Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter is having some fun educating Mario, in a hilarious manner, about syllogisms and their value in arguments.
While Mario’s ideas have gathered no relevant acceptance beyond his own blog, and in fact where mostly rejected by the Courts in US v Wong Kim Ark and in Re: Wong Kim Ark, and other court rulings, it’s fascinating to see how Mario uses logical fallacies to support his position.
Do not fail to also read her other articles such as this one
In her Squeeky style show observes How Apuzzo:
Once again he dives head first into a four inch deep pool of Aristotelian Logic to critique one, Bob Quasius of Cafe Con Leche Republicans
and then continues to outline the fallacies in Mario’s claim
The purpose of this article is not to discuss all that is substantively incorrect with Apuzzo’s argument. I will save that for a future post. To show the problems with his logic it is only necessary to lift the legal covers enough to properly frame the issue. Since Poor Mario spends a lot of time jumping up and down about an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, let’s use it to set the stage:
Never miss a posting at Squeeky Fromm’s blog…
I always thought it to be hilarious how Mario lost his arguments to a recent female graduate from law school… Seems that he cannot earn himself the respect he so desperately seems to crave.
Mario is still trying to ignore his position has not long since been rejected. But I believe that for the wrong reasons, he still reaches a valid conclusion about the eligibility of Ted Cruz.
Still unfamiliar with the Common Law, Mario argues
A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”).
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.