The Sap Rises Early In Vermont (Or, Turn The Paige)

Having A Very Thick Skull, The Birther Had No Problems Head-Butting The Tree To Make The Sap Drip Faster

Well, here are some interesting details about the Vermont Birther, H. Brooke Paige, and his attempt to find a lawyer for his eligibility challenge. This is from William Boardman, from OpEdNews.com and here are a few excerpts, with much more at the link below:

Early last summer, Paige was looking for a lawyer to represent him in the “natural born citizen” lawsuit now known as Paige v. Vermont. His personal attorney, Wendell Rose of Barre, whose specialty is real estate, warned him that most Vermont attorneys would probably turn down his case “because of the high profile and controversial nature of my action,” Paige wrote in his court motion to be allowed to represent himself.

After numerous rejections, Paige wrote a three-page, single-spaced letter dated July 4 to J. Paul Giuliani, a well-established Montpelier attorney. Paige wrote, in part, “While what I am hoping to achieve” is very modest, I am thoroughly aware of the profound ramifications my actions could have”. As you reminded me, our judiciary here in Vermont will probably look unfavorably upon my effort to encourage the State of Vermont to do the right thing”.”

Giuliani wrote, and recommended that Paige seek help from the legal clinic at the Vermont Law School.

Considering the Law School an unlikely prospect, Paige turned to retired Superior Court Judge Paul F. Hudson, “who said he found the issues I raised were “fascinating’ and completely consistent with Vermont law.” Hudson agreed with Giuliani that there was no practicing attorney in Vermont with sufficient expertise to handle the case, Paige wrote.

Paige then tried a different approach, seeking to have Mario Apuzzo, a New Jersey attorney who had handled a similar case there, sponsored by a Vermont attorney so that Apuzzo could practice in Vermont temporarily. When communications with Giuliani broke down, Paige turned to attorney Rose, who flatly refused, telling Paige: “when all of this is over, I still need to have clients — this is my livelihood and I just can’t put that at risk.”

There is more at this link:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Keeping-Obama-Off-Vermont-by-William-Boardman-120919-976.html

In my opinion, there isn’t a lawyer in the Universe who has enough expertise to put the two-citizen parents nonsense over on court.   If you refer to the actual complain, you can see that Paige goes wrong at the same point where the first Birthers in Ankeny went wrong- – -assuming that there is some difference between a natural born citizen and someone citizenized by being born in the United States through the 14th Amendment. Paige also falls down the silly Birther Minor v. Happersett rabbit hole. Here are pages  5  and 6 of his complaint:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

This ridiculous claim completely ignores the fact that the 14th Amendment was simply affirming the previous common law concept of natural born citizenship, as is clearly stated in Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision near the bottom of Section V:

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 the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory [wild Indian exception omitted.].

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. 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;”

Far from being some mysterious law beamed in from the Planet Gliese 581g, the 14th Amendment simply affirms this statement, cited with approval in Wong Kim Ark:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

Perhaps these simple statements are over the head of the esteemed H. Brooke Paige, so he proceeds to go hopping down the Minor v. Happersett (MvH) Birfer Bunny Trail with Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq., as can been seen on page 9 of his Complaint:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Never mind the fact that the MvH Court clearly left open the issue of whether or not a child born here of non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen or not, it sure sounds good to pretend like MvH was precedent. Except to real judges, that is. They have a bad tendency to actually read the stuff, think for themselves, and then say things like the Ankeny Court did in 2009:

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

Reading through the Complaint (see Note 1 below for the whole thing.), it is nothing but a rehash of previous idiotic Birther legal arguments, all of which have lost. This one will lose, too. My only question is whether Paige will blame the judge(s) or just admit that his legal case is a bunch of baloney. It won’t be long before we can turn the page on this one.

What a sap.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Here is a pdf of Paige’s Complaint and attachments in case you want to read the whole thing:

Vermont Complaint

Vermont Attachments-to-Cplt

Note 2. Gliese 581g. An exo-planet about which Wiki says, in part:

Gliese 581 g ( /ˈɡliːzə/), also Gl 581 g or GJ 581 g, is an unconfirmed extrasolar planet of the red dwarf star Gliese 581,[2] 22 light-years[3] from Earth in the constellation of Libra.[4] It is the sixth planet discovered in the Gliese 581 planetary system and the fourth in order of increasing distance from the star. The discovery was announced by the Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey in late September 2010, after a decade of observation. However, the ESO/HARPS survey team was not able to confirm that the planet exists.[5][6]

Gliese 581 g has attracted attention because it is near the middle of the habitable zone of its parent star. That means it could sustain liquid water on its surface and could potentially host life similar to that on Earth. (The planet is expected to have temperatures around -37 to -12°C, however). If it is a rocky planet, favorable atmospheric conditions could permit the presence of liquid water, a necessity for all known life, on its surface. With a mass 3.1 to 4.3 times Earth’s, Gliese 581 g is considered a super-Earth and is the planet closest in size to Earth known in a habitable zone. This makes it the most Earth-like Goldilocks planet found outside the Solar System and the exoplanet with the greatest recognized potential for harboring life.[7]

The detection of Gliese 581 g after such a short period of searching and at such close proximity has led some astronomers to hypothesize that the proportion of stars with habitable planets may be greater than ten percent.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_g

Arizona Court Spanks Birthers!!! (Again)

Knowing This Would Come Back On Him, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Went Ahead And Bent Over The Chair

In a stunning rebuke of Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s and Leo Donofrio Esq.’s  ludicrous Birther legal theories, an Arizona judge dismissed another Birther lawsuit.

Here is a pdf of the decision from The Fogbow’s scribd page:

Allen-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Here is the really fun language:

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

Once again, the courts have slapped the idiotic two citizen-parent theory down.  And the ludicrous Minor v. Happersett interpretation the Birthers peddle. I am curious what the Birther accusations will be.  Probably, that this court is corrupt, or scairt, or liberal, or on the take, or whatever, or all of the foregoing.

You can be assured that you will not hear, “Uh, maybe Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and Leo Donofrio, Esq. are wrong???”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image and the Easter Egg. The Image is Enrico Caruso in Pagliacci.  As Wiki says:

Pagliacci was an instant success and it remains popular today. It contains one of opera’s most famous and popular arias, “Recitar! … Vesti la giubba” (literally, To perform! … Put on the costume, but more often known in English as On with the motley).

The applicable definition of motley here is the particolored costume of a jester.

Yukon Jerk Says “Mush!!!” (or, The Best Dang Birther Lawsuit EVAH!!!)

Luckily For Gordon, The Odor From Inside His Igloo Knocked The Mighty Ursus Maritimus Out Cold

While some are calling him a racist, I believe that Birther Gordon Epperly, aka The Sage of Swampy Acres, has filed the Best Dang Birther Lawsuit EVAH!!! Here is a pdf of it, right straight from the Silly Sovereign Sitizen website – USA – The Republic. (I call them Sitizens because of their propensity to sit at their keyboards and burn them up writing  silly legal treatises, penning letters of outrage to editors,  and filing numerous silly lawsuits. Plus, they so often seem to lack standing.):

Pure Alaskan Mush

No doubt part of his success is due to his rare ability among Birthers to actually learn from his past judicial failures. For Epperly once (1991) believed that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, and therefore he and his family were not U.S. Citizens. And therefore not liable to pay income taxes??? See here:

http://www.14th-amendment.com/Court_Documents/Case_No._J90-010-CV/Court/Court_Order_Dismissal_of_Case.pdf

But, for this new lawsuit Epperly has realized that he was wrong. Obama, as a Negro or Mulatto, is definitely covered by the 14th Amendment. I am still a little confused, The USA – The Republic Website still hawks the “14th Amendment never ratified” silliness. Oh, maybe the 14th Amendment only applies to negroes and mulattos???  Hmmm, could be. I have encountered that argument before when debating Birthers. Oh, and there is this little tidbit from The Atlantic:

But to hear many of 21^stCentury’s far-right “constitutionalists” tell the American story, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t exist. Or, at least, not as something that affects the way we live today.

These people are what I call “Fourteenth Amendment deniers.” Their radical right-wing agenda is much more attainable if the values of human equality, and basic civil and political rights, are read out of the document.  So, like Sgt. Schutz in Hogan’s Heroes, they look at the text and see “nothing — nothing!”

The most radical of them simply proclaim that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t count; it wasn’t validly adopted. Southern Senators and Representatives weren’t seated in the Congress that proposed it at the end of the Civil War, they argue, so that body was illegitimate.  In 1957, with the prospect of school desegregation staring it in its all-white face, the Georgia State Legislature went so far as to pass a resolution  declaring that “the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect.”

This old white-supremacist myth lives on, but only in the remote hills and hollers where militiamen mingle with men in sheets.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/constitutional-myth-8-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-exist/241858/

Maybe that is it.  We will probably have to wait for Epperly’s Brief Opposing Motion For Summary Judgment to see how he handles that.  But I digress. From the above copy of the Complaint, you will see this Birther lawsuit has almost everything it it.  Some Minor v. Happersett stuff,  some two citizen parent stuff, some 14th Amendment stuff, AND Epperly even addresses the Ankeny case, to try to head off the response that he knows is coming. Yes, Epperly is a step ahead of the other Birthers who just keeping filing the same old losing case over and over.

There is even a little hint of SEX in his Complaint. Epperly keeps reminding us that it takes more than one person to make a baby by underlining  “s” in citizens and adding the word plural in red. Because you know, a beast with one back just ain’t gonna cut it. Plus, we get the negro and mulatto stuff in this suit.  The other Birthers have kept that belief kind of sub rosa, which I think is Mexican for “under the sheets.”   Probably white ones.  However, Epperly boldly addresses that issue head on and even gets a Rictal Scale point for citing the Dred Scott decision in the process.

But Epperly may have unwittingly laid a snare for future Birthers, because what about Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal??? They are neither negro nor mulatto. Does the 14th Amendment apply to them???  Maybe Epperly will cite Wong Kim Ark for the propsition that Indians were not natural born??? That will take care of Jindal.  But Rubio??? Hmmm. Maybe Epperly will find a Spanish Armada exception to Calvin’s Case or maybe the 1856 Paris Declaration which forbids Letters Mark???

Because if he can’t use those letters, M, A, R,and K, then Mark Rubio can’t get on the ballot.  Hmmm, maybe he could be, ubio, or  John Doe ubio, or maybe  XXXX  Xubio ???  That is even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and would pull in The Law of Nations and oh. . .  Let me stop.  This is over my head.  These are deep and profound Birther questions. I am sure Apuzzo and Donofrio will explain this all to us.

I will have to check in on The Sage of Swampy Acres from time to time and see how he handles this. If you want to read some of the goofiness at what I am guessing is his website:

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Yukon Jerk. A wordplay on one of my favorite drinks, Yukon Jack. Wiki says( And I can vouch for this!):

Yukon Jack is a honey-based Canadian whiskey advertised as the “Black sheep of Canadian Liquors”. It is a 100 proof (in USA) or 80 proof (in Canada) drink.Yukon Jack is produced by Heublein Inc. In 1987 Heublein Inc. was bought out by Diageo. Yukon Jack is made in Valleyfield, Quebec. Bottles available for sale in the US are imported and then bottled in Hartford, Connecticut.

The taste is sweeter than comparable American whiskeys drawing from the honey it is brewed with but then has a rougher bite than say Jack Daniels. It also has the distinctive taste of horehound.

“Yukon Jack is a taste born of hoary nights, when lonely men struggled to keep their fires lit and cabins warm. Boldly flavorful yet surprisingly smooth, there is no spirit like Yukon Jack”

Which the tagline on the label also explains the Easter Egg in the Image. This is a really good drink, but you have to be careful because a few straight shots and your lips get all wobbly. But it is a lot easier to drink than Jack Daniels, and for some reason, you don’t get as belligerent if you overdo it. Or so I am told. . .

Note 2. Mush.

Noun:
1. A soft, wet, pulpy mass.
2. A journey across snow with a dogsled.

Verb:
1. Reduce (a substance) to a soft, wet, pulpy mass.
2. Go on a journey across snow with a dogsled.

Exclamation:
A command urging on dogs during such a journey.

Synonyms:
mash – gruel – pulp

Note 3. Letters Mark. Oh, just a wordplay on Letters Marque about which Wiki says:

In the days of fighting sail, a Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government licence authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled. The French used the term lettre de course for their letters of marque, giving rise to the term corsair.

CDR Kerchner Caught Pontificating In A Public Place!!!

Gig In Hand, Kerchner Was Sure To Lose On Demerits

Well, CDR Kerchner,  late of the USS Gardyloo,  held a press conference in Pennsylvania and just let it all hang out.

You got your whole Natural Law thingy, dating back “10,000 years” to the very dawn of Human Civilization!!! You got Emerich de Vattel in spades, including old Ben Franklin and others having read the book, The Law of Nations.  And why to hear Kerchner tell, that was about the dang most important book that was ever written! Dog my cats! They even went and stuck that book smack dab into the U.S. Constitution so we could punish Pirates!!!

You got your Minor v. Happersett mis-interpretation where Kerchner reads from the Law with all the swagger of Elmer Gantry visiting a cat house, while nonchalantly avoiding the not necessary to resolve these doubts verse. Wait, what was that Kerchner just read???  Something about common law nomenclature??? Oh, I must have mis-underheard it.

You even got some Constitutional law thrown in. Some stuff about needing amendments and such to change it up. But I didn’t hear nothing about the 14th Amendment and its Wong Kim Ark interpretation.  But all in all, it is a fun video.  I think I shall call it, Lions, and Tigers, and Bores. Oh My! You’ll see why:

I can’t wait to hear the press conference after Kerchner gets keelhauled by the Courts.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image.  This is Prince Ruprecht from the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.  He is holding a trident, a symbol of sea power. Tridents are also known as “gigs.” And “gigs” are also a military term for demerits. Which is what this case will be tossed out of court for – – -on de merits.  A lack thereof.

For what it is worth, here is Prince Ruprecht pontificating in public:

The Birther Bible

What a scoop!!! One of my confidential sources has leaked a copy of The Birther Bible to me. Here it is and I hope you enjoy it. What a fascinating document. I am pretty sure that it is genuine, but you never know.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

The Birther Bible Said Hot Air Could Resurrect Dead Legal Theories

The Book of Vattel

Chapter 1

1. In the beginning was the Prophet, and his name was Emerich de Vattel.
2. And Vattel laid down the Law unto all nations, and the name of the Book was, The Law of Nations.
3. It was written in the language of the French.
4. Verily did Vattel say, in paragraph 212 of Book 1: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
5. Thus it was and thus it shall always be.
6. For did not John Jay seek permission of George Washington to inquire if any but a natural born citizen should ever become President?
7. And did not George Washington borrow The Law of Nations and returned it not, for the love of it?
8. Yea verily, the French are a great peoples, who invented mimes and many wonderful cheeses.

Chapter 2

1. Then there arose in the land those who denied the words of Vattel, and mocked the true believers and tempted them from the paths of patriotism with clever arguments.
2. These were known as the Anti-Vattelites.
3. They falsely testified that the common law of the English was the source of natural born citizenship, and yea, had been so for centuries before the coming of Vattel.
4. They told tales of Calvin’s Case, and how mere birth within the kingdom made one a natural born citizen.
5. Many were the American legal cases whereof they spake, and none which required two citizen parents to begat a natural born citizen, when the birth occurred within the Kingdom.
6. But the fast tongues of the Anti-Vattelites did not stop there.
7. No, for the blasphemous tongues of the Anti-Vattelites fashioned the very words of the Prophet himself into a snare for the unwary, saying unto them, “But did not Vattel himself say in paragraph 214 of Book 1, that “there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
8. Their slick words caused many to doubt, for of a truth those words do seemeth to indicate to the unlearned that the Prophet Vattel taught England was a nation unto itself, wherein mere birth inside the kingdom was sufficient for citizenship.
9. Yet, the wise Birther, who hath studied the matter thoroughly, doth understand that there were two Englands, and the Prophet was speaking of the other one, not the one from which sprangeth the United States.

The Book of the Judges of Minor v. Happersett

Chapter 1

1. Then in the year of 1875, did one Virginia Minor sueth the Elders of the State of Missouri so that she might be possessed of the right to vote, in the same manner as the men thereof.
2. She lost.
3. The Wise Judges of the Supreme Court didst counsel together and speak these words:
4. “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.”
5. Thus did the Supreme Court recognize the words of the Prophet Vattel, and this became precedent throughout the land.
6. Selah. Selah. Selah.

Chapter 2

1. Alas, after hearing the words of the Judges, the hearts of Anti-Vattelites were hardened.
2. For in shame, should they have been driven from the land, no longer being able to ridicule the Constitutionalists with their mockery of French law, and their blasphemies against the Prophet Vattel.
3. Lo, was there now an American source which gaveth the law that two citizen-parents must begat natural born citizens, and no others.
4. Yet, in their perfidy and false pride, the Anti-Vattelites respected not even these American Judges
5. The Evil Ones would have it no other way but that the Judges’ words immediately following the precedent, must also be included in the prophesy, those words being, “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.”
6. They bore false witness that the Judges indeed made no decision whatsoever in the manner of precedent, and didst but punt the question regarding the children born inside the Kingdom of aliens and foreigners to some later court.
7. In truth, those words do follow the first words of the decision, yet they do not mean there was incompleteness.
8. For if those words didst mean such a thing, then the words of the Prophet Vattel would not be fulfilled.
9. This teaching is complicated, and must not be mistaken for reasoning that cometh and goeth in circles.

The Book of Rhetorics

Chapter 1

1. Many are the scribes of the Anti-Vattelites and their name is Legion.
2. Day and night doth they toil at their evil work, incessantly setting down facts which have the outward appearance of negating the words of the Prophet Vattel, yea even contradicting the interpretations of the words of the Judges of Minor v. Happersett.
3. It is enough to make a patriot throw up his hands in despair
4. For truly is it said, that ants may kill a camel, and gnats drive the bull from the pasture.
5. Thus, is it better for thee not to contend with words against the Anti-Vattelites for they are quick of wit, and will confound thee with uncomfortable facts.
6. Far better it is for thee, to hitteth and runneth away. Say, in thy haste, that it takes two citizen-parents to begat a natural born citizen, as if knowing whereof you speak, and then flee the forum hurriedly lest you be confronted.
7. For truly is it said that words repeated often enough take on an existence all of their own.

Chapter 2

1. But if thou canst not hold thy tongue, then it is better to contend with words than to stew in silence, for such will busteth thy gut and cause fits.
2. And yea, here is the manner in which thou shouldst confront the Anti-Vattelites, if thou art feeling lucky.
3. Avoideth all talk of the Wong Kim Ark legal case, for here there be many dragons. Sayeth simply that Wong Kim Ark was not running for the Presidency, and prayeth earnestly that the Anti-Vattelite knoweth not the case well.
4. If however, the Anti-Vattelite knoweth well the case, then shouldst thou falsely remember thou hast an appointment with a physician, or some other pressing errand, and promise to return on the morrow. But, returneth not.
5. Doeth likewise with the case of Ankeny v. Governor, although thou mayst also calleth these judges by foul names, they being but judges of the state.
6. Some Birthers doth meet with success by copying and pasting large numbers of words from previous arguments without care that these words pertaineth not to the argument at hand.
7. Likewise mayst thou distracteth from the argument by the calling of names, limning the Anti-Vattelites as Minions of the Usurper.
8. All such artfulness mayst be avoided if thou simply stays among the chambers of like-minded Birthers, where thou canst be comforted with the sound of echos.

The Book of Acts

Chapter 1

1. These be the acts which it is better for thee not to commit.
2. Thou shalt not maketh a Citizen’s Arrest. These turneth out badly.
3. If thou attempts to maketh a Citizen’s Arrest anyway, and are afterwards arrested and convicted, do not talketh back and disrespect the Judge.
4. Thou shalt not engageth in civil rebellions or sedition.
5. If thou engageth in civil rebellions or sedition anyway, then thou shouldst not broadcast thy plans to bankers, the FBI, and strangers on the Internet. These also turneth out badly.
6. Neither shalt thou carryeth within thy vehicle, personal pleasure devices or deviant materials, as these will cause much shame unto thee.
7. Thou shalt not refuseth to deploy if so ordered by thy Centurion.
8. Thou shalt not walketh away from thy military retirement.
9. Thou shalt not maketh the youtube videos in which thou promises to arresteth the President. For lo, his protectors shall descend upon thee with guns, subpoenas, and search warrants.
10. Thou shalt not calleth judges by names or falsely accuse them within their own Courtroom, for their sanctions may be laid heavily upon thee.

The 800 Pound Gorilla In The Room

Sadly, The Helmet Was A Helluva Good Disguise To Many People

This Internet Article is about 800 pound Gorillas in the room, on several different levels.  The first level deals with the two citizen-parent Birthers and the 1875 voting rights case, Minor v. Happersett (MvH).  Just like with Breckinridge Long, (see Note 1 below) another MvH-snubbing legal scholar has come to my attention. This one is named George Collins, and in 1884, he wrote Are persons born within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof ?

This was just  9 years after the putative natural born citizen precedent setting MvH case. Like Breckinridge Long, George Collins also failed to mention Minor v. Happersett, even though the whole point of his piece was that a child’s citizenship should be determined by the father’s citizenship.  Here is a link to Collins’ article:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

I will go deeper into this article at a later date.

The point for now is, that if Minor v. Happersett was sooo definitive in defining citizenship, why was it that nobody knew it at the time???  This particular article was written just 9 years after the case.  This is a simple question that has been asked many times at The Birther Think Tank.  Just add one more unanswered major anomaly to the two citizen-parent Alternate Reality Universe.

But, I mentioned this Internet Article was about different levels of overlooking the obvious. I first discovered the above piece by Collins by reading Dianna Cotter’s “America’s two unconstitutional Presidents” published December 14, 2009. Miss Cotter is a reporter with the Portland Examiner.

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/america-s-two-unconstitutional-presidents

Cotter is interesting because she is also one of the people helping to disseminate the Justiagate nonsense. For the unfamiliar, Justia, an online legal research website supposedly scrubbed links to Minor v. Happersett prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. Justia claims the mistake was a simple programming error which also affected other cases, but Dianna Cotter and Leo Donofrio are convinced this was part of a sinister plot. See for example:

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate-the-cover-up-continues-1

and:

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

But if MvH isn’t precedent, to anyone outside of Vattel Birther circles,  what’s the point??? Why go to all the effort to scrub a case that is irrelevant??? Even more importantly, how do you write an article in December 2009 where the subject author, George Collins, is a person who completely ignored the MvH case decided just 9 years before he wrote his article back in 1884- – -and then come back, as Cotter did in October 2011 and jump on the Minor v. Happersett band wagon. A reporter is supposed to have a nose for the news, and become suspicious when things don’t add up, like they do with Minor v. Happersett.

I do not know Dianna Cotter, so I don’t know why she didn’t catch this.  Maybe she just forgot the article she wrote 2 years earlier.  Maybe the question of why Collins failed to pick up on this supposedly wonderfully precedental MvH case just never occurred to her.  Perhaps all the other cases which failed to recognize MvH or all the multiple anomalies have managed to slip beneath her radar. Or maybe she just has no interest in trying to confirm her own theories.

But, reporters ask questions. It is what we do.  That 800 pound gorilla is sitting in the middle of her room and demanding a king’s ransom in bananas. Luckily for her, the two citizen-parent Birthers have plenty.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: This is the Internet Article about Breckinridge Long:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/the-most-unkindest-cut-of-all-et-tu-breckinridge/

Note 2:  A quick list of anomalies can be found here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/the-alternate-reality-universe-of-leo-donofrio-a-white-paper/

Note 3: Ro-Man, and the Image above:

The image above is from Robot-Monster, one of the worst films of all time. Wiki says:

Robot Monster is a 1953 American science fiction film made in 3-d by Phil Tucker. It is frequently considered one of the worst films ever made.  The evil alien Ro-Man Extension XJ-9 (who is simply called “Ro-Man” by the humans) has destroyed all but eight humans on Earth with his “calcinator death ray.” The budget did not allow for a robot costume as intended so director Phil Tucker used his friend George Barrows who had his own gorilla suit to play Ro-Man. Phil Tucker added the helmet.

There is a little pun built into the Easter Egg. (Hover your mouse over the image.)Roman law is said to have been based on descent, not place of birth.  From Edward Gibbon’s book,  The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, some Roman Law:

The above account of slavery and its modifications will be found in strictest conformity with the Institutes of Justinian. Thus, in book 1st, title 3d, it is said: “The first general division of persons in respect to their rights is into freemen and slaves.” The same title, sec. 4th: “Slaves are born such, or become so. They are born such of bondwomen; they become so either by the law of nations, as by capture, or by the civil law.”

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 all,  Leo 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:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within

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:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

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.

The Alternate Reality Universe of Leo Donofrio (A White Paper)

Try As They Might With The WABAC Machine, Every Time The Vattel Birthers Managed To Change Natural Born Citizenship In All The Textbooks, Prohibition Remained In Effect

One of the two-citizen parent Birthers, Leo Donofrio, is really doubling down on the Minor v. Happersett case as being precedent for determining natural born citizenship, and is acting like some minor boo-boos (pun intended) linking the case on a internet law research website, Justia, is the crime of the century.  According to this alternate reality theory, this 1875 women’s voting rights case, defined natural born citizenship, even though the judges in that case clearly said they did not need to resolve that issue.  Here is Donofrio’s latest off-planet trip:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/

About alternate realities, Wiki says:

A parallel universe or alternative reality is a hypothetical self-contained separate reality coexisting with one’s own.  While the terms “parallel universe” and “alternative reality” are generally synonymous and can be used interchangeably in most cases, there is sometimes an additional connotation implied with the term “alternative reality” that implies that the reality is a variant of our own.

Typically, parallel universes fall into two classifications. The first may be more accurately called a “diverging universe” whereby two versions of Earth share a common history up to a point of divergence. At this point, the outcome of some even happens differently on the two Earths and the histories continue to become more different as time elapses since that point.

It is like the stories where everything on Earth is the same, up until the Nazi Germans get the atomic bomb first, and win World War II. That is the same type of thing that Leo Donofrio and the other Vattle Birthers (my humorous term for the Vattel disciples) are trying to put over on people. That in 1875, the Minor v. Happersett case provided the definition of natural born citizenship. Fortunately, we can determine if this theory is fact or fiction by reviewing the history since 1875 to see if reality really did diverge down the two-citizen parent path as it would have if Donofrio was right.

Following are 21 instances ranging from mundane entries in encyclopedias to law review articles and even a SCOTUS case, where the reality of this universe diverges from the alternate reality universe of Leo Donfrio.  Timewise, these examples begin shortly after the Minor v. Happersett decision and cover the time period until the 2009 “One To Grow On.”  This list could easily have been 5 times as long. In none of these instances is there even a whiff of the two-citizen parent foolishness. Most flatly state the exact opposite, that natural born simply means born in the United States.

1. 1876 the American Law Review mentioned Minor v. Happersett as a voting rights case, and says nothing about the case defining natural born citizenship.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/a-minor-inconvenience-for-the-knot-heads/

2.1876 Tuttle’s New History of America by Charles Tuttle:

13. — The Executive. This power is vested in the President, who is chosen by electors from the several states, and his term of office is four years. Every state is entitled to as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress. The Vice President who is ex-officio President of the senate, and who in certain events may become President of the United States, is chosen in a similar manner at the same time with the President. The Chief Executive and the Vice President must be native born citizens of the United States, residing within the states fourteen years, and the Constitution further demands that they shall have attained the age of thirty-five years.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA63&dq=%22chief+executive%22+%22native+born%22&ei=bl-3TNXTKIH98Abm2KTpCQ&ct=book-preview-link&id=jEDzAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22chief%20executive%22%20%22native%20born%22&f=false

3. 1878 Elements of International Law by Henry Wheaton:

There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England, America and the majority of South American states claim all who are born within their dominions, as natural born birth in subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality;

http://books.google.com/books?id=z6ysAAAAMAAJ&q=There+is+no+uniform+rule+among+nations+by#v=snippet&q=There%20is%20no%20uniform%20rule%20among%20nations%20by&f=false

4. 1879 Outline for Civil Governement Designed For Common Schools by W.. Thatcher:

Art. II., Sec. i, Clause 5.—Qualifications 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirtyfive years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

(a.) Natural born.—Born in the United States. Our state constitution does not thus limit the office of its executive.

(6.) Fourteen years resident.—That he may be thoroughly conversant with its affairs. He may be absent from the United States as an ambassador, or in official duty as a United States officer. Buchanan was minister at the Court of St. James (Great Britain), when nominated for President.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA38&dq=%22+natural+born%22+inauthor:thatcher&ei=V7S0TI_pAcL78Ab0qOX8CQ&ct=book-preview-link&id=sL0_AAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22%20natural%20born%22%20inauthor%3Athatcher&f=false

5. 1880 Chester Arthur runs for Vice-President.  His father was Irish, and not a citizen when Arthur was born, but the only objections to his eligibility were that Arthur was born in either Ireland, or in Canada. The Vattle Birthers try to explain this away claiming that nobody knew Arthur’s father was Irish, but that claim falls flat in light of the fact his political opponents accused Chester Arthur of being born in Ireland.

6. 1881, Judge Waite swears in Chester Arthur. Waite, who wrote the Minor v. Happersett decision, actually swears in Chester Arthur as President, even though he supposedly ruled 6 years earlier that it took two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/breaking-news-1880-republicans-scrubbed-libraries-of-minor-v-happersett/

7. 1883, An exposition of the constitution of the United States By Albert Orville Wright.

All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner
may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized.  (See page 88.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=P1wUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=%22natural+born%22+%22born+in+the+united+states%22+-35&hl=en&ei=xZ60TKD7DcKC8gbEpJ3bCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=29&ved=0CLUBELsFMBw4lgE#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%22%20%22born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22%20-35&f=false

8. 1886, Outlines of international law: with an account of its origin and sources and … By George Breckenridge Davis

(d.) The municipal laws of every state enumerate and define the rights and privileges which may be acquired by its naturalized citizens. In no case do such persons acquire all the privileges of native-born citizens. The most usual restrictions apply to the holding of political and military office, the highest grades of which, in every state, can only be filled by native-born citizens. In the United States, whose policy of naturalization is extremely liberal, the offices of President and Vice-President can only be held by native-born citizens.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA102&dq=president+%22native+born%22+-35&ei=HYy0TPbZNcG88ga13a2BDA&ct=book-preview-link&id=1skLAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=president%20%22native%20born%22%20-35&f=false

9. 1888 The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with … By William Cox Cochran

Natural, according to nature; not artificial, exceptional, or violent. Natural allegiance, that perpetual obedience which is due from all natural-born subjects to their sovereign, as distinguished from local allegiance, which is only temporary. Natural-born citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA185&dq=%22those+that+are+born+within+the+jurisdiction+of+a+national
+%22&ei=xcq1TJicOMP-8AaQr5jyCQ&ct=book-preview-link&id=MzAWAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22those%20that%20are%20born%20within%20the%20jurisdiction
%20of%20a%20national%20%22&f=false

10. 1889 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

That Congress shall be in session on the second Wednesday of February succeeding every meeting of the electors, and the certificates trom them shall then be opened, the votes counted and the persons to fill the offices of President and Vice-President ascertained and declared agreeably to the Constitution. It provides also that no one shall be eligible to these offices unless he be 35 years old and be born in the United States.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fd7cRS7tbTYC&pg=PA216&dq=%22born+in+the+United+States%22+35+President&hl=en&ei=enK0TIWsDoOB8gamstHLCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=23&ved=0CJ4BELsFMBY#v=onepage&q=%22born%20in%20the%20United%20States%22%2035%20President&f=false

11. 1898, The American passport: its history and a digest of laws, rulings and … By United States. Dept. of State, Gaillard Hunt

CITIZENSHIP BY NATIVITY.

All persons born in the United States, except such as are born in foreign embassies or legations and Indians untaxed, are natural-born citizens of the United States; and a person born abroad whose father was at the time of his birth a citizen. . .

http://books.google.com/books?id=ywg1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA99&dq=%22natural+born%22+%22born+in+the+united+states%22+-35&hl=en&ei=D6K0TISvOcT58AaFx_WhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=14&ved=0CHEQuwUwDTi0AQ#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%22%20%22born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22%20-35&f=false

12. 1898, David Shephard Garland et al, THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW, 2d Ed. Vol. 6 (1898):

[Citizenship Chapter – How Citizenship Acquired]
[17]
2. By Birth in Jurisdiction. — Natural citizenship is created by birth within the jurisdiction of the United States.1 To be a citizen of the United States [18] by reason of birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but must also be born subject to its jurisdiction; that is, in its power and obedience.

13. 1898 Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS case which does NOT cite Minor v. Happersett to define natural born citizenship, and instead cites the case for holding that the term must be defined by resort to English common law, and for the statement that there are only two sources of citizenship those being birth and naturalization.

More importantly, and what must really sting the Vattle Birthers, is that Minor v. Happersett is NOT even cited by the dissent in Wong Kim Ark for the purposes of defining citizenship.

14. 1910 Raleigh C. Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910)

Note: Mr. Minor was Professor at the University of Virginia (per above link).

[65]
“I. Citizenship of the United States.
This subject must be discussed with reference to two distinct periods in our history, the first, from the inception of the Constitution to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868; the second, from the passage of the Amendment to the present.

The original Constitution had conferred upon Congress the express power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” and had declared that “no person except a natural-born citizen * * * shall be eligible to the office of President.” It had also, in defining the eligibility of Senators and Representatives in Congress, declared that they shall have been “citizens of the United States” for a prescribed period. Thus, the Constitution itself recognized that there was a classification of citizens into natural-born and naturalized, but it nowhere defined who should be deemed citizens.

Where then was the government to look for a definition? The natural answer, in view of our system of municipal law, was to con-[66]sult the common law of England, to which we had been subject as Colonies, and to modify that by such legislative acts of Congress as might be needful to adapt it to our conditions. At least this was what was actually done, and the right of Congress, under the original Constitution, thus to modify the common-law doctrine as it might see fit, has never been seriously questioned.

The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, even though of alien parents, is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 655 et seq.; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 583; 9 Ops. Atty.-Gcn. 373; 10 Id. 382, 394.”

15.  1914 Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).:

[496]
“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 D. 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 natural-born 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, Intro, to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of U. S. (1904).”

16.  1967 McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967)
As quoted by Pryor (881, n.2):

“It is clear that under the English common law this term ‘natural born’ meant ‘native born.’… It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen … to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term ‘natural-born citizens’ as one of the qualifications for the President”

17. 1968 Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, at 7-8 (1968)
As quoted by Pryor (881, n.2) – In arguing that both those born in the U.S. and those born outside the U.S. to US citizen parents are eligible to be President:

“[T]he leading British authorities agree that under the early common law, status as a natural-born subject probably was acquired only by those born within the realm, but that the statutes .. enabled natural-born subjects to transmit equivalent status at birth to the children born to them outside of the kingdom . . . . There was no warrant for supposing that the Framers wished to deal less generously with their own children.”

18.  1988 Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)

“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” [881 and n.2].

“…. It has never been suggested that Congress has the power to deny natural born status to native borns. Here it might be helpful to distinguish between the power to define the clause (e.g., to say that “natural born” means “born in California”) and the power to naturalize from birth (to include additional classes of people within the scope of the clause). Congress has only the latter power under the Constitution. Thus Congress can expand the category of natural-born citizens to encompass more than simply native borns, but it may not contract the category below the native born minimum set by the Fourteenth Amendment.” [892, n. 65].

19. 1995 Walter Dellinger (AAG), Statement before the Subcommittees on Immigration and Claims and on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 13, 1995)

Note: Per Wikipedia (and sources cited therein), Dellinger served as the acting United States Solicitor General for the 1996-1997 Term of the Supreme Court under President Bill Clinton. Prior to his appointment – when he submitted this statement to Congress – Dellinger was an Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Court, [Wong Kim Ark] in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.

20. 2005 Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005):

[189-91]
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”

“In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentors today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorproates both th3 common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

21. 2005 Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)

“United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.”

Above are 21 instances where the reality of this universe and this planet, do not seem to agree with Mr. Donofrio’s alternate reality. Let give him one more to grow on, from Ankeny v. Governor in 2009, which may help explain to Mr. Donofrio and his disciples why this Reality did not go down his divergent two citizen-parent path:

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] 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

and:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Pretty simple.  The case did not define natural born citizenship and, two citizen parents are not a requirement.  Duh!!!

For what it is worth, the 21 instances above could just as easily been 100 or more instances.  Donofrio’s alternate reality universe, where Minor v. Happersett supposedly defined natural born citizenship in 1875 as requiring two citizen parents,  badly needs a Vinny Gambini (from My Cousin Vinny) to ask the equivalent of, “Well, I guess the laws of physics cease to exist on top of your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans? Sooo:

Well, Mr. Donofrio, I guess the laws of physics and common sense cease to exist on top of your computer desk. Was this a magic case? Did you learn about it from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The WABAC Machine. Wiki says:

Sherman and Mr. Peabody enter the WABAC machine ca. 1960 to witness another time and place in history.

The WABAC Machine (pronounced, and often synonymous with, Way-back) refers to a fictional machine from the cartoon segment Peabody’s Improbable History, an ongoing feature of the 1960’s cartoon series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. The WABAC Machine is a plot device used to transport the characters Mr. Peabody and Sherman back in time. The meaning of the acronym is unknown, but mid-century, big-science project names, such as ENIAC, UNIVAC,  and JOHNNIAC, often ended in “AC”.

As in the original cartoon, the Wayback Machine is often invoked to suggest the audience follow the narrator back to the past. Frequently such visits to the past are trips of nostalgia, remembering times, places, or things of the not-so-distant past. One example of popular usage occurred in “Goofy Ball”, a 1995 episode of the TV show NewsRadio, when station owner Jimmy James (Stephen Root) says: “Dave, don’t mess with a man with a Wayback Machine. I can make it so you were never born.

The Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive was named after the WABAC.

Note 2. Source:  Items at Numbers 12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21 above may be found at:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html#NBC_TA_McClane

Note 3. Source of google books cites above: All of the cites above which contain a google book cite came from this website, where you can easily read a 100 instances which contradict the Donofrio nonsense interpretation of Minor v. Happersett:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

Note 4: Here are the seven simple sentences from Minor v. Happersett which cause so much confusion to the two citizen-parent Birthers:

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.

What Part of “Doubts” Don’t You Understand??? (A Parody Song)

Well, She Did Go To The Park To Feed The Squirrels

Here is parody song that I dedicate to Mario Apuzzo, Esq.,  and Leo Donofrio, who both push the ridiculous theory that the case of Minor v. Happersett 1875, a voting rights case, defined the term natural born citizen. There are three sentences of that case which clearly states there were doubts about children of aliens which the court did not need to resolve at that time.  These DOUBTS were resolved 23 years later in Wong Kim Ark.  Here is the language from the Minor v. Happersett case, with bolding by me:

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.

Here is my parody song, based on What Part Of No Don’t You Understand, by country singer, Lorrie Morgan. There is a youtube video below in case you do not know the tune. Start crying in your beer, boys:

What Part of Doubts Don’t You Understand???
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Sir, if you ask me, I think that you’re a crank.
You’re trying to rewrite the past just , like a mountebank.
Your little hands are writing checks, that you can never cash
And this mumbo jumbo legal stuff is, pure balderdash

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?

What part of “Doubts,” don’t you understand?
And if you try this stuff in court, expect a reprimand.
If you were playing poker, you’d be bluffing with this hand.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?

Expect a judge to tell you, that “You lose!” and “Go, pound sand!”
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?
Yeah, what part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?

Tee Hee Haw,

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Here is a youtube version of the song this parody is based on, What Part Of No Don’t You Understand, made popular by Lorrie Morgan:

Note 2: Here are the guitar chords and lyrics to:

What Part of No Don’t You Understand

C …………………………………………G
Sir if you don’t mind, I rather be alone
………………………………………………………..F……………..G……… C
From the moment I walked in tonight, you’ve been comin’ on
…………………………………………………………F
If I told you once, I told you twice, I’m just here to unwind
…………G…………………………………..F…………G……….C
I’m not interested in romance or what you have in mind

CHORUS

C…………………………………………….F
What part of NO don’t you understand
..G…………………………………………..F……G………….C
I put it plain and simple, I’m not in to one night stands
………………………………………………F
I’ll be glad to explain it, if its too hard to comprehend
G…………………………………………..C
What part of NO don’t you understand.

Instrumental———- Bb

Verse (2)

C………………………………………… G
I appreciate the drink and the rose was nice of you
…………………………………………………….F…………G……..C
I don’t mean to be so bleak, I don’t think I’m gettin’ thru
C………………………………………..F
I don’t need no company and I don’t want to dance
G…………………………………………….C
What part of NO don’t you understand.

CHORUS & TAG TWICE

Note 3: Terms.

Unclean Hands, wiki says:

Unclean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine,is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the Compaint–that is, with “unclean hands”. The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”.

A defendant’s unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, ‘unclean hands’ can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.

A Mountebank is defined as:

Noun:

1. A person who deceives others, esp. in order to trick them out of their money; a charlatan.
2. A person who sold patent medicines in public places.
3. A boastful unscrupulous pretender

Synonyms:
charlatan – quack – impostor

Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.

Pound Sand, is defined by The Urban Dictionary:

“The origin of the expression go pound sand is from a longer expression, not to know (have enough sense to) pound sand down a rathole. Filling rat holes with sand is menial work, and telling someone to pound sand down a hole is like telling them to go fly a kite. The expression dates to at least 1912 and is common in the midwestern United States.”

To order someone to go away or “get lost.” This is a widely used term that has no vulgar connotations.

A term used when annoyed with a person.

To tell someone to f*ck off

To stick it where the sun don’t shine.

Note 4: Miscellaneous: Scrubbing is a reference to Leo Donofrio’s claims that Justia scrubbed the Minor v. Happersett links prior to the 2008 Presidential election. Which is silly considering the case has little significance to natural born citizenship, and even sillier considering Donofrio’s attempt to rewrite history himself, which is an example of unclean hands.

The poker reference also relates to Donofrio, who has played in tournaments, and won money. Should you get a chance to bet against his legal challenges with Minor v. Happersett as precedent, go all in.

Note 5: The image is “Doubt” by Henrietta Rae, and was done in 1886.

A Cite For Sore Eyes (The Dred Scott Case in 1898)

The 1898 Rambler Slave-Catcher Coupe Could Follow The Drinking Gourd With The Best Of Them

The two-citizen parent Vattle Birthers are trying to convince the world that the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett, a voting rights case, defined natural born citizenship. This is absurd, and I have already de-bunked that nonsense multiple  times in other Internet Articles.  Sooo, this piece is about some of the lies and distractions being used to fool people about the case. (Note: Vattle Birthers my sarcastic name for the two citizen parent Birthers since they are members of the Emerich de Vattel Fan Club.)

They distraction process begins by stating that Minor v. Happersett has been cited 25 or more times by courts, and that fact alone means that it is good precedent and therefore the whole case stands for whatever silly nonsense they are pushing at the moment.  If you point out to them that the case does not resolve any citizenship questions, they respond with, “But it’s been cited over 25 times!!!”

In addition, they are busy whooping it up that links to Minor v. Happersett , which appeared on just one of many separate sources of SCOTUS case law, Justia, were scrubbed and altered to keep people from finding out about this wonderful case while Obama was running for office.  If you point out to them again that the case does not resolve any citizenship questions, so why would anybody want to look it up in the first place, then they respond, “Then why did they scrub the case???”

Both of these claims are nothing but flim flam designed to get people talking about the case being cited 25 times and allegedly being scrubbed to keep people from noticing that the case openly states that it doesn’t do squat about resolving whether children of foreigners born in the United States were natural born citizens. (See Note 3 below.)

When a court cites, or quotes from a case, it is not citing every single word in the case,  or approving the whole case in a general way. They are only citing the particular words on the particular issue on the particular point they wish to make. So for Minor v. Happersett,  several courts have cited it for the purpose of saying that the 14th Amendment does not create voting rights.  NO COURT has ever cited Minor v. Happersett for the purpose of defining natural born citizenship.  None. Not a single one. Why should any court do this when the Minor v. Happersett judges themselves came right out and said they were not resolving the doubts about the issue.  Those doubts were resolved in the  1898 SCOTUS case of Wong Kim Ark, which case the Vattle Birthers avoid like the plague.

But how do you prove all this easily or show how this stuff works without going through some big long analysis about the do’s and don’ts of legal case citing.  Fortunately, there is an easy way to show how these people are trying to put something over on you. One of the big promoters of the Minor v. Happersett nonsense and the related distraction process is named Leo Donofrio.  Wouldn’t it be fun to use HIS example to show how the distractions are meaningless! Here is something he says in one of his Internet Articles:

Stanley is peddling a response to JustiaGate which requires one to accept that all 25 cases were accidentally altered to remove the words “Minor v. Happersett” and the official citations to Minor, while various portions of relevant text pertaining to the eligibility issue were also removed from other cases along with the Slaughter-House Cases name and it’s official citation… along with further references to citizenship precedents such as Osborn v. Bank of United States and Scott v. Sandford (removed from US v. Wong Kim Ark) which features the following definition of natural-born citizen:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Sound familiar? It’s the same definition of natural-born citizen as in Minor v. Happersett.

The  Scott v. Sandford case Leo Donofrio  is talking about is also known as the Dred Scott Case. It was a 1857 SCOTUS case, and is famous for holding that slaves were property and if a slave escaped to a Free State,  then he should be treated like property and returned to his owner. Kind of like a lost dog.  But the mere fact that case was cited in the  1898 SCOTUS case of Wong Kim Ark does not re-activate slavery and return black people to slave status. If it did, the picture of the 1898 slave tracking car above would be reality. Just being cited does not make the Dred Scott Case good law on any point except the one it was being cited for.  Merely stating that Wong Kim Ark cites the Dred Scott case does not tell you anything why the case is being cited, or anything else about the case.  (There, that was a simple example!)

The same thing holds true about Minor v. Happersett.  Merely saying that it has been cited 25 times doesn’t tell you anything about why the case was cited, does not prove anything about the case, and does not reveal any significance the case may have.  Similarly, there is no way to judge the impact of any alleged programming boo-boos by Justia.

So why bring up these issues just to leave them unresolved?  A person could spend days trying to figure out and untangle all the nonsense Donofrio has splatted out at his website about the citings and Justia, and still not know what is going on. Or, a person could spend a few minutes on the 7 sentences below at Note 3, and realize the case left open and unresolved the issue of natural born citizenship. I believe the Vattle Birthers are doing the same thing a magician does. He distracts you with a beautiful lady in a revealing outfit,  or flourishes with his left hand, while he makes a rabbit disappear with his right hand.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1:  from the Image caption- Follow the Drinking Gourd

The American folksong Follow the Drinking Gourd was first published in 1928. The Drinking Gourd song was supposedly used by an Underground Railroad operative to encode escape instructions and a map. These directions then enabled fleeing slaves to make their way north from Mobile, Alabama to the Ohio River and freedom. Taken at face value, the “drinking gourd” refers to the hollowed out gourd used by slaves (and other rural Americans) as a water dipper. But here it is used as a code name for the Big Dipper star formation, which points to Polaris, the Pole Star, and North.

http://www.followthedrinkinggourd.org/

Tom Loker, from the Image title, was the slave catcher in the Uncle Tom’s Cabin  book.

Note 2:  Donofrio is also slippery another way in the excerpt above.  He slips in this  language from Emerich de Vattel, ““The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” without telling anybody  that it was cited in the dissent in Wong Kim Ark, and thus has no legal significance in American law.

Note 3: Minor v. Happersett.  A brief recap of the flap about this case is provided for completeness. The Vattle Birthers cite this language with their left hand,

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.

while, with their right hand, they  palm the next three sentences and make them disappear:

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.

Yes. You are reading it correctly. The judges openly admit they are not solving the doubts,  while the Vattle Birthers try to convince you they did.  This is why they need all the distractions they can get.