The Asinine Errors of Maskell’s & Mario’s N-B-Citizen Bullsh*t

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.  So the facts of science are never determined by opinions and opinions are never science.  Science, and Truth, are determined by hard facts.

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 a 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 categorized 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.

His logic was so absent that he failed to notice that those born abroad of Americans were citizens by the very same principle as those born in the parents’ homeland; by a natural blood connection which produces inherited national membership in the young of U.S. citizens.

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 figures 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 upper-scale 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!

Anyone who must meet “legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ “is not a “natural” citizen but merely a legal citizen. There is no legal basis for natural citizenship. There are no laws providing it because none are needed since it is passed by blood from generation to generation.

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 inhabit 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 grant them that Right, -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 common law, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, 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 or naturalization.  SAYS WHO???  Says Mario.  ~ASININE!

So, do natural born citizens give birth to aliens by Natural Law? or by human dogma?

Mario has no answer.

How can a child be something innately different than the parents that produced the child?

Mario has no answer.

How can foreigners and their children visiting the U.S. (or even born here) be naturally still subject to and under the international umbrella of their own foreign nation and yet American babies born abroad are not naturally subject to the U.S. government and under its umbrella?

Mario has no answer.

If they are naturally subject by being citizens, then their children are by definition natural citizens of the U.S. and not aliens because children naturally take after their parents, biologically, culturally, and politically.

By what constitutional authority can the U.S. government block citizenship from American children if their parents are natural born citizens?

Mario has no answer.

How does the issue of naturalization apply to anything other than aliens and their children, and NOT Americans and theirs?

Mario has no 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 has no answer.

By what crystal-clear logic could John Jay underline the word “born” in “natural born citizen” if together the three words constitute a “term of legal artifice” which must be taken as a unitary indivisible phrase with the individual words being inconsequential as individual words?

Mario has no 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 applying to the England-born children of aliens 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, but when it came to an elected office & position of power crucial to national survival,  they had none, and thus no need for that hair to be split.  They weren’t concerned about allowing only actual natural citizens to serve in such an office since one didn’t exist, -unlike in America where only the citizens born of Americans were allowed to wield the ultimate power of military command and be trusted with American national security as the American President.

Where and when and why did the founders of our nation decide to hold ransom to geographical boundaries the non-U.S. born children of American Ambassadors and all U.S. citizens and military personnel located or visiting abroad?

Mario has no 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?

Mario has no answer.

So…, by serving one’s country abroad at the request of the White House, one’s foreign-born child’s right to be an American and  also be President one day would be aborted unless one were born of an American Ambassador?  ~ASININE!

If so, 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.  He presumes that they were chained to the same bastardized system that the foolish British followed, and which they eventually abandoned.

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 inerrant by loyal followers; the honorable Professor Don Mario Apuzzo Esquire himself, of course.

~“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.  It’s a psychological thing.  A kind of nationality security blanket that makes them feel safe, secure, and definitely insiders, natural members of the “in-crowd” of the American club, -all tucked tightly into their big comfy canopy bed of native American soil.  It’s a substitute for the wife & children they never had.  You can’t take it away from them because it is a kind of security blanket of national belonging.

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

PS.

Mario’s view of the Naturalization Acts as implying that native-born children of aliens were viewed as also alien fails to see the real picture that existed at the time.

Since they were not even mentioned, just the opposite view is equally valid for the simple reason that in neither 1776, nor 1781, nor 1787 did the century-old British common law vanish off the face of the earth. By it, all children born within the borders of the colonies / States were viewed a State citizens.

I’ve anticipated for a couple years now seeing evidence that some or many or most States ended that policy of soil-based nationality for alien-born children. It hasn’t yet been brought forward by anyone.

That leaves one to assume that jus soli citizenship continued within the States while at the same time it was totally rejected as a policy by the national government.

What would you see in law if that were the case? You would see what is in and what is not in the Nat. Acts. No mention at all of native-birth. That way, both sides could assume it meant what they wanted it to mean and the controversy could be thus brushed aside for another day.

The States were opposed to the federal policy regarding their citizenship laws and the feds were opposed to the States’ laws because they allowed the rejected conundrum of dual-citizenship, dual-allegiance, and dual-attachments.

The Nat. Acts dared not attempt to bridge that chasm and slap the States in the face with federal policy since Congress lacked any authority to dictate to them matters of nationality when native-birth was involved. So the language of the acts was deliberately ambiguous.

It is an error of presumption to take either side since Congress took neither side in its language. It avoided the issue, just as it continued to do all of the way up to 1898 when the Supreme Court finally settled it for good.
Native-born common law citizenship then became accepted at the federal level, not merely tolerated by not asking about parentage at birth.

 

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

7 Responses to The Asinine Errors of Maskell’s & Mario’s N-B-Citizen Bullsh*t

  1. arnash says:

    Art wrote: “in the 1795 Naturalization Act of the third Congress,… that the single word “citizen” replaced the three word unit “natural born citizen” that is in the 1790 Naturalization Act”

    A.Nash replied
    So you’re asserting that the sons of American Ambassadors born abroad were magically disenfranchised of their God-given natural RIGHT to recognition as natural born citizens by a Congress that had no authority over their citizenship.

    Please quote me the words of the Constitution where its authors surrendered their inherent right to pass their American citizenship to their children and gave it to Congress with the belief that Congress would know better what to do with it than they would.

    PLEASE! Just quote me your almighty authority, or back the heck down and admit your error.

    THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORITY ANYWHERE except in overly fertile and dogmatic imaginations.
    Nor is there a scintilla of reason to swallow the dogma that an American father’s right to imbue his sons with his national membership terminated at water’s edge.
    That is a treasonous dogma that makes Big Brother God, -Lord Sovereign of all things Citizenship! No Natural Rights possessed by We, The People.

    How do you like the chain you’ve forged for yourself?

    And, you claim, that 3rd Congress demoted them to mere… “citizens of the United States” -with your demented point being that no citizen of the United States is eligible to be President.

    Please explain to me how if you call a Navy Seal a Navy man, then he stops being a Seal?

    If you can’t see what is wrong with that logic, then you can’t be fixed (which apparently is the case).

    You tenaciously cling to the lie that Americans born abroad are magically changed from what nature made them (natural Americans) into ALIENS!!!! because otherwise the whole Apuzzonian dogma collapses.

  2. arnash says:

    Four possibilities of native citizenship:

    1. You are an American if born in America.
    [either legal common law citizenship or natural citizenship, depending on parentage]

    2. or… You are an American if born in America to American parents. [natural citizenship]

    3. or… You are an American if born in America OR are born of American parents. [a hybrid unnatural doctrine involving no principle of citizenship]

    4. or… You are an American if born of Americans. [Natural Law citizenship producing natural born Americans]

    Only #4 is a principle and is natural. Only it follows the principle of natural membership. Only it results in unadulterated natural citizens by natural principle. The others are not principles but arbitrary creations of the human mind.

    Maskell’s folly does not abide by any principle since it embraces both natural law and human contrivance (man-made membership by man-made borders.

    The native-birth dogma embraces no principle either for the second reason.

    The combo native-born + natural doctrine is at least half right but is also half wrong because it marries the natural with the unnatural and it rejects the right of citizenship by parentage alone.

    That is the same thing that the apostate British did to pure unadulterated natural law in order to magnify the sovereignty of the crown over all souls born within the realm.

    By it, actual natural born subjects gave way to alien-born subjects who were also labeled as equal to natural born subjects, and later even called natural born subjects outright, without the qualifier of “equal to” or “the same as” even though they were not because they were not born of Englishmen but foreigners.

    The founders did not adopt that bastardization of language, and yet birthers and obots are still embracing it today and insisting that they did by insisting that natural born citizens are defined by an artificial legal definition, and not a natural definition. It’s a damn shame that they’ve chosen dogma over fact, legal doctrine over natural truth. But they both have a dishonest purpose behind their positions and they can’t let go of it without suffering a total failure of their political catechism. Thus their minds are predisposed to resort to avoidance, obfuscation, deflection, and rejection of straight-forward irrefutable logic.

    • Justin Hale says:

      “4. or… You are an American if born of Americans. [Natural Law citizenship producing natural born Americans]”
      What about people who are citizens by naturalization? They are still Americans yet their citizenship is not by “Natural law” as you say.

      • arnash says:

        Naturalized citizens, like common law citizens born to them before becoming naturalized, are legal citizens. Legal citizens are not natural citizens. No law is nor was needed for natural citizenship since it is conveyed by natural relationship.

        Just as life is conveyed by life, so citizenship is conveyed by citizenship with it being nothing more than membership in a nation. Membership is either natural or it is by permission. It is not both. Neither needs the other.

        Natural national membership is a character that is a part of a person before birth, -a predestined inevitability, whereas naturalization is an acquired character via a legal and psychological transformation. It produces a new fictionally-natural citizen which, like common law citizens, was not born as a natural citizen.

  3. arnash says:

    It’s just occurred to me that Mario & crew have an irreconcilable paradox at the heart of their doctrine; a confounding conundrum that’s inexplicable. It has no possible resolution. You will marvel at the immensity of the problem.
    Both obots and nativists pontificate that the words “natural born citizen” comprise a term of legal artifice that exists as a unitary expression with a preexisting definition.

    Such a term cannot be altered, -the words cannot be rearranged, hyphens cannot be added or subtracted, and individual words of the phrase cannot be individually emphasized by underlining since the entire phrase has a single unitary ascribed artificially meaning.

    And yet Jay underlined a single word of the three-word term. How slow do you have to be to not grasp that you can’t underline a single word of a multiple-word term of art???

    And yet there is his underline, completely demolishing the doctrine that it is a term of art. Both camps look like the fools that they are, by attempting to maintain that fantasy.

    As soon as Art or Mario offers an explanation for why Jay underlined “born”, they demolish the foundation of their own dogma by acknowledging covertly that the three words were not a term of art to him.

    If it were he would have had to have underlined “natural-born” which is the supposed term-of-art phrase which actually didn’t even exist in British common law or jurisprudence.
    Since there is no record of its existence in the law dictionaries of the time, it is purely asinine to claim that something non-existent was carried over in America by attachment to “Citizen”.

    Natural-born had no “definition” when used with either subject or citizen.
    Rather, the entire phrase “natural-born subject” had a general meaning of British subject by other than naturalization, although they also became such via that process.

    Their system was not ours post-Revolution. Their term was not ours either. We could underline “natural” or “born” if we wanted to emphasize one or the other. The Brits could not.
    They had a term of art. We did not. Our natural citizens were so by descent, by parental connection and not by common law. Birth place was thus irrelevant as a factor.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: