Princes would leave and find their way to the surrounding kingdoms.  There was no sadness at the parting. Like the witches were fond of saying, “There’s always more frogs in the swamp!”  Plus, for some inexplicable reason, the princes were in very big demand by the damsels of the neighboring kingdoms.  Maybe it was their bug zapping skills, or maybe it was because they were so very easy on the “Ayes”???

Anyway, because of the constant influx of Frog Princes, the Kingdom of Carmensita had a very strict, and very old law,  that only a “natural born Prince” could ever be King. This law came about when John Jay, a prominent member of the Carmensita Council wrote this in a letter:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Frog Princes into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Kingship shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Prince. Heaven help us all if a Frog King became distracted by a swarm of Betsy Bugs during battle!

Shortly thereafter, John Jay flew south for the winter with his special friend, Cock Robin.  And so, the King signed the Natural Born Prince Decree.

Now, something still had to be done with all the Frog Princes making their way to Carmensita.  The Kingdom was over run with Prince Hoppys and Prince Green Legs, and the whole bunch was totally lacking in the simplest accoutrements of royalty. So the Council and the King got together and enacted the Prince Naturalization Decree.  The College of Heraldry was tasked to naturalize all Frog Princes, and provide them with Belated Letters Patent Of Nobility.  They would design a Coat of Arms for the new Princes, and help them find names to replace their Frog names. I mean, who is going to respect a Prince Croaky??? (Non-Frog Princes were simply enrolled with the College at birth by the Royal Doctor and their Letters Patent were not Belated.)

To get their Letters, the Frog Princes were physically examined for any throwback genetic issues, like webbed feet, or evidence of Swamp Whomp Syndrome from jumping around without wings. (see Note 4 below) They had to learn new skills like, eating with a knife and fork, not eating bugs in public, and not jumping into public fountains at every noise. After passing tests on these types of things, there would be a ceremony, a big feast, the singing of the National Anthem of Carmensita, and the presentation of Belated Letters Patent with the notation, Quondam Rana. Afterwards, there would be a Royal Ball.  From this point forward, the Frog Princes were just like every other Prince of the Kingdom, with that one little exception about being able to become King.

Now next to, and a little to the North, of Carmensita lay the Queendom of Connubia.  Connubia, founded by Queen Bodicea, was famous for two things;  its beautiful Princesses, and the Fulsome Bodice Mfg. Co.  As expected, many natural born Princes of Carmensita found numerous reasons to travel northward and often found Connubian bliss there. Sometimes this bliss would continue beyond nine months, and many Princes were born a little to the North of Carmensita.

These Princes wanted their sons to be able to achieve the throne of Carmensita, and to be entitled to all the other benefits of Carmensitan citizenship.  But, there was no Carmensitan Royal Doctor in attendance in Connubia, or any other neighboring Kingdom, to automatically enroll them with The College of Heraldry. So, the Carmensitan Coucil recommended a law which would invest the children of Carmensitan Princes born outside Carmensita, with the same rights as if they had been born inside Carmensita.  And this was added to the Royal Naturalization Decree. If a Prince had issue outside Carmensita, he would simply apply for Belated Letters Patent from the Heraldry College. These Princes did not have to take any tests, or have their tongues or bottoms examined. They were considered Princes of Carmensita at the time of their birth.

Now it so happened one day that Good King Cussworth of Carmensita keeled over dead as door knob after a particularly invective filled rant over a proposed decree to register all the swords in the Kingdom, and to completely ban assault swords. His daughter, the sweet and virginal Princess Squeeky, became Regent pending a marriage to a Prince.  Princess Squeeky was very smart and very good looking. She was also very humble, and you would never find any Pea in her bed!

There were two contenders for the hand of Princess Squeeky. One was Prince Stoutrod, who had been born in Connubia while his father Prince Klaxonhund was there performing quality control studies at the Fulsome Bodice Mfg. Co. Klaxonhund was a natural born Prince of Carmensita, and Prince Stoutrod had been issued Belated Letters Patent after his birth.

Then . . . there was his younger brother, the small and asymmetric Prince Runtwick. He had been born in Carmensita a few years after Prince Klaxonhund returned to the Kingdom to recover from various diseases of a personal nature. Now, being the younger brother, he would normally not be in contention for the throne. But, Runtwick had registered a Challenge to the Carmensita Council based on the following argument:

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! My Brother Prince Stoutrod is NOT a natural born Prince because he was born in Connubia! No Royal Doctor enrolled him at birth, and yea verily, he had to apply to the College of Heraldry for Belated Letters Patent, to be naturalized, just as do the Frog Princes!!! And our laws demand a natural born Prince, not one who is naturalized and not one whose Letters Patent are Belated!!!

Princess Squeeky, who had a dog in this particular hunt, joined in as the Champion of Prince Stoutrod. responding:

Princess Squeeky doth say thee, “Nay!” For was not the whole point of the Decree to grant the same rights to those Princes born outside Carmensita as those born within? It may be through the provisions of the Prince Naturalization Decree, but not through any process of naturalization. There is no Quondam Rana on Prince Stoutrod’s Letters Patent. He clearly comes not from Frogs.  And whilst I would not know from a certainty, I have heard it from those maidens who should know, that his feet are not webbed, and that his nether regions are far from numb.

Further I say, that Prince Stoutrod was never given tests tempting him with flying insects, and verily that he never jumped and hid in a public fountain except that once when Bad Robert the Blacksmith suspected him of swiving his daughter, and did chase him with a forging hammer.

Also, I say that the mere act of obtaining Belated Letters Patent is but a clerical matter, necessitated by the fact that no Royal Doctor was there at the time of his birth to do so as a matter of course.  What should one so born do, come back to Carmensita and pretend to be born again, so that a Royal Doctor may enroll them at that time with the College???

Were that so, many are the Princesses who would go through the process several times over and thus lower their age by 15 to 20 years at a whack, so that a 40 year old Spinster Princess could advertise by mail that she is but 20 years of age, and have the papers to prove it!

Nay, Prince Stoutrod became a Prince at birth, with the recording of it taking place at a later date. And that is all that was contemplated by the Natural Born Prince Decree. That he be born a Prince, and not be from the Frogs.

Now, do your duty and give me my Prince. Pleeeeeaaassse!!!

The Carmensita Council members were moved by the wise words of Princess Squeeky, and made Prince Stoutrod the King.  And they all lived happily ever after!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Frog Prince by Maxfield Parrish. Here is a website where you can see more of his illustrations.

http://parrish.artpassions.net/

Note 2. Gran-Pa Frog by Smiley Burnett. Speaking of Frog genealogy, I can’t believe I found this!!! I used to have this record when I was a little kid, and my father sang it to me a lot. It is a GREAT song, even for grown-ups, and easy to play on guitar:

http://www.smileyburnette.org/SBI/Smiley/KidSongs/Granddaddy_Frog.mp3

Here is a copy of the cover:

frog_and_crow

Here is a link to the whole website with other kid songs:

http://www.smileyburnette.org/SBI/Smiley/KidSongs/Classics.html

Note 3. The Kingdom of Carmensita National Anthem: There REALLY is such a kingdom, and here is a youtube  video which was shot on location there, with their National Anthem:

One may find a translation, or two, of the lyrics here:

http://ourelephantgun.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/carmensita-lyrics-translated-to-enlish/

Note 4. Swamp Whomp Syndrome. Everyone has surely heard the old adage , “If a Frog had wings, he wouldn’t whomp his ass every time he jumped.” But few people are aware that engaging in such activity causes severe callousing of the buttocks and eventual peripheral numbness in the nether regions. The numbness results in some people being unable to find their buttocks in the dark with both hands.

Note 5. The College of Heraldry. There really is just such a thing! Just like some law schools, you can get your Letters Patent online:

http://www.grandduchy.org/rch.htm


The Mummy Was An American!!! (The Egyptian Birthers Strike!!!)

Princess Ankhesenamón Always Conked Right Out When Imhotep Read From Apuzzo's Brief

Oh no!!! Now Birtherism has spread to the land of the Pharoahs. Here’s the story:

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt’s election commission confirmed Thursday that the mother of a popular Islamist presidential hopeful was an American citizen, effectively disqualifying him from the race and likely boosting the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate.

The ruling is likely to draw an uproar from supporters of Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a 50-year-old lawyer turned preacher who in recent months vaulted to become one of the strongest contenders for president, with widespread backing from ultra-conservative Muslims known as Salafis.

The announcement is particularly embarrassing for Abu Ismail, who used anti-US rhetoric in his campaign speeches and rejected “dependency” on the America. In recent weeks, he repeatedly denied the reports that began circulating that his late mother held US citizenship.

A law put in place after last year’s fall of President Hosni Mubarak stipulates that a candidate may not have any other citizenship than Egyptian — and that the candidate’s spouse and parents cannot have other citizenships as well.

The rest of this interesting story can be found here:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/egyptian-presidential-candidate-effectively-disqualified-over-mothers-us-citizenship/

However, there is one big difference.  The Egyptian Birthers have a REAL LAW about requiring two citizen parents, not an Imaginary Law, which they can cite.  Thank goodness, because I would hate to see the American Birthers go over there to help out, and start lying and misrepresenting like they do here in this country.

I think the Muslim Egyptians take that kind of stuff a lot more seriously than we do.  Who knows but the American Birthers could wind up in Egyptian prisons, or becomes slaves and have to help build another pyramid or something??? On the other hand, maybe that would be a good thing. For us.

But it ought to be interesting to see if the American Birthers start throwing Egyptian law at us. I feel pretty sure Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. will find a way to work it into his new New Jersey Birther lawsuit. And probably his brief, with a “Since the Dawn of Civilization and The Building of The Pyramids the law has required two citizen parents.. . .” segue.

And another American court will have to remind him which country he lives in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a photo of Zita Johann and Boris Karloff from the film, The Mummy (1932).

Note 2. Yes I thought about this:

Mummy Was An American, Papa Was A'Rolling Stone

This Image is “Building The Pyramids” by Peter Jackson, and may be found here:

http://www.illustrationartgallery.com/acatalog/info_JacksonEgypt.html

Note 3. Conked Out. From the caption, means:

1. To stop functioning; fail: The engine conked out on the final lap.
2. To fall asleep, especially suddenly or heavily: She conked out on the couch watching television.
3. To pass out; faint.
4. To die.


A U.S. President Would Never Lie – – Would He??? (A White Paper)

Quo Periurium???

All the Obots who call us Birthers crazy think that a president would never lie ,
cover up, or do shady things. Noooo, a U.S. President WOULD NEVER
LIE ABOUT A PIECE OF PAPER. Here is a list of things that I have
read about. If people can think of other BIG LIES President have told
and their friends have helped them COVER UP, please add them.

Woodrow Wilson:

On the morning of October 2, Mrs. Wilson found her husband
unconscious on the bathroom floor of their private White House
quarters bleeding from a cut on his head. Wilson had suffered a stroke
– a massive attack that left his left side paralyzed and impaired his
vision. She immediately summoned Dr. Grayson. Then the conspiracy
began. The two of them formed a bulwark between the invalid
President and the rest of the country, simultaneously shielding Wilson
from intrusion and hiding his condition from outsiders.

For seventeen months the enfeebled President lay in his bed on the
brink of death, barely able to write his own name. The outside world
knew none of this. All communication with the President went through
his wife. She entered the sick room with messages and emerged with
verbal instructions or the scrawl of a signature on a piece of paper.
Edith Wilson called the period her “stewardship.” Later, others called
her the first woman President. The Senate rejected the Treaty of
Versailles with its provision for the League. Although Wilson’s
health improved, he never fully recovered.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/wilsonstroke.htm

Franklin Roosevelt:

The nation was stunned when FDR died unexpectedly on April 12,
1945 — less than six months after being elected to a fourth term in
office. The death was unexpected because the president’s personal
physician, VADM Ross McIntire, whenever asked, had proclaimed
that FDR’s health was excellent. McIntire, an otolaryngologist and
then surgeon-general of the U.S. Navy, must have known FDR was
gravely ill — FDR’s physical decay was plainly evident even to
non-physicians in the final months . FDR must have known, too,
[More] and the FBI was interested in who among the public knew
about his condition at the time of the November 1944 election.
[More]
Given his ill health, why did FDR run for a fourth term? FDR told his
son he felt compelled to run because he had “to maintain a continuity
of command in a time of continuing crisis” . World War II was, after
all, still raging in 1944. Was FDR justified in this decision? If McIntire
was an accomplice in the deception, was he acting for a greater good?
Today, no one can precisely say how much McIntire knew and when
he knew it. FDR’s medical record, which was kept in a safe at
Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, has been missing since the
president’s death. VADM McIntire was one of three people with access
to the safe.

http://www.doctorzebra.com/Prez/g32.htm

John F. Kennedy:

Kennedy’s womanizing had, of course, always been a form of
amusement, but now it also gave him a release from unprecedented
daily tensions,” Dallek writes.

During a 1961 meeting with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan,
he confided that he got headaches if he went three days without sex.

His mistresses included Pamela Turnure, Jackie’s press secretary;
Mary Pinchot Meyer, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee’s sister-
in-law; two secretaries nicknamed Fiddle and Faddle, and mob moll
Judith Campbell Exner.

Then there was a 19-year-old “tall, slender, beautiful” White House
intern.

Her identity remained a secret until last week, but JFK came close to
having several other “other women” publicly named during his time in
office – including Ellen Rometsch, a suspected East German spy who
romped naked in the White House pool.

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/05/18/2003-05-18_jfk_s_liaisons__jackie_s_pai.html

Richard Nixon:

Late in July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach
Nixon on the grounds of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and
refusal to obey a congressional subpoena ordering him to release
the tapes. On August 5, 1974, Nixon obeyed the Supreme Court
ruling and released the tapes. The tapes proved that Nixon had
authorized the cover-up as early as June 23, 1972. The Watergate
debacle came to an end on August 9, 1974, when Nixon became
the first president to resign from office..17

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v5n1/waggoner.html

Bill Clinton:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having
“sexual relations” with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided
by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton’s semen, Starr concluded that this
sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked “Have you ever had
sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined
in DepositionExhibit 1, as modified by the Court?” The judge
ordered that Clintonbe given an opportunity to review the agreed
definition. Afterwards,based on the definition created by the
Independent Counsel’s Office,Clinton answered “I have never had
sexualrelations with MonicaLewinsky.” Clinton later stated that he
believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded
his receiving oral sex.[25]

President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan D.
Webber Wright.[26] His license to practice law was suspended in
Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court.[27] He
was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony[28] which was
paid by a fund raised for his legal expenses.

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

George Bush:

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before
asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of
American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of
unequivocal statements about the reason the United States
needed to pursue themost radical actions any nation can undertake
— acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the
past, Bush’s White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues
like this under the carpet and out of sight. But it is not clear that they
will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) go away — unless,
perhaps, they start another war.

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html

So here we have U.S. presidents lying all over the place and people
covering up for them. But such a thing COULD JUST NEVER
HAPPEN today over ONE SINGLE LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER,
could it? I guess we are all just paranoid. (NOT!)

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter