The Most Unkindest Cut Of All – Et tu Breckinridge???

The Minor v. Happersett Fight Drew Little Attention Outside The Monkey Troop

Well, in what has to be the most unkindest cut of allLeo Donofrio’s theory that the 1875 voting rights case of Minor. v. Happersett was precedent for defining natural born citizenship hits another major stumbling block of Reality.  And, this one really stings. In 1916, a person by the name of Breckinridge Long wrote a  12 page pamphlet called,  Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes  A “Natural Born Citizen ” Within The Meaning Of The Constitution?

Mr. Hughes was the 1916 Republican Presidential candidate who narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson. The pamphlet may be found here:

Mr. Long noted that although Mr. Hughes was born in the United States, his father was an un-naturalized  immigrant, a British citizen, at the time of his son’s birth. Long’s argument in a nutshell was:

It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

Now here is where the hurting starts. Minor v. Happersett was a SCOTUS case decided in 1875 and Donofrio claims this was the case which once and for all proves it takes two citizen-parents to make a bouncing little natural born citizen. In fact, this case is sooo darn important that when Justia, an online legal research site accidentally  messed up some of the links, Donofrio claims that it was purposely done to hide this case from the public prior to the 2008 election. (Justiagate). To Donofrio, this was an intentional scrubbing of the case.  You can read the histrionics here:

Yet, Breckinridge Long makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the allegedly wonderful precedent setting Supreme Court case.  Think about this.  On one hand, here is an educated attorney, a graduate of Princeton, and the Washington University Law School, writing on the alleged constitutional ineligibility of a person who has a non-citizen father, and dual citizenship mother at best.   On the other hand, you have the Minor v. Happersett case which supposedly requires two citizen-parents.  – – -And these two pieces of matter and anti-matter  never come together to make a big KERBOOM???. This huge gift-wrapped Supreme Court case supposedly just sat there,  long after Christmas,  for 41 years, and no one noticed it???  Justia did not exist in 1916, so I am ruling out a scrub.

Mr. Long published this work in the Chicago Legal News, where it would have been read by numerous attorneys, and not one of them, even the Democrats among them, ever thought to write a letter to the editor and inform them of the Minor v. Happersett decision which would have nailed it for Breckinridge Long.  Now this was not the first time this situation occurred with a Presidential candidate.  In 1880, just 5 years after the Minor v. Happersett decision, Chester Arthur ran for Vice-President, and another eligibility hit man attorney, Arthur Hinman, tried to claim Arthur was not eligible because he was born in either Ireand or Canada.  Nary a word there either about Arthur’s  non-citizen father or the Minor v. Happersett case.

When confronted with this anomaly, the two citizen-parent Birthers claim that no one knew that Arthur’s father was a citizen of Ireland at the time of his son’s birth.  I disagree. But here, there is absolutely no question but that Breckinridge Long knew these facts about Charles Evans Hughes.  He came right out and said:

At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England.  His father had not then been naturalized. [and] There is no dispute on the facts that the father in 1862 [year of CEH’s birth] was an English subject.

And still the Minor v. Happersett case sat there in a corner, quietly.  Seen, but not heard.  Either it had a real bad case of the cooties which Breckinridge was afraid of catching, or it just never was the precedent for natural born citizenship that Donofrio and his disciples claim. Since the judges openly stated they were not resolving the issue, I am betting on the latter.

Et tu, Breckinridge?

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Pleonasms. The most unkindest cut of all is a pleonasm from the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. It was said about the stab from Brutus, Caesar’s supposed friend and ally. Wiki says about pleonasms:

Pleonasm (from Greek, pleon: more, too much) is the use of more words or word-parts than is necessary for clear expression: examples are black darkness, or burning fire. Such redundancy is, by traditional rhetorical criteria, a manifestation of tautology.

Note 2. Et tu, Breckinridge??? This is a play on words of “Et tu, Brute?”  Wiki says:

Et tu, Brute?” (pronounced “ay too brew tay) is a Latin phrase often used poetically to represent the last words of Roman dictator Julius Caesar to his friend Marcus Brutus at the moment of his murder by stabbing. It can be variously translated as “Even you, Brutus?”,”And you, Brutus?”, “You too, Brutus?”, “Thou too, Brutus?” or “And thou, Brutus?”. Immortalized by Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar (1599), the quotation is widely used in Western culture to signify the utmost betrayal.

While the words are usually understood as an expression of shock towards Brutus’ betrayal, it has recently been argued that, if they were uttered by Caesar, the phrase was instead intended as a curse and threat.One theory states Caesar adapted the words of a Greek sentence which to the Romans had long since become proverbial. The complete phrase is said to have been “You too, my son, will have a taste of power,” of which Caesar only needed to invoke the opening words to foreshadow Brutus’ own violent death, in response to his assassination. In a similar vein, Caesar’s words have been interpreted to mean “Your turn next.” and “To hell with you too, lad!”

Note 3: Troop. From the image above, a troop is a group of monkeys. The only people making a big fuss about Minor v. Happersett are the two citizen-parent birthers, and the people who study them. Sometimes I am not sure if I am Jane Goodall, the anthropologist who studies primates, or Dorothy of Kansas, who can not seem to escape the troop of Flying Monkeys.

Note 4. Minor v. Happersett 1875. Included here for completeness. Here are the seven simple sentences from the Minor v. Happersett voting rights case which cause so much confusion to the two citizen-parent Birthers. They claim this language defines natural born citizenship, while rational people note the last three sentences clearly indicate the Court is not going to resolve the doubts as regards children born here of foreigners. :

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 36 Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

18 responses to “The Most Unkindest Cut Of All – Et tu Breckinridge???

  • Sally Hill

    Oh, what wonderful crumbs one can find on the Internet. Somehow stumbled across your other blog – ya know the one where you truly and completely believe Obama was born in Kenya? And where that was a winnable argument – unlike the 2 citizen parent argument.

    Now I’m curious about other things as well! Who or what changed your mind about where he was born? Or…maybe you haven’t really?!?

    I’m curious if you oppose or support OWS.

    I read your article on Laissez-faire Communism and I’m curious where you stand on that issue. I’ve noticed you write about many subjects, and although you are superb (albeit a little windy) with the English language in relating facts, you never seem to get around to the point of the article or your opinion on the subject.

    You did a good job touching on Justiagate, but I’m not certain if you think the tampering was accidental or on purpose.

    Also, I’m curious how you reconcile Obama’s dual citizenship issues, since you don’t feel it matters. I think it is still in debate over whether he still, to this day, is a British subject and I’m not suggesting the the UK would ever do such a thing, but if Obama were still a British Subject by law, what would stop the British Crown from treating him as a British Subject while he is there visiting? Let’s say Mr. Obama breaks a law while he is visiting – being a British Subject, if the Crown so decided they could possibly treat him as such and ignore any type of extradition application by the US, citing the fact that he is a British Subject and as such is subject to British law. Again, VERY hypothetical, nevertheless, not out of the realm of possibilities.

    If citizenship is based on allegiance, how then is a dual citizen, born with dual allegiances, a natural born citizen of either country?

    I find it odd that the whole Middle East has had a melt-down since he came to office. Why would he be complicit in the ousting of Mubarak? If you do any research at all on Mubarak, he was not a bad leader by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he did quite a bit in the way of keeping peace in the Middle East. I’m not saying he wasn’t corrupt, but then you show me a leader or politician for that matter who isn’t. Why did Obama not feel the need to be involved in replacing Mubarak with someone who could at least sway the new government toward democratic rule? He seems to be just fine with the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. Having visited Egypt right after Obama was elected and speaking to several Egyptians while there, I can tell you, this is not ‘the help’ they thought they would be getting from Obama.

    Why did he not get involved with the Iranian uprising, yet he felt compelled to involve himself with Egypt and Syria? Do you think his allegiances or religious affiliations have anything to do with his policies in this regard?

    You stated on your other blog that you felt like Obama ‘acted’ like he was from Kenya, do you still? I think he definitely has allegiances to the Kenyans, based on his father’s citizenship, but I don’t believe he was born there.

    Very rarely do Obama’s actions match with what he actually says. Actions speak much louder than words ever could.

    With regard to this article – I think the better question would be, Long proves Obama isn’t a NBC, why would you care if he cited MvH? Perhaps Long didn’t feel the need to cite MvH – perhaps he felt the information he presented was more than adequate, since he did in fact, prove, IN MY OPINION, that NBC is one born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

    Why does it matter that he didn’t cite MvH? Does it change the scope of his article or the conclusion?

    I’m curious, there is another poster on your site that insists Hinman knew of Arthur’s British father. You elude to that fact in your article as well….what leads you to believe Hinman knew? Where and what is your proof to such?

    While you are not anywhere near a nightmare, I find you intriguing. If you wish me to go away, simply ask and I’ll be gone.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Sally Hill:

      First, no I don’t want you to go away. I may not agree with you, or some of the other commenters, but I do not mind being around people who do not agree with me.

      I am not sure which “other Blog” you found, because I have several. Some, at posterous, are back up blogs. The Squeeky blogger one was my first, but now it is just where I keep a copy of everything, and I am behind on copying things there. I am a year or more behind on my music blogs. And I have about 4 Squeeonomics Internet Articles that I am working on, and haven’t posted yet. I wrote you another reply on another thread to explain my “Birther” history.

      I do not like Laissez-faire capitalism because it does not really exist, and if did, it would still be bad. Government has to regulate business or business will kill and hurt people. That is not a happy conclusion, because government is pretty stupid and messed up about most of the stuff it does, but there is no other rational choice. I think we should put more attention to watching how government does its job and trying to improve it, and less on trying to keep it from doing anything at all.

      All in all, I can’t stand Obama. I think Justia messed up on accident.

      The allegiance stuff was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. As a legal matter it is being born here and not the child of a diplomat or invading soldier. That is different than the everyday concept of allegiance, as a loyalty. Legally, Jane Fonda has allegiance to the U.S. But, because of her helping out the Commies, she does not seem to have everyday allegiance. Legally she coud run for the Presidency. But because of her actions, not many people would vote for her. (I hope.)

      The point of Breckinridge Long is if Minor v. Happersett was definitive, he would have quoted it. It would have been a sure winner. Which implies that , he didn’t see it as definitive. Like nearly everybody outside the Vatte Birthers. This is why you can dismiss Donofrio. His theories don’t seem to work in the REAL world.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Sally Hill

        I will have to say I was quite disappointed in your responses over at Jonathan Turley’s blog.

        I absolutely do not understand why we as human beings, as fellow Americans, cannot discuss this issue in a calm and civil way. While I feel it mostly comes from the left (but from the right as well), the insults, name calling and overall general disrespect towards others is appalling to me.

        I actually had thought you only slightly crossed over these lines until I read some of your responses to Donofrio. I’m curious – how exactly is he doing anything different from you, Gorfan, BlackLion, Dr. C., etc? You all have an opinion on the matter and you are expressing it via blogs and comments. That is simply the same thing Donofrio is doing – only he happens to disagree with you. The inability to have a civil discourse on the matter shows disrespect and contempt for the very foundation of this nation. It saddens me a great deal. Please stop and think and do not stoop to the levels that the others do in the course of discussions – it is not very becoming and I think you owe Donofrio an apology since I highly doubt he was referring to you as the non-attorney, rather I suspect he was referring to Nal and a couple other commenters. I appreciate Donofrio for his civility in discussing the subject matter.

        I appreciate that you were civil to me and your response was respectful. You will never see me belittle, tease, or disrespect you or Obama. I will never refer to him as President, but I don’t call him names or change the spelling of his name. I always refer to him as Obama or Mr. Obama. While I have complete and utter contempt for the man, the office he holds deserves and receives my respect.

        Again, I think your writing is insightful and at times brilliant. I enjoy reading your blog – until you get windy and go off on wild unfounded tangents. I will respond and will continue to discuss but, like Donofrio, will not tolerate any disrespect.

        You didn’t answer about OWS…I’d like to know your take on that.

        I didn’t ask about Laissez-faire capitalism, I asked about Laissez-faire COMMUNISM…I thought that was what you originally wrote about – I apologize if I’m mistakened.

        I’m interested in understanding WHY you think Justia was an accident. When you make a mistake ‘on accident’ how do you usually respond? Be honest with yourself and perhaps even think of a situation where you have truly been wrong and others caught your mistake. Did you basically deny it, blame it on someone or something else, and then cover it up? See, that’s why I don’t think it was on accident. I understand a little about databases and scripting codes which are implemented to make global changes. I’m not buying their explanation, but since I’m not an expert I have to use other methods to assess the situation. When Donofrio brought the mistake to Justia’s attention, if it had truly been on accident, Tim Stanley should have immediately and openly admitted the error, corrected it, invited other mistakes to be brought to his attention and kept everything transparent. However, if the mistake was by design – I would have expected the response we saw. Excuses were made, blame was placed, and transparency was removed by placing robot.txt files on EVERY page in their database. His actions spoke louder than his words, and placed him in a bad light for people to believe the error was accidental.

        Again, I believe we interpret WKA differently. As far as Fonda – that situation is unavoidable. The Founding Fathers knew very well they could not 100% guard against conflicting or dual allegiances, but they knew it was essential that they try and put in place safeguards against such outside influences. There will always be some NBC’s who are traitors, but if you can eliminate as many possibilities of such through requirements for office, then you’ve taken a step in the right direction. Many of those men fought and died in order to get way from the Monarchy and from under the rule of Britain, why would you think having a British citizen/subject as President, would be acceptable to them? Of course, I wouldn’t, but yet, we have exactly that. And can you not see some of that prejudice apparent in Obama’s actions and policies? I can. There is a history there with his family; with his grandfather and the Brits, that cannot help but be influential upon his thought process when dealing with foreign affairs. It is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers were trying to guard against by placing the NBC requirement on POTUS.

        You contradict yourself in your discussion of Breckinridge. You say if he has used MvH it would have been a sure winner. Why? How exactly when you interpret it the way you do? Yet, then you say he didn’t cite it because of the way you interpret it and because he didn’t feel it was definitive. HUH? You can’t have it both ways. If it would have been sure winner, then it would have been whether he used it or not. Perhaps he interpreted it the way you do – but that does not make you right, nor does it you wrong.

        The problem with your argument, is you cannot reach back in history and definitely know for certain why he didn’t cite it. I skimmed his paper and admittedly I didn’t read it word for word, it didn’t look like he cited case law to any great extent. Yes, I saw a couple of citations, but I got the feeling he was not necessarily relying on case law to make his case. In that I didn’t read it in depth, I could be wrong and would be open to discussion if you see it differently.

        I don’t buy your argument however, that simply because he didn’t cite MvH that he didn’t see it as definitive to his case. You simply cannot make that statement with any level of certainty – we simply do not know why he didn’t and there could be any number of reasons why. Stating it as fact, doesn’t make it fact. That logic drives me crazy in these debates. I see this statement over and over – He is a Citizen. He is eligible. Period. End of Story. Typing Period. and End of Story at the end of a statement, does NOT make it a fact.

        Until SCOTUS takes up the issue and definitively rules on NBC with regard to POTUS everything you or I say on the matter is IN OUR OPINION.

  • bob

    “I’m curious, there is another poster on your site that insists Hinman knew of Arthur’s British father.”

    Hinman discusses President Arthur’s parents (and where they were born) in his book.

    • Sally Hill

      Bob – using your method of ‘discussion’, here is my response.

      Himan didn’t know of Arthur’s parentage.

      Now…if you truly would like to discuss it, and perhaps you don’t – I’m not at all certain where you are coming from or where you would like the issue to go – if you want to cite or copy/paste the passage where he discussed it, I would be open to re-evaluating my stance.

      Until then, I’m afraid we will have to stand at an impasse.

      • bob

        On page 5 of Hinman’s book, he discusses President Arthur’s father’s birth, his upbringing in Ireland, and his emigration to Canada.

        On page 8, Hinman discusses President Arthur’s father’s emigration to Vermont.

      • Sally Hill

        Ok, that’s great! Now, where in the book does Hinman discuss Arthur’s father’s citizenship status when Arthur was born?

      • bob

        Hinman notes President Arthur’s father’s emigration. Hinman does not state that President Arthur’s father naturalized before President Arthur’s birth, leaving the reader with the impression that President Arthur’s father had not naturalized before President Arthur’s birth. This would be, in fact, correct, because President Arthur’s father did not naturalize until well after President Arthur’s birth.

        If there were a normal biography, I might not read much into this silent inference. But this isn’t a normal biography: IT IS A HIT PIECE THAT LIES ABOUT PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S PLACE OF BIRTH.

        Why would Hinman not exploit the *truth* about President Arthur’s father’s naturalization status when he had no problem with lying about President Arthur’s place of birth?

  • Agent Smith

    Ms. Hill,

    I’ll address your hypothetical if you will tell me how you plan to stop Castro from eliminating the presidency (because no one will be eligible) by declaring everyone born in the US to citizen parents to be Cuban citizens. Remember — Cuba gets to decide who it recognizes as citizens, just as every other country in the world does except for the birther’s fantasy version of the US…

  • Sally Hill

    Agent Smith – you are being disingenuous at best. This argument has been tried rather unsuccessfully and it’s rather boring and tired by now. Try to come up with something a bit more imaginative please, and if you can, I’ll reward you with some more discussion. 🙂

    Your hypothetical will work ONLY if one of the parents were Cuban. Then Castro can declare their citizenship all he wants – quite legally I might add. Since Obama’s father was British, the British can claim him as a citizen/subject, quite legally I might add. However, Castro can sit over in Cuba and crow till the cows come home that Obama is a Cuban citizen and no one would even give him a second thought).

    You are welcome to try again if you’d like…..

  • Agent Smith

    Ms. Hill,

    Actually, my hypothetical is fine (and is a logical consequence of your beliefs), but I’ll give you another. Two more, in fact: why are you not concerned with our former French president and Greek Vice President? (Both actual citizens of foreign nations unlike President Obama…) Why is President Obama different? (and, by the way, by not using his title you are disrespecting the office of POTUS and the Constitution–just sayin’…). It’s not partisan to recognize that President Obama is eligible for his office–just rational.

    By the way, the reason the Vattle birthers (to use our host’s term) get so badly disrespected is because not all opinions are created equal and a refusal to acknowledge facts is worth of nothing but contempt. In every particular that can be determined the birthers have been shown to be ignorant, stupid, or dishonest as well as bigoted towards the Constitutionally elected POTUS (whether you agree with him or not he’s still your president–unless you’re not an American). Is it any wonder that they are shown little respect when they venture forth from under their moderated rocks to spew their lies?

    As an example of just how bad the “Vattel” argument is, I give you the only SCOTUS ruling to cite Vattel on citizenship (and in exactly the way the birthers want to use it as well): The majority in Dred Scott. Why is it that your argument comes straight out of one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in US history–one which required a Constitutional Amendment (and a civil war) to fix?

    • Sally Hill

      You’re going to have to tell me who the “French” president was and who the “Greek” VP was.

      If the Greek VP you are referring to is Agnew – you are wrong. Agnew’s father naturalized prior to Agnew’s birth. I, along with several others over at Donofrio’s site, did extensive research into all past POTUS and VPOTUS for eligibility issues. If you have done research on Agnew, perhaps you are looking under the wrong name.

      The only one’s we could find were Curtis and Arthur. Curtis walks a fine line becuase we are not sure of his mother’s citizenship due to her Indian status. Although, I do believe she was a US Citizen by statute at the time of his birth. His father was a US Citizen, therefore, he would have been a NBC. Chester Arthur was definitely NOT a NBC and I believe he knew it.

      I’m not a Vattle Birther, so I didn’t read the rest of your post. I don’t care what Vattle Birther’s believe, think, or say.

      The “French” president was who?

      • Slartibartfast


        Check the immigration records–Agnew’s father hadn’t naturalized. That’s irrelevant to my point, though–the children of Greek citizens are Greek citizens and the Greek government doesn’t allow Greeks to renounce their citizenship. Agnew was unquestionably both a Greek citizen and a natural born US citizen.

        As for the Frenchie–our second President was a natural born citizen of Virginia (all his life), a natural born citizen of the US (after the DoI), and was made a citizen of France as well–before becoming POTUS (just like Lafayette and all of his male descendants were made US citizens–something that has been established in court as valid).

        You said: “Your hypothetical will work ONLY if one of the parents were Cuban.”

        So, according to you, every sovereign nation is enjoined from extending citizenship to persons born elsewhere and not descended from their citizens. Are you really so stupid that you believe that? The government of France gave Jefferson citizenship and the state of Maryland conferred citizenship on the Maquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants–one of whom, Rene de Chamburn, successfully sued to be allowed to sit for the New York state bar (restricted to US citizens) on the basis of that citizenship.

        In other words: You are dead wrong and I just proved it.

        p.s. No one (back in the day) cared about Chester Arthur’s dad–the question was whether or not he was born in the US (as his dad wasn’t a US citizen, he wouldn’t have been natural born if not for his jus soli allegiance).

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    Sally Hill:

    I do make a effort to tone it down, believe it or not, but I get caught up in the fight and then all the sarcasm and viciousness just pops out of me, I would have a lot less venom toward Leo if he kept his ideas to disagreeing about what the law SHOULD be, as opposed to trying to rewrite what it is.

    Like that Nal person and me disagree what dicta is because I believe my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. more than I believe him. But, I don’t get mad at him because I can see his side of it. I don’t agree with him, but it is at least a rational, if wrong, position.

    But I can not even drink myself into seeing the Vattel Birther side of it. Try as I might. I agree with what you said in another reply about the Obots at Dr. C’s being stuck in group think, and being generally nasty, and believe me I have laid into them as bad as I have the Vattle Birthers. I have reduced some of them to screaming rage at times. But even with them, I could at least see where they were coming from on stuff.

    I just can not see where anybody is coming from on Vattel and Minor v. Happersett. I can see where the thinking stuff starts to go wrong on it, but I can not get a grasp on it as even being marginally valid. I have read the cases enough, and I am not bragging here, but I think I have a better understanding of them than even most of the Obot lawyers.

    Anyway, the time change is catching up, sooo I am going to have to crash. I will answer more tomorrow on the other stuff you asked.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Sally Hill


      Sorry for my extended delay in visiting the blog. I had a death in the family and once I returned home, my father in law had surgery – it’s been a hectic time, and now Christmas is upon me.

      I can appreciate that you try to tone it down; however, your next comment is quite hypocritical. Perhaps Donofrio thinks YOU are trying to rewrite the law as well. And I don’t think he is disagreeing about what the law SHOULD be, I think you disagree with his interpretation of what the law actually IS.

      In order to have a civil, yet frank discussion, we must put ourselves in the shoes of our opponents and try to understand the issue from their viewpoint. Only then can we argue our point successfully in a clam and rational manner.

      I have tried to use this approach from the beginning – to the point of at times, I question my stance on the issue! LOL Not to worry, common sense pulls me back almost immediately to the reality of my belief in the 2 US citizen parents.

      I’m not at all certain what everyone’s obsession with Vattel is about on this blog. I don’t put much stock into Vattel, so I’m going to probably just skip over any discussion of Vattel. If he believes in the 2 citizen parent rule, then I guess I agree with him….but he is certainly not my guide on the issue.

      I go to Dr. C’s blog on occasion just to get a glimpse of the other side of the coin. They are all so intent on patting each other on the back and repeating the same mantra that I have difficulty at times getting anything new from them. If anyone shows up that questions them in the least, they are disrespectful and down right mean to them. I call Dr. C on it and he will clean up his act for a few days and once he thinks I’m gone, he lets the nastiness continue.

      In my opinion, if they really wanted a discussion of the issues, they should explore all options and the other side thoughtfully among themselves – sort of playing devil’s advocate if you will with each other. But they are all about being in total and complete agreement there and saying only what they each want to hear. And I’ve noticed that Dr. C will no longer tackle anything new that comes up on the issue unless it is about Orly or sides with his view point.

  • Slartibartfast


    Those of us who have been following the birthers for over three years are well aware that amongst all of the lies, idiocy, ignorance, and hate (much of it racially based) spewed by the birthers there has never been a single credible argument or allegation. To be open minded is not to treat every idea equally–it is to judge every argument on its merits. It’s not our fault that the birhters choose to spew nothing but falsehoods (and plenty of baseless slurs as well) either deliberately or through ignorance.

    If you are not, as you say, in the cult of Vattel, I am curious as to what authority you cite for the two-citizen parent nonsense. Here are just a half-dozen authorities I can cite which say you are full of it:

    James Madison

    Calvin’s case (defining the English common law which later became the common law of the colonies and then the several states)

    The SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark

    The Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny (which is precedent that President Obama in particular is a natural born citizen)

    The Congressional Research Service

    The Heritage Foundation

    I would also add “every textbook on US civics ever written”–go ahead, try to prove me wrong…

    • whatever4

      I’d also mention the hundreds of cases in Federal court that
      Like Diaz-Salazar v. INS:
      “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time…. The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

      Birthers claim that these cases mean that the children really aren’t natural born citizens because they can be deported. Not so — the illegal alien parent(s) gets deported. The child can stay in the US with the other parent, relatives, or Child Services. The child may be “constructively deported,” but it’s technically the decision of the parent(s) to take the child with them. I just found a huge Freeper thread on the topic.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: