Tag Archives: 14th amendment

Kangaroos On Mars!!! Are They Naturally Born???

Captain-Kangaroo-cast-jpg_172503

The Crew Of The Ten Year Long Mars Explorer Mission Weren’t Sure How Their Kids Would Be Received Back On Earth

Adrian Nash, of the h2ooflife Blog, and frequent commenter here, has written a new post, and here are a few excerpts:

Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born.  It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.

An example is the Kangaroo.  Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia?  But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right? That couldn’t be more absurd.  Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents.  Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant.  But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.

If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth?  Would they be natural born Earthlings?  Would they be natural born humans?  Would they be natural born Americans?  Or something else…-something different?

Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child.  His father was not a North American.  He was not an American citizen.  He was not an America immigrant.  He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.

If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else?  According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.

Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law.  All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/martians-koreans-natural-citizens/

What Mr. Nash argues for is a more logical basis for citizenship than place of birth.  That isn’t necessarily a bad argument, but it is simply not the current state of American law. Almost two years ago I wrote a post which directly addressed this point and which cited an 1898 American Law Review article written shortly after the Wong Kim Ark case was decided. To make it easier to copy and paste,  I have transcribed most of page 8 into text:

But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.

It was only an eight page article, and it is reproduced in image form here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/

The author of that article, Marshall B. Woodworth, actually agreed with Mr. Nash that using parentage was preferable to using place of birth. However, unlike Mr. Nash and all the other two citizen parent Birthers, Woodworth also recognized the actual state of the law. And, in these lines from above,

the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

Woodworth also recognized that common law controlled the question, not something like Vattel’s The Law of Nations. And what was that common law??? From Wong Kim Ark:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Nothing there about any two-citizen parents requirement. Which all leads back to questions I once posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Why don’t you just admit that Obama was and is legally eligible for the office? Why don’t you just admit that there currently is no two-citizen parent requirement? Then, why don’t you work to change the law?

I submit the same questions to Mr. Nash.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the cast of Captain Kangaroo, about which Wiki says:

Captain Kangaroo was an American children’s television series which aired weekday mornings on the American television network CBS for nearly 30 years, from October 3, 1955 until December 8, 1984, making it the longest-running nationally broadcast children’s television program of its day. In 1986, the American Program Service (now American Public Television, Boston) integrated some newly produced segments into reruns of past episodes, distributing the newer version of the series until 1993.

The show was conceived and the title character played by Bob Keeshan, who based the show on “the warm relationship between grandparents and children.” Keeshan had portrayed the original Clarabell the Clown on The Howdy Doody Show when it aired on NBC. Captain Kangaroo had a loose structure, built around life in the “Treasure House” where the Captain (the name “kangaroo” came from the big pockets in his coat) would tell stories, meet guests, and indulge in silly stunts with regular characters, both humans and puppets.

This show was before my time, but I think I must have had some videotapes, because the Dancing Bear really seems familiar. And for all the Birthers, I present:

Note 2. The Image Easter Egg. For ESLs, Mr. Green Jeans was a regular character on the show, and Martians are often presented as Little Green Men, sooo it was just a silly word play about the alleged Martian children in the Image.


Affirm Foundation!!! (Or, Twisting Judge Sullivan’s Opinion)

Of Corset Didn’t Add Anything To What Was Already There, But It Did Make Things More Secure

Well, ObamaReleaseYourRecords is at it again. Here’s another deceptive post:

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment

Abdul Karim Hassan vs FEC – Court Opinion – District Court for the District of Columbia – 10/1/2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

“Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/10/judge-sullivan-rules-14th-did-not-repeal-article-ii.html

The Birther take on this that YIPPEE, SEE ARTICLE II STILL APPLIES!!! THE !$TH AMENDMENT DIDN’T CHANGE THINGS AFTER ALL!!! Well, nobody on this side ever said Article II didn’t apply. It is the Birthers who either can’t, or won’t, understand the underlying concepts. The simple fact is that far from NOT REPEALING the natural born citizenship requirement for the Presidency, the 14th Amendment actively  AFFIRMED the common law concept of birthright citizenship, also known as natural born citizenship. From the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark (1898), near the bottom of Section V:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory,[wild Indian exception omitted.]

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

and, this case cited with approval by the Wong Kim Ark Court:

“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.”

What the heck is sooo darn hard about that??? If you are born here, you are “in the allegiance” of the United States regardless of the citizenship of your parents. If you are born here in the allegiance, or under the jurisdiction of the United States, then you are a natural born citizen. Period. End of story. From WKA:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Paraphrasing ORYR’s favorite quote, the only people who don’t get this, are people  who don’t want to get it. The Birthers have been lying and dissembling about this simple legal fact for 4 years. It started with Ankeny in Indiana back in 2008.

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that

[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a  “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.

No, there wasn’t a difference. Something like 7 or 8 subsequent courts have held the same thing. Sooo, of course the 14th Amendment didn’t overturn the  Article II Presidential requirement. It was way too busy affirming the underlying common law concept of natural born citizenship..

The Birthers should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to lie and dissemble about this.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Scarlet O’Hara and Mammy from the 1939 film, Gone With The Wind.

Wiki has a great Internet Article on corsets, a foundation garment, which includes Images. This one is from 1898, the same year as Wong Kim Ark!

Wie die Pariserin ihr Haar ordnet  (1898 Das Album)

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

Note 2. Pdf. Here is a pdf of Sullivan’s order. See pages 15 through 18:

Abdul-Karim-Hassan-vs-FEC-Court-Opinion-District-Court-for-the-District-of-Columbia-10-1-2012


The “Two Citizen Parents” Requirement??? Oh Yeah, The Birthers Built That!!!

Aha! The Birthers Were Privy To Secret Information After All!

Well, I am not above ripping off the “You Didn’t Build That-Yes I Did Too Build That” partisan squabble theme.  Sooo, lets look at the Imaginary Law that the Birthers built, all by themselves.  Now we could do this by reading Wong Kim Ark (1998) and then Ankeny (2009) and so forth and so on, and prove the Birthers entire theory is not based in REAL law, and thus by that process infer that their theory is totally manufactured.

But it would be far more fun to take the Birthers’ own thought processes and examine how they go astray from their end. Thankfully, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  is on retainer with the Birther Dreamwerks, so we won’t have to look far. Plus,  he is an Article II Constitutional specialist on this stuff, in much the same way as Lem Putt is a specialist in his chosen field. (see Note 2, below).

Here is what I found at Apuzzo’s blog, and with this one six-sentence  paragraph we can see where the Birthers derive their weird beliefs and why judges equip their bailiffs with butterfly nets whenever the Birthers come to visit:

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Here is a link, in case you want to read the whole thing:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/08/barack-obama-ballot-challenge.html

Now, let’s examine this sentence by sentence to see how Apuzzo ending up constructing the ramshackle hovel of his theory.

Sentence 1: The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Well, this is true. No problem so far.

Sentence 2: It [14th Amendment] does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”

Whoops! @#%!!&**#. Mario just whacked the crap out  his thumb with the hammer. Apuzzo is making a conclusion here. This was a FALSE assumption on his part. Because when you refer to the SCOTUS case, Wong Kim Ark (1898), section V., you find this:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

From sections II and III of the Wong Kim Ark decision, we know that “fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion” was also known as NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Further down in section III, we find this put even more succinctly:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

So Mario Apuzzo Esq. is simply, and badly, wrong. By the clear holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court, the 14th Amendment DID INDEED give those born within the country, and not subject to the two exceptions, “the status of a “natural born Citizen.” This fundamental mistake is where the Birthers first start to go off course.

Sentence 3: When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.

This is true. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1868.

Sentence 4: Hence, they surely did not write the clause [natural born citizen] into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also true, because the Constitution came first by about 80 years.  But, that does not mean that the opposite is also true.  In fact, it is very possible for the 14th Amendment coming 80 years later to  “have in mind a citizenship standard that is contained in the Constitution.”  Repeating again the introduction to section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Did you get that Mario??? Both the 14th Amendment, and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866, affirmed the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion. This was the common law on natural born citizenship. For, as is stated further down in Section V, and cited with approval:

In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.

2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394.

and here is more from section V, which proves the 14th Amendment was declaratory of pre-existing law, that is – the common law relating to natural born citizenship, [cites omitted]:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

And what was that common law they were referring to? One more time for the slow:

[E]very child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

So no, Article II of the Constitution did not contemplate the 14th Amendment, but the 14th Amendment sure contemplated the Article II common law on natural born citizenship.

Sentence 5: And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Very true. The 14th Amendment did NOT repeal or amend the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. That is because the 14th Amendment actually AFFIRMED the Article II natural born Citizen. From the bottom of section V of Wong Kim Ark:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory. . .

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject. . .

Sentence 6: Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

No they don’t. For persons born within the United States, they are the same thing. Which is what court after court keeps telling the Birthers. Those courts either cite the same things from Wong Kim Ark, that I have, or they simply cite the reasoning in the Ankeny decision, which in turn is based on WKA, as persuasive.

You see, the courts aren’t looking to play devious little word games which back up their personal desires. They are just courts, and judges, who read the law and try in an honest fashion to figure out what it means. In their simple and naive fashion,  the judges and courts think that:

1. The common law concept that persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

and:

2. The 14th Amendment provision bestowing citizenship on persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

are:

3. Talking about the same group of people – native born citizens, or citizens at birth, or natural born citizens.

They think this because the same requirements are met by both groups, to wit:. . . born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers. In fact, for this NOT to be true, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. would have to amend his 5th sentence above to read the reverse of what it does:

The Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Because if 14th Amendment didn’t repeal or amend the previous common law, then those  born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers are the same people, no matter which law you use. In effect, Apuzzo’s own assumptions and reasoning destroys his own argument.

This has been a step by step analysis of how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ended up in legal La La Land.  This is how he ends up believing Emerich de Vattel sets the standard for natural born citizenship. This is how Apuzzo latches on the the two citizen parents stuff, because that notion is nowhere to be found in the 14th Amendment. It isn’t found in the Constitution either, but since the term isn’t defined there, it is easier to play games with. But first, Apuzzo has to get rid of the pesky 14th Amendment or his other tenets  can go nowhere.

But, as you can see above,  Apuzzo went astray in his reasoning early on. And it is obvious to the non-Birther community. This is why the Birther mantra, “there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen” keeps getting bounced out of courtrooms across the nation.  This is why the Apuzzites are getting assessed court costs, and  having their arguments called frivolous, and without merit.

Apuzzo can not even maintain internal consistency in his own argument. Sooo, with the image above in mind, people should be careful about entering his sanctuary. You might fall in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I found this image (An outhouse at Goat Peak, 6,305 ft (1,922 m) above sea level) at Wiki, which has many interesting things to say about Outhouses:

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

Note 2. Lem Putt, The Specialist.  My father had a copy of this book.  Here is a online link to the short 1929 book:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/specialist.html

Note 3.  Privy. For ESL’s, this word has two meanings:

1. outhouse: a small outbuilding with a bench having holes through which a user can defecate

2. privy(p): (followed by `to’) informed about something secret or not generally known; “privy to the details of the conspiracy”

Reader hklrnaa47 has provided this additional information about the etymology of these two definitions in the comments below. I am updating this note to add this. Thank You hklrnaa47!!!

Hi Squeeks. Your 2 part definition of the word ‘privy’ doesn’t actually explain how the same word gained those 2 definitions.

In fact ‘privy’ is a very old word having to do with toilet and the location of emptying ones bowels. Once upon a time, Kings, being special people and all, were provided with special servants, called ‘Privy Counselors’ whose job it was, quite literally, to wipe the Kings ass.

As you can imagine, someone entrusted with this rather intimate access to the Kings person had to be completely trustworthy and dependable. They would grow, over time, to do more than just help with the Kings movements, they would be entrusted with secrets of all kinds.

Thus definition number two.

For the Image Easter Egg. Another word play. Going over the edge is an idiom which means to go crazy. However, the word “going” or “go” (which also means to use the restroom) combined with a privy perched on the edge of a cliff,  and presumably emptying  out over said edge, means something else entirely.


Yukon Jerk Says “Mush!!!” (or, The Best Dang Birther Lawsuit EVAH!!!)

Luckily For Gordon, The Odor From Inside His Igloo Knocked The Mighty Ursus Maritimus Out Cold

While some are calling him a racist, I believe that Birther Gordon Epperly, aka The Sage of Swampy Acres, has filed the Best Dang Birther Lawsuit EVAH!!! Here is a pdf of it, right straight from the Silly Sovereign Sitizen website – USA - The Republic. (I call them Sitizens because of their propensity to sit at their keyboards and burn them up writing  silly legal treatises, penning letters of outrage to editors,  and filing numerous silly lawsuits. Plus, they so often seem to lack standing.):

Pure Alaskan Mush

No doubt part of his success is due to his rare ability among Birthers to actually learn from his past judicial failures. For Epperly once (1991) believed that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, and therefore he and his family were not U.S. Citizens. And therefore not liable to pay income taxes??? See here:

http://www.14th-amendment.com/Court_Documents/Case_No._J90-010-CV/Court/Court_Order_Dismissal_of_Case.pdf

But, for this new lawsuit Epperly has realized that he was wrong. Obama, as a Negro or Mulatto, is definitely covered by the 14th Amendment. I am still a little confused, The USA – The Republic Website still hawks the “14th Amendment never ratified” silliness. Oh, maybe the 14th Amendment only applies to negroes and mulattos???  Hmmm, could be. I have encountered that argument before when debating Birthers. Oh, and there is this little tidbit from The Atlantic:

But to hear many of 21stCentury’s far-right “constitutionalists” tell the American story, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t exist. Or, at least, not as something that affects the way we live today.

These people are what I call “Fourteenth Amendment deniers.” Their radical right-wing agenda is much more attainable if the values of human equality, and basic civil and political rights, are read out of the document.  So, like Sgt. Schutz in Hogan’s Heroes, they look at the text and see “nothing — nothing!”

The most radical of them simply proclaim that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t count; it wasn’t validly adopted. Southern Senators and Representatives weren’t seated in the Congress that proposed it at the end of the Civil War, they argue, so that body was illegitimate.  In 1957, with the prospect of school desegregation staring it in its all-white face, the Georgia State Legislature went so far as to pass a resolution  declaring that “the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect.”

This old white-supremacist myth lives on, but only in the remote hills and hollers where militiamen mingle with men in sheets.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/constitutional-myth-8-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-exist/241858/

Maybe that is it.  We will probably have to wait for Epperly’s Brief Opposing Motion For Summary Judgment to see how he handles that.  But I digress. From the above copy of the Complaint, you will see this Birther lawsuit has almost everything it it.  Some Minor v. Happersett stuff,  some two citizen parent stuff, some 14th Amendment stuff, AND Epperly even addresses the Ankeny case, to try to head off the response that he knows is coming. Yes, Epperly is a step ahead of the other Birthers who just keeping filing the same old losing case over and over.

There is even a little hint of SEX in his Complaint. Epperly keeps reminding us that it takes more than one person to make a baby by underlining  “s” in citizens and adding the word plural in red. Because you know, a beast with one back just ain’t gonna cut it. Plus, we get the negro and mulatto stuff in this suit.  The other Birthers have kept that belief kind of sub rosa, which I think is Mexican for “under the sheets.”   Probably white ones.  However, Epperly boldly addresses that issue head on and even gets a Rictal Scale point for citing the Dred Scott decision in the process.

But Epperly may have unwittingly laid a snare for future Birthers, because what about Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal??? They are neither negro nor mulatto. Does the 14th Amendment apply to them???  Maybe Epperly will cite Wong Kim Ark for the propsition that Indians were not natural born??? That will take care of Jindal.  But Rubio??? Hmmm. Maybe Epperly will find a Spanish Armada exception to Calvin’s Case or maybe the 1856 Paris Declaration which forbids Letters Mark???

Because if he can’t use those letters, M, A, R,and K, then Mark Rubio can’t get on the ballot.  Hmmm, maybe he could be, ubio, or  John Doe ubio, or maybe  XXXX  Xubio ???  That is even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and would pull in The Law of Nations and oh. . .  Let me stop.  This is over my head.  These are deep and profound Birther questions. I am sure Apuzzo and Donofrio will explain this all to us.

I will have to check in on The Sage of Swampy Acres from time to time and see how he handles this. If you want to read some of the goofiness at what I am guessing is his website:

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Yukon Jerk. A wordplay on one of my favorite drinks, Yukon Jack. Wiki says( And I can vouch for this!):

Yukon Jack is a honey-based Canadian whiskey advertised as the “Black sheep of Canadian Liquors”. It is a 100 proof (in USA) or 80 proof (in Canada) drink.Yukon Jack is produced by Heublein Inc. In 1987 Heublein Inc. was bought out by Diageo. Yukon Jack is made in Valleyfield, Quebec. Bottles available for sale in the US are imported and then bottled in Hartford, Connecticut.

The taste is sweeter than comparable American whiskeys drawing from the honey it is brewed with but then has a rougher bite than say Jack Daniels. It also has the distinctive taste of horehound.

“Yukon Jack is a taste born of hoary nights, when lonely men struggled to keep their fires lit and cabins warm. Boldly flavorful yet surprisingly smooth, there is no spirit like Yukon Jack”

Which the tagline on the label also explains the Easter Egg in the Image. This is a really good drink, but you have to be careful because a few straight shots and your lips get all wobbly. But it is a lot easier to drink than Jack Daniels, and for some reason, you don’t get as belligerent if you overdo it. Or so I am told. . .

Note 2. Mush.

Noun:
1. A soft, wet, pulpy mass.
2. A journey across snow with a dogsled.

Verb:
1. Reduce (a substance) to a soft, wet, pulpy mass.
2. Go on a journey across snow with a dogsled.

Exclamation:
A command urging on dogs during such a journey.

Synonyms:
mash – gruel – pulp

Note 3. Letters Mark. Oh, just a wordplay on Letters Marque about which Wiki says:

In the days of fighting sail, a Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government licence authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled. The French used the term lettre de course for their letters of marque, giving rise to the term corsair.


Vattel Birthers – The Moron Militia In Sheep’s Clothing???

There Is A Good Reason They Don't Put Wolves In Petting Zoos

Ever since I did the Internet Article here about Pseudo-Lawyers, I have been reading up on the Idiot Legal Arguments at a place called the ADL.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss2.asp#preamble

I downloaded 127 pages of one article, and there is a whole section on “Quibbling about 14th Amendment or Preamble Citizenship” , which the link to that part is right above and it is a lot less pages than 127, thankfully. Here is the basic thrust of the Militia argument:

Note: The militia myth is that the Fourteenth Amendment created a distinct category of citizen, distinct from native born white militia members, consisting of non-whites and immigrants – and later women, so that the American population is divided between “preamble citizens” who are citizens of individual states but not necessarily citizens of the US nor subject to federal law, and “14th Amendment citizens” who are covered by federal law and who may not have the inherent righits.  This myth is discussed in Koniak, When Law Risks Madness, 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 65 (1996), which also covers some other militia-type notions.

I could not help but notice the similarity between that argument and the Vattel Birther argument from 2009 in the Ankeny vs. Governor case:

“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a  “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23.

And, to that same argument as articulated by Mario Apuzzo, Esq., a lawyer, in October 2011:

Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference between an Article II “natural born” Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory “born” Citizen, we hardly saw the clause “natural born” Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a “Citizen” of the United States or a “native-born citizen,” whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act.

This is just TOTALLY wrong because wiki, and my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq.,  says that when something in common law gets enacted, then you have to go to whatever was enacted because that is now the law.  Plus, there is this, which is a case that I found all by myself!!! It is Ex Parte Chin King in 1888:

By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen there­of, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen.

THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND. [The United States Constitution] The fourteenth amendment declares : 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.’

Which is pretty clear that any common law before 1868 on the issue of natural born citizenship got incorporated into the 14th Amendment. Which I have pointed out numerous times, the Wong Kim Ark judges came right out and said:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens,

“What is sooo hard for Vattle Birthers and Mario Apuzzo, Esq., to understand about that??? Question: What do they think the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth was??? Answer, from the Wong Kim Ark judges:

 It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance [ ] and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

Duh!!! Why can’t the Vattle Birthers and Mario Apuzzo, Esq. understand that???  Three centuries in England, and America until 1898 – - -add another century plus a little to get to 2011- – - makes a little over four centuries, now. My bet is they don’t understand it because they just don’t want to.

I am still investigating and studying this link between the Idiot Legal Arguments of the Militia Movement and the Idiot Legal Arguments of the Vattle Birthers (my sarcastic name for the Vattel Birthers), but this obvious similarity between them concerning whether the 14th Amendment replaces the common law on an issue is very troubling.  I have been debating with one Vattle Birther who comes right out and claims that the 14th Amendment does not apply to people who are born in the United States of two citizen parents. For real!!! it looks like fro what he posts, he came to that conclusion through the two-citizen parent Birther’s silly arguments. I am writing this Internet Article so that other people will be aware of this possible parallel thinking, and maybe start doing their own research into it, too.

I am from Texas, sooo people having guns and stuff does not scare me.  I have some!!! And a machete!!! (My father still has to show me how to load and use the shotgun, but I could sure hit somebody over the head with it. LOL!!!) And who knows, but one day we will need militias.  But there is a difference between preparing to defend yourself, in case civilization breaks down, or there is a Zombie Attack (LOL!!!) and going off like a idiot to court with a bunch of stupid legal theories where you have just ignored the simple law on stuff.

Plus, my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. , a lawyer, is getting me a copy of the  thingy by Koniak, When Law Risks Madness, 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 65 (1996).

Sooo, look for more Internet Articles on this exciting subject!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers