Monday, January 30, 2012

Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Jeff Rense Radio Show Tonight, Monday, January 30, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. Pacific/11:00 p.m. Eastern




      Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Jeff Rense Radio Show Tonight, Monday, January 30,  2012,                                                      at 8:00 p.m. Pacific/11:00 p.m. Eastern


                                                               By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                    January 30, 2012


 Join Jeff Rense and me tonight, January 30, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. Pacific/11:00 p.m. Eastern, on the Jeff Rense Radio show. We will be discussing the Founders’ and Framers’ meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and the states’ role in enforcing that constitutional provision.

You will be able to listen to Jeff Rense and me live on the radio show through this link: http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 30, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

56 comments:

SaipanAnnie said...

Congratulations, Mr. Apuzzo. I look forward to the show.

anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo, the eligibility clause states:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

--

The commas create a *list/series* of items that determine which person "shall be eligibile to the Office of President", "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

It does not change the meaning to rearrange items within a list. I can say:

"The US flag is red, white, and blue."

Or:

"The US flag is blue, white, and red."

The meaning is the same. The order of items in a list does not matter.

The prepositional phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" applies to both "a natural born Citizen" as well as "a Citizen of the United States".

Ask any English professor, and you will find this is correct grammar.

Rearranging the items in the list/series does not change the meaning:

--

No person except a Citizen of the United States, or a natural born Citizen, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

No person at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

No person shall be eligible to the Office of President, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution;

No person shall be eligible to the Office of President, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States;

--

And keep in mind, "at" denotes a specific point in time; not before, and not after. If the requirements were meant for all time, the prepositional phrase beginning with "at" could and would have been completely excluded.

If I say "meet me at noon", that doesn't mean meet me at 11am or 1pm. "At" always denotes a specific point in time (or a specific place).

To make things even more clear, let's substitute other nouns to simplify the clause:

--

No person except those with a red shirt, or those with a blue shirt, at 1PM, shall take 1 step forward;

--

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

It obviously means everyone will take a step forward at 1pm if they have a red shirt or blue shirt.

THE LIST INCLUDES:

1. "those with a red shirt"

2. "those with a blue shirt"

Now, if we write:

No person except those with a red shirt, or those with a blue shirt at 1PM, shall take 1 step forward;

THEN THE MEANING IS DIFFERENT.
BECAUSE NOW THE LIST IS:

1. "those with a red shirt"

2. "those with a blue shirt at 1PM"

And the meaning is: those with a red shirt (at the current time), or those that had/have a blue shirt at 1PM, shall take 1 step forward (at the current time).

And this is how people are deciding to read the clause ... as if it said:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

BUT THIS IS WRONG, 100% FALSE. THAT IS NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION IS WRITTEN.

There is no "eligibility clause" for President in the Articles of Confederation, nor was there a citizenship clause in the original draft of the Constitution by Hamilton. It was John Jay (1st supreme Court justice) who recommended to George Washington, during the convention, that he may want to consider adding a citizenship clause to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief was a citizen, but the Committee of Eleven only prescribed the restriction for the President "at the time of the Adoption".

QUESTION: what professor of English will agree with the interpretation you are utilizing in stating that the President must be a natural born citizen today? What rules of grammar are you using?

MichaelN said...

Oh, I see now, only at the time of the adoption of the USC was it considered important for highest possible allegiance and then after the adoption of the USC, then it was open slather, where the king of England or Saddam Hussein, etc , etc would be eligible..... would that be right?

Bob said...

Anonymous

This is your dilemma --

How can you use a 'list/series of items' (as you say), to place into LAW categories that at the time pen has been placed on paper did not exist?

'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.'

Actually, it is not possible.

You see, 'items' are facts.

You have engaged in category confusion, and so you do not realize that 'Citizens of the United States,' (namely) 'at the time of the adoption of this Constitution' would eventually die off, to be replaced solely by 'natural-born Citizen' (of which there were NONE ('at the time of . . .).

So, you have two totally different categories in series -- they are not interchangeable: as may your red shirt be interchangeable with you blue shirt, or your white shirt.

I would suggest that you blow the dust off of your philosophy textbooks, and read some Aristotle, or Thomas Aquinas.

It has to do with logic, not with grammar.

Obviously, the Framers understood that.

Brianroy said...

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Anonymous posted:
QUESTION: what professor of English will agree with the interpretation you are utilizing in stating that the President must be a natural born citizen today? What rules of grammar are you using?

Anonymous predicates this question in his/her post upon the principle that the nbc requirement was only for those of the Revolutionary War Era by just switching the words around. In actuality, Anonymous is really arguing the logical regression that both forms of citizenship, Citizen of the United States and Natural Born Citizen, are only of value at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Foudroyant. And I mean that mockingly. What English educator would concur with the osmotic vacuacy of anonymous' contention that this clause -- that after those of the Revolutionary War Era have died off -- actually calls for the removal of all citizenship? Yes, that is what Anonymous argues... that anyone of the age of 35 and 14 years a resident, foreign national or otherwise, may run for and obtain the US Presidency? Good grief!

Anonymous has discarded not only the rules of grammar, but even the minimum ability to reason what they have proposed. And what is scary, is that this anonymous is likely the by-product of an Public Teacher; and if that is the case, we as a society should demand our money back. Ha, ha, ha.

anonymous said...

@MichaelN

Your desire to make words mean something other than what they say does not create new law.

Law is to be interpreted plainly, and the clause is very clear.

If you are illiterate, then ask an English teacher/professor for help in reading the clause.


Yes, freedom means choosing whom you want. If you don't like the freedom of choosing the President of your choice, then maybe you might like living in China better.

anonymous said...

@Bob, @Brianroy

Your points require greater clarity, if you had any points to make at all. Your comments are not intelligible.

thalightguy said...

anonymous,

Using your logic and applying it to the 14th Amendment would make anyone born anywhere in the World a citizen of the U.S.

[All persons born](A)or [naturalized in the United States] (B) and [subject to the jurisdiction thereof](C), are [citizens of the United States] (D).

A or (B and C) = D

And this is all because they did not put a comma after all persons born, hmmm.

anonymous said...

The entire concept of "where you were born" is nonsense because virtually nobody knows where they were born. Nobody remembers where they were when they were born. Hearsay is not personal knowledge or fact, and proves nothing. And neither does a birth certificate. It can't be proved that a birth certificate attaches to your body. Especially at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.

anonymous said...

If Ron Paul was born in China, I would still want to vote for him, and would still want him to be President of Congress.

anonymous said...

Pre-Civil War, the Office of President was relatively minor compared to state governors. Not until the federal govt usurped state sovereignty after the Civil War did the federal government begin to play a heavy role in the lives of the American people. Also, there is to be no standing army according to the constitution, and the Commander-in-Chief was the commander of the Militia, which was basically every able-bodied male. The President of Congress simply did not have the same powers or regard in 1787 as today. They slept on the floors, ate what they could get their hands on, and walked among the people as all other people. People today give the office power and regard that it was never intended to have, as if it is a position of royalty [sic].

anonymous said...

If people were so altruistically concerned about this issue, they would be better served by making sure their state governors were naturally born within their state, and lived all their lives within their state, as opposed to today, where most governors were born elsewhere, and merely occupy the position of governor out of purely political desires, instead of a love of their state and the preservation of its freedom and resources for all future generations.

SaipanAnnie said...

Anonymous:

It is clear why you posted anonymously.

Clearly, Bari [a.k.a. Barack], you are the only person so worried about Mr. Apuzzo's show last night that you were compelled to attack him with great elaboration before he opened his mouth worldwide.

In case you forgot your law school teachings, this is called MOTIVATION.

It's too late. The whole world now knows about your scam. Your credibility is zip.

No one has faith in liars.

anonymous said...

@thalightguy

I did not share "my logic", I shared literacy and grammar. It is not a matter of opinion as to what the words/clause states.

In regards to the 14th amendment, you did not copy it correctly:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

You omitted the comma before the first "and".

You are 180deg wrong. To apply to "all persons born" in the whole world, they would have to say:

All persons born, or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

They would have to add a comma after 'born", and remove the comma before "and" and they would still have to "reside" in a State.

Puzo1 said...

anonymous,

Your interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” clause would lead to absurd results.

Your interpretation fails on grammar, logic, and history.

St. George Tucker and Justice Story also do not agree with you.

Your contempt for the Founders and Framers and our Constitution is evident from your comments.

Are you an Obot who has been sent here to simply be a spoiler and have a little fun? Or are you an Obot who is serious in what you say and are simply lashing out in protest?

We must accept our Constitution the way the Founders and Framers wrote and intended it, unless we change it by constitutional amendment under Article V. Let us consider what they wrote and intended.

If all that mattered to the Founders and Framers was that a person be a U.S. citizen “at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution,” what purpose would have been served by the Founders and Framers including in the presidential eligibility clause two classes of citizens, the “natural born Citizen” and the “Citizen of the United States,” when it would have been sufficient for them to simply say that a person had to be a U.S. citizen at such time? Including two classes of citizens simply would serve no additional purpose when one class of citizen would have been sufficient.

On the other hand, if the Founders and Framers saw a “natural born Citizen” as more trustworthy when it came to wielding the great and singular civil and military power of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military, then it would make perfect sense for them to have inserted in the eligibility clause two classes of citizens and to require that a “Citizen of the United States” was to be eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and only a “natural born Citizen” was to be so eligible thereafter. And we know that the Founders and Framers considered any U.S. citizen that was not a “natural born Citizen” to be a “Citizen of the United States” and considered only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be a true “natural born Citizen.” See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (the “true citizens” who come into being by natural law and not by positive law are the “natural-born citizens,” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (same); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (same). And as we can see from the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, which also confirm this definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it is also these “true citizens” who are also immune to Congress’s Article I naturalization power. Indeed, in the eyes of the Founders and Framers, it was birth in the country to citizen parents which caused such a child to be born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States and that of no other nation. It was for that exact reason, which created absolute and unwavering loyalty to the United States and to no other nation from birth, that the Founders and Framers required that in the future any person who would occupy the singular and powerful Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military be a “natural born Citizen.”

I will do a separate post on this issue which covers the matter in greater detail.

Joe said...

Anonymous,
You are a racist. That should cover all your arguments, right?

MichaelN said...

@ anonymous

The United States presidential election of 1789 was the first presidential election in the United States of America and the only election to ever take place in a year that is not a multiple of four. The ELECTION TOOK PLACE FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN 1788.

Which also followed the ADOPTION of the US Constitution on September 17, 1787.

The president was elected TWO years AFTER adoption of the USC.

Question:
If the eligibility clause in Article II was only applicable "at the time of the adoption" why do you suppose the framers even bothered to have the clause, when an election for POTUS was not about to take place AT the time of adoption, but TWO years later?

i.e. there would have been no need for the eligibility clause to exist at all.

SaipanAnnie said...

Anonymous says:

The entire concept of "where you were born" is nonsense because virtually nobody knows where they were born. Nobody remembers where they were when they were born. Hearsay is not personal knowledge or fact, and proves nothing. And neither does a birth certificate. It can't be proved that a birth certificate attaches to your body.

Bari, many times I have told you that you need a rest. Why do you not heed my advice? It is very well intended.

Apparently hearing Mr. Apuzzo speak so eloquently on The Jeff Rense Show upset you and kept you up all night.

anonymous said...

> Your contempt for the Founders and Framers and our Constitution is evident ...

It is respect for the self-government that Justice Jay wrote about in Chisholm v. Georgia. Revolutionaries didn't die to be told who they could/couldn't elect.

> Are you an Obot ... ?

I dislike Obama, and support Ron Paul, truth, honesty, and plainly and correctly applied law. Law requiring interpretation should be Void for Vagueness. Constitutionalists don't want judges to make law based on "interpretations".

> If all that mattered to the Founders and Framers was that a person be a U.S. citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, what purpose would have been served ... [by] two classes of citizens, the natural born Citizen and the Citizen of the United States ... ?

Because U.S. Citizenship is a federal citizenship which included naturalized citizens and those born in U.S. territories, and a natural born citizen was a state citizenship.

> On the other hand, if the Founders and Framers saw a natural born Citizen as more trustworthy when it came to wielding the great and singular civil and military power of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military ...
And as we can see from the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 ...

The Founders had nothing to say about it so far as we know. The clause was merely added by the Committee of Eleven (assigned to ensure proper grammar, etc) after John Jay made the suggestion to Washington, who lead the convention. There was no great military power, nor any desire to be one. There was no "Military" at the time, the word doesn't even exist in the constitution. I don't think I am in disagreement with your citizenship citations. The president was Commander-in-Chief of the Militia, which were, in general, all able bodied males in defense of the land. We weren't the global empire of banker mercinaries of today. The Militia could easy tell a Commander-in-Chief "where to go" if he was not trustworthy. Nobody was forced to serve Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the Militia. Also, there was no "loyalty" to the United States at the time. It didn't even exist. People were loyal to their states, and the constitution did not intend to change that. The federal govt was only implimented to assist states in their interoperations and combined strengths. There was no all-encompassing jurisdiction of the United States at the time, as there is today. It only had its territories and limited delegated powers from the states.

In conclusion, what is wrong with everyone? Don't they trust the American people to choose officials for themselves? If they can't be trusted to do that, no amount of rules will save them.

anonymous said...

@MichaelN
> Question:
If the eligibility clause in Article II was only applicable "at the time of the adoption" why do you suppose the framers even bothered to have the clause, when an election for POTUS was not about to take place AT the time of adoption, but TWO years later?

I guess it depends on what your definition of "adoption" is. I would think it to mean "when it is placed into effect".

SaipanAnnie said...

Anonymous says [at 5:42AM]:

what is wrong with everyone?

What is wrong is not with us, Bari.

Why are you up so early, posting? Do you not understand that you need rest?


I dislike Obama

It is evident that you do not like yourself. If you did, you would not have gotten yourself into such hot water.

juniper55 said...

Maybe Anonymous should investigage how colonial and early post-Constitution governors lived before he talks of presidential "royalty." All of the presidents - once they became president - acquired the trappings of office and lived similarly for the most part, with the exception perhaps of John Adams, who might have "slept on the floor and ate what he could" while the White House was being built (I doubt that, Abigail was too good a manager even if she was frugal at times).

In time, thanks in part to a beautiful White House to live in and access to a portion of the federal purse, the trappings and lifestyles of presidents eclipsed the status of governors (whose own lifestyles greatly diminished in many locales compared to the presidents as an increasingly powerful federal government took hold).

I sincerely doubt Ron Paul - if elected - would buck that trend. In fact, he'd probably be the worst of all as a "you owe this to me" and the isolationist that he is.

Also, apparently the parties do NOT trust the people to pick candidates themselves. How many states block write-ins for primary elections? How vigorously is Romney being pushed by the GOP compared to, say, Santorum? How come there is NO Democrat willing or allowed to run against Obama's terrible record, even if he was constitutionally able to run?

Also if Ron Paul is such a great constitutionalist, why does he think Obama's eligiblity is irrelevant? Maybe he should change his mind on that, considering the rest of his track record on legislative accomplishments is horrible. He might actually get some congressional support.

Ron Paul on Obama's eligiblity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Porel0FMEHU

Ron Paul's legislative record:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

anonymous said...

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ADOPT transative verb
1
: to take by choice into a relationship; especially : to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child
2
: to take up and practice or use
***3
: to accept formally and put into effect
4
: to choose (a textbook) for required study in a course
5
: to sponsor the care and maintenance of intransitive verb
: to adopt a child

Carlyle said...

This is important:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/farah-on-fox-tv-rubio-not-natural-born-citizen/

We need to ride this train. It will add significant credibility to our fight.

anonymous said...

Arthur Saint Clair was born in Scotland and even served in the British Army during the French-Indian War ... Yet on February 2, 1787, was elected to a one-year term as president of Congress.

The timing of this is interesting, considering the Constitutional Convention engaged shortly thereafter in the spring/summer of 1787. Regardless, there seems to have been little concern about electing a foreign born President by the Founders themselves.

* John Hanson (1782)
* Elias Boudinot (1783)
* Thomas Mifflin (1784)
* Richard Henry Lee (1785)
* John Hancock (1786)
* Nathan Gorman (1787)
* Arthur Saint Clair (1788)
* Cyrus Griffin (1789)

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

Bob said...

anonymous --

You need to square your interpretations of history with actual facts, and not suppositions. For example:

In the Constitutional Convention, where according to James Madison’s notes, Mr. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said:

'As to those philosophical gentlemen, those ‘Citizens of the World’ as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other.'

Another thing are the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, a Congressional response to the XYZ Affair and the quasi war with France.

Then you would see that what you say is 'rubbish!'

I apologize to use such a harsh term, but that is what it is!

The Framers were very much concerned about the influence of Europeans fleeing with their wealth to this country and their hereditary titles to place a 14 year residency requirement on naturalized Citizens.

This was overturned by Thomas Jefferson, who added a restriction of his own -- that children born to Americans overseas were considered ALIENS under the law, and they were required to fulfill a 5 year residency requirement.

This law was only revised in 1855 to what is now the law, that they are 'citizens at birth.'

So you see, the facts simply so not support your views today now looking back over some 230 years of history.

Your views do not much match Ron Paul's, but that's your privilege.

Puzo1 said...

Anonymous,

You said: "Because U.S. Citizenship is a federal citizenship which included naturalized citizens and those born in U.S. territories, and a natural born citizen was a state citizenship."

You are just making stuff up. You cannot make any sound historical argument which supports your statement. No such sound argument can be made because the historical facts to not support your assertion.

You are wrong to attempt to reduce the Office of President and Commander in Chief to some insignificant position. Of course, your want to do that so that you reduce the importance of the "natural born Citizen" clause. First, the Constitution itself tells us of the great civil and military powers given to the President. Second, try reading The Federalist No. 67 to 77 (Hamilton) and you will see what powers the People saw the President to wield and what safeguards were put in place to limit that power. Third, the Framers and Founders saw the Office of the President to be such an important office of trust that they even provided an extra protection for the republic by including in the Constitution the Electoral College as the means to directly elect the President. In this connection, read the "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" speech by Hamilton in The Federalist No. 68, in which he warns about keeping foreign powers and influence out of the Office of the “chief magistracy of the Union” and of the President being be elected by prostitution of votes. Indeed, the Electoral College was going to be the product of “an immediate act of the people of America” choosing “persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.” The Federalist No. 68.

You have it wrong about not "trust[ing] the American people to choose officials for themselves." The American people have already spoken through our Constitution. If you do not like what they said, then change it by Constitutional amendment under Article V.

Puzo1 said...

anonymous @February 1, 2012 8:14 AM,

Given your twisted reading of the "natural born Citizen" clause, you fail to understand (or feign not understanding) that the Founders and Framers allowed naturalized citizens who they called "Citizen[s] of the United States" to be elected President, provided that they were such citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. But for those to be born after the adoption of the Constitution, they had to be "natural born Citizen[s]."

It is this grandfather clause that allowed President Washington and the other early presidents to be eligible for the position.

This issue has been covered in this blog in many essays and comments by not only me but by also by well-informed commentators.

SaipanAnnie said...

Let us return to the subject of this post.

Mr. Apuzzo, how do you feel your interview with Jeff Rense went?

anonymous said...

@Puzo1

> You said: "Because U.S. Citizenship is a federal citizenship which included naturalized citizens and those born in U.S. territories, and a natural born citizen was a state citizenship." You are just making stuff up. You cannot make any sound historical argument which supports your statement. No such sound argument can be made because the historical facts to not support your assertion.

OK, I concede that I am in error, in part, because "[Cc]itizen of the United States" has differing meanings between the Constitution and statutes, and I possibly introduced confusion between the two. Unfortunately, there is no "glossary of terms" for the Constitution, but it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that it is important to read the clause grammatically correctly, and that it was written to be grammatically correct, and in a grammatically correct reading, there is no requirement for a president of congress to be a "natural born citizen" today, nor was there any such requirement previous to the Constitution (under the Articles of Confederation). And to support that this was not such a big concern to the founders, I have shown an example of a foreign born president that was elected in the year of the constitutional convention by the Founders themselves (not to mention that he even served in the British army). Additionally, Alexander Hamilton was not "natural born" in any sense of the term, and next to Washington, held the highest "military" positions at the time.

I don't really need to go into debates about terminology when the grammar speaks for itself. The questioning of terms cannot alter the meaning that the grammar conveys. That is my legal argument, and it is foundational and complete/all-encompassing, and I don't need to stray from it.

MichaelN said...

@ anonymous

You said............
"And keep in mind, "at" denotes a specific point in time; not before, and not after. If the requirements were meant for all time, the prepositional phrase beginning with "at" could and would have been completely excluded.

If I say "meet me at noon", that doesn't mean meet me at 11am or 1pm. "At" always denotes a specific point in time (or a specific place)."

I said ......
"If the eligibility clause in Article II was only applicable "at the time of the adoption" why do you suppose the framers even bothered to have the clause, when an election for POTUS was not about to take place AT the time of adoption, but TWO years later?"

Then you said ......

"I guess it depends on what your definition of "adoption" is. I would think it to mean "when it is placed into effect"."

Nonsense, now you are being silly, jumping around and clutching at straws

What happened to ...........

"And keep in mind, "at" denotes a specific point in time; not before, and not after."????

anonymous said...

1ST JUDICIAL COURT
BLOGGER.COM/APUZZO
INTERNET DIVISION

CASE NO. 08AMA

BIRTHERS, ET AL.
Plaintiffs

v.

CHAD in AK
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFENDANT Chad-in-AK moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order
dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cause of action and states:

1. The complaint alleges a cause of action based on the eligibility clause in the Constitution, stating that Barry Soetoro (aka, "Obama") is ineligible to be President of Congress because he is not a natural born citizen.

2. Plaintiffs failed to provide any authority on English grammar that will support a reading of the clause that supports citizenship requirements applicable to the current time, as opposed to "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" which is clearly stated in the clause.

3. Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence that the authors of the Constitution were illiterate and unaware of basic grammatical construction, thereby writing things that they did not intend.

4. The President of Congress elected in the year of the writing of the Constitution was in fact foreign born, even serving the army of the revolutionary enemy (Arthur Saint Clair).

5. After George Washington, the second highest command in the U.S. armed forces was also foreign born as well as being the author of the Constitution itself, and many of its founding documents to which the Plaintiffs defer (Federalist Papers), and whose image is placed of much of U.S. currency in rememberance (Alexander Hamilton).

6. Additionally, many of the highest positions in the U.S. govt are occupied by dual Israeli-U.S. citizens/agents at the current time, demonstrating even a far worse accepted condition of loyalty than any single foreign born president could pose.

7. If Ron Paul, a reincarnated Founding Father who makes no issue of this matter, was born in Indonesia, nobody with an IQ over 120 would argue that he wouldn't make the best president in the last 100 years or more, and people have the Creator-given right to place him in that office if they desire to do so.

8. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible for most people to definitively prove where they were born, having no memory of the event, and no sense of place or landmarks at the time of their birth. It is well known that indentification documents are forged by people and agencies all over the world, and in themselves, provide no conclusive evidence of authentic identification. With a birth certificate, anyone can gather all other identification documents, and obtaining a fraudulent birth certificate is not difficult.

9. Without grammatical authority to demonstrate that the citizenship requirements in the eligibilty clause apply to the current time as opposed to the stated time of the Adoption of this Constitution, and without any evidence to demonstrate illiteracy of the Framers of the Constitution which caused a grammatical mis-statement of their true intentions, and without any evidence to show that the foreign born president occupying the office of president in the year of the writing of this Constitution was a matter of concern for the Framers of the Constitution, and for all the other reasons cited herein, this court must dismiss this action for failure to state a cause of action.

WHEREFORE Chad in AK moves this Court to enter an Order dismissing the complaint and granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable
and just under the circumstances.

Chad in AK, Defendant

[Certificate of Service]

Bob said...

anonymous --

On December 8, 1801, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Congress concerning his ideas to revise the naturalization law --

'But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us? with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the FRAUDULENT USURPATIONS OF OUR FLAG; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation being involved in war, that no endeavor should be spared to detect and supress it.'

So, to answer your complaint on punctuation, perhaps you can see the older rules of punctuation were used by the Framers, but also
also, concerning the genuine Citizen, I hope you can see that President Jefferson had the 'usurpation' of sovereignty foremost on his mind in the legislative climate of the day.

I don't expect you will accept this answer, but you cannot say that none was given to you.

anonymous said...

As an aside, HOW IRONIC that most "birthers" are voting for Mitt Romney (outsourcing corporate raider and globalist bankrolled by Goldman Sachs, and an Israeli Firster war-monger), Newt Gingrich (sociopathic scammer and liar, leaving 2 sick wives for his mistresses, and an Israeli Firster war-monger), and Barack Obama (clueless pawn and tool bankrolled by Goldman Sachs, and an Israeli Firster war-monger), and the birthers big concern is "loyalty" due to the place of a man's birth. This country is going to hell because it is occupied by fools and ignorance!

We should be educating ourselves and debating the important issues, and figuring out how our children and grandchildren are going to be able to live a better life, instead of falling for all the "Oprah" type issues put forth by the media.

Everywhere I look around me, I see foreign immigrants that can hardly speak English taking American jobs while 1/5th of our country is living off govt handouts and begging for more. I can't even find an English speaking employee at the Walmart here in Alaska. Every govt office I visit seems to be staffed by foreigners. Who are they going to vote for? Someone that is loyal to our Constitution? Haha, I don't think so. Who are all the H1 Visa and Green Carders going to vote for? Someone loyal to our Constitution? We are selling our resources and industry to foreign countries and importing all of the "tired and poor" for the stupid globalist sell-out scam that the Melting Pot makes us great. What rubbish! We think that stealing from the people with inflation to give to the rich bankers helps our economy. We are doomed because we are stupid, and we are getting more stupid by the day. We are a nation of illiterates. Please - if you don't have a firm grasp on the important issues facing this nation, DO NOT VOTE! If you care about LOYALTY TO OUR CONSTITUTION, THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR! If Ron Paul is elected as our President, then maybe we do care about loyalty to our Constitution, if not, we deserve the hell that is coming. Let's just keep spending on more wars and selling ourselves out to the "tired and poor" from foreign countries for corporate profits, so that we begin to starve. Then you will see our only "loyalty" devolve into doing *anything* it takes to keep warm and put food in our mouths, and it won't be pretty.

The total wealth of a nation is its natural resources, and once they are being exploited at full capacity (hopefully sustainably), more people only makes more poverty, and no pseudo-voodoo-economics is going to change that. We either begin to live within our means and natural bounty, and be responsible for our own lives and welfare, or we are going down hard.

anonymous said...

@MichaelN

Regarding your last post on the term "Adoption". I provided the definition. The term has 2 prongs:

"to accept formally and put into effect"

One prong is "to accept formally".
The other prong is "put into effect".

It is not a single stage process. It is a 2 stage process that is completed when the adoption is "put into effect".

Bob said...

anonymous --

I had a Congressman who wanted us back on the gold standard -- that is all that he wanted in his years in Congress and that is all that he could talk about.

You know what you can do with a pile of gold? Nothing but look at it! Or bow down and worship it.

Who has the biggest pile of gold in the world? China. Who has the biggest gold mines in the world? Russia. That kind of economics is called 'mercantilism,' and it went out the window years ago.

But it certainly inspires the greatest story-tellers.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. I don't think he knows what the Federal Reserve does, because most people don't.

Europe has the problems it has, because it does not have a Federal Reserve. But because China's currency is pegged to the U. S., China has a Federal Reserve (our Federal Reserve). Did you know that China owes the United States more that the United States owes China?

And, you know who created this interlocking debt system?

Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan held the view that nations who owe each other money do not go to war with each other.

James Carville woke up to this fact one day, and famously quipped while working in the Clinton White House that for real power, he wanted to be reincarnated as 'the bond-market.'

The 'bond market' has Europe by the short-hairs, and they do not like it.

The 'bond-market' has Obama by the short-hairs' and he does not like it. It is the only supervision he has! Imagine what he would be like without it?

I say all this, because I just would like you to know that Ron Paul does not have a clue!

But, I agree with you on one point -- most other Americans don't either.

Which is a shame, because in a true Republic with freedom of speech, fools get laughed off the stage. Right now I would say, the fools get laughed onto the stage.

That is why Commander Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo are vital, because this is one of the few places where honest disagreement can be hammered out (like it is supposed to be).

Joe said...

I thought all 3 briefs were very good. I may not know the nature of these briefs, however, to an untrained eye, Attorney Taitz's brief seemed more comprehensive.

Looking forward to this decision from the Judge.

Hope he makes a statement on nbc.

MichaelN said...

@ Anonymous

I think you are squirming, when you say this.

"And keep in mind, "at" denotes a specific point in time; not before, and not after. If the requirements were meant for all time, the prepositional phrase beginning with "at" could and would have been completely excluded.
If I say "meet me at noon", that doesn't mean meet me at 11am or 1pm. "At" always denotes a specific point in time (or a specific place)."

Then you say this when you get busted for your absurd constructions.....

"the term "Adoption". I provided the definition. The term has 2 prongs:

"to accept formally and put into effect"

One prong is "to accept formally".
The other prong is "put into effect".

It is not a single stage process. It is a 2 stage process that is completed when the adoption is "put into effect".

I won't waste anymore time with you, it seems you are in denial of what the framers actually were intending the words to mean, and all you do is re-spin when you get shown your absurd nonsense.

Coincidentally, the word verification for this here post is "sluni" ....... lol

Puzo1 said...

Anonymous,

The following will clearly show you that “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” only qualifies “citizen” and not “natural born Citizen” and that therefore after the adoption of the Constitution which includes today, one has to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President and that your are also wrong in contending that the Founders and Framers did not see the Office of President as being very important so therefore we should not fret over the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was not an ordinary delegate to the Convention. He carried with him to the Convention a set of draft provisions for the new constitution. He developed this draft through a thorough study of colonial laws and reference materials. Nearly one half (29 components out of 60) of the adopted United States Constitution follows Pinckney’s recommendations. Richart Bary, Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, Ayer Company, Publishers, Inc., Salem NH, 1942. p. 314. Charles Pinckney was also the last of the Framers of the Constitution to remain in Congress. Speaking to the Sixth Congress, on the method by which the Congress certifies election of the President, Senator Pinckney said:

March 28, 1800.

It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, the disposal of all the honors and offices of your Government, the management of your foreign concerns, and the revision of your laws. Invested with these important powers, it was easily to be seen that the honor and interest of your Government required he should execute them with firmness and impartiality . . .

***

[T]o insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . .

***
***
***
***

[F]rom our rapidly increasing strength and commerce, from the enterprise of our citizens, and our particular maritime situation as it respects the West Indies, South America, and the Powers having possessions in both, it was easily to be seen, that in any conflict between these Powers, our friendship or hospitality must be of the greatest importance; that they therefore would never cease to interfere in our politics and endeavor to direct them in the manner most suitable to their own interests; that from the difficulty of influencing so large a body as Congress, and from the immense power of the President, not only over the laws, but foreign connexions of the Union, that their principal effort would be always to have one of their own friends chosen; and to effect this, no influence would be left untried.

***

If an election is made by the Electors, and subject to no future control or revision on the part of Congress, then the end intended by the Constitution, of preventing the interference of foreign influence, is completely answered: for, elected as they are, and voting as the Electors must, the interference of foreign gold, or influence, is impossible. . . .
It is to be remembered, that around the seat of Congress will be placed all the open and accredited Ministers, as well as secret emissaries, of foreign Powers. Here too will be assembled the concealed leaders of domestic faction; all the arts and intrigues that have been used in Elective Governments in the Old World, will soon find their way among us; and if the Electors do not conceal their votes until the day appointed by law for opening them, and in case of no election by them, an immediate one by the House of Representatives does not take place, we shall soon have the scenes of Polish Diets and elections re-acted here, and in not many years the fate of Poland may be that of United America.

***

Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate (March 28, 1800), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, editor Max Farrand, edit year 1911.

Unknown said...

A couple of things: first, will the audio of your talk with Rense be available at some point. I have looked on his site without any luck. Secondly, having done some research on the citizenship of women in the 19th century I see that it is rather complicated. However, it does seem to me now that for many years after the Adoption of the Constitution anyone born in the USA was either a "natural born" citizen or an alien depending on the father's citizenship. Married women derived their citizenship from their husband. At some point, and I would guess only after the 14th Amendment, we began in this country to have persons who were born citizen but not "natural born" citizens. It is clear from the proceedings of Congress that the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with presidential qualifications. Anyone doubting what "natural born" citizen means can easily find that out now from your site and several others. Obviously many knew back in '08 what the case was and had "liberal" ideas in mind when they looked the other way. Still it does surprise me. And clearly law schools are fine about sending out degree-ed attorneys who know little about the Supreme Law of the Land!

Puzo1 said...

Anonymous @February 1, 2012 1:58 PM,

Your brief asking for dismissal of our cause of action has no merit for the following reasons:

1. Regarding your grammar argument, I have shown that it fails. "[T]o insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . ." St. George Tucker. I also have other arguments which I will reserve at this time.

2. Regarding your point that our first presidents were “foreign born,” as I have already told you, the grandfather clause allowed for that. But for after the time of adoption of the Constitution, only a “natural born Citizen” could be President.

3. Regarding your comment about people in the “highest positions in the U.S. govt” being dual citizens, our Constitution allows it. Only the President and the Vice-President have to be “natural born Citizens.”

4. Concerning your allegation that the people can pick who ever they want to be President regardless of his or her citizenship, the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, does not allow for it. The states, the Electoral College, and Congress are supposed to enforce that provision. Should they all fail in their constitutional duty to protect the People and the nation, then the critical task of doing so falls into the hands of the courts.

We have come to the end of the line with your meritless arguments and your little fun. Either you present new information or else I will no longer address your repetitive arguments.

Puzo1 said...

All Challenges to President’s Appearance on Illinois Democratic Presidential Primary are Defeated or Withdrawn

February 2nd, 2012

On February 2, all challenges to the validity of President Obama’s petition for the Illinois Democratic Party presidential primary were defeated or withdrawn. Two challenges had said President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President, but the hearing officer accepted the President’s birth certificate and did not even comment about the allegation that a “natural-born citizen” can only be someone whose parents were U.S. citizens.

The third challenge claimed that Obama’s petition did not have 3,000 valid signatures, but it was withdrawn before the merits were reached.


http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/02/all-challenges-to-presidents-appearance-on-illinois-democratic-presidential-primary-are-defeated-or-withdrawn/

anonymous said...

@Puzo1

This is from a Professor of English at the University of Iowa, which is renouned for its writing programs, responding to an inquiry of mine on the question, which follows the answer:

> It applies to both parts of the sentence. I'm not sure about the second part of your question. Is this still the way it reads today? If so, it certainly seems incorrect.

>> On Saturday, April 2, 2011 8:39AM:

>> I would like to understand this sentence. Does the "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" prepositional phrase apply to ONLY "a Citizen of the United States", or does it also apply to "a natural born Citizen" ?

>> I am thinking it applies to both. Interesting question, ha? Maybe nobody is reading this correctly!

>> I am thinking that there is NO birth/citizenship REQUIREMENTS for the Office of President at this time! They only applied at the time of Adoption ... ???

>> No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall anyperson be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

>> Thanks, Chad in Alaska

OK? And you will not find a single authority on English grammar that will disagree. There is no way to correctly read the clause and come to the conclusion that the citizenship clauses apply today.

I do not know of any case that ever allowed private personal statements to alter the meaning of what is clearly written in law.

If the law said "December 25 shall be recognized to be a federal holiday", and someone in Congress later said "We made December 24 a federal holiday", it cannot be correctly held that December 24 is a federal holiday before any justice with integrity.

Do you know of any case where statement in law was ruled to state other than what it grammatically stated? I know there have been innumerable rulings on terms, but I have never heard of a ruling that modified meaning in contradiction to the clear context in grammar.

If so, you clearly win this debate, and I don't care about the issue anymore. Or much else about law in the USA, because nothing that is written can be trusted to mean what is stated.

ps. at least I made an attempt to respond with substantive and intelligent argument, unlike most all of the other posters here, and I don't see that you gave others warnings.

anonymous said...

@Puzo1

I assume there was an error in citing 2 of the same excerpts to both Charles Pinckney and St. George Tucker:

Speaking to the Sixth Congress, on the method by which the Congress certifies election of the President, Senator Pinckney said:

March 28, 1800.

[T]o insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of
age, shall be eligible. . . .

--

Without a primary source, but taken as true, it should be noted that this is a transcription of a speech, and the punctuation is of the author's choosing.

Second, Charles Pinckney's character should be taken into account. He was vain and a well known boaster and liar, a southern man with a very rich father (from Wiki):

"Although one of the youngest delegates, he later claimed to have been the most influential one and contended he had submitted a draft, known as the Pinckney Plan, that was the basis of the final Constitution. He did submit a plan that was a more elaborate form of the Virginia Plan, submitted by Edmund Randolph, but it was disregarded by the other delegates. ... Pinckney's vanity led him to boast that he was only 24, allowing him to claim distinction as the youngest delegate. He was in fact 30 years old."

Furthermore, he engaged in deceitful actions in the authoring of the Constitution due to his favoring of slave-owners and associated disregard for taxpayers:

"At the Convention, Pierce Butler and Pinckney, both from South Carolina, introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section II, Clause III). James Wilson of Pennsylvania objected, stating it would require that state governments enforce it at taxpayers' expense. Butler withdrew the clause. However, on the next day the clause was quietly reinstated and adopted by the Convention without objection. This clause was added to the clause that provided extradition for fugitives from justice:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

This was a man that would say and do what was necessary to make his designs reality, regardless of the truth or views of others. It certainly can't be said that this mans words and deeds were necessarily trustworthy.

anonymous said...

My last comment about Pinckney also demonstrates that some things were done in the final stages of the authoring of the Consitution by sleight, and without objection, which may well have included the addition of a comma.

Puzo1 said...

Anonymous,

"[T]o insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . ."
As my first comment using this quote shows, this quote was made by Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate (March 28, 1800), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, editor Max Farrand, edit year 1911. In my second comment, I inadvertently typed St. George Tucker instead of Charles Pinckney.

I disagree with you in how you try to manipulate your way out of this incontrovertible evidence which shows that your "grammar" argument has no merit.

You said: “this is a transcription of a speech, and the punctuation is of the author's choosing.” But the quote shows that it is not only the position of a comma, but the order of the words themselves which shows that your “grammar” argument is wrong. The controlling phrase is “a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” There you have it. There is no confusion as to what “at the adoption of the Constitution” refers. It refers only to “citizen.” It does not refer to “natural born citizen.”

Your attacking Pinckney’s character does nothing to show that his "innocent" statement concerning what the clause meant is not correct or made for some nefarious motive. He surely did not know that you and I would be debating the point in 2012. Pinckney made his statement contemporaneous to his time. He had no bones to pick in making the statement. He was there, part of the Convention and signed the Constitution. He had firsthand knowledge concerning what the Founders and Framers meant when they wrote the "natural born Citizen" clause. That he later tells Congress what a clause meant in the Constitution is of great weight in interpreting that clause in 2012.

Additionally, since you insist with your "grammar" argument, I will also show you through "grammar" that your "grammar" argument has no merit. The logic of your “grammar” argument would lead us to an absurd result. If your interpretation were correct, the Founders and Framers would not have provided for any person to be eligible to be President in the future because there would be no one born after the adoption of the Constitution who was either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States" "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." This simple point shows that they did not connect “natural born Citizen” to “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” so as to allow “natural born Citizens” to be eligible after “the time of the Adoption of this Constituiton” which infortunately for Obama means today. If you are correct that there is not one authority on English grammar today that disagrees with you, our institutions of higher learning are in real big trouble.

You attack Pinckney on your petty points. Using your logic, should we simply discount William Rawle’s English “natural born subject” definition of an American “natural born citizen” because his parents were Loyalists?

See http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/makingrev/war/text7/annarawlepaloyalist.pdf.
http://www2.hsp.org/collections/manuscripts/r/rawle536.htm.

anonymous said...

@Puzo1

> If your interpretation were correct, the Founders and Framers would not have provided for any person to be eligible to be President in the future because there would be no one born after the adoption of the Constitution who was either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States" "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

For a moment, I hoped you finally and conclusively provided a good argument on the grammatical meaning/reading, because honestly, when I first looked into this issue, I assumed there was a "natural born" requirement, and assumed such to be reasonable. As I said, I only care about the truth and integrity of the issue, and otherwise don't care where the chips fall. I dislike pushing illiteracy on people as a means to an end in law.

Your argument fails because of what comes after the semicolon. Preceeding the semicolon, the requirements apply to "at the time of the Adoption", but after the semicolon, the requirements continue for whom "shall ... be eligible to that Office ..." and apply for all time:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

-> neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

English grammar operates by a set of well defined rules, and though the result may be ambiguous when careless, laws are written to avoid ambiguity, especially regarding grammar. I have never seen a case that allowed the judicial branch to modify grammar in justification of intent. Terms yes, grammar no.

As the Supreme Court has explained: "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others ... [C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: "judicial inquiry is complete." Id. "Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another." Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991). Every question of statutory interpretation starts with the language of the statute. "The primary indication of [Congress'] intent is the language of the statute." United States v. Aguilar, 21 F.3d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir. 1994). When Congress enumerates an exception or exceptions to a rule, we can infer that no other exceptions apply. Koniag v. Koncor Forest Resource, 39 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 1994). When Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill, but deletes it prior to enactment, we presume that the limitation was not intended. Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24 (1983). Prohibition against construing statutes so as to render any of their provisions superfluous. See Boise Cascade Corp. v. EPA, 942 F.2d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991). Courts begin "with the fundamental premise that the objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent." (Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562). To discover that intent we first look first to the words of the statute, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. (Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738, 744; DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601.) "Where the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history." (Burden v. Snowden, supra, 2 Cal.4th 556, 562).

Puzo1 said...

Anonymous,

Your citing and quoting case law on statutory interpretation and construction without applying it properly is not impressive. If you are going to make a convincing legal argument, you just cannot cut and paste a bunch of rules and let them just hang there on the “paper” without making them come to life by way of insightful application of those rules to the given facts. So, your citation of various cases on statutory construction without more does not prove your “grammar” argument.

You maintain that with the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Founders and Framers only sought to require that a would-be President be either a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States” “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” and made no requirement that one possess either of the two statuses after that time period. You add that today, since we live after the adoption of the Constitution, a would-be President does not have to be either. Hence, you conclude that as there is no “Citizen of the United States” requirement today, so there is no “natural born Citizen” requirement either. What necessarily follows from your argument is that one can even be an alien today and be eligible to be President. I have shown you that with your reading of the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Founders and Framers would not have provided for any person to be eligible to be President in the future because there would be no one born after the adoption of the Constitution who was either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States" "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Now you concede that I have finally given you the winning argument if it were not for you your last attempt with the semicolon.

But your point about the semicolon does not save you. It makes my argument not yours. It shows that the Founders and Framers expected someone to be eligible to be President for as you say “all time.” So, how could they have created an eligibility standard that would not have allowed them to accomplish that? Yet now you tell me that they expected the office to be filled for “all time.” You just cannot have it both ways. Check mate.

There is also another reason why your argument must fail. Article I, Section 2 and 3 provides that a Representative and Senator, among other things, only need to be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 7 and 9 years, respectively, in order to qualify for the position. Unlike Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the provision does not mention anything about “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Having to be at least a “Citizen of the United States, aliens are not eligible for the offices. Accepting your argument would lead one to unwittingly accept the proposition that a Representative and Senator, a person with less power and authority and part of a collegial body, has to be a "Citizen of the United States," but a President, a person with great singular civil and military power, can be an alien. Now that makes no sense as much as all the rest of your arguments.

We are at the end with your “grammar” argument. You surely have not convinced me of your position, if you really ever had any such position. Rather, you probably just wanted to have a little fun here with your “grammar” thing. I went along with you because there is always learning to be had, even when someone is pulling your leg.

Unknown said...

Hi--I have left two comments so far. Neither has been cleared. Obviously there is a problem. I have checked your rules and do not see how I have in any way violated them. I am very interested in the topic and have followed it for years. I am especially interested in the psychology of those persons who can not seem to grasp what is really very obvious and simple. And what this means about the USA at this time. However, I see this as complimentary to the topic. After all apart from those who know you and others are right and persist for selfish reasons in denying the facts and the truth, there appear to be many others who are well educated and still can not bring themselves to accept that natural born citizen is barely obscure. I suspect they are rebelling against what they perceive to be an antiquated attitude. And they are quite wrong. I hope you will let me know what if anything is wrong with my comments: too long, off topic, etc. Thanks.

Unknown said...

Oliver Sachs, the famous neurologist, in one of his entertaining books talks about a condition that leaves the person without intuition or feeling regarding what is written or said and forces them to rely entirely on the words. Apparently a condition resembling this brain injury can be simulated by a too great concern with grammar. This would make for an interesting research project for a psychology graduate student.
Obviously for those unafflicted with either the damaged brain or excessive involvement with grammar the important clause discussed can be easily understood and properly so! I have no doubt the Dr. Sachs could supply us with a humorous name for this non-disease condition that creates excessive grammar neurosis.

thalightguy said...

The opinion is in and the Georgia court has ruled the Usurper eligible.

Maybe someone can explain how dicta from a state court can supercede precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Another corrupt judge (judge Malihi in the Georgia case against Obama) who has been very likely bought in some ways!! Either threatened or convinced or whatever you would like to call such a complete change of behavior!!!

Read "Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot" at http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/judge-says-obama-can-be-on-georgia-ballot/

The American judicial system is nothing less than disgusting and that is a nice word to characterize it!!

Obama could hide vital facts related to his eligibility and never be asked to show documents to check these vital facts!!

Joe said...

I have not read the decision cause I am so disappointed.

However, it seems that a full discussion on why jus sanguis is important and the Indiana ruling needs to be done.

Mario is there anyway you could do that for us?

It would be so nice if we can get all these arguments in one place. Arguing jus soil is enough needs to be countered with as much evidence as possible.

Kat7 said...

@unknown I don't believe you have violated any rules for this blog.

I too was wondering about the grammar logic or no logic driving anonymous.

The loop he/she got caught in is amazing to behold.

I admire Mr. Apuzzo for trying to set this clearly addled person straight. The process looks daunting and in the end impossible.

Funny that I too was wondering if this was a true brain malfunction or someone just trying to play stupid as a joke.

anonymous said...

What is really funny is this: the Executive branch is responsible for carrying out the law, and it is their choice of whether to do so or not. Judicial determinations mean nothing if the Executive determinations are in opposition. This entire matter is such a fraud. Do you think Obama is going to arrest himself? Mooo ... Mooo ...

Puzo1 said...

For those who want to hear Jeff Rense and Mario Apuzzo on the Jeff Rense Radio Show, recorded on Monday, January 30, 2012, you may do so by going here:

http://dprogram.net/2012/02/04/jeff-rense-with-mario-apuzzo-is-obama-coming-unraveled/