Comments on: Kerchner v Obama: case dismissed (Updated) http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/ Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:38:17 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: NBc http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-33453 NBc Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:11:28 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=5383#comment-33453 Another recent find <b>Note</b>: The same principles which determine allegiance and protection and thus citizenship under English law were adopted by Congress on 1776 (Calvin Case: Protectio trahit subjectionem) On June 24, 1776 Congress requested that the colonies pass laws against treason, defining citizenship, allegiance, and treason in terms of the colonies: Resolved, That all persons abiding within any of the United Colonies, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of such colonies, and that all persons passing through," etc, owed allegiance thereto. Another recent find

Note: The same principles which determine allegiance and protection and thus citizenship under English law were adopted by Congress on 1776 (Calvin Case: Protectio trahit subjectionem)

On June 24, 1776 Congress requested that the colonies pass laws against treason, defining citizenship, allegiance, and treason in terms of the colonies:

Resolved, That all persons abiding within any of the United Colonies, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of such colonies, and that all persons passing through,” etc, owed allegiance thereto.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

]]> By: NBc http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-33138 NBc Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:57:01 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=5383#comment-33138 Another devastating quote, this time from the Senate discussions around the Civil Rights Act of 1866 <blockquote>I do not see where we get any authority to except these native-born Africans from the general rule of law that all born upon the soil are subjects of citizens of the Government. That is the rule in England, it is the rule in France, it is, and always has been, the rule in this country. There are only two classes of citizens, so far as I can detect, provided for in the Constitution of the United States. In the second article, I think, it is declared that none but a "natural born" citizen shall be President of the United States. That clause, and the one relating to naturalization, implying that there may be naturalized citizens, are the only two classes designating the classes of citizens within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States. </blockquote> Poor Mario Another devastating quote, this time from the Senate discussions around the Civil Rights Act of 1866

I do not see where we get any authority to except these native-born Africans from the general rule of law that all born upon the soil are subjects of citizens of the Government. That is the rule in England, it is the rule in France, it is, and always has been, the rule in this country. There are only two classes of citizens, so far as I can detect, provided for in the Constitution of the United States. In the second article, I think, it is declared that none but a “natural born” citizen shall be President of the United States. That clause, and the one relating to naturalization, implying that there may be naturalized citizens, are the only two classes designating the classes of citizens within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States.

Poor Mario

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

]]> By: ballantine http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-33128 ballantine Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:10:22 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=5383#comment-33128 NBS, cross posted this on your site: Again, so much nonsense. The change in Howard's quote clearly tries to separate the common law exception from the portion of the quote stating who is born a foreigner or alien to support his position. Of course, Howard's actual quote does not say who is born a foreigner or alien and no where says all children of aliens are foreigners. Actually, the only people he specifically exludes from his definition are people covered under the common law exception with respect to foreign ministers. This is now the common practice among birthers, as they cannot find authority that directly supports their fringe positions, they need to try to read their positions into any language that is the least bit ambiguous. Of course, Howard, a few days earlier, defined a native citizen as someone born in the county and subject to its laws. Does anyone really dispute that aliens are subject to our laws. After Howard's statements, Senator Wade then clarified that ambassadors were the only people not subject to are laws. No on disputed these claims, nor did Howard dispute the multiple comments during these debates that native-born children of aliens were citizens. This is again, just making stuff up. Mario has already been told that Jefferson's statutes do not support his theory, particularly the 1783 law which leaves no ambiguity at all. I don't know why he thinks Puffendorf or Vattel are relevant to these debates, as no one raised them during the debates. The statements of Bingham might be interesting except for the fact that none of the couple dozen of congressmen who spoke on the issue during the debates seemed to agree with him. Exactly why is Bingham's opinion important if he didn't write the citizenship clauses in either the civil rights act or the 14th amendment and pretty much everyone else who spoke on the issue disagreed with him? The answer is that his opinion is not important and for the convservative originalists on the court, their mentors, the godfathers of the modern originalist movement, spend decades trashing Bingham as a confused thinker based upon his nutty views on the constitution. See, e.g., Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary, pg. 1445 (1978; Alexander M. Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 5 n. 13 (1955). Of course, the naturalization laws do not support his position either. He cannot cite any early authority that any native born person needed to be naturalized as "naturalization" was understood to apply only to the foreign born. As previously, discussed, his brief contains a number of other false statements that he should really consider correcting. For example, the Minor court in no way said it was doubtful that native born children of aliens were natural born. It just said that thery were doubts by someone without approving or disapproving of such doubts, or even telling anyone who had such doubts or what those doubts were. When a court takes no position and does not examine an issue in any way other than to say someone, somewhere had doubts, it is simply beyond the pale to claim the court said such provision was doubtful. I would move for sanctions for such nonsense. NBS, cross posted this on your site:

Again, so much nonsense. The change in Howard’s quote clearly tries to separate the common law exception from the portion of the quote stating who is born a foreigner or alien to support his position. Of course, Howard’s actual quote does not say who is born a foreigner or alien and no where says all children of aliens are foreigners. Actually, the only people he specifically exludes from his definition are people covered under the common law exception with respect to foreign ministers. This is now the common practice among birthers, as they cannot find authority that directly supports their fringe positions, they need to try to read their positions into any language that is the least bit ambiguous. Of course, Howard, a few days earlier, defined a native citizen as someone born in the county and subject to its laws. Does anyone really dispute that aliens are subject to our laws. After Howard’s statements, Senator Wade then clarified that ambassadors were the only people not subject to are laws. No on disputed these claims, nor did Howard dispute the multiple comments during these debates that native-born children of aliens were citizens. This is again, just making stuff up.

Mario has already been told that Jefferson’s statutes do not support his theory, particularly the 1783 law which leaves no ambiguity at all. I don’t know why he thinks Puffendorf or Vattel are relevant to these debates, as no one raised them during the debates. The statements of Bingham might be interesting except for the fact that none of the couple dozen of congressmen who spoke on the issue during the debates seemed to agree with him. Exactly why is Bingham’s opinion important if he didn’t write the citizenship clauses in either the civil rights act or the 14th amendment and pretty much everyone else who spoke on the issue disagreed with him? The answer is that his opinion is not important and for the convservative originalists on the court, their mentors, the godfathers of the modern originalist movement, spend decades trashing Bingham as a confused thinker based upon his nutty views on the constitution. See, e.g., Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary, pg. 1445 (1978; Alexander M. Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 5 n. 13 (1955).

Of course, the naturalization laws do not support his position either. He cannot cite any early authority that any native born person needed to be naturalized as “naturalization” was understood to apply only to the foreign born.

As previously, discussed, his brief contains a number of other false statements that he should really consider correcting. For example, the Minor court in no way said it was doubtful that native born children of aliens were natural born. It just said that thery were doubts by someone without approving or disapproving of such doubts, or even telling anyone who had such doubts or what those doubts were. When a court takes no position and does not examine an issue in any way other than to say someone, somewhere had doubts, it is simply beyond the pale to claim the court said such provision was doubtful. I would move for sanctions for such nonsense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

]]> By: NBc http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-33122 NBc Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:49:12 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=5383#comment-33122 Mario is now claiming that he did not technically 'quote' Howard. I am not sure to what extent that argument will be found credible by the Courts. However, technically speaking Mario provided an incorrect reference to a source which he believed defined the term natural born and when the actual quote, made of an earlier page of the Cong Globe was compared to Mario's paraphrasing of said quote, a discrepancy was noted between the actual quote and Mario's interpretation. Mario argues that Puffendorf, Vattel, Jefferson's Naturalization Laws, and Court rulings support his interpretation of Howard's quote. While I have doubts as to the relevance of Puffendorf and Vattel to issues of Common Law, I believe that Jefferson's naturalization laws which assign citizenship to all whites born on Virginia Soil, do not really support Mario's premise. As to later acts by Congress, I assume that Mario is referring to the act which was passed soon after the Constitution had been signed, which declared children born abroad to US citizens to be natural born. This indicates that the Founders realized that a statutory act was needed to grant these children citizenship, indicating their doubts that Common Law practices were sufficient. Indeed, Common Law practices had never granted citizenship to children born abroad, even in England, a statutory law had to be passed to that extent. When the Courts finally came to rule on this issue, the Court, in Wong Kim Ark settled, once and for all, that any child born on US soil, with minor exceptions, is a natural born citizen. A concept the Fourteenth Amendment merely confirms. In other words, even if we accept Mario's explanation that he was not quoting but rather paraphrasing Howard, I believe that the context of the debates, as well as history and legal references fail to provide support for Mario's interpretation. It's too bad that likely the Court will not get to this issue as the 3rd Circuit will apply its Precedential Opinion in Berg v Obama. Just a hunch though. Mario is now claiming that he did not technically ‘quote’ Howard. I am not sure to what extent that argument will be found credible by the Courts. However, technically speaking Mario provided an incorrect reference to a source which he believed defined the term natural born and when the actual quote, made of an earlier page of the Cong Globe was compared to Mario’s paraphrasing of said quote, a discrepancy was noted between the actual quote and Mario’s interpretation. Mario argues that Puffendorf, Vattel, Jefferson’s Naturalization Laws, and Court rulings support his interpretation of Howard’s quote. While I have doubts as to the relevance of Puffendorf and Vattel to issues of Common Law, I believe that Jefferson’s naturalization laws which assign citizenship to all whites born on Virginia Soil, do not really support Mario’s premise. As to later acts by Congress, I assume that Mario is referring to the act which was passed soon after the Constitution had been signed, which declared children born abroad to US citizens to be natural born. This indicates that the Founders realized that a statutory act was needed to grant these children citizenship, indicating their doubts that Common Law practices were sufficient. Indeed, Common Law practices had never granted citizenship to children born abroad, even in England, a statutory law had to be passed to that extent.
When the Courts finally came to rule on this issue, the Court, in Wong Kim Ark settled, once and for all, that any child born on US soil, with minor exceptions, is a natural born citizen. A concept the Fourteenth Amendment merely confirms.
In other words, even if we accept Mario’s explanation that he was not quoting but rather paraphrasing Howard, I believe that the context of the debates, as well as history and legal references fail to provide support for Mario’s interpretation.

It’s too bad that likely the Court will not get to this issue as the 3rd Circuit will apply its Precedential Opinion in Berg v Obama. Just a hunch though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mike http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/#comment-33121 Mike Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:18:31 +0000 http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?p=5383#comment-33121 It's also kind of amusing in the sense of there being an "original" common law, as if it were some kind of found object, something to be discovered, when the essence of common law is that it is something which evolves over time and is created as it goes. That rather tickles me, I must admit. It’s also kind of amusing in the sense of there being an “original” common law, as if it were some kind of found object, something to be discovered, when the essence of common law is that it is something which evolves over time and is created as it goes.

That rather tickles me, I must admit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

]]>