Punking the Puz'

I have been having some good time with Mario Apuzzo, whose musings where referred to by Judges as ‘lacking in merit’ and ‘academic only’.

It all started when I outlined how the appealing attorney had positioned the cause in error as “Did the lower court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen?”. Mario responded claiming that I was making things up and that the term natural born was not even used in the lower Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark… Little did he know that I had transcribed the ruling in 2009 and placed it on my blog.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 10, 2012 at 6:58 pm  (Quote) #

nbc: The Court in WKA by any credible interpretation did in fact rule that WKA was natural born. Even the dissenting judge understood. But you ignore the fact that the appealing attorney, who raised many of the same arguments you have raised, understood that the issue at hand was “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”. Anyone in those days understood that native birth citizenship would render one a natural born. What they were trying to argue is that he was not born under jurisdiction. Another failure.Come on Mario… THis is just getting too easy.

Come on nbc, you are just making stuff up about what the lower court held in Wong Kim Ark. There is not one word about “natural born” or “natural born Citizen” in the lower court in Wong Kim Ark.

So I replied:

And yet, the appealing attorney presented the issue of error as such. He understood that the lower court’s ruling effectively had declared WKA a NBC.

As to your statement about the lower court, I assume you have never read it?

“The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Citing Lynch v Clarke

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general. understanding of. the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind

Fail again. Really Mario, you should read these rulings. Both the lower court and the Supreme Court ruling put to rest any of your follies.

Oh, the court also denied your position;

The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

ROTFL…

Source: In re WONG KIM ARK (District Court, N. D. California. January 3, 1896.) No. 11,198.

Like taking candy from a baby… Only much more satisfying given Mario’s insistance that his ‘arguments’ clearly show how all the 8 or so courts/hearings in which they ruled against Mario’s position somehow should be taken seriously…

More about his self-contradictory position later.

The statement

The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)

and

The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

 

About these ads