Happy Dodo Day???

Much Like The Dodo, The Two Citizen-Parent Theory Has Trouble Getting Off The Ground

It is Thanksgiving, and while most rational people are celebrating with a Turkey, I wonder if the two citizen-parent Birthers are celebrating with the equivalent of a Dodo.  The Dodo was a bird which went extinct in 1681, and about which Wiki says:

The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a meter (3.3 feet) tall, weighing about 20 kilograms (44 lb), living on fruit, and nesting on the ground.The dodo’s significance as one of the best-known extinct animals and its singular appearance has led to its use in literature and popular culture to symbolize a concept or object that will or has become out of date, as in the expression “dead as a dodo” or “gone the way of the dodo”.In the same year in which George Clarke started to publish his reports, the newly vindicated bird was featured as a character in Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. With the popularity of the book, the dodo became a well-known and easily recognizable icon of extinction. according to the Encarta Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, “dodo” derives from Portuguese doudo (currently doido) meaning “fool” or “crazy”.

Well, the two citizen-parent Vattel Birthers definitely have extinction in common with the Dodo.  In fact, considering that the seminal English case, Calvin’s Case, was decided in 1608, the tw0 citizen-parent theory went extinct in English common law at least 73 years before the Dodo.

There is also an Alice in Wonderland aspect to the Vattel Birthers.  The Dodo is a caricature of the author, Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson).  Alice and several other characters go for a swim. In order to get dry, the Dodo proposes that everyone run a Caucus race — where the participants run in patterns of any shape, starting and leaving off whenever they like, so that everyone wins.

The two citizen-parent Birthers also have a Big Circus Tent where insane theories of all kinds co-exist, clash, and contradict in a willy-nilly fashion. Some push the British-citizen version, some that French law applies in America, some the phony Minor v. Happersett precedent, some the Indonesian adoptee theory, and others the Sovereign Citizen arguments that the 14th Amendment constitutes some sort of special citizenship completely divorced from natural born citizenship.

There is also a lack of consistency  regarding the sources of their special wisdom. Some find enlightenment in obscure out-of-context definitions found legal dictionaries, others in the writings of Emerich de Vattel, and still others in the speeches of various congressman during the debate over the 14th Amendment. One even thinks Shakespeare’s play, Henry V, is relevant.  These lists of schisms and sources are far from exhaustive.  All in all it is a merry troop where everybody’s pet theory wins. The only rule is to avoid any contact with logic and legal history.

There is another similarity to the Dodo. When Alice becomes stuck in the White Rabbit’s house, the Dodo proposes burning down the house to get her out.  In their own way, the two citizen-parent Birthers are willing to destroy the Constitution and American law to remove Obama from the White House, all while proclaiming to be patriots and Constitutionalists. Natural born citizenship? They re-write it in accordance with French law. Supreme Court decisions? Lie about them and ignore them. Elections? To hell with them.

All of which bring us to the final connection, the absurd and surreal nature of the debate. Here is an excerpt from this Internet Article: (Only the first paragraph is in German, then it switches to English.)

http://amsellen.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/when-dada-meets-dodo-nothingness-in-literature-and-illustration/

where we find:

When Dada meets Dodo– Caught in the Nothingness of Nonsense Literature and Dada

“There is a literature […] in which laws wither away.”

(From “Dada Manifesto” by Tristan Tzara)

This quotation can easily be applied to not only to the works of Dada but to Nonsense literature in general and here specifically to Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Just as Dada wouldn’t surrender to any of the common principles of art, Carroll would withdraw his work from the common standards of interpretation by letting Wonderland redefine meaning and saying, blurring the border between logic and insanity, identity and names; reducing everything to the sheer nothingness of word. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland represent a nonsensical even Dadaistic attempt to call in question the conceptual foundations of the reader’s world.

Together with Alice the reader abandons all conventions of language and enters a world in which coherence is of a different importance, a world in which conversation is hardly ever serving a purpose other than distortion and confusion. Nonsense and Dada celebrate contradictory poetics on the levels of form and content. In his Dada Manifesto Tristan Tzara wrote, “No more manifestoes,” declaring, “to be against this manifesto is to be Dadaist… in principle I am against manifestoes, as I am also against principle” The more astonishing it is that the reader comes to acknowledge that in Wonderland everybody but him and Alice seem to survive the raging arbitrariness of linguistic coherence.

Dada was the visible incarnation of the Dodo’s freedom – playing games without rules on race-courses without shape, winning without winning. Wonderland – the place where laws wither away. Dada is Dodo and Dodo is Nonsense.

This is a great Internet Article, and I recommend it just for the information it provides. But in connection with the two citizen-parent Birthers, this just nails them. In their world, the 1875 voting rights case Minor v. Happersett is elevated to precedent for natural born citizenship, and The Liberty Legal Foundation files eligibility suits over it. Irate Birthers, including state legislators, become incensed when the New Hampshire Elections Board ignores it. All this over a case where the Court comes right out and says about the citizenship of children born here of foreigners,  “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

When the online legal research firm Justia, makes a programming error which affected that case and others, the Justiagate Conspiracy Theory is born.  They claim the 2008 election would have turned out differently if only people had known about  this case. Ignore the scads of other sources, free and otherwise. Ignore law books. Ignore the millions of lawyers on the other side of Obama. Heck, while you are at it, just ignore the language of the case to boot.

And when you debate the Vattel Birthers, be prepared for Dodo Reasoning.  You will be showered with out-of-context quote mining, sophistic syntax quibbling, and outright lying. There are several Internet Articles here which deal with this phenomenon and provide examples. And, all of this in light of very clear case law which holds that people born in the United States, whose parents are neither diplomats nor invading soldiers, are natural born citizens.

Sooo, yes. The Dodo is the bird for them. Perhaps next Thanksgiving, we can serve them crow.

For the rest of us, Happy Turkey Day!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The Dodo Image.  The Artist is Zack Bellissimo, and he has some reallyKEWL art!!!.  His blog is here:

http://snaggle-toothsalad.blogspot.com/2009/05/dodo-est-1603.html

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

7 responses to “Happy Dodo Day???

  • David Farrar

    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.

    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 by our courts!

    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 you have 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, at birth, by his own admission, he had dual allegiances, one US and one British. Barack Obama cannot possibly be a natural born Citizen at birth.

    By the way, I promised you I would keep you informed as to my filed objection to Mr. Barack H. Obama being placed on the Georgia’s primary ballot. I am glade to say that Administrative Judge: Michael M. Malihi, has recognized my objections and has officially taken up my case, asking that my pre-hearing pleadings be submitted to his court no later than Dec. 1, 2011.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    Scalia has written a few words on the “logic” you are employing when reading into Trumbull’s words.

    • David Farrar

      bob,

      yes, I would like to read his opinion. Can you cite your source? But what logic? It is there in plain English.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • bob

        Here’s but a taste:

        “But the Great Divide with regard to constitutional interpretation,” says Scalia, “is not that between Framers’ intent and objective meaning, but rather that between original meaning (whether derived from Framers’ intent or not) and current meaning.” He notes, with a twist of irony, that “most of those who insist that the drafter’s intent gives meaning to a statute reject the drafter’s intent as the criterion for interpretation of the Constitution.” Scalia rejects it for both.

        http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Spring98/schmidt.html

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    David F:

    First, i am glad that your case is moving along. It should be an interesting hearing. Do not be surprised or disappointed if his decision ends up looking a lot like the Ankeny v. Governor one in Indiana.

    When did I ever say I agreed with you on MvH??? I am just TOTALLY lost there.

    Now, as to Trumbull, I am sure you are right about what he said. But there were like 434 other Congressmen there too, and a bunch of Senators. (2 for each state then.) But trying to figure out the interpretations is the job of the Courts.

    This is where all that “declaratory” stuff came in WKA, and the reason for all the discussion of natural born subjects and citizens. “Under the jurisdiction” was determined to be the same thing as it was under English law.

    Which approach you may disagree with. But I don’t see it sinking to the level of “perverting” the intent. This, from WKA does not sound perverted, or in any way dismissive of Congressional intent:

    The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and the converse of the words “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth [p688] Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky,

    Oh dear, have I made a mistake? I was thinking about our recent discussion over the “aliens in amity” issue, and you pointed out that Wong didn’t cite MvH, to which I agreed. I went on to point out that the two parents of Ark, the Wong court pointed out, were permanent residents, were doing business here and in every other way, had it not been for a treaty with China, would have been naturalized citizens, and, in that regard, Art was a natural born Citizen. I thought it was you who responded that that assessment was one you could agree with. If such is not the case: I stand corrected, and apologize.

    The Congressional record is there for all to read. It is located at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    First column, under the first Mr. Trumbull:, about half way down.

    I have read the entire page and have not really seen any opposing discussion of Mr. Trumbull’s statement. Since Sen. Trumbull was the author of this particular insertion, you are correct: I do take it as the true and accurate conscience of the Senate in this regard.

    Thank you for your warning. I am aware this will be an “away game” for me, but it is something I must do to be able to look myself in the mirror each morning and say: “At least he didn’t fool you,” and, of course, have a record of my action for all to see when the truth finally does come out, perhaps in another 123 years.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Pobre dronte (Normal que acabara extinguiéndose) » Ráfidos

    […] Vía 13 julio, 2012 admin Posted in:Sin categoría […]

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: