Not Being Properly Grounded Has Resulted In Many Fantastical Creations
I try to keep up with several Birther Blogs to see if there is anything new under the sun, and I came upon these two comments at Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.’s blog:
(Click on the Image To Make It Larger.)
Here is the link:
First, let me address Texoma’s comment. I do not ever remember intentionally not answering this question. But, if I didn’t, then I apologize. Here is the answer. The relevant part of the 14th Amendment has two elements. First, birth within the United States, and second, being born under the jurisdiction thereof. These are the same two elements required for natural born citizenship for those born inside the United States. This makes sense since the 14th Amendment was simply declarative of birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark was born after the passage of the 14th Amendment, thus making it applicable to his situation. The whole reason for discussing natural born citizenship in the case was to lay the foundation for the existing law of which the 14th Amendment was declarative.
Now, to Mario Apuzzo’s comment that I run an Artsy-Fartsy Blog as opposed to a Hard-Hitting Legal Analysis Blog . This is half true, and I do it intentionally. Here is why. There is an Outer Limit to two citizen-parent Birtherism. That limit is that Barack Obama must never be considered eligible for the presidency. To accomplish that, the Birthers must argue NOT that jus soli law is no longer reasonable in light of easy global travel, for example. The Birthers must argue NOT that using parentage to determine citizenship is a better and smarter option than simply relying on place of birth which may be accidental, for example a premature birth while the parents are on vacation.
Any argument that suggests that the current law needs to be changed, also implies that until it is changed, Obama is eligible for the presidency. And, since the definitions are wrapped up in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments, then it will take an amendment to change the law. That isn’t going to happen before the November 2012 presidential election. This leaves the Birther in a very tight spot.
The Birther must argue that the current state of the law is such that jus soli, place of birth-type natural born citizenship is not really the law, in spite of the language of the 14th Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim Ark (1898), the holding in Ankeny v., Governor (2009), and any other applicable case. This is why they so desperately mangle the language in Minor v. Happersett (1875.) This is why Mario Apuzzo, and the late Leo Donofrio scrounge back through the history books looking for justification and sound bites. In other words, the Outer Limits of Birtherism confine their options to misrepresentation of the law.
But, that same situation leaves the Anti-Birther and Obot is a very happy spot legally speaking. We never have to discuss the relative merits of jus soli citizenship vis a vis jus sanguinis citizenship. All we ever have to do to defeat a Birther legal argument is throw out a few paragraphs of Wong Kim Ark at them, or maybe Ankeny v. Governor, and we win. The correctness of our position is being confirmed now by numerous courts on a regular basis. To see the fuller extent of these confirmations, see Birther String Cites by tesabria, found here:
Birther String Cites
And, as Anti-Birthers and Obots, we also have the luxury of being short-winded. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. may need to write 50 pages to try to convince someone that Minor v. Happersett defined natural born citizenship. Speaking of that case, the Ankeny Court only needed one sentence to pop that bubble:
Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12
To address Apuzzo’s Minor v. Happersett argument, we need only provide the relevant 7 sentences from the case, and that one sentence statement from the Ankeny Court, and it is game, set, and match for our side. No amount of Indian History, or Lion Pride Behavioral Analysis by Apuzzo will defeat it.
And, The Birther Think Tank does its fair share of this type of argument. For example, in the header area above with the blog title, is one page, “A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship” which sets out the proper legal standard. There are numerous articles here dealing with Wong Kim Ark, and Minor v. Happersett and other cases. But remember The Outer Limits of Birtherism– – -the Birthers can not go beyond misrepresentation of the current state of the law lest they admit that Obama is currently eligible for office.
That little nugget of limitations is easily defeated by simply providing the actual law. But what addresses the fact that the misrepresentations are being made in the first place??? Does Mr. Apuzzo imagine that in a courtroom setting, opposing counsel would limit herself or himself to the very proper:
Your Honor, regarding Minor V. Happersett, the Ankeny Court said: “Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” Thus, the case is clearly not precedent for determining natural born citizenship.
Does Apuzzo not think that the phrase, not necessary to solve these doubts from Minor would be shoved up his rear end sideways by opposing counsel??? Can he not hear:
Your Honor, what part of not necessary to solve these doubts does Mr. Apuzzo not get??? What part of doubts don’t he understand???
These are some of the things I point out in an Artsy-Fartsy fashion. For example, I did a parody song called “What Part of Doubts Don’t you Understand??? Here are 2 verses”:
What part of “Doubts,” don’t you understand?
This Minor v. Happersett stuff’s, getting out of hand.
They left the issue open, let’s put out these flames you’ve fanned.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
I appreciate your audience, wants a miracle.
But your logic is so screwy. . . (Is it satirical???)
You need a good scrubbing because you got unclean hands.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
I could have simply repeated the words of the Ankeny Court above, but that gets boring after a while. And, it doesn’t really address the manipulative and intentionally ignorant mindset behind that particular Birther argument. Plus, it gives the non-legally astute reader something that is easier to grasp.
Sooo, yes Mario Apuzzo, my blog is artsy-fartsy. But I think that only makes it more dangerous to the Birthers. Because I don’t just come at you with the dry legal stuff. I come at you with an understanding of where you are going, what you are trying to do, and why you are trying to do it. Art is really good at expressing stuff like that.
I just hope that I am doing justice to the Arts.
Note 1. The Image. This is from The Outer Limits episode, Behold, Eck! from 1964. Wiki has a very good Internet Article about it:
Note 2: Minor v. Happersett. The Birthers claim that the indented sentences from the case define natural born citizenship. People who can read English notice the part from the Ankeny Case that I have bolded:
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
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.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12