April 16, 2014 Leave a comment
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…
“Congressional Research Service Attorney, Jack Maskell, argues in his, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”, dated November 14, 2011, [accessed here] that any born citizen, regardless of where born, to whom born, and by which law so made, is a “natural born citizen”. He arrives at his thesis by manipulating, distorting, omitting, and misstating historical and legal evidence. The absurdity of Maskell’s thesis can be readily seen by the following.
Maskell’s theory does not explain or provide any evidence on how the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers defined a born citizen. Rather, his is one that is based on what the definition of a natural born citizen ought to be today.”
Maskell wrote: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates…”
He went wrong right from the start by appealing to “authority” for a factual matter and not an opinion matter. “The weight” refers to exactly how much weight? 55%? 65%? The Supreme Court itself, as often as not it seems, has its weight on the side of that which is totally unconstitutional, as we all saw with the court opinion on the unAffordable Care Act, (and Wichard v Filburn).
Throughout its history, the weight of opinion in the realm of science has always been on the wrong side of reality and truth, as consensus opinion was eventually destroyed by newly discovered facts. Atheists depend on that phenomenon since it gave them “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, as well as a sun-centered solar system.
I’ve just read an amazing report about the 94 yr. old Dr. James Lovelock, a guru of the Green Movement, and author of a powerful global warming scare book that polarized everyone into action. Billions will die! Well, he recants it all now, relating that everyone was WRONG! That data and absence of change destroys what has become a religion.
Opinions can all be wrong, just like the view of two centuries that Black Americans who claimed that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor were simply promoting not truth but foolishness and lying self-invented myth. And yet opinions were all that Maskell consulted. He did not consult the meaning of the words themselves or else he would have recognized that any opinion that failed to recognize the meaning of the word “natural” was inherently wrong.
So what was his goal from the beginning and was it the correct goal? It was not, because it was merely to ascertain what the historical consensus opinion had been, -and finding that there was none, he simply declared both competing views to be correct.
He continued: “that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth‘” thus rendering the crucial word “natural” meaningless. Even worse if possible, he bastardized the three word term by placing quotation marks around the two adjectives. They have no business having quotation marks around them, (“natural born”). Why would he do such a thing? Those quotation marks appear in nothing ever written until he dishonestly added them in an attempt to alter the character of the meaning of the three words in combination; Citizen, Born, Natural. Citizen-born means born of citizens. It has a hyphen between the two words to indicate a unitary term. “Natural born” never has a hyphen because it is not a unitary term nor an adjective phrase when used in conjunction with the word “citizen”.
That fact is evident in the letter that the president of the Continental Congress, John Jay, wrote to the president of the Constitutional convention, George Washington, exhorting him to not allow anyone to wield the power of the Command in Chief position except a natural born citizen. [his underlining]
That shows that they were used as two unrelated adjectives, and not as a adjective phrase attached to “citizen”. That means that “natural” attaches to “citizen” (natural citizen) and not to “born”. The difference is seen in an example like “natural-born athlete. It requires the use of the hyphen and precludes the underlining of either adjective.
He also lazily and deceptively employed a word that has no defined meaning; the word “entitled”, which raises the question; entitled by what? By Natural RIGHT? or by human tradition? or common law? or statutory law? or constitutional law? or what exactly? What is the source of his claimed entitlement?
He did not address that issue because his entire exploration was a mile wide but only an inch deep.
It was superficial, -shallow, -involving zero principles that determine the boundaries of human life and membership within civilization.
Emmerich de Vattel, in his influential work “The Law of Nations” (1758) addressed the entitlement he referred to, and it was birth to a father who was a member of a nation. Mario’s listed on his blog on April 7th a whole slew of historical statements that all supported that entitlement of every American father; -membership via blood inheritance, -one which does not stop at the water’s edge.
Maskell wrote: “…entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’”
So… by that logic, Frankenstein is “a human being” either “by birth” or “by creation”. Let’s see… “by creation”, (just like “at birth”) implies something is produced, effected, -something which (without intervention) would not naturally come to be. “At” is a reference to the time of commencement of citizenship, a factor that could easily be delayed for a year or a decade depending on the will of lawmakers. Whereas “by birth” refers to the origin of national membership, it being the blood of the citizen parents whose life produced the birth.
So in Maskell’s Bizarro World that which would be naturally produced, “by birth” is equated as being indistinguishable from that which is the result of human designation and action of law. So Frankenstein is just another human being. His origin is of no consequence in characterizing his nature. He’s basically no different from everyone else.
-So in “The Terminator” future, humans produced by humans and machines produced by machines are essentially identical in nature. What’s the difference? They exist “by birth” or by creation. They both have a discreet beginnings of “life”. Hard to see a difference, right? They are both sentient beings “at birth” or “at creation” so they can be logically equated as indistinguishable based on having something in common. ~ASININE!
“either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; [or] by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;”
So you have two completely unrelated circumstances; the alien-born in America given citizenship by the rule of law, and the American-born born anywhere in the world as Americans by nature, and, like dogs and cats, they are of the same species of citizenship??? ~ASININE!
Correlation does not equal Causation. His logic was so absent that he failed to notice that natural citizens are citizens by inheritance, -not native-birth, but he avoids that fact, lumping them in with those for whom native-birth is absolutely essential, -the alien born. Without it they are not Americans, but the American-born are American citizens regardless of where they are born, -a whole different creature.
He failed to explain why and how the term; “born citizen” was not actually the correct label to describe the common link that he was referencing in connecting dissimilar citizens.
Everything he wrote applied simply to “born citizen”, so his implication is that the founders added the word “natural” for no discernible reason. After all, it was only The CONSTITUTION!! -And only written for all the ages to come!
But hey, why avoid throwing in an occasional superfluous word here and there? After all, no one would ever come to a dispute about the difference between a “born citizen” and “a natural born citizen”, would they?
Hamilton’s suggestion that no one “but one born a citizen” must be considered to have been adopted, -only with a slight, inexplicable, unnecessary, irrelevant linguistic embellishment; -the word “natural”. ~ASININE!
Mario wrote: “Here is Maskell’s argument which shows that I am correct in maintaining that he is arguing that all born citizens are natural born citizens“.
Maskell is implying that it is his opinion that several authoritative others held the opinion that the word “natural” adds no meaning to the words “born citizen”.
You can’t say that he is arguing that one is definitely the same as the other when he is essentially only saying that it appears by historical opinion, that people were of two opinions, and the truth need not be ascertained because we can all just have a hand-holding Kumbaya consensus by simply accepting and embracing both diametrically opposed opinions (!!!). ~ASININE!
Why the heck bother to determine which opinion was correct? That takes too much time and thinking. The low road, the short cut, is far preferable when one can be doing something else requiring payment of prevailing Attorney’s fees.
“or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”
So his short-cut understanding of citizenship takes the position that natural citizenship is legal citizenship and legal citizenship is natural citizenship. So… one’s legal children (adopted) are really no different from one’s natural children? ~ASININE!
Get this straight; nothing that exists by Nature (like natural membership) is a legal thing, and nothing that is a legal thing is a natural thing. Two different universes!
Natural membership is from the same realm as the power of juries to nullify laws, -the power of judges to hold people in contempt and strip them of their freedom without trial. The power to throw out a jury verdict and render a verdict direct from the bench. Where the heck is that found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? No where. Why not?
It’s a matter of sovereignty. It rests with the People and with their judges. Neither of those two sovereign authorities can be questioned by anyone (other than a superior court administratively ruling on a lower court’s action, -something avoided if at all possible).
Such natural authority, like natural membership, is antecedent to government authority, like the right to natural resources appropriated by the first souls to populate a new land. Their rights precede the rule of later laws and are superior to them.
So is the RIGHT of all American parents to pass their national membership to their children. Government does not make their children Americans. Natural inheritance does. Government has no say in the matter of the membership of those who created it, nor their progeny.
Mario continued: Apart from all his intellectually dishonest tactics, Maskell does not explain by what means or mechanism(s) the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers saw a person become a born citizen.
Mario does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in Maskell’s asinine logic, but unfortunately, he is guilty of his own asinine logic.
Exhibit #1. Aliens give birth to aliens or citizens-by-law. Natural born citizens give birth to natural born citizens. Aliens do not give birth to natural born citizens and natural born citizens do not give birth to aliens.
But in the church of Mario, natural born citizens DO give birth to aliens!
If the son of a President who was the son of a President who was the son of a President was born on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls he would be an alien in need of naturalization even though he was born with ancestors who were all natural born citizens going back ten generations and more.
In the Apuzzonian dogma such a son has no natural right to be recognized as being an American and is dependent on the benevolence of government in order to be allowed to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.
He is thus barred forever from his unalienable birthright to serve as leader of his country like his ancestors.
That is what Mario believes and teaches and he justifies it not by Natural Law but by the invented legal fiction he calls “American common law”. ~ASININE!
In colonial and post-colonial America, the common law remained what it had always been; English. But by claiming that the common law of nations was what America switched to, he then redefines that non-existing world-wide rule of citizenship/subjectship to be something that no “authority” on earth had ever claimed or endorsed.
But regardless, citizenship that is natural is NOT defined by citizenship which is legal, -with his definition of “American common law” based not on a natural principle but on human criteria defined by him, namely; citizen parents and native birth. By American law, children of foreigners can’t automatically be Americans without native-birth, but by Mario’s law the children of AMERICANS cannot be Americans either without native-birth. SAYS WHO??? Says Mario. ~ASININE!
So, do natural born citizens give birth to aliens by Natural Law? or by human dogma? Mario does not have an answer.
How can a child be something innately different than the parents that produced the child? Mario does not have an answer.
How can foreigners and their children visiting the U.S. (even born here) be naturally still subject to their own foreign nation and yet American babies born abroad are NOT naturally subject to the U.S. government and under its umbrella? Mario does not have an answer. If they are naturally subject then they are by definition natural citizens of the U.S. and not aliens.
By what constitutional authority can the U.S. government block citizenship from American children if their parents are natural born citizens? Mario does not have an answer.
How does the issue of naturalization apply to anything other than aliens and their children, and NOT Americans and theirs? Mario does not have an answer.
By what mechanism does the political nature with which one is born get determined by an incidental, momentary, transient factor such as geographical location at birth and man-made borders? Mario does not have an answer.
By what crystal-clear logic could John Jay underline the word “born” if together the three words constitute a “term of legal artifice” which must be taken as a unitary phrase with the individual words being inconsequential as individual words? Mario does not have an answer.
Can the mechanism by which a human is human and a “Terminator” is non-human be combined into a new natural mechanism?
The English eventually pretended to do just that by calling the England-born children of aliens with the same label as applied to the natural subjects born of Englishmen, -calling them both “natural born subjects”. What did the two groups have in common? The same king and the same rights, so all differences were ignored, verbally and legally that is, but not when it came to offices crucial to national survival. Then the hair was split and only true natural subjects, -the sons of Englishmen and not foreigners, were allowed to wield command and be trusted with national security secrets.
Where and when and why did the founders of our nation decide to hold ransom to geography the non-U.S. born children of American Ambassadors and all U.S. citizens and military personnel located or visiting abroad? Mario does not have an answer.
If instead, the children of U.S. Ambassadors were deemed to be Americans but the children of their equal fellow citizens were deemed to be aliens, how could the founding fathers reconcile such an obvious unequal treatment with fundamental American principles of equality?
So…, by serving one’s country at the request of the President, one’s foreign-born child’s right to be an American and also be President one day would be decapitated? ~ASININE!
If not, then children of Ambassadors would have to be assigned to a special class, -a superior class, an aristocratic class, one which was totally banned in America.
What kind of morons would establish and validate such an insane system? Our Founding Fathers? Yes, according to the legend in his own mind; Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Well, you’re supposed to just take it on faith, unquestioning faith in the gospel of Nativist citizenship as preached by the august scholar so widely known and considered infallible; the honorable Sir-Dr.-Professor Esquire Don Mario Apuzzo himself, of course. [Sarcasm intended, -and earned.]
~“now, now little ones, don’t do all of your own thinking for yourselves… that would be silly. Here, let me do part of your thinking for you. That would be so much better. You can trust me to not mislead you, honest, I really really know what I’m talking about. At least I’m convinced that I do.
~ Only Nature’s jus sanguinis principle of natural inheritance and natural membership produces natural citizens who are bound together by natural bonds of common origin (the blood of citizen parents) and natural national membership, with government having no hand in their membership in their own country.
But the mindless souls that totally embrace the gospel of absolutely necessary native-birth will never, ever acknowledge any truth that invalidates their faith, -no matter how clear, -how factual, -how logical, -or how incontestable. They are True Believers. Faithful to the end.
And how does their devotion to native-birth help to de-legitimize the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama? It does not help one damn bit. In fact, it obstructs and obfuscates the spread of the truth by spreading a false “truth” in its place, just like a false doctrine of faith, -a heresy that deserves all of the condemnation that can be heaped upon it.
by Adrien Nash April 2014, obama–nation.com