Birthers prepare for dismissal of Kerchner case
Sometimes I like to stir things up. This article appeared on the obot web site, obots.org.
Birthers prepare for dismissal of Kerchner case
Question for Mario Apuzzo (5)
(Not authentic image)
I notice that you from time to time cite favorably from the US Supreme Court Decision in Dred Scott v Sandford and you have said that the US Supreme Court Decision in United States v Wong Kim Ark is “bad law”.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts?
If you chose to respond, could you begin your comments with “Yes.” or “No.” before launching into the explanation?
[Mr. Apuzzo, flinging abuse, declined to answer this question and hereby wins the inaugural Obama Conspiracy Theories Shoe Bang Award.]
Is racism the new “cool”?
Conservative intellectual theorist Irving Kristol when derisively called a “neoconservative” said: “the sensible course, therefore, is to take your label, claim it as your own and run with it”.
On one side, the Obama Conspiracy debunkers have embraced “Obot” (see Obots.org) and Birthers have embraced “Birther” (See TheBirthers.org).
Is “racist” the next negative label to be adopted and worn proudly?
When Jimmy Carter called opposition to Obama “racist”, he opened the door for those who automatically ridicule anything they can label with “Jimmy Carter”. (Certainly Carter has long embraced the label “Jimmy Carter”.)
Leo C. Donofrio has published reference to a racist anti-Chinese article, calling it the “Holy Grail”, Mario Apuzzo is fond of citing the Supreme Court’s decision sayings slaves cannot be citizens in Dred Scott v. Sanford, and to top it off a truly amazing article was just published by J. R. Dieckmann in The Great American Journal, Embracing Racism.
Dieckmann tries to set up a straw man attack, and then says roughly, “if this is racism, then I’m a racist.” Nevertheless, are we looking for a new political theme from the far right: “hey what’s so bad about racism anyway?” (more…)
De Vattel appears in 1884 law review article
In ARE PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEROF? The American Law Review (Sep/Oct 1884) George D. Collins argues that only those born in the United States whose fathers are citizens, are themselves citizens.
This find by Leo C. Donofrio should provide some some discomfit to Mario Apuzzo who has been doggedly pursuing the two-citizen-parent rule.
Mr. Collins jumps right into the topic by attacking Lynch v. Clarke (New York 1844) denying that there is a common law of the United States (although he is quite ready to adopt the Swiss philosopher Vattel in lieu of a common law). Collins seems to think de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” represents international law rather than de Vattel’s philosophy of international law, but the facts are that de Vattel’s view of citizenship did not represent a consensus of national laws on citizenship; quite the contrary.
Finally Collins launches into racist screed against the Chinese:
Now it is evident that such persons [the Chinese] are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the privileges of an American citizen….
…yet under the common law rule the children of all persons, irrespective of race, who were born within the United States would be citizens. (more…)
The Betrayal blog attacks Dr. C (Updated)
Dr. Conspiracy
Readers here may recall an article I published countering Leo Donofrio’s attack against FactCheck.org: Donofrio misfires. Donofrio had made the same mistake Mario Apuzzo made when he attempted to make Barack Obama into a current British Citizen through ignoring the repeal of portions of the British Nationality Act of 1948. One can see on the surface that the analysis is flawed because the conclusion is obviously something that the various British legislation did not intend. This is an application of the general principle: British legislators know their laws better than we do.
Nonetheless, I did make some mistakes in my analysis, pointed out by commenters here, and I hastily corrected my article, and did so several times, sometimes marked with [update] tags to indicate new material, and sometimes not.
Nobamas do not understand the concept of correcting mistakes, considering it somehow shameful (and this explains why they ignore contrary evidence and continue to push long-discredited speculation). Well, my corrections have come to the attention of the Betrayal blog who said:
Factcheck.org endorsed analyst caught scrubbing false data after original publication of this report.
There is a difference between “data” and “conclusions” (but I guess “false data” sounds worse.) I replied at The Betrayal, and we’ll see if it passes moderation:
You people are so totally silly. Commenters on my blog pointed out some errors and I fixed them. Duh. Has The Betrayal never corrected a mistake? (well maybe not…)
This isn’t a game of “gotcha”. You don’t get points when I make a mistake. You get points when you are right, and the final result is that Donofrio is wrong.
[Update!] (more…)
Question for Mario Apuzzo (4)
Mr. Apuzzo, commenting here, favorably mentioned James Kettner’s book The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870.
How many times does Kettner mention Emerich de Vattel?
