Kangaroos On Mars!!! Are They Naturally Born???

The Crew Of The Ten Year Long Mars Explorer Mission Weren’t Sure How Their Kids Would Be Received Back On Earth

Adrian Nash, of the h2ooflife Blog, and frequent commenter here, has written a new post, and here are a few excerpts:

Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens

No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born.  It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.

An example is the Kangaroo.  Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia?  But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right? That couldn’t be more absurd.  Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents.  Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant.  But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.

If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth?  Would they be natural born Earthlings?  Would they be natural born humans?  Would they be natural born Americans?  Or something else…-something different?

Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child.  His father was not a North American.  He was not an American citizen.  He was not an America immigrant.  He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.

If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else?  According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.

Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law.  All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/martians-koreans-natural-citizens/

What Mr. Nash argues for is a more logical basis for citizenship than place of birth.  That isn’t necessarily a bad argument, but it is simply not the current state of American law. Almost two years ago I wrote a post which directly addressed this point and which cited an 1898 American Law Review article written shortly after the Wong Kim Ark case was decided. To make it easier to copy and paste,  I have transcribed most of page 8 into text:

But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.

It was only an eight page article, and it is reproduced in image form here:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/

The author of that article, Marshall B. Woodworth, actually agreed with Mr. Nash that using parentage was preferable to using place of birth. However, unlike Mr. Nash and all the other two citizen parent Birthers, Woodworth also recognized the actual state of the law. And, in these lines from above,

the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.

Woodworth also recognized that common law controlled the question, not something like Vattel’s The Law of Nations. And what was that common law??? From Wong Kim Ark:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Nothing there about any two-citizen parents requirement. Which all leads back to questions I once posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Why don’t you just admit that Obama was and is legally eligible for the office? Why don’t you just admit that there currently is no two-citizen parent requirement? Then, why don’t you work to change the law?

I submit the same questions to Mr. Nash.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the cast of Captain Kangaroo, about which Wiki says:

Captain Kangaroo was an American children’s television series which aired weekday mornings on the American television network CBS for nearly 30 years, from October 3, 1955 until December 8, 1984, making it the longest-running nationally broadcast children’s television program of its day. In 1986, the American Program Service (now American Public Television, Boston) integrated some newly produced segments into reruns of past episodes, distributing the newer version of the series until 1993.

The show was conceived and the title character played by Bob Keeshan, who based the show on “the warm relationship between grandparents and children.” Keeshan had portrayed the original Clarabell the Clown on The Howdy Doody Show when it aired on NBC. Captain Kangaroo had a loose structure, built around life in the “Treasure House” where the Captain (the name “kangaroo” came from the big pockets in his coat) would tell stories, meet guests, and indulge in silly stunts with regular characters, both humans and puppets.

This show was before my time, but I think I must have had some videotapes, because the Dancing Bear really seems familiar. And for all the Birthers, I present:

Note 2. The Image Easter Egg. For ESLs, Mr. Green Jeans was a regular character on the show, and Martians are often presented as Little Green Men, sooo it was just a silly word play about the alleged Martian children in the Image.

Affirm Foundation!!! (Or, Twisting Judge Sullivan’s Opinion)

Of Corset Didn’t Add Anything To What Was Already There, But It Did Make Things More Secure

Well, ObamaReleaseYourRecords is at it again. Here’s another deceptive post:

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment

Abdul Karim Hassan vs FEC – Court Opinion – District Court for the District of Columbia – 10/1/2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

“Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/10/judge-sullivan-rules-14th-did-not-repeal-article-ii.html

The Birther take on this that YIPPEE, SEE ARTICLE II STILL APPLIES!!! THE !$TH AMENDMENT DIDN’T CHANGE THINGS AFTER ALL!!! Well, nobody on this side ever said Article II didn’t apply. It is the Birthers who either can’t, or won’t, understand the underlying concepts. The simple fact is that far from NOT REPEALING the natural born citizenship requirement for the Presidency, the 14th Amendment actively  AFFIRMED the common law concept of birthright citizenship, also known as natural born citizenship. From the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark (1898), 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;”

and, this case cited with approval by the Wong Kim Ark Court:

“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.”

What the heck is sooo darn hard about that??? If you are born here, you are “in the allegiance” of the United States regardless of the citizenship of your parents. If you are born here in the allegiance, or under the jurisdiction of the United States, then you are a natural born citizen. Period. End of story. From WKA:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Paraphrasing ORYR’s favorite quote, the only people who don’t get this, are people  who don’t want to get it. The Birthers have been lying and dissembling about this simple legal fact for 4 years. It started with Ankeny in Indiana back in 2008.

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that

“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a  “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.

No, there wasn’t a difference. Something like 7 or 8 subsequent courts have held the same thing. Sooo, of course the 14th Amendment didn’t overturn the  Article II Presidential requirement. It was way too busy affirming the underlying common law concept of natural born citizenship..

The Birthers should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to lie and dissemble about this.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Scarlet O’Hara and Mammy from the 1939 film, Gone With The Wind.

Wiki has a great Internet Article on corsets, a foundation garment, which includes Images. This one is from 1898, the same year as Wong Kim Ark!

Wie die Pariserin ihr Haar ordnet  (1898 Das Album)

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

Note 2. Pdf. Here is a pdf of Sullivan’s order. See pages 15 through 18:

Abdul-Karim-Hassan-vs-FEC-Court-Opinion-District-Court-for-the-District-of-Columbia-10-1-2012

Stupid Kentucky Birther Denies Being A Stupid Birther!!! (Or, More KY Puh-lease!)

Poor Bobbo Couldn’t Understand Why People Thought He Was A Clown Instead Of An Airship Pilot

DIY Kentucky Birther Todd House wrote a letter to the Gannett Courier Journal editor a few weeks ago (9-5-2012) where he denied being a “Birther.”  Here it is in its entirety, with a link below where you can view it along with the numerous comments. After reading this, you should go to the website, and peruse the comments:

I am not a “birther.” I am a constitutionalist.

The Constitution either means what it says or is relegated to the dustbin of history. The U.S. Supreme Court has the imperative duty to resolve the issue of “natural born citizen” once and for all. This is an intellectual, legal and historical question that is very pertinent today.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that only a “natural born citizen” is eligible for the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, there is no definition of the term in that document. But the reasons for this unique requirement were and still are well understood.

And that is the rub, for it requires some study of the history of the founding and the political philosophy of the founders, subsequent precedent and familiarity with U.S. and world history to comprehend the seriousness of this issue and, only then, arrive at an informed opinion. Regrettably, few seem to have done their homework. But even those who have disagree, inviting robust debate that all should embrace in a free society. But, for an ultimate resolution, the U.S. Supreme Court must decide it. Ergo, my suit challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the ballot in Kentucky. According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen. So, even assuming that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was never a U.S. citizen and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen and ineligible for the office of president of the United States.

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate. It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had. My effort intends just and only that.

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

L. TODD HOUSE, M.D.

Louisville 40204 –

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/

http://www.courier-journal.com/comments/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/Reader-Letters-Not-birther

What a crock of crap! Where is the basis for this statement:

According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen.

I am not aware of any such notes and letters UNLESS one has already decided on the meaning of the term natural born citizen. If you already believe that being an NBC requires two citizen parents, then every time you see the term you can find justification for your belief.  BUT, if you approach the words with an attitude of “Gee, what did the Founding Fathers mean by natural born citizen???”, then you become free to understand the REAL definition, which is found in Section III of Wong Kim Ark (1898):

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.

and what does “born in the allegiance” mean??? Further down in 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;”

Darn, that is sure hard to understand.  For persons born in the United States, their parents must not fall into the two exceptions.  And then we find this HUGE FRIGGIN LIE:

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate.

No they don’t.  Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars just read Wong Kim Ark and see pretty quickly what the words mean. Even reasonably intelligent non-lawyers get it. The only people on the other side of this issue are stupid Birthers.  Birthers who can’t or won’t understand the few paragraphs from the case. That is why the Birthers keep on getting bounced out of courts across the country on their asses. That is why their cases are called frivolous, and why they are being assessed legal costs for wasting everybody’s time.

This statement is cute, too:

It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had.

Uh, the Supreme Court has done told us way back in 1898 what the answer was for people born inside the United States.  See above. What part of that don’t you get??? Then we get the “Don’t tease me even though I’m stupid” plea from Mr. House:

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

Where’s the fun in that??? If you are so darned STUPID that you can’t understand those few paragraphs from Wong Kim Ark after four years, then you all deserve cynical pejorative disparaging you get, and more. No, Mr. House, you aren’t a constitutionalist. You’re just a stupid Birther.

Pull your head out of your rear end.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. The real caption on the photograph is “Billy” Winslow touring in his airship Barnum & Bailey Show 1910. You can find it, and other interesting photographs here:

http://assemblyman-eph.blogspot.com/2009/03/vintage-circus-photos.html

Mario Apuzzo, Vampire Hunter???

Old Abe Lincoln Took An Axe And Gave The Vampire Forty Whacks

In 2010, author Seth Grahame-Smith released his novel, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.  It was a ripping good yarn and was made into a movie by the same name a few months ago. Wiki provides the gist of the story:

When Lincoln is eleven years old, he learns from his father Thomas Lincoln that vampires are, in fact, real. Thomas explains to his son that a vampire killed Abraham’s grandfather (also named Abraham Lincoln) in 1786. Young Abraham is also shocked to learn that his beloved mother Nancy Hanks Lincoln succumbed not to milk sickness but rather to being given a “fool’s dose” of vampire blood, the result of Thomas’s failure to repay a debt. A year later he lures the vampire responsible for his mother’s death to the family farm and manages to kill it with a homemade stake.

At the age of sixteen Lincoln gets word of a possible vampire attack along the Ohio River and investigates, but this time he is no match for the vampire and is nearly killed. He is saved at the last moment by the intervention of the vampire Henry Sturges. Henry nurses Lincoln back to health and explains some of the nature of vampirism, emphasizing that some vampires are good and others are evil. Lincoln spends the summer with Henry and trains for combat, becoming a skilled wrestler and silver coated axe-handler. For several years following, Henry sends Lincoln the names and addresses of evil vampires; Abraham dutifully tracks them down and kills them.

As a young adult, Lincoln and a friend travel down the Mississippi River to New Orleans on a flatboat to sell a number of goods. Here Lincoln’s life is changed forever after he witnesses a slave auction. Lincoln follows a slave buyer and his new slaves back to their plantation and discovers to his horror that the buyer is a vampire – the slaves are to be used not for labor but for food. Lincoln writes in his journal his belief that vampires will continue to exist in America as long as they can easily buy their victims in this manner – to end slavery is to end the scourge of vampires. Lincoln becomes an Abolitionist. He marries Mary Todd, begins to raise a family, starts a law firm, and is elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

While in Washington, Lincoln meets his old friend Edgar Allan Poe, who also knows the truth about vampires. Poe tells Lincoln that the vampires are being chased out of their ancestral homes in Europe (in part because of a public outcry over the bloody atrocities of Elizabeth Báthory) and are flocking to America because of the slave trade. Poe warns that if the vampires are left unchecked they will eventually seek to enslave all Americans, white and black. Lincoln leaves Washington in 1849 and declines to seek re-election; Poe is found murdered that same year in Baltimore, the victim of a vampire attack.

In 1857 Henry summons Lincoln to New York City. Here Lincoln and fellow vampire slayer William Seward are told that the vampires in the South intend to start a civil war so that they can conquer the north and enslave all humans of America. Lincoln runs for the U.S. Senate and debates Stephen A. Douglas in what became known as the Lincoln–Douglas debates. Although Lincoln loses to Douglas (an ally of the Southern vampires), he gains a great deal of publicity and respect, which allows him to capture the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States and then the office itself.

The secret behind creating these kinds of fictional works is the careful interweaving of real facts and real events into the story. For example, Lincoln really did win a seat in Congress in 1846, and he did decline re-election. He was handy with an axe. His mother did die in 1818. Poe died in 1849 and the circumstances of his death were shrouded in mystery. Lincoln did become an Abolitionist, etc.

In fact, for a story such as this to get to the level where one can suspend the disbelief  long enough to read the book or watch the movie, it must incorporate some patina of reality into the underlying framework of the fiction. Or, you end up with Plan 9 From Outer Space.

The same is true of the Birther movement.  Some are more skilled at this art than others.  For example, the Birthers who filed the Ankeny action in Indiana in 2009, simply left out all mention of the 1898 Scotus case, Wong Kim Ark.  Not surprisingly, that Court noticed this rather glaring omission. After explaining Wong Kim Ark (WKA) to the plaintiffs, at some length, they concluded:

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [WKA] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Squeeky’s Law Dictionary defines conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions as:

Factual or legal material that a party has pulled out of their a$$ in the vain hope of influencing the tribunal.

But, where these Birthers were sloppy, and gave rise to the Ankeny precedent which is now found persuasive across the country, other Birthers work harder and incorporate the WKA case and other little tidbits of reality into their fictional dream narratives. Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. provides an excellent brief example, from just the other day:

A “natural born Citizen” is implicitly defined by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 and explicitly defined by The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott (J.Daniels concurring), and Minor. Minor explained that under “common-law” which which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution, Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” who belonged to the “natural born Citizen” class. Minor and these sources which preceded it all relied upon the law of nations, as explained by Vattel in The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) and treated as American “common-law” and national law, to conclude that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark defined a “citizen of the United States” which is a different class of “citizen” from the “natural born Citizen” class. Hence, your reliance on Wong Kim Ark to support your theory that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English defined a “natural born subject” under the English common law is misplaced. Rather, today the definition of a “natural born Citizen” continues to be a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country at the time of the child’s birth.

Here is the link, and this was the second comment on the page:

Comments Mario Apuzzo’s Blog

Rather than go to one of his briefs and pull out a much longer excerpt, I am just picking on this short example. Apuzzo is engaged in a comment exchange with someone named “Linda,” who is whacking him around like a goat carcass on a Buzkashi field.

Anyway, look at how sneakingly Apuzzo slips in HIS characterization of WKA:

What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

There is some truth in that statement. The real question in WKA was not whether poor Wong was born in the United States,  but whether or not he was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as set out in the 14th Amendment. BUT, the WKA Court started it’s analysis with an in depth discussion of natural born citizenship as found in Article II of the Constitution.  That is the same place Apuzzo starts. In fact, two of the seven sections in the case dealt exclusively with the concept of natural born citizenship starting in England, and then continuing to the United States.

Apuzzo wants to separate “Article II natural born citizenship” from 14th Amendment’s “citizen of the United States” at birth. He wants to pretend that they are two distinct concepts. That way he can weave WKA into his fictional framework, and make his case more believable, all while ignoring the painful reality.  The painful reality is that  the WKA Court specifically says the two phrases are talking about the same underlying concept.  Which is, that the 14th Amendment affirms the concept of natural born citizenship for those born inside the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, as long as they are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers.  From WKA Section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

So yes, WKA construed the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction,” but WKA also found that concept to be the same thing as the requirement for natural born citizenship.

Article II natural born citizenship = birth within the dominion + subject to the jurisdiction

14th Amendment citizens at birth  = birth within the dominion + subject to the jurisdiction

And, the WKA Court explicitly states this:

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, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. 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;”

This is not the only piece of reality that Apuzzo carves up and uses snippets from to weave into his creation. Natural born citizens truly are defined by various  naturalization statutes. The problem is, naturalization statutes have nothing to do with persons born INSIDE the United States. Those statutes only apply to the foreign born. From Section IV of WKA:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

Darn, that is strange. I wonder how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. could have read WKA and not seen that part??? He is a lawyer, after all.  Similarly, there really was a case called, Minor v. Happersett  (1875),  but that case doesn’t run off to Emerich de Vattel of Switzerland for its definition of natural born citizenship any more that Lincoln sought out Edgar Allan Poe for advice on Vampires. Here is what the Minor Court says about the term, and where it went to get its definition:

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.

And that is usually where the Birthers leave off the cite, and somehow forget to provide the rest of the Court’s thoughts on the subject of who was a natural born citizen:

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

Those doubts were solved 23 years later in WKA.  Apuzzo adds some more pizzazz to his tale with this:

This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Yes, we have a constitution, and yes it is the supreme law of the land. But that document does not define natural born citizen. As both the Minor Court and the WKA Court stated, you have to go to English common law for the definition. And Emerich de Vattel’s writings ain’t common law. And his book called The Law of Nations is NOT part of the U.S. Constitution.

But that is how the Birthers roll. Little pieces of reality mixed in here and there with big chunks of fiction. The problem is, they keep trying to pass this crap off as a documentary, when it is more like a cheesy science fiction B movie called “Emerich de Vattel, Alien Hunter.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image Easter Egg. This is a word play on Stanley Kowalski’s utterances in A Streetcar Named Desire.  The Image is a photoshopped job of Abe Lincoln chasing Edward Cullen from the Twilight vampire series. His girlfriend is named Bella Swan.

Natural Born Encounters Of The Third Kind!!!

True, He Was A Little Rough Around The Edges, But He Had A Groovy Set Of Wheels

After my recent discussions with Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. (see notes below),  it looks like there must be THREE KINDS of natural born citizens. Once, there were but two:

1. Natural born citizens born inside the United States;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress.

If we assume for a moment that Apuzzo is right, and that natural born citizens born inside the United States must be born to two citizen parents, then what in the world do we do with the Third Kind of natural born citizen??? The kind described in the Wong Kim Ark (1898) (WKA) decision.

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day [1898], aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, [] [and] the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

And, the kind described  in this case, cited with approval in WKA:

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.

So, let’s see, Rhodes says:

All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens;

And the Supreme Court says the same thing, and defines “allegiance” to boot:

1. aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance of the English Sovereign, [unless within the two exceptions.]

2. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.,

Well, that means that children born here of aliens, who are not foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, are within the allegiance and thus natural born citizens. That sounds right to me. I wonder if the WKA Court ever said any of this again??? Yep. Lookee! Here’s a big one,  from 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, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

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;

Wow! it looks like the WKA Court is even tying the 14th Amendment into this whole thing, but let’s ignore that for a moment. The Court clearly calls these children born here of aliens, natural born. And, the WKA Court is very comfortable equating natural born subject and natural born citizen, because in section III, they cited this case with approval:

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

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

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

Well, lets substitute the terms subject and citizen, and see what we get:

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 citizen, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born citizen;

All of the above analysis is unnecessary for most of us, because any honest and intelligent reading of Wong Kim Ark readily leads to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment simply affirmed the Article II common law notion of natural born citizenship and put it safely into the U.S. Constitution.

The reason I am going through all this to show that even to Birthers, there was definitely some kind of creature discussed in WKA called a natural born citizen who did NOT have two citizen parents. This creature, this WKA natural born citizen, could even have two alien parents, as long as he was born inside the country. Birther cryto-zoologists should be high-fiving each other and rushing off to the woods with camera traps. This is the equivalent of finding Big Foot!

Non-Birthers already knew about this, and it is no surprise to us. In fact, we tend to notice a suspicious lack of the phase “two citizen parents” running through the case at all. But why haven’t the Birthers ever admitted that there is some species of Natural Born Citizen in WKA that doesn’t match up to their Imaginary Law requiring two citizen parents??? The common law creature is certainly discussed and talked about. My goodness,  Sections II and III of the decision are all about him, and he surfaces periodically throughout the rest of the decision.

Hmmm, let’s redo our list and see what the reason might be:

1. The Birther natural born citizens born inside the United States, to two citizen parents, based on French law, and checked-out library books;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress; and

3.  The WKA natural born citizens born inside the United States, to parents who are neither foreign diplomats, nor invading soldiers, based on English common law, American common law, and a long line of legal cases.

Yes, comparing No. 1 to No. 3, I can see why the Birthers treat the WKA natural born citizen like a red headed stepchild at a family reunion. That whole French law-library book foundation seems a tad shaky. Is it safe??? Here, let me touch it with my mouse. . .click. . .

The Law Offices Of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Shortly Before The Vattel Cornerstone Crumbled

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I do not know which movie this is from. I saved this picture in the past without a link.  I searched images of old science fiction movies without success. If anybody knows, please tell me.

Note 2. The Squeeky – Mario Discussions link:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/the-squeeky-mario-discussions/

Note 3. Ignore This Note! I am just giving myself a place to link a silly picture:

 

An Open Letter To Larry Klayman, Esq.!!! (Or, Patriotic Girl Reporter Per Missive)

After Delivering The Letter, The Postman And Klayman Chatted A While

It seems the Birthers are constantly doing these goofy open letters, where the Birther is usually indignant that somebody somewhere isn’t doing something. Then all the Birther blogs print the letter as if it is big news. The headlines are a hoot. You see stuff like:

Ex-Cop Writes Letter To Congress Demanding Impeachment!!!

Patriotic Ex-Marine Demands Prosecutor Arrest President!!!

Grandmother of Six Calls For Obama To Be Frogmarched Back To Kenya!!!

They always seem to characterize the writer in some American Hero Jungian Archetype, fashion, where either the job occupation or some other fact about the writer is supposed to elevate the nature of the piece away from the “some clown wrote a letter” category.  I suppose if Sammy The Stumblebum  hits them up for some Thunderbird money, the headline would be:

Small Businessman Demands Justice Department Do Something About Obama!!!

So anyway, why should they have all the fun??? Here is my first attempt at an Open Letter. I will get better with practice. Just click on the image to enlarge:

Plus, here is a pdf of the letter in case any blogs want to run a story on this:

Squeeky’s Open Letter To Larry Klayman

I think a good headline would be something like:

Very Smart And Intrepid Girl Reporter Demands Answers!!!

Sexy Daughter of Retired Air Force Officer Targets Birthers!!!

Well-dressed Girl Reporter Clobbers Birther Lawyer WITH LOGIC!!!

But I’m not trying to influence anybody or anything like that. Oh no. Not me.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1997 film, The Postman. Kevin Costner is playing the postman. I am not sure who the mule is playing Larry Klayman.

Note 2. Here is the World Net Daily Internet Article which inspired this piece:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-about-natural-born-citizenship/

Fifty Shades Of Stupid!!! (Or, Spanking Another Freeper Birther)

By The 89th Shade, They Were Really Having To Strain For Material

OMG!!! I stumbled across this little bit of SHEER TOTAL STUPIDITY while browsing the Free Republic Birther threads. There is sooo much Birther idiocy there that I could churn out 10 Internet Articles per day easily just by pointing out their legal mistakes, absurdities, and logical fallacies. It would be the equivalent of shooting very stupid fish in a very tiny barrel. Sooo, usually I just giggle and move on to something else. But this piece of nuttiness by Freeper Diogeneslamp was just too dumb to pass up.

Down below in the notes you can find links, and a screen capture of the idiocy.  Now, on with the story. The Freeper Birthers are all babbling and drooling and stuff, and Freeper Diogeneslamp pops out his little copy of John Adam’s personal Law book of English Common law, published in 1736. Which says:

All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.

and to the side of that the margin note says:

In Calvins Case those which were born in Normandy, Gascon, while under actual Obedience to the Kings of England, were Subjects born. And this by the Statute is declared to have been the Common Law; but those born there now are Aliens, those places not being in the actual Possession of our King.

Now, I debated Diogeneslamp on numerous occasisons before the Freeper Birthers got tired of me kicking their butts and got me banned. He knows about Wong Kim Ark, and argues mightily that it doesn’t provide precedent on natural born citizenship passing to those born inside the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents. And he knows, from that same case, that natural born citizenship passes to those born outside the country to American parent(s) by statutory law.

In short, Diogeneslamp is fully aware of this excerpt from Wong Kim Ark via the Ankeny Court:

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

Lookie!!! The Courts say the same thing as the book. “Within the Obedience” doesn’t mean “citizen.”  It means within the physical jurisdiction of the King.  Clearly, it is the place of birth which controls natural born citizenship for those born inside the country. But, to actually read from John Adams’ book and recognize that fact means you have to quit being a two citizen-parent Birther. Because you to have to face the fact that the citizenship of the parents has NOTHING to do with those born INSIDE the country. Criminy, if the country’s possession reverts, there goes the citizenship, parents notwithstanding. What, does your parentage change if the country changes hands??? This is not just my opinion.

Here it is again, in Ankeny, citing Wong Kim Ark:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the OBEDIENCE, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

Diogeneslamp has been exposed to all this before. Numerous times. There is no excuse for him not recognizing it.  So, how does he handle this clear conflict between his own evidence and his own beliefs??? Simple. He ignores it and tries to pass it off as the same as Vattel’s definition. Like this:

A. English Common law says if you are born here, you’re NBC, and your PARENTS’ citizenship is irrelevant.

and

B. Vattel says NBC only occurs when both PARENTS are citizens.

equals

C. They must be the same thing as what Vattel says, because they both mention the word PARENTS.

I don’t think stupid is too harsh a word  to use. Here it is in his own words:

Hmm… It mentions that a person’s Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of “Natural-born Subject” sounds very much like the Vattel definition of “natural born citizen”! The first thing both definitions mention is “parents.” Loyal Parents. If “parents” aren’t important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

But, being the legal whiz that he is, Diogeneslamp must realize that the link to Vattel is a little weak. Sooo, how are we supposed to know that John Adams ascribes to the Vattel definition???  Simple. Because Adams stayed with Vattel’s published in France during the Revolutionary War.

Sooo, that is pretty stupid. Ignoring the Wong Kim Ark and the Ankeny Court saying the same thing as is found in John Adams’ book is pretty stupid. Trying to cobble Vattel onto the book in spite of the clearly opposite meaning is pretty stupid. Ignoring your own evidence is pretty stupid. Trying to convince us that Adam’s staying with the publisher is proof of anything is pretty stupid. But you know what is the stupidest thing of all that Diogeneslamp does???

He forgets to check the publishing date of Adams’ personal book on English Common Law – – – which proves to be 1736, or 22 years BEFORE the first publication of Vattel’s Law Of Nations in 1758.  Yes, Diogeneslamp believes, and expects us to believe, that Adams’ book is parroting a definition of citizenship that won’t be written for another 22 years. I could go on.

If somebody made a career of studying Diogeneslamp’s stupidity, I am pretty sure they would need a title like 1000 Shades of Stupid.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Screen Capture: Here is a screen capture of Diogeneslamp’s dribble. You can click on it to make it larger:

Note 2: Here is a link to it. Just scroll down to comment #224:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2913011/posts?q=1&;page=201;;comment=224

Note 3. Here’s a link to the 1736 book:

http://www.archive.org/stream/newabridgementof01baco#page/n5/mode/1up

Note 4. the Free Republic ban. Here is a link, with photos, of when the Free Republic Birthers wussied out and ran in panic stricken terror from me:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/zot-free-republic-birthers-run-in-panic-stricken-terror-from-the-truth/

Note 5: The Image.  This is a 1947 photo of Salvador Dali using a model as a desk.   Photograph by Bob Sandberg, Museum of the City of New York, The LOOK Collection.”  It is rumored that IKEA is working on reproductions.

Sharon Rondeau’s Basic Instinct Moment!!!

Madame DeRondeau Had So Much Practice, That She Could Knit "O-b-a-m-a" Without Even Looking

Sharon Rondeau, Editor of The Post and Email,  fell victim to a Basic Instinct Moment a few days ago.  Don’t worry – the only thing she exposed was the basic flaw in Birther legal theory. You can see how it happened from her Internet Article:

Are Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey Traitors?

PUTATIVE DEFENSE SECRETARY SAYS CONGRESS “IRRELEVANT” IN WAR DECISIONS by Sharon Rondeau (Mar. 10, 2012) — On March 8, 2012, putative Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Congress that it was “irrelevant” during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Panetta claimed that “international permission” dictates the policy of the U.S. military.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/03/10/are-leon-panetta-and-gen-martin-dempsey-traitors/

The rest of the Internet Article is hidden to non-subscribers. But you can see where Rondeau is going. Her basic instincts are telling her, “HELL NO! Americans do not cede their rights and powers to the international community which may permit the exercise thereof as decided by committee vote.”

She is right. Which makes it all the less comprehensible why she and the rest of the Birthers demand the rest of the country recognize international law when they propagandize about Emerich de Vattel and the two citizen-parents theory???  And when they strut around and preach how British Citizenship Law trumps American Citizenship Law inside the United States.

Excuse me, but the last time I  looked, British laws do not permit their Citizens to keep and bear arms the way American laws do.  Yet, if one were to preach that British gun laws supersede American law inside the United States, then I would sure pity the poor persons trying to enforce that interpretation. Particularly down here in Texas.  Yet isn’t that exactly what the Birthers are saying every time they spout that “once a Brit never legit” crap???

The International Law versus American Law argument was central to the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898. The two citizen-parent Birthers either ignore Wonk Kim Ark,  or flat out lie that Chief Justice Gray manipulated the other judges to cover up for the long dead Chester Arthur.  They do this because the WKA Court  did NOT recognize international law as the controlling law in the United States.  This is how the majority decision characterized the loser’s position:

IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

This was not just the majority putting words in the mouths of the dissent. Here is what Justice Fuller, one of the two dissenting judges said:

Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction.

Nationality is essentially a political idea, and belongs to the sphere of public law. Hence, Mr. Justice Story, in Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, 248, said that the incapacities of femes [p708] covert at common law

do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Book I, c.19, § 212.

The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.

And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance, [p709] Bar, who says:

To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it — that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its essence, dependent on descent.

Int.Law. § 31.

Please notice the bolded cite to International Law.  Some Birthers are probably dancing in their seats and waving their hands to say that Vattel only applies to natural born citizens and not 14th Amendment citizens. Nope. That is even more stupid. What, common law and Amendments decide who our citizens are, but International Law determines who is eligible to be our presidents???   Absurd. No, this is a straight International Law versus American Law issue. This was also the way the issue was viewed at the time. This is from an 1898 American Law Review article:

The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 1898,  decides, for the first time in that tribunal, the question whether a person born in the United States of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/remember-the-maine-battleship-remember-the-wong-kim-ark/

Yet, 114 years later and the Birthers once again reignite a strange love affair with International Law.  As Mario Apuzzo, Esq. states: 

But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders replaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

The law of nations became the law of the federal government??? Where are Sharon Rondeau’s basic instincts when she hears blathering nonsense like that??? Where are her basic instincts when the Birthers prattle on about how some Swiss guy writing about French Law trumps the Magna Carta and centuries of good solid English common law??? Where are here basic instincts when the Birthers claim international permission dictates the policy of the U.S. judiciary???

My guess is, that she and the rest of the Birthers have been so hot on Obama’s trail, that they never thought twice about it.  And it probably wouldn’t have mattered if they did.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Madame Defarge, played by Blanche Yurka from the 1935 film, A Tale of Two Cities. This excerpt from a free online essay explains the basics about her:

Madame Defarge

Madame Defarge, with her strong body, strong face, and strong features, likens herself to the wind, to fire, and to an earthquake. Like these natural force that are violent and cannot be stopped, Madame Defarge is ruthless and unstoppable. She is the “watchful eye” of the revolution, always observant and aware of what is going on, although she often appears to be aloof and unconcerned. She is usually seen knitting on her “register” that lists the names of aristocratic families that must perish in the revolution. During the course of the novel, Madame Defarge actually become the symbol of the revolution, with all of its hatred and desire for vengeance.

Under her calm exterior, Madame Defarge hides a passionate anger that will not be satisfied until she gets her revenge on the aristocracy, especially the Evremonde family, who is responsible for the deaths of her brother and sister. She is determined that Darnay will be executed for being an Evremonde by birth and determines his wife and child must also perish. When she finds out they have escaped, she is beside herself with anger. Wanting proof that Lucie is indeed not hiding in her room, she struggles with Miss Pross. Ironically, during the struggle her own gun falls to the floor and discharges, killing Madame Defarge immediately.

There seems to be much similarity between  Madame Defarge and the  Birthers in the way that both try to cover up their personal desires for vengeance by cloaking those desires in a supposedly impersonal patriotic desire for justice.

Note 2. For a thorough analysis of the International Law versus American Law issue,  Dr. Conspiracy published an Internet Article on this called Chan v. DeMaio, where a Nolu Chan demolished Mr. Joseph DeMaio, who publishes frequently at Ms. Rondeau’s website:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/chan-v-demaio/

Note 3. Basic Instinct Moment. This is a term based on the moment in the film  Basic Instinct (1992), when Actress Sharon Stone just kind of let it all hang out and went with the flow.  I see it as an instinctual response.