Mars Needs Vattel Birthers!!! (Do YOU Have What It Takes???)

The Vattle Birthers Were Delighted to Learn That For A Small Fee, Anybody Could Be A Lawyer On Mars!!!

Because there is little oxygen in the atmosphere of Mars, experience has shown those applicants with the most cranial atrophy, are least affected by oxygen deprivation. The  purpose of this Test is to see if YOU have what it takes to be a Martian Settler!!!

Question 1: When a court says there are doubts about an issue, and says it does  NOT (Hint!) need to address those doubts in THIS particular case, it means:

a) The court did NOT make a ruling on that issue.

b)Yippee We Win!!! The Court Decided That Issue In Our Favor!!!

c) It depends on the meaning of the word “NOT

d) Is this a “Trick Question”???

Question 2: When a court says there are only TWO  (Hint!) sources of citizenship, birth and naturalization, that means there are:

a) Only Two kinds of Citizen.

b) Three Kinds of Citizen.

c) Seventeen Kinds???

d) God does not mean for mere humans to possess this kind of knowledge.

Question 3: If a court  makes a ruling in 1898 on an issue, then to overturn that decision requires:

a) A case in the same or higher court AFTER that decision.

b) Any old case that is EARLIER than that decision if it says what I like!!!

c) A legal dictionary I bought at a garage sale.

d) Emerich de Vattel.

e) George Washington’s library card.

f) Is this in human or dog years???

g) Any of the above except “a”.

Question 4: In the year 2011, issues of citizenship in the United States of America (Hint!) are decided by reference to:

a) American law.

b) British law.

c) Kenyan law.

d) Emerich de Vattel.

e) Vive le Roi! The Ancien Law of France!!!

f) It’s complicated.

Question 5: When a court says “ALL persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens, ” the word ALL (Hint!) means:

a) ALL of them.

b) Some of them.

c) Yeah, what Emerich de Vattel said.

d) Voulezvous coucher avec moi (ce soir)?

Question 6:  When a court says: “the law of England for the last three centuries [is], aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance . . .of the English sovereign; . . . and therefore, every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject. . .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” . . .means:

a) Children born to aliens in the United States in 1961 are within the allegiance of the United States.

b) Children born to aliens in the United States in 1961 are within the allegiance of England???

c) Whatever Emerich de Vattel says.

d) Aliens aren’t from here, are they???

e) I’m confused??? The law doesn’t seem to care WHERE their parents are from???

f) What are you,  a Communist or something???

Bonus Question: If the law says,   “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, [two exceptions omitted]. . .AND the law also says “ALL persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens, “ then:

a) ALL children born in the United states, including children born of resident aliens, are born in the allegiance of the United States and therefore, are natural born citizens.

b) The 14th Amendment only applies to foreigners and the children of foreigners, not to people born here of citizen parents.

c) I don’t like where this is leading and I want to go back to Emerich de Vattel!!!

d) Can’t I get a trophy for just participating???

To score the test,  simply list the alphabetical answer and score 1 point for all “a” answers, 2 points for all “b” answers, 3 points for all “c” answers and so forth and so on.  Add up the points. Any score which is HIGHER than 7, means that YOU have what it takes to go to MARS!!!

My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. a lawyer, helped me on this Internet Article. As a matter of fact, she wrote most of it. Thank you Fabia!!! I could not have done it without you!!!

Good bye Vattle Birthers!!! The Mother Ship will be here shortly!!!

Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

(Note:  Sometimes, I purposely spell “Vattel” as “Vattle” to tease the Vattle Birthers!!!)

Bonus: The Alternative Image for this Internet Article:

Grokk Did Not Take Kindly To Being Told He Was NOT A Natural Born Citizen


About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

5 responses to “Mars Needs Vattel Birthers!!! (Do YOU Have What It Takes???)

  • Steve

    Hi Squeeky,

    As I mentioned on a post, I really enjoy you’re writing. I have a question for you, does a Constitutional ruling by the SC make all other arguments moot? I had this discussion with another Lawyer and that is his point. Case law has given us the precedents to now state that we have the right to view “simulated” child porn, but cannot have the public display of X-mas religious symbols, or a monument to the 10 Commandments in a court house. Which is ironic in that Moses is featured on the front of their courtroom. This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Using case law to build society is at odds with the very structure of Constitution. I would like to see you comment on the generally accepted definition of “NBC” at the time of adoption, being a subject vs a citizen. Please try to incorporate Enlightenment thought (which drove the revolution) against British common law. I’m looking forward to your witty reply!

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    Hi Steve!!!

    I am NOT a lawyer, sooo I had to look up this stuff. I went to wiki and what it looks like is a choice between legislatures making ALL the law, or BOTH the courts and the legislature making the law. The article says the common law countries are more stable. Like America, England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada,etc.

    Sooo, maybe the situation is like with Nazi Germany, where all the laws just changed KERBLAMMM!!! overnight and the courts couldn’t do much of anything about it. I am kind of happy if things don’t always change fast. Here is what wiki said, and it is a very long, but really interesting Internet Article:

    “The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects.[15] In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).

    Here is the linky thingy:

    As far as the SC (Supreme Court) making stuff not arguable about: No, I never have thought that people don’t have the right to argue about what the law should or should not be. But what people don’t have the moral right to do is to just lie and misrepresent what the law IS.

    For example, I don’t like the Abortion law, and think the Supreme Court was wrong. But if somebody asks me if abortion is legal or not, then the honest answer is YES. With all the Vattle Birther stuff, the HONEST answer is that Obama is a natural born citizen because of what the law says. If people don’t like the law, then that is their right, but people don’t have the right to lie and misrepresent what the law IS. Lying is a sin.

    Here is some more from the Internet Article on wiki:

    In a common law jurisdiction several stages of research and analysis are required to determine “what the law is” in a given situation. First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. Later decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts.[14] Finally, one integrates all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determines what “the law is”. Then, one applies that law to the facts.

    This is why the Indiana court thing is important outside of Indiana, because it shows how a modern court is likely to rule on stuff, and it tells you what is important and real in the law.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • Steve

    Hi, I think you just made my point concerning jurisprudence. Everything Hitler did from seizing power to marching people to death camps was completely legal and in congress with the prevailing jurisprudence of his time. Every step along the way a judge agreed that the state has this power. The Laws didn’t change KERBLAMM(a legal term I suppose ;-p) they were done incrementally.
    Judges and courts have overstepped its bounds by applying this methodology. The Constitution is a social contract. In any contract, would you let the counterparty define the meaning as they go along? I’m saying at a primal level of society, laws are the design specification in which the variables must fit, hence the need for refined judgments. If I engineer a bridge using material specifications that are constantly changing without a core definition, I don’t think you or anyone else would drive across that bridge. The courts are causing the very chaos that wiki condemns. Why? No standard to judge against, just what the last court said. Hence the whole problem of giving a nine member Politburo authority to be the ultimate source for defining what the contract means. My two cents. ( the copper kind the Treasury will jail you for melting down)

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    I am sorry that I am sooo long getting back to you. I have been working on some very big Internet Articles, and debating, too. Anyway, I am not a lawyer, but I had 6 hours of Business Law in college. We learned that contracts do change over time in some circumstances, and that is a good thing for both parties. The thing about writing any law down is that in language you are never hardly absolutely sure about anything. Even in contracts, there will be things that both parties disagree about what they meant. The contract might have a out for Act of God stuff, and here comes a meltdown of Fukushima. Is that a Act of God??? One party says yes, it was a tsunami and earthquake, while the other party says no it was human bad management of designs and backup systems.

    The Founding Mothers and Fathers used language that meant when somebody was born here, they were a natural born citizen. Did they have a big illegal alien problem??? No. Does that law still work for us??? Who knows for sure. Some say NO, but others wonder who is going to work to pay for social security for the old people??? As a first step, you have to know what the law IS, which is why I battle the Vattle Birthers so hard. The law is clear. Whether it is good or bad or who knows, has to be debated, but the starting point is telling the truth about what it is.

    As fa as courts, it looks to me like they have a hard job to do, but a necessary one. I think they get too much bad press about stuff when they are not nearly as wild as people say. For example, the Indiana court that said Obama was NBC gets slammed for being stupid and far out. But I have read it like 20 times now, and all they do is quote the Supreme Court on law that is 400 years old. There is nothing wild there. People are just mad because the judges did not agree with them.

    As far as stuff being LEGAL as opposed to RIGHT, that is what you get to go to court for. The Nazi Germans did not get to go to a independent court. It was just do what Hitler said or get gassed and stuff. That place was a mess for one reason because the courts had no real power. Instead, it was the majority of people doing what they thought was right, which was to them, killing Jews and starting wars and stuff. Why would we want to go down that path of less powerful courts???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • Steve

    “The appeal comes in response to a federal district court ruling that dismissed the cases on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction in TSA matters. In justifying the dismissal, U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. cited a secret order issued by the TSA as the basis for ruling that the D.C. Court of Appeals hear any reviews of TSA procedures. Insisting that the order contains ‘sensitive security information,’ the government has yet to make public the document embodying the TSA enhanced screening procedures,” the organization reported.

    Read more: ‘Secret order’ cited to dismiss complaints against TSA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: