Swill-again’s Island – Or, How The Skipper Marooned The Vattel Birthers

CDR Kerchner, of The Derriere, Was No Match For The Constitution

This Internet Article is about CDR. Charles Kerchner, an ex-Naval officer, and  leading two citizen-parent Birther. He was also the plaintiff in the suit brought by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. challenging Obama’s eligibility in 2009. Following Friday’s refusal of the New Hampshire  Board of Elections to bounce Obama off the slate due to various unsupported claims,  the Good Commander decided to exercise his God-given right to make an ass of himself in public.  He penned the following broadside at The Post and Email:

CDR Kerchner Pounds New Hampshire Legislator About Obama’s Eligibility

Here is the link:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/21/cdr-kerchner-pounds-new-hampshire-legislator-about-obamas-eligibility/

And here is a brief excerpt:

To be a natural born Citizen of the United States the person must be born in the USA to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents. That is the law of nature and said laws were referred to in our founding documents. That definition comes from natural law, the legal treatise The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol. 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, U.S. law via the Supreme Court decision of Minor v Happersett (1875) which was never overturned and other SCOTUS decisions as recent as 1939, and international law. Wong Kim Ark (1898) only decided who is a born “Citizen of the U.S.” under the 14th Amendment, not who is a “natural born Citizen of the U.S.” under Article II. The words “natural born” do not appear in the 14th Amendment and only appear in the Constitution in Article II as to who can be the President, and then later per the last sentence of the 12th amendment who can be the Vice President.

In other words, the same bucket of swill being slopped out by the two citizen-parent birthers for going on three years now. (Which come to think of it, is about the same amount of time the castaways wandered around lost on Gilligan’s Island.) Kerchner’s lack of knowledge is no worse than the other Vattel Birthers, but for goodness sakes, the man is a retired naval officer. He is supposed to be smarter than the average Vattel Birther.  Anyway, let’s go over his boo-boos.

First, did he swear allegiance to the law of nature or to the U.S. Constitution??? I suspect the latter. Next, his adoration of Emerich de Vattel is misplaced. While Vattel wrote a fine book on International Law, and on laws in France, this was was not of any great import to American law, which was based on English common law.  And even if it had been, Vattel recognized that England created citizens in a different fashion than France, stating:

Section 214:  Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Next, the 1875 voting rights case of Minor v. Happersett clearly DOES NOT mandate two citizen-parents are necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.  There are numerous posts here about that case. In short, that Court recognized that some authorities included the children of foreigners born here as natural born citizens, and some didn’t.  But, that was NOT an issue they needed to decide.  Here are the five sentences which clearly state the issue was left open:

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.

Nope, no precedent there.  The issue was left open.

Kerchner then proceeds to mangle Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 SCOTUS case which solved the question left open in Minor v. Happersett,  and determined that natural born citizens were simply people born here under the jurisdiction of the United States, said jurisdiction simply consisting of NOT being the child of a diplomat or invading soldier. Which is the same thing a 14th Amendment citizen who is born here.  Because the 14th Amendment did nothing but affirm the birthright concept of natural born citizenship:

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 [exceptions].  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 his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

To recap, Commander Kerchner, has a lousy command of the facts.  One could almost say Kerchner’s Grasp of Reality is sooo weak that he is unfit for command of the Vattel Birthers.  One could, except for the fact that people who have a good grasp on Reality do not become two citizen-parent Birthers in the first place.

I picture Kerchner sitting in a chair, Queeg-like, sweating and rolling some ball-bearings around in his hand, claiming he didn’t cut his own tow line, that there was a duplicate key to the ward room icebox, and that it takes two citizen-parents to be a natural born citizen.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1:  USS Constitution captures HMS Guerriere, 19 August 1812.  The Image  above is of an actual sea battle, even though I altered the real name of the enemy ship to one more appropriate for CDR Kerchner, who uses a old time sailing ship as his avatar around the Internet:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/con-guer.htm

A quarter-hour of intense gunnery by Constitution, delivered with much superior accuracy, battered Guerriere in the hull and masts. The British frigate’s mizzenmast fell over the side, crippling her ability to maneuver. Constitution then moved ahead to rake Guerriere, whose bowsprit caught in the American’s mizzen rigging. Firing continued while the two ships were thus tangled, and both sides prepared boarding parties. Marksmen in the mast tops blazed away at exposed personnel, with deadly effect. Many officers and men were thus killed, including Constitution‘s Marine lieutenant. Others, Captain Dacres among them, were wounded. As the ships separated, Guerriere‘s foremast collapsed, pulling down the mainmast with it. She was now a “defenseless hulk”, and surrendered at 7 PM, when Constitution approached to renew the action after making brief repairs to her modest damages. British casualties were more than five times those of the Americans, and Guerriere was beyond saving. Her surviving crewmen were taken off the next day, she was set afire and soon blew up. Constitution then returned to Boston with her prisoners, arriving on 30 August.

This battle, the first of several U.S. Navy victories in ship-to-ship contests, encouraged Americans and chagrined the British. Despite the rational excuse that Royal Navy frigates were not as large and powerful as their American counterparts, the real causes of these outcomes were inspired seamanship and vastly better gunnery. For the rest of the 19th Century, long after the War of 1812 was over, America’s Navy was credited with an effectiveness that went well beyond its usually modest size.

Derriere, is of course, the French word for le rear end.  Maybe this is where the rank,  Rear Admirals, come from???

Note 2:  Swill and Maroons. The Urban Dictionary defines “maroon“, which I use in the verb form:

A term of derision often uttered by Bugs Bunny when referring to an interaction with a dopey adversary. It is a mispronunciation of the word “Moron”a pushover, or one easily fooled. A dope, fool, idiot, or nincompoop. Unbelievably stupid person. Might have been derived from moron: adding an extra letter “o” to moron meaning double-moron, thus a maroon.

Swill:

1. A mixture of liquid and solid food, such as table scraps, fed to animals, especially pigs; slop.
2. Kitchen waste; garbage.
3. Nonsense; rubbish.

Note 3:  Queeg. This was the eccentric captain in a really great movie called The Caine Mutiny.

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

It quickly becomes apparent that Queeg is prone to eccentric behavior. Queeg displays an oppressive command style and is prone to unprovoked angry outbursts. From the first, he begins to make mistakes that endanger his ship. After refusing the assistance of his predecessor in command, he grounds the Caine on a muddy shoal his first time underway. He panics in a fog and nearly collides with a battleship, and passes the blame to his helmsman, starting a series of incidents that eventually results in a scripted court-martial and mental breakdown of the helmsman.

Queeg neglects to order the ship to stop turning while distracted in reprimanding a crew member for having his shirttail out, and so the Caine steams over its own towline, severing it. When called on the carpet by a superior after this incident, he refuses to acknowledge that it even happened, much less admit blame in any way (although he harbors a secret grudge against his helmsman for not warning him). His superiors are not satisfied, but allow him to retain command.

Another episode which highlights Queeg’s behaviors occurs when a quart of strawberries vanishes from the wardroom icebox. Remembering how he helped solve a mystery involving a similar theft when he was an ensign earlier in his career, Queeg attempts to recreate his former accomplishment by insisting the strawberries were pilfered by a crewmember with a duplicate key. Queeg orders every key on the ship collected, and a thorough search made. During the search, the captain is confronted with evidence that the messboys ate the strawberries. Queeg loses all enthusiasm for the search, though he orders it to continue, and it is continued in a desultory way amid public mocking of the captain.

Advertisements

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

24 responses to “Swill-again’s Island – Or, How The Skipper Marooned The Vattel Birthers

  • Monkey Boy

    Squeeky, love, you have hit the big time in your new assignment; I have heard you favorably mentioned at Obotski Central. Tee hee hee.

    Mr Soros, whom I am in touch with daily, is pleased with you, and is considering a increase in your emolument. However, I’ve recommended to him that he release you for a White House position after the election.

    But, The Caine Mutiny was a best-seller BEFORE it was a movie–just sayin’.

    Keep booting birther butt, you’ll be a WH intern in no time.

  • David Farrar

    “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 his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    “…and by operation of the same principle,” John Jay, the President of the Constitutional Convention: George Washington, as well as all of its delegates, did not see the same principle in operation. They saw a difference principle in operation between the hereditary selection of a monarch and a democratically elected Commander in chief of all the nation’s armed forces, and it was for this reason Jay’s motion was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention.

    Squeeky,

    Do you really want as your Commander in chief of all America’s armed forces to be born of citizen parents whose allegiance to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States vanishes, without affirmation, as soon as they leave the territory? By this reasoning, Anwar al-Awlaki could have qualified to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States and become the Commander in chief of all of this nation’s armed forces had he been elected to office.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • suedb

    Hi Squeeks….this is to:

    “davidfarrar”

    Since President Obama is a natural; born citizen (Hawaii), the question is seriously moot.

    There is also something called the vote. You insult the intelligence of the American Citizen by implying said citizen would be involved in trying to elect someone who is not qualified.

    Sue D Bastards

    • David Farrar

      suedb,

      But Anwar al-Awlaki was a natural-born citizen by your definition, with two alien in amity parents and could have qualified to take the oath of office of the presidency if he had run and won the election.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    DavidF:

    The Wong Kim Ark judges said “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were the same concept. The “OMG a TERRORIST’S kid could be President!!!” is just hysterics in my opinion.

    Goodness, so could Snooki’s kid. So could Casey Anthony, or Lindsay Lohan. That is why you have elections, to weed out bad choices.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • bob

      The dissent in Wong Kim Ark made essentially the same point. It got only two votes, which is why it is only the dissent.

    • Monkey Boy

      Squeeky, you did it again. You beet(sic) a mendacious birther like a runaway slave. And, you did it with logic, panache and ridicule.

      You go girl!

      Lying birther scum like to say that “this person” or “that person” COULD become President if we deem him (or her) a NBC. Well, Son of Sam or Squeaky Frohm COULD become President–if they get the votes (or diddle with the voting machines), but, what are the chances of that happening?

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky,

    But a natural born subject is not the same thing as a natural born citizen, neither are the two political structures. Citizens in a federal Republic vote for their Commander in chief, while subjects to a sovereign do not. It was for this very reason John Jay advised George Washington to add a …“‘strong check’ to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    By mindlessly following the dicta in Wong, we have allowed our Commander in chief to devolve onto a native born citizen with dual allegiances instead of a natural born Citizen with one allegiance.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    David F:

    But it was 60 years BEFORE Wong Kim Ark when people were saying NBS and NBC were the same thing:

    The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

    Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

    This belief was well established BEFORE WKA and here is another example, from 1844, Lynch v. Clarke, section 5 :

    The term citizen, was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. ” No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” ifcc. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/lynch-v-clarke-ruling/#more-7118

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • David Farrar

      You are wrong, Squeeky; the Constitution doesn’t say, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

      It says, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

      There has been a lot of speculation as to why the authors of Article ll capitalized the “C” in Citizen. To me, it meant the founding generation wanted to proclaim themselves and their new Republic as fundamentally different than a small “s” subject in a monarchical state. It represented a deliberate and affirmative act by a sovereign to pledge his allegiance to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      Only a natural born Citizen, with a capital “C”, bearing one allegiance to that Constitution, can be its Commander in chief.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • bob

        Good thing President Obama only has allegiance to the United States!

      • Monkey Boy

        Jeez, now we are treated with the “Sovereign:Citizen” lunacy in which script has talismanic properties.

        What ever happened to cRAP president (lower case ‘p’), TIM TURNER? I guess he ran out of marks.

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    At birth, he had dual allegiances, which makes him unqualified to take the oath of office of the presidency.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      Except no judge, professor, or other expert has ever said the dual allegiances at birth precludes natural-born citizenship.

      Will you concede you are wrong when Georgia rejects your challenge? Or will you pull a Taitz and insist it is part of the conspiracy as well?

  • David Farrar

    Bob,

    Your point is interesting because I was just reading the Congressional record, trying to find out just exactly what the authors meant by the phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” in the first section of the 14th Amendment.

    If you look at the congressional debates when they were writing the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

    Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase: subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment — who could be a better source?

    Mr. TRUMBULL: ‘The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    Since Squeeky has agreed with me that Wong, too, accepted MvH’s precedent that a natural born Citizen required two-citizen parents; we have only to see that in Barack Obama’s case, only one parent was subject to the jurisdiction at his birth, owing one allegiance to the preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    I need to correct that last paragraph.

    Since Squeeky has agreed with me that Wong, too, accepted MvH’s precedent that a natural born Citizen required two-citizen parents; we have only to see that in Barack Obama’s case, he had dual allegiances at birth, and, therefor, cannot have been a 14th Amendment US citizen at birth.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Fred Muggs

    @ David Farrar

    How do you explain this passage from Andrew C. McLaughlin’s Cyclopedia of American Government (1914)?

    “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are deemed naturalborn citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President.
    See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law Of. References: G. W. Garner, IntroN to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, CitizensHp of U. 8. (1904). ”

    You can find this book on Google Books and the definition is on page 496.

    This is one of hundreds of historical sources that give a similar definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”. There are essentially no sources that say both parents must be citizens. Why would that be? Why is Wong Kim Ark quoted in definitions of NBC but Minor has only been quoted (incorrectly by Birthers) since late 2008?

  • David Farrar

    Fred, if you believe, as I do, “the child’s birthright follows the father”, congratulations, you are a birther. What you have described is a birthright of one allegiance, which is exactly what Sen. Lyman Trumbul stated.
    ‘The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ not owing allegiance to anybody else i.e. being born of one allegiance at birth. And by extension, the only way a person born of two people being of one allegiance, is by both parents being US citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Fred Muggs

    @ David Farrar

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Did you see the OR in the following sentence?

    “A natural born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth OR the citizenship of his father. ”

    This is not astrophysics or differential calculus. It is fifth grade level grammar.

  • Reality Check

    David Farrar is spending the weekend researching the meaning of the word “or” and is having an “Oh fuck!” sort of moment.

  • Reality Check

    I was pleased to learn that David Farrar has signed on Orly Taitz as the “lead attorney” for his election challenge in Georgia. Not only does this guarantee that it will be a dismal failure but it also ratchets up the entertainment value considerably.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: