Well first, this is not going to be a risque’ Internet Article. I am using sensual in the older sense of the word, which related to animal instincts:
Sensuality: mid-14c., “the part of man that is concerned with the senses,” from O.Fr. sensualité, from L.L. sensualitatem (nom. sensualitas) “capacity for sensation,” from L. sensualis “endowed with feeling, sensitive,” from sensus “feeling” (see sense). Chiefly “animal instincts and appetites,” hence “the lower nature regarded as a source of evil, lusts of the flesh” (1620s).
This is because today I encountered a two citizen-parent Birther who seems to rely more on his or her animal instincts to perform legal analysis and to make judgements. Actually reading the cases is not required before pontification. Here is a brief digest of the interaction, relating to the recent decision in Georgia, wherein Judge Michael M. Malihi ruled Obama was a natural born citizen, relying in large part on the decision in Ankeny v. Governor. The name of the forum and the Birther have been redacted to save them from embarrassment.
First, said Birther posts a thread on the forum called, Who Is Judge Malihi?, reblogging a blog from elsewhere. Several other Birthers chime in, speculating the Judge may be a Muslim, or may have been threatened by Obama, etc. There is the typical Birther sedition chatter, and I am leaving all that out. Here is where it gets interesting. Birther says:
Birther:From the article:”It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the Constitution and legal precedent. He knows he’s a crook. He knows he’s a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.
He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural Born Citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our Constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a Natural Born Citizen as their President.
IT IS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT A SPINELESS, COWARDLY, TRAITOROUS, SATANIC SNAKE IN THE GRASS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TELLING US HOW TO LIVE!”
Now, I enter the thread with this little bon mot:
Squeeky: I think it would be really KEWL if you could do a bio on all the judges who have ruled against the Birthers. That ex-marine guy down in Florida, and the 3 or 4 judges in Indiana, and now the one in Virginia. I hear there is also a new one in Indiana this time around.
Plus, and this is a helpful hint, maybe you could get a jump on this assignment by looking them up as soon as the Birther cases are assigned. Because the odds are these suits are going to wind up as losers because law suits based on Imaginary Law, like the two citizen parent requirement, tend to get tossed out pretty quick.
Personally, I am betting this is going to happen whether the judges are Muslims, Jews, Foot-Washing Baptists, Snake-Handling Pentecostals, Catholics, Wiccans, whatever. We shall see. . .
…these suits are going to wind up as losers because law suits based on Imaginary Law, like the two citizen parent requirement, tend to get tossed out pretty quick.
So, you’re one of those who agrees that it’s perfectly ok for the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces to be a person who’s loyalties may be colored by the circumstances of their birth?
You do know that that was the reason the Framers wrote the NBC clause into the Constitution, don’t you?
Hasn’t Obama proven to be a living example of the soundness of that wisdom to you? Do you honestly need more proof?
Squeeky: The law is what the law is. If you do not understand what the law is, then simply read the Ankeny v. Governor decision, the second part dealing with natural born citizenship. This case was found “persuasive” a few days ago in Georgia.
The case relies very heavily on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark US Supreme Court Case. it is your right as an American to disagree with the decision, but you are on shaky ground if you provide false and misleading legal advice to others.
The entire two citizen parent theory is Imaginary Law was invented by a guy named Leo Donofrio a few years ago. This is why Jerome Corsi did not mention the silly theory when he wrote Obama Nation in 2008.
Good conservative attorneys, like Mark Levin, use a lot stronger language about this, and I quote him:
“I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . .got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that.”
Sept. 28, 2011
The Birther answers:
Birther: The law is what the law is. If you do not understand what the law is, then simply read the Ankeny v. Governor decision, the second part dealing with natural born citizenship.
Statute law cannot overturn the meaning of the Constitution, upon which all statute law rests. I’ve only recently begun seeing those whom we lovingly call ‘after-birthers’, refer to that case on [Un-named Forum].
I’ve been a part of the Birther conversations on [Un-named Forum] since Obama’s run for office first sparked them. I have spent hundreds of hours following those conversations, and studying countless references elsewhere. I haven’t read the case you refer to, but I must say that I’m surprised that few have mentioned it, until now.
Given that I haven’t read up on that case, I won’t argue the merits of it with you tonight. I will say, that in the last few days, I’ve seen some well-informed [posters] dismiss it, as regards this issue.
You’re new here, so I don’t know how much time you’ve spent immersed in this subject. What I can tell you, is that this subject has been discussed and debated here more than any single topic that I’m aware of. So much so, in fact, there’s a section of [Un-named Forum] entirely devoted to it.
To come to the point, you’re holding the minority view about the NBC clause, so you’ve got your work cut out for you. You’ve got a very long debate ahead.
We trade insults for a while, and then I pop out with this, which is really what this whole Internet Article is about:
Squeeky: Let’s look at YOUR post here. When I mentioned the Ankeny case in post number 41 above, this is what YOU replied in post number 47. Quoting YOU:
“I’ve been a part of the Birther conversations on Unnamed Forum since Obama’s run for office first sparked them. I have spent hundreds of hours following those conversations, and studying countless references elsewhere. I haven’t read the case you refer to, but I must say that I’m surprised that few have mentioned it, until now.”
That paragraph above is what YOU said. Sooo, YOU have never read the Ankeny decision, and yet when the Georgia Judge hands down his decision, based on the reasoning found in Ankeny, what is YOUR reaction??? Is it to go and actually read the Ankeny decision so that you might understand where Malihi is coming from, to decide whether he is right or wrong??? To decide whether or not he is following the law??? Oh H*LL NO!!!
Instead, YOU do a thread called “Who Is Judge Michael Malihi?,” and fill it up with all sorts of insults against him, without ever once even bothering to actually read the relatively short and easy-to-read Ankeny case.
See. This issue isn’t about the LAW for you and your brethern here. It is some kind of weird psychological thing where you pretend the law is what you want it to be, as opposed to what it is. Then, you plop a “CONSERVATIVE” label on yourself, and set out to preach (lie) to other conservatives here how Rubio and Jindal are not eligible, when you haven’t even read the relatively few cases that apply.
Sooo, I think you need to examine your own motives and behavior and if you do, you might come to the conclusion that what I really am isn’t IMPOLITE. I am far, far worse than that. I am PERCEPTIVE.
I say this hoping you will do the right thing and get off this Imaginary Law stuff.
That is where things lie for the time being. There was another Birther who popped out with this bit of idiocy, which makes me think the whole Birther non-Reading non-verbal approach to legal case analysis is widespread:
I’m not presuming anything, either, in this thing. I’d agree that Malihi’s opinion is flawed, relying as it does on Arkeny, which holds 14th Amendment citizenship to be the pricise equivalent of “natural born” citizenship. Furthermore, the judge in Arkeny arrived at his fallacious conclusion by citing Wong Kim Ark, which doesn’t address the Article II “Natural Born Citizen” clause at all. Did someone pressure Malihi to write the judgment that he did? Could be, but I would think the people who might have done so had no connection to Iran.
OMG, Wong Kim Ark has an entire section devoted to the origins of natural born citizenship and another section devoted to explaining how the concept spread to the United States, and another section devoted to discussing how the 14th Amendment was declarative of this concept.
Update: After publishing this Internet Article, I checked the Un-named Forum again, and found this comment from another Birther who apparently relies on divine inspiration to analyze legal cases:
The fact is, the founders simply never ventured into the area of birth as it was common law of all nations(international law) set forth by God, that children follow the nationality of the father.
But all this makes me wonder about how most Birthers do acquire their beliefs about the legal issues. Enquiring minds want to know. By seances??? By some sort of osmosis??? Talk radio and echo chambers??? Maybe they gather in covens and chant while casting bones and reading animal entrails??? Are there midnight orgies in the backwoods of Middle America where naked writhing Birthers . . .oh wait. . . this wasn’t supposed to get risque’.
Note 1: Exegesis. Wiki says:
Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι ‘to lead out’) is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text . Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term “Biblical exegesis” is used for greater specificity. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the text which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance.
Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntatical features in the text itself.
The terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably. However, hermeneutics is a more widely defined discipline of interpretation theory: hermeneutics includes the entire framework of the interpretive process, encompassing all forms of communication: written, verbal and nonverbal, while exegesis focuses primarily on the written text.
I chose this word because of the religious nature of the Birther Beliefs, and the inconsistent Birther treatment of legal writings. Some, like the irrelevant The Law of Nature or The Collected Speeches of Hieronymus Bingle, are assigned more credit than they are worth, while others, like the very relevant 19,464 word Wong Kim Ark decision are avoided at all costs, as if contaminated. Plus, the word alliterates with epistemology.
Note 2: Epistemology. Wiki says:
Epistemology (from Greek (epistēmē), meaning “knowledge, science”, and (logos), meaning “study of”) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:
- What is knowledge?
- How is knowledge acquired?
- To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?
- How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Another perennial concern of the field is the possibility that there is very little or no knowledge at all— skepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.