Attorney Mario Apuzzo, one of the world’s leading experts on natural born Citizenship, responds to Obot John Wooden, not because of anything credible that Wooden produced, but because Obots spam this stuff all over and unaware people might be deceived by it …
Here is my response to this nagging Obot which I posted at my blog:
- Puzo1 said…
- Responding to John Woodman’s article: John Woodman provides no evidence that supports his position that a “natural born citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to alien parents. Here are the sources that he cites:
(1) Lynch v. Clark. But this is a New York state case that was so badly decided that the New York State Legislature overruled it. Lynch provides no American sources that support its position.
(2) Wong Kim Ark. But the holding of Wong Kim Ark only defines a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
(3) Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. I have already shown in the main article here how poorly this case was decided and how it misapplied Wong, saying that Wong’s holding defined a “natural born Citizen.”
(4) Tisdale v. Obama. This decision consists of an Order of 2 and ½ pages, a good part of which addresses the standard to be applied on a motion to dismiss and for the pro se plaintiff to qualify as a pauper. Woodman fails to tell us that the court cited Wong Kim Ark to support its statement: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” Again, Wong’s holding is not about a “natural born Citizen” so I have no idea how the court finds what is says to be “well settled.” Tisdale did not engage in any reasoned and thoughtful legal and historical analysis of the “natural born Citizen” issue. Furthermore, none of the other cases cited by the Tisdale court support its position that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.
Note that Woodman provides us with no historical sources from the Founding that support his position.
Running out of authorities for his position, Woodman then tries to prove his point with poor logic. Here is John Woodman trying to convince us that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is the equivalent of an Article II “natural born citizen.” Woodman says in his cited article: “No court has ever held that the 14th Amendment, in calling people born in the United States ‘citizens,’ meant that it intended in any way to exclude any such persons from being ‘natural born’” (emphasis in the original).
This is what Woodman is saying with this statement: Because no court ever said that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is excluded as being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” no such court ever intended to do so. Hence, a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is included as an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
You know that people like Woodman are really desperate when they attempt to prove that a court included a person in its definition of a term only because it did not expressly exclude that person from that definition. Here is Woodman’s logic seen more plainly: I like pizza. I did not say I do not like ice cream. Therefore, I also like ice cream.
To bad that Woodman does not provide us with some real evidence of his position other than trying to prove his point with cases that do not help him and with little word games that make no logical sense.
February 10, 2012 7:47 PM
-- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831 Phone: (732) 521-1900 Fax: (732) 521-3906 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org West New York Office: 439 60th Street Suite 201 West New York, New Jersey 07093 Phone: 201-758-7221 Fax: 201-758-7223 Email: email@example.com
On 2/10/2012 8:55 PM, Sam Sewell wrote:
And the other guy said:
Comment from my blog.
From: John Woodman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 8:34 PM
Subject: [The Steady Drip] New comment on Plaintiff in Georgia case – Carl Swensson makes a ….
John Woodman has left a new comment on your post “Plaintiff in Georgia case – Carl Swensson makes a …“:
Mr. Swensson’s case does not stand the slightest chance of success, for the simple reason that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled against the “two-citizen-parents-required” theory.
Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have misled literally millions of Americans regarding the meaning of natural born citizen. As I have gone into in some detail at my blog, their two main points — that Minor v. Happersett supposedly created a “binding precedent” as to who was a “natural born citizen,” and that US v. Wong Kim Ark supposedly did not, are both false.
I have also demonstrated at my blog why this is the case. I recommend you read “Why the Birthers Lost,” including all comments, and the following post, “An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo.”
Mr. Obama, born in Hawaii, is constitutionally eligible. More to the point, for conservatives: Marco Rubio is constitutionally eligible. And so is Bobby Jindal.
Posted by John Woodman to The Steady Drip at February 10, 2012 8:34 PM