Main Menu

Strunk denied do-over

Hey birthers! The 2012 Presidential Election is over!

Now that I have that off my chest, back to the straightforward report. Christopher-Earl: Strunk applied to the King’s County New York Supreme Court to re-argue his case, Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections et al.

Strunk alleges new evidence, but Judge Arthur M. Schack replied that something that’s been that way since 1976 doesn’t qualify as new. You can read background in my previous articles on the case, and this decision here.

What is interesting is that Judge Schack, in clarifying his previous ruling, declares people like Obama born in the United States are natural born citizens. He wrote:

…the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States." Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:

There are "two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." 169 US at 702.

Thus, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of parentage.

, ,

18 Responses to Strunk denied do-over

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 17, 2013 at 10:05 pm #

    Ah well. Strunk could always go back to his old job: High School Principal look-a-like.

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

    That’s a nice quote from the judge—I’m sure Strunk in esse will love it.

  3. avatar
    Arthur December 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm #

    Was it Strunk who was slapped with that enormous fine? Does he still have to pay it?

  4. avatar
    Rickey December 18, 2013 at 12:38 am #

    Arthur:
    Was it Strunk who was slapped with that enormous fine? Does he still have to pay it?

    This is the case for which Mr. ln esse was sanctioned, so presumably he is still on the hook.

  5. avatar
    helen December 18, 2013 at 1:20 am #

    And how about those children of diplomats and American nationals.

  6. avatar
    helen December 18, 2013 at 1:21 am #

    Nothing like a judge who doesn’t know the rules, is there?

  7. avatar
    Lupin December 18, 2013 at 3:40 am #

    If nothing else, from Mario misapplying Vattel to Strunk and Orly v. Empty Chair, the birthers have ended up bolstering and buttressing Obama’s legitimacy. How ironic!

  8. avatar
    roadburner December 18, 2013 at 7:23 am #

    AH! but the judge skirted round the sooooper sekrit 3rd category of citizens that applies to people found to be presidenting whilst in possesion of a raised melanin level.

    he skirted right over the main parts of the constitution that vittell wrote.

    obviously an obot/ was threatened / was paid off, or hed have ruled as all patriots know he should have.

    damn! sorry guys, i seem to have got some birfoon stupid stuck on my skin.

  9. avatar
    Mitch December 18, 2013 at 11:21 am #

    helen:
    And how about those children of diplomats and American nationals.

    They aren’t excluded by this ruling; it just says that if you’re born in the US you are born a citizen, and if you’re born a citizen you’re a natural born citizen.

  10. avatar
    The Magic M December 18, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    Mitch: They aren’t excluded by this ruling

    Which makes this ruling another example for the birther fallacy referring to Minor vs. Happersett:

    Somebody might falsely interpret this ruling as saying children of diplomats and invading armies are NBC simply because the court didn’t explicitly exclude them.

    Even if this was a SCOTUS ruling, it wouldn’t mean SCOTUS suddenly redefined “subject to the jurisdiction” – simply because it didn’t explicitly do so. Therefore the ruling would have to be interpreted in context of sub judice – the court wanted to make a ruling referring to the case at hand, not (re-)define a term in its entirety, just like in Minor.

  11. avatar
    bgansel9 December 18, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    “Further, as to the merits of this argument, the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.”

    Untied? That won’t do at all! We are NOT untied, we are merely hanging together loosely.

    I kid, I kid… I’m glad to see this decision – but the spelling should have been corrected before release.

  12. avatar
    Joey December 18, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

    helen:
    Nothing like a judge who doesn’t know the rules, is there?

    What “rules” are you referring to? Any judge ruling in an original jurisdiction lawsuit can be overturned on appeal if the ruling isn’t constitutionally sound.
    It’s just that since 2008 there have been more than 200 Obama eligibility lawsuits adjudicated and more than 90 decisions have been appealed to higher courts and there has never been a reversal of a trial court’s ruling.

  13. avatar
    Paper December 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

    I’m more intrigued by people who don’t know the rules themselves, nor take the time to learn (the rules, or even just what actually has been said), before they accuse someone else of not knowing.

    helen:
    Nothing like a judge who doesn’t know the rules, is there?

  14. avatar
    Rickey December 18, 2013 at 5:03 pm #

    helen:
    And how about those children of diplomats and American nationals.

    The judge didn’t feel that it was necessary for him to state the obvious – if you aren’t a citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. However, if you are born a citizen in the United States, you clearly are a natural born citizen.

  15. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater December 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    Rickey: The judge didn’t feel that it was necessary for him to state the obvious – if you aren’t a citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. However, if you are born a citizen in the United States, you clearly are a natural born citizen.

    I see trolljack is back still pretending to be a woman.

  16. avatar
    JPotter December 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I see trolljack is back still pretending to be a woman.

    No kidding! Strunk and Mister Helen, both back from the dead, in the same week! *swoon* My heart doth flutter so ….

  17. avatar
    Dave B. December 18, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    What about ‘em?

    helen:
    And how about those children of diplomats and American nationals.

  18. avatar
    Sef December 19, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

    helen:
    And how about those children of diplomats and American nationals.

    Methinks someone doesn’t understand the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Oh well…