Mario Apuzzo Esq.: Virtual Reality Litigator

636px-Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-

“Sailors Snug Harbor dancing sailors-1-” by Halfcentury – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-.jpg#/media/File:Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-.jpg

The following article was written by guest author Frank Arduini, aka “Historian Dude”. Frank has been engaging in a month long comment battle with Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo at the Western Free Press on an article about the eligibility of Ted Cruz. As one might have expected when Mario Apuzzo gets involved the discussion became all about the eligibility of Barack Obama instead of the subject of the original article. Of course Apuzzo thinks neither of them is a natural born citizen despite the fact that every Birther challenge against Barack Obama on eligibility including the ones Mr. Apuzzo has litigated have failed.

The number of comments there is approaching 3500! For your reading enjoyment:

Mario Apuzzo Esq.: Virtual Reality Litigator by Frank Arduini

Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo was, at one time, among the more active litigators of the birther movement. But after an unbroken string of failures at every level from administrative law courts to SCOTUS, Apuzzo “retired” in 2012 to the safety of the Internet where he is protected from genuine legal review or potential judicial sanction. In the subsequent two years he has committed hundreds of thousands of words online trying to argue and reargue the cases that he previously lost in court. And on the Internet (and especially on his own blog where he is a ruthless moderator and the sole judge) he always “wins.”

At the beginning of March 2015, Apuzzo was called out by name on the conservative blog The Western Free Press by author Greg Conterio challenging Apuzzo’s assertions that Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz was ineligible for the Presidency. The comments section quickly exploded in a generalized festival of birther/obot argument that as of this writing has lasted more than a month and garnered well over 3,000 posts. A significant part of the “discussion” has been an ongoing contest between Apuzzo and this author (posting under the UserID “HistorianDude”) focused on the central foundation of Apuzzo’s entire argument: that Article II of the Constitution defined “natural born citizen” not according to English common law, but according to an as yet undemonstrated “American common law” that had emerged between the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution. As part of this argument, Apuzzo has conceded that, under English common law the children of aliens born on national soil became natural born subjects. He has also conceded that the definition of NBC found in Article II of the Constitution is derived from “the common law.” But, he baldly asserts that the “common law” in question had magically (and anachronistically) been redefined to conform with a treatise on international law by the 18th century legal theorist Emer de Vattel.

Of course, any competent lawyer knows that this is not how common law is created. A nation may certainly incorporate other sources of law into their own via statute. But common law derives from case law, the judgments of previous courts that create legal precedent binding on those courts that follow. For the English common law definition of natural born citizen to have been altered or replaced by a new “American common law” definition, there must have been case law created during the eleven years between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that generated that change. And of course, this would have been a particularly neat trick since, under the Articles of Confederation there was no national judicial system at all wherein such case law might have been created.

For more than a month this author has repeatedly challenged Apuzzo to demonstrate the case law from between 1776 and 1787 that must exist for his alleged “American common law” to be more than fiction. Failing that, Apuzzo was challenged to identify a single English language document or source that agreed with his favored definition of natural born citizen. He has failed to meet either challenge.

Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor: An Inglis Lesson for Apuzzo
To fill the gap Apuzzo’s favored method of argument is to cite much later cases, often badly misrepresenting them, and insist that they somehow reflect a different common law than English common law. That “different common law” is then retroactively ascribed without evidence to Article II of the Constitution. It is a complete non-sequitur, on occasion demanding the violation of basic laws of physics. This essay is inspired by one such attempt.

After a month of frustration, and seeking desperately to shift the unmet challenge from his own back to that of his tormenter, Apuzzo brought up an 1830 inheritance case called Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor. He wrote:

“Since it is common law that you have requested of me, I have the following question. In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830), the U.S. Supreme Court gave the scenario wherein the child was born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and when it was American territory, hence, before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, to a British father and mother. In that scenario, did the majority of the Court rule that he was an American citizen or an alien? Please explain what source the Court relied upon to come to its conclusion.”

Certainly Mario’s intention here was to use Inglis to assert that a different common law was in operation in the time period considered by the case. The standard birther misrepresentation of the case asserts that “the majority ruled that, even if the plaintiff had been born in U.S.-controlled territory, he was a British subject by birth and not an American citizen, due to the fact that his parents were British subjects, not U.S. citizens.” If that were true it would certainly support a claim that the common law had changed by the time the Inglis decision was made; i.e. by 1830. Since that hardly helps Apuzzo meet his challenge, missing the necessary time frame by some 43 years, I could be justified in making that observation alone and ending the discussion. But in actuality, exploring the birther misrepresentation reveals the case to be further evidence of the persistence of English common law through the Revolutionary period long after the Declaration of Independence, further narrowing the window within which Apuzzo’s unidentified case law would necessarily have to occur.

Let me begin the actual analysis of Inglis by taking Apuzzo’s counter challenge head on. I will directly answer his questions, and only then engage in the more comprehensive discussion that justifies the answers. Mario’s first question was phrased as a classic conservative dichotomy, an either/or question with two and only two options:

Q1: Did the majority of the Court rule that he was an American citizen or an alien?

Of course, in the real world things are rarely as simple as either/or. The answer to that question requires more subtlety than the question possessed when it was asked:

A1: The majority ruled that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast.” They offered no ruling at all regarding his status at birth.

What does that mean? “At the time of descent cast”?
Inglis was an inheritance case in which a man named John Inglis was claiming a large inheritance from an American relative that might otherwise have been donated to a charity for aging sailors. One of the factors that would have derailed his claim was that under prevailing law, only US citizens could inherit land. So the citizenship status of Inglis was important to the case, but only his citizenship at the moment of actual inheritance; i.e. “at the time of descent cast.” It did not matter what his citizenship might have been one week prior or one week later. So since the direct issue before the court was whether or not he was a citizen at the moment of inheritance, which is the ruling the court made. The majority found that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast” and therefore unable to inherit.

But we will see as this essay progresses that the court actually made no ruling at all regarding John Inglis’ citizenship at birth. The determination of his national character would, in the court’s opinion, be independent of the common or statutory law normally determinative of status at birth. This is because something special was happening at the time, the American Revolution.

Apuzzo’s second question was this:

Q2: What source did the Court rely upon to come to its conclusion?

Apuzzo’s intent here is twofold. First, he is fully aware (and I fully agree) that the source cannot have been the English common law. Secondly, he believes he has an ace up his sleeve in that one of the sources cited is, you guessed it, Emer de Vattel. It does not appear to occur to Apuzzo that the citation is to a section of Vattel’s book, which has nothing whatsoever to with the “definition” that he wishes to anachronistically graft onto the common law. Nor does he consider that Vattel is cited not as an application of common law, but as an application of international law. So again, recognizing the actual subtlety of the court decision, the direct answer (which will be explained in detail in a moment) is:

A2: As to existence of a general right for people to voluntary choose their allegiances during or immediately after a revolution their source was international law. As to Inglis’s subsequent nationality “at the time of descent cast,” their conclusion was based on the specific details of his actions subsequent to achieving majority as an adult, many years afterwards.

Apuzzo prefaced his questions with a reference to common law in the effort to position himself against the challenge to his imaginary “American common law.” Unfortunately, any genuinely careful review of the Inglis decision (or at least in the part of the decision relating to John Inglis’s nationality) quickly reveals that it had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the common law.

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor is one of a handful of early SCOTUS cases that dealt with unique circumstances of the Revolutionary period, a time in which the new United States and Great Britain were engaged in the bloody business of dividing into two separate and sovereign nations; a period of Anglo-American history sometimes called “The Great Divorce.” The circumstance of citizenship during a revolutionary transition was and remains completely unconsidered by the common law. There existed no body of case law with which to guide the Justices that pertained to a situation in which a single nation was splitting into two, and where the common law criteria of allegiance / citizenship / subjecthood were suddenly rendered ambiguous and arbitrary. As Justice Story pointed out in his worthy dissent, “The case of the separation of the United States from Great Britain… has been treated on many occasions, both at the bar and on the bench, as a case sui generis.”

The decision regarding John Inglis’ nationality did not rest on any application of the common law, nor did it create common law. Nor did it rest upon any existing statute. Instead it was built on the recognition that the unique circumstances of revolution necessarily but only temporarily suspended the common law and gave to each adult (well, each adult male at least) the temporary power of voluntary election for themselves and their minor dependents as to which of the two subsequent nations they would adhere.
The rationale for the suspension of the common law is found, to no one’s surprise, in treatises of international law such as Vattel’s Law of Nations. Justice Thompson specifically cites to Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 33 where we read that those unaccepting of a new revolutionary government

“are under no obligation at all to submit to the new government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form: they have a right to retire elsewhere, to sell their lands, and take with them all their effects.”

To modern sensibilities that sounds very much like any ordinary right to expatriate. In the 18th century however, it was a radical idea, and allowed only as the consequence of profound political upheaval.

Justice Thompson, writing for the majority, was explicit that prior to the Declaration of Independence the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America.

“It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”

Thompson was equally explicit that the end of the suspension was demarcated by a reassertion of the English common law. He was also quite clear that the window for election was a narrow one. And once the window was closed, the rules of English common law as to citizenship by birth returned to force.

To make this point, Thompson cited in detail the case of McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 4 Cranch 211, wherein a Mr. Coxe had missed the window of opportunity to elect British subjecthood once the State of New Jersey asserted its obligation to provide “protection” via the Act of 4 October, 1776. Hence the window of opportunity for voluntary election remained open in New Jersey for a mere 3 months, at which point

“the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.”

These are of course the ancient rules of the English common law. The last sentence in particular is a touchstone proving a direct correlation to the formulation that William Blackstone reflected in his Commentaries in 1765 using much the same language, though not yet adjusted to reflect a republican government rather than a monarchy:

“Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”

Thompson was equally clear that they were the post-fenestral rules not just in New Jersey, but elsewhere on US soil in those territories which were under the jurisdiction and the protection of the newly independent States.

In the case of New York, the specific “window of opportunity” was almost shockingly short. For the portion of the state not under British occupation, the window closed a mere 12 days after independence with the resolutions of the convention of New York of 16 July, 1776, declaring “that all persons abiding within the State of New York, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of the state.” But during that window (in the opinion of the court) John Inglis’ father Charles had made his election for both himself and his son. He elected that they would adhere to Great Britain.

For John Inglis himself, as a very young child, it was not a case of his state automatically following that of his father via jus sanguinis. His father deliberately made a provisional election for him as was his father’s prerogative as parent of a minor child.

This point cannot be stressed too firmly and it was made explicitly by the court; the election that Charles Inglis made for his son John was not permanent but provisional. The decision in Inglis did not declare that John Inglis was an alien at birth. It did not declare that his status “at the time of descent cast” was imposed through any automatic operation of common or statutory law. The court was instead clear that even for a minor child citizenship or alienage post revolution was ultimately dependent on a conscious election by the child himself, upon reaching his own majority, to either ratify or reject the provisional election made by his father. The fact that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast” was not a result of the election made for him by his father in 1776. He could just as easily have ended up a citizen of the United States in spite of that election.

Inglis (the court opined) was British because Inglis chose to be British, not his father. The court concluded that Inglis had (by his actions if not his words) made the election to confirm a British character and reject an American one. By the time of this legal action, it had long been too late to change his mind.

The case certainly created no new common law, as it is clear that the window of election was a parentheses, on either side of which English common law operated in full.

Should it be argued that Inglis created new common law simply by virtue of being case law, any alleged common law it created can have had nothing to do with the general rules of birthright citizenship, or the specific definition of natural born citizenship? The case is completely silent on the latter, and English common law regarding the former was reasserted by the time that the revolution was over and the opportunity for voluntary election had ended. While Inglis (a case which was settled a half century after the Treaty of Paris) certainly shows that the rules of that limited window could be considered and applied long afterwards, even that possibility became moot upon the death of the last member of the “divorce generation.” It could conceivably had been useful again had the Civil War ended with a southern victory, but it did not. It could conceivably be useful should some unforeseen future fragmentation of the United States occur, but that is pure speculation. In the circumstances of a stable political regime, such common law would be entirely without application or affect, not to mention redundant.

This is (of course) the reason that the majority decision in Inglis has been largely ignored in subsequent discussions and case decisions on citizenship. It provides little of value that could inform general discussions or case decisions, limited as it is to a unique period of revolution that has never had a subsequent analog. So Chancellor Sandford’s decision in Lynch v. Clark, and Justice Gray’s decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark ignored the majority ruling from Inglis as a stone from which no edifying water could be squeezed, and instead relied on Justice Story’s worthy dissent.

Inglis therefore is useless today as a challenge to the English common law definition of natural born citizen that rules Article II of the Constitution, or for determining birthright citizenship during any era of normal national circumstance. The relevant common law for those purposes, English common law, was left untouched by the events of the Revolution and by the decision in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Birthers, Guest Articles, Mario Apuzzo, Natural Born Citizenship and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

467 Responses to Mario Apuzzo Esq.: Virtual Reality Litigator

  1. Suranis says:

    “You obviously are not taking the time to understand what I am saying ….”

    He’s a dual citizen, resident in another country with a father who renounced his US citizenship, a “native born citizen who is described as being eligible for the Presidency.

    It seems you don’t understand what you are saying. By all your drivel of the son following the condition of his father, he should have immedialtly lost eligibility. Especially by German law which was pretty draconian when it came to citizenship. Instead, the only question on the AG’s mind was his choice to return to the US or not before his 21st Birthday, which I remind you that Your President did just that. And which the AG is clear meant that he remained a native BC,

    But then we all know you don’t believe a word of what you are spouting anyway. Remember what they screamed when the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks said something Mild about the US president, that disrespecting the President was disrespecting the whole of the US. I wonder what changed in 2008.

    • slcraignbc says:

      No asshole, assuming he was born to the legal wife of the naturalized U.S. Citizen father and born within the limits of the U.S., which MO. is, then he was born a U.S. natural born Citizen and NOTHING his father did thereafter would change THAT fact ………….. ONLY he would have the right to expatriate or alienate his U.S. Citizenship once he reached the age of majority………

      HE was NOT born a dual-citizen when he was born to a married U.S. Citizen father …… it does not matter what the German Law says, insofar as the U.S. is concerned,

      Of course the German Law may see it in a similar fashion from their perspective…..which is known as a conflict of law and provided for by the Judicial system

  2. Steven claimed: “I have a 342 page brief that supports my position, which I am slowly distilling to 100 proof under the Rules of the court……….

    I understand how you could have been so poorly misled on the subject, the issue of State vs Federal Laws was still being sorted out even after the 1795 Act, which attempted to put THAT issue to rest with the words……..” …. , and not otherwise.””

    Sure you do did it come from Tracy Fair? She claimed to have several hundred pages as well that supported her position but when people actually picked through it they saw it was horseshit. Is part of that brief your misreading of Talbot V Janson? The only one who has been misled is you. Remember you’ve argued this nonsense before and got nowhere in court.

    Steve claimed: ““… SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —”

    Again no relevance. An alien was someone born elsewhere. It has nothing to do with children born on US soil.

    Steven claimed: “Believe me, I understand it is an uphill battle with one (1) entire political party in opposition and 1/2 of another with the Country flooded with alien foreign nationals, present legally and otherwise and “anchor-baby” citizenship by policy and single parent households all across the society spectrum”

    It’s an uphill battle because no authority is on your side. No court is on your side. No legal authority believes your nonsense. The republicans and democrats are firmly against you.

    Half the country is flooded with alien foreign nationals? Really? So there are over 150 million alien foreign nationals in this country?

  3. That should read over 150 million alien foreign nationals

  4. Don’t worry RC I’m sure Steven here will run off after he gets tired of getting his ass kicked like he did last October.

  5. Suranis says:

    “NO, NO, NO, Uranus,, keep up, I am relying on the actual Laws made in pursuance of the COTUS, and NO OTHERS………….”

    I’m relying on US court cases made under the rule of the COTUS, the words of US legal thinkers from the time of the drafting of the COTUS and US lawyers who interpret the COTUS. I’m sorry if they don’t agree with what is scratching inside your head, fantasist.

    • slcraignbc says:

      You say;

      ” I’m relying on US court cases made under the rule of the COTUS, the words of US legal thinkers from the time of the drafting of the COTUS and US lawyers who interpret the COTUS ..”

      But you only rely on those that agree with you and dismiss those that say otherwise………you unilaterally limit the meanings of words in the enumerated powers authorized Clause at A1S8C4 and the dismiss the title of the 1790 Act and not doing as the title suggests…….

      … up yours.

  6. Steven claimed: ” I am NOT disrespectful of the Office of POTUS, but I do find it disrespectful for a usurper to occupy it…… a usurper is a usurper regardless of being elected or by force of arms and deserves NO respect under the Constitution ….. he is a snake that has crawled through the legal loop hole of manufactured ambiguity and is sustained by 0bot sycophants that are mostly true believer liberal-progressive-dem0rat-socialist-communist-jihadists-utopianists that are all in on destroying the Constitutional Republic”

    That’s a lie. You’ve been entirely disrespectful to the office. The problem is you claiming there’s a usurper doesn’t make it so. There has not now nor ever been a usurper in the office of the US Presidency. The only snake here is you. You’ve been caught lying repeatedly. Did you ever apologize for lying about the Talbot case? No?

    He was legally and lawfully elected through a constitutionally mandated election. Get over it. All those words you just threw together have no relation. No one is destroying the republic. Why don’t you just move somewhere else.

  7. Steven said: “ASSHOLE……………….How many times do I have to tell you that I have NEVER argued this proposition of Constitutional law in ANY Court………… I am preparing a brief, checking it twice, & if I get enough loot I’ll give it a shot……..but I haven’t done it yet with this proposition of law pleading…….”

    No you’ve just argued other stupid premises which were equally as wrong. Other birthers have “argued” that proposition of constitutional law in court and failed miserably. Yes you’re preparing what is referred to as cargo cult law and will beg for donations from other people, waste the court’s time and get your case tossed. Maybe if you’re lucky you’ll get a sanction to go with that.

    Poor Steven still a loser with nothing to show for it.

  8. ah yes the all popular “I have the evidence but the internet scrubbed it” routine. Yeah I’m sure you saved a copy of the nonsense you can’t prove. I’m sure your brief consists of your Rutledge lie where you attributed something to him he didn’t actually said.
    I notice once again you have yet to provide the supposed statute you’re talking about with any quotes, chapter or verse, etc. You think repeating queen anne statutes actually means something. Poor steven still an internet loser with nothing to show for it.

  9. Northland10 says:

    ” liberal-progressive-dem0rat-socialist-communist-jihadists-utopianists”

    I mentioned that phrase to a coworker today. She laughed and said that makes absolutely no sense since it is made up of mutually exclusive terms.

    But, you have a Constitutional right of assembly ….. which of the special interest minorities are you ……

    Wow. Most people would take that as either an extremely racist, or at least extremely bigoted comment. It’s also not nice to be rude to your host. Your rudeness is very unbecoming of somebody who claims to be an American.

    And yes, you were extremely disrespectful to our current President and a former President. Neither of these gentlemen are or were usurpers. You need to learn to disagree without be disagreeable. I’ve seen better manners out of a 2 year old who missed his nap.

  10. slcraig said:

    … he is a snake that has crawled through the legal loop hole of manufactured ambiguity and is sustained by 0bot sycophants that are mostly true believer liberal-progressive-dem0rat-socialist-communist-jihadists-utopianists that are all in on destroying the Constitutional Republic….

    Speaking of snakes… Would this be you Steven? Please correct me if this is not the same Steven L. Craig from Oklahoma who failed miserably in court in several Birther lawsuits.

    OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE Oklahoma Real Estate Commission Volume 48, 1st Quarter 2013, No. 1

    C-2009-059: Steven L. Craig (BP) – Del City

    Steven Craig in violation of:

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsections 9 and 16, in that he commingled money belonging to complainants with operating monies of City Properties, the respondent’s company;

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsection 1, in that he submitted license renewal applications containing false information;

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsections 8, 9 and 15, in that he has had repeated criminal convictions in the State of Oklahoma;

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsections 6 and 9 and Rule 605:10-13-1 (a,1,E), in that he failed to maintain the owners’ funds and tenant security deposits in a trust account and failed to return to the owners said funds upon termination of the property management agreement;

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsections 6 and 9 and Rule 605:10-13-1 (1), in that he failed to maintain property management records for the properties which he managed on behalf of the complainants, and

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsections 6 and 9 and Rule 605:10-13-1 (1), in that he failed to maintain property management records for the properties which he managed on behalf of the complainants, and

    Title 59 O.S. §858-312, Subsections 8 and 9 and Rule 605:10-17-4 (12), in that he converted the complainants’ funds to his own use and benefit.

    The Oklahoma real estate broker license of Respondent Steven Craig was ordered revoked.

    http://www.ok.gov/OREC/documents/Vol%2048%201st%20QTR%202013%20No%201.pdf

    We would love to hear the details. It seems that natural born citizens aren’t always saints themselves.

  11. Suranis says:

    “HE was NOT born a dual-citizen when he was born to a married U.S. Citizen father …… it does not matter what the German Law says, insofar as the U.S. is concerned, ”

    He was born a German Citizen as far as German law was concerned. Thats why he was brought home to Germany without a problem and was subject to compulsary military service, as had been German law for a century at least, even when Germany had been called “Prussia”

    That makes him a dual citizen, as much as Obama was born a dual citizen due to your precious British Nationality act. Oh sorry, now it does not matter what German/British law says, insofar as US law is concerned.

    You really are a sad little fantasist, aren’t you.

  12. Suranis says:

    “But you only rely on those that agree with you and dismiss those that say otherwise………you unilaterally limit the meanings of words in the enumerated powers authorized Clause at A1S8C4 and the dismiss the title of the 1790 Act and not doing as the title suggests…….”

    Well, gee willikers Batman, I guess an honest Genius would be able to pull out the mountain of quotations that agree with his interpretation of the law, since he is right and so the interpretations of the law will be in the majority of legal interpretations.

    Anytime now.

    Tick tock.

    Oh and I did quote from Scott V Sandford, so me ignoring cases that dont agree with me?

    “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

    Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

    If you are correct you will have the majority of cases on your site then, so start quoting them, Tough guy. Dont leave it to me to fill the forum with cases that agree with me. Surely you have lots of cases and writers of your own!

    Hell I even quoted your saint and Champion, Emerich de Vattel. what have you got?

    Oh thats right, all you have is a vast and totally illogical interpretation of the 1790 act, the worst decision of the Supreme court ever, and dicta in Minor that had nothing to do with the ruling. And the fact that Chester Arthur burned a lot of papers but DIDN’T BURN his Dads naturalisation cert, instead sending it to the Library of Congress to be preserved.

    I have to say I’m pretty confident in the judgement of history on this.

    So, you voting for born in Canada Cruz?

  13. Suranis says:

    6 years and 84 days of total failure, thats the life of a birther…

    260 Birther Lawsuits, all of which I could quote as they are just the ones that agree with me.

    It’s good to be on the side of the truth

  14. I turned nested comments back on to make the discussion easier to follow (I hope that’s the case any way).

    It seems we may have another case of a Birther projecting his own failure in life upon President Obama and his supporters. I did not ban him in case you are wondering. Now back to our regularly scheduled program ….

    • Northland10 says:

      Probably a good idea since SLC was using a WordPress app, so sometimes, it was easy to miss to whom he was replying. I tried to quote part of the original comment and mention who, but, admittedly, I missed doing that when using the iPad wordpress app.

  15. It’s good to be on the side of the truth

    Yes, it certainly is. For one thing we don’t have to stay up nights thinking up lies to try to support an untenable position.

  16. Well, I didn’t mean to run poor Steven off. All the stuff about Steven L. Craig is in the public record after all.

  17. I finally have time to go back and read some of the 450+ comments on this article (almost none which have anything at all to do with Frank’s fine article by the way). This one by SLC really made me chuckle:

    That is why I call the provision an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”, as construed from the Statutory language of the Clause.

    That’s just unadulterated word salad if I ever saw it.

    • Northland10 says:

      It would have been folly for me to add anything to Frank’s wonderful article. After all the comments by Steven, it was interesting to go back and read Frank’s description of Mario’s arguments. Oddly, I have not yet been able to describe why it was interesting to me.

      • I wasn’t chastising anyone for going off topic. I think that was pretty much the doing of SLC. I put SLC in the category of Adrien Nash and Jedi Pauly. They all think they have come upon a novel interpretation of the meaning of the natural born citizen clause and the Constitution that no one in history has ever discovered before, They completely ignore what the people whose business it is to interpret these things have already said.

        The Birther infatuation of the NBC clause reminds me of the original Star Trek episode where a civilization had bits and pieces American history and worshiped them but had no understanding of what it was all about.

    • What the fuck does that phrase even mean?

  18. It appears that Steven L. Craig, ex-real estate dude, has left the building.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s