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.
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!!!