This Buffoonery needs no introduction. The time the King of the Birthers is running for office!
The Birther In the Woodpile - John C. Eastman - GOP Candidate for CA Attorney General
Dr. Orly Taitz, is apparently not the only Birfer on the ballot in California. Maybe it is a “duh” moment for me. But I just put two and two together on something. The John Eastman whose article for the Heritage Foundation. . . .
From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
Published on March 30, 2006 by John Eastman
Eastman's Article
Excerpt: “John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This memorandum stems from an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of respondents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.”
. . . .and whose article above is constantly cited by the Birfers as the legal basis that a natural born citizen either requires two citizen parents or some other hoop besides just being born in the USA. . . .
Example of Birfer Citing:
Birfers Citing Eastman
. . . .is the same John Eastman who is the Republican Candidate for Attorney General in California.
Eastman's Campaign Website
Excerpt: “At Chapman University, John established a new program within the Law School to train young lawyers who choose to serve society as prosecutors and deputy district attorneys. “
So, unless there are two John Eastman’s at Chapman U. they are one and the same. Eastman could be characterized as “The Original Birther.” In fairness to him, Eastman realizes that Wong Kim Ark is settled law. He just thinks the Wong Court got it wrong, and that the dissent is correct, to wit:
“Justice Gray's failure even to address, much less appreciate, the distinction was taken to task by Justice Fuller, joined by Justice Harlan, in dissent. Drawing on an impressive array of legal scholars, from Vattel to Blackstone, Justice Fuller correctly noted that there was a distinction between the two sorts of allegiance-"the one, natural and perpetual; the other, local and temporary."
This was a March 30, 2006 article and obviously Eastman did not write it based on Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy. Instead, illegal immigrants and their “anchor babies” provided the impetus. There’s nothing wrong with Eastman having any opinion he wants. He is, after all, an American. However, one can not find reference to this article on Eastman’s website. He does discuss his views on immigration, however:
Candidate Eastman on Immigration
Illegal Immigration
One of the primary causes of overcrowding in our state prisons is the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants housed in state prisons. These are criminals who already violated the law by entering California illegally, and then further committed crimes serious enough to warrant time in state prison. Their mere presence in California prisons is a reflection of the federal government’s failure to control our borders. John will press, and if necessary, sue the federal government to make then pay California back for the billions we spend incarcerating illegal immigrant prisoners.
Perhaps Mr. Eastman has simply forgotten this article and the anchor baby aspect of illegal immigration. Surely there is nothing sinister here in Mr. Eastman's failure to mention that he thinks the children of illegal immigrants should be denied citizenship rights:(from the Feudalism link above, and abridged for length)
"Wong Kim Ark's parents were actually in this country both legally and permanently [snip], and under those circumstances, it is not a surprise that the Court would extend the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship to their children. But the effort to read Wong Kim Ark more broadly than that, as interpreting the Citizenship Clause to confer birthright citizenship on the children of those not subject to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of the United States, not only ignores the text, history, and theory of the Citizenship Clause, but also permits the Court to intrude upon a plenary power assigned to Congress itself."
And note, that Mr. “Defending the Constitution” –(one of the links on his home page, above) thinks that Congress should do the “Constitution Interpreting” work here, and not SCOTUS. From the Feudalism link, above.
“Of course, Congress has in analogous contexts been hesitant to exercise its own constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution in ways contrary to the pronouncements of the courts. Even if that course is warranted in most situations so as to avoid a constitutional conflict with a co-equal branch of the government, it is not warranted here for at least two reasons.”
Yep, Mr. Eastman loves that Constitution, except when he disagrees with it. Mr. Eastman might make a good, little Birfer, after all.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Post and Email - Slips A Stinker Past the Peanut Gallery
The Post and Email - Slips A Stinker Past the Peanut Gallery
On March 10, 2010, the Post and Email slipped s “stinker” past the Peanut Gallery. First, what is a “peanut gallery”? From wiki:
A peanut gallery is an audience that heckles the performer. The term originated in the days of vaudeville as a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater; the cheapest snack served at the theater would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to show their disapproval. The phrases "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name. In the late 1940s the Howdy Doody show adopted the name to represent their audience of 40 children. (Or, simply Birfers, although they generally heckle the wrong people.)
And, of course, we should define a stinker:
noun
1. a person or thing that stinks
2. Slang
1. a contemptible, obnoxious, or disgusting person
2. a very difficult task, problem, etc.
3. something of very low standard or quality
This is the article:
The Post and Email
Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers
THE MARCH OF “ER”.....by Sally Vendée
This is the “stinker”, a thing that both stinks, and is of very low standard or quality.
“Edwin Meese and Dr. Matthew Spalding, in their 2007 article, write:
According to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are born here must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen—is historically and legally inaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship.”
Yes, I know that in context, Meese could also qualify as a “person who stinks”, pursuant to the definition above, but that is another article entirely. Let’s keep on track, here, those of you who hate Meese’s to pieces. A tip of the hat to Mr. Jinks! And the part of that quote that reeks the most is:
“The popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen—is historically and legally inaccurate.”
Historically and legally inaccurate? How about Wong Kim Ark ? The 1898 SCOTUS Case.
Wong Kim Ark
One could stretch the Meese quote, to make it fit Wong Kim Ark. Yes, diplomats’ children don’t count. Children of invading soldiers don’t count. Most Indians, at that time, also counted not. But today, in 2010? Haven’t seen an “foreign” military force invade us lately. Indians fell out of the exception in 1924. Which pretty much leaves us the children of diplomats to worry about. Which I won’t look up, but total births in the United States are about 4 million per year. I’ll assume there were 4,000 children born to diplomats. That’s maybe 1 child in a 1,000 the statement applies to. For the other 999 children, it just isn’t true.
That’s the part that is “something of very low standard or quality.” The part that stinks the most. The intentional misuse of the law, to mislead the Peanut Gallery. But, that statement by Meese was footnoted. Did either Meese or someone else just miss Wong Kim Ark in all the confusion?
And, when one goes to the link for that statement, we find this article, May 10, 2007; Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform by Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.:
Meese Cite
We find that language provided above, about half-way down the article at the bullet point–“Clarify Birthright Citizenship” with footnote (20). And when we go to footnote (20) it takes us here:
[20] John C. Eastman, Ph.D, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 18, March 30, 2006. See also Edward Erler, "Citizenship," in Edwin Meese III, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2005), pp. 384–386.
And, Eastman’s article is also separately cited in The Post and Email. One would think that merely citing straight to Eastman article would have been enough, but you know, it never hurts to play to the Peanut Gallery with a quote from a former Attorney General of the United States. Sometimes that “new car smell” can work wonders with a clunker.
Eastman Cite
And if one reads the Eastman article, one finds that Eastman has indeed read Wong Kim Ark. He just disagrees with their call. By 7-2 the Wong Court found Wong Kim Ark “safe”. Eastman thinks Wong was “out.” Eastman believes the Wong Court, took a wrong turn. Fair enough. It’s a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But for Eastman, or Meese, or The Post and Email, to set forth that the reasoning in the Wong Kim Ark case, which is that aforementioned:
“. . . popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. . .”
- - -is historically and legally inaccurate.”
is, well.....historically and legally inaccurate. It’s a stinker.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. Botherum
On March 10, 2010, the Post and Email slipped s “stinker” past the Peanut Gallery. First, what is a “peanut gallery”? From wiki:
A peanut gallery is an audience that heckles the performer. The term originated in the days of vaudeville as a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater; the cheapest snack served at the theater would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to show their disapproval. The phrases "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name. In the late 1940s the Howdy Doody show adopted the name to represent their audience of 40 children. (Or, simply Birfers, although they generally heckle the wrong people.)
And, of course, we should define a stinker:
noun
1. a person or thing that stinks
2. Slang
1. a contemptible, obnoxious, or disgusting person
2. a very difficult task, problem, etc.
3. something of very low standard or quality
This is the article:
The Post and Email
Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers
THE MARCH OF “ER”.....by Sally Vendée
This is the “stinker”, a thing that both stinks, and is of very low standard or quality.
“Edwin Meese and Dr. Matthew Spalding, in their 2007 article, write:
According to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are born here must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen—is historically and legally inaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship.”
Yes, I know that in context, Meese could also qualify as a “person who stinks”, pursuant to the definition above, but that is another article entirely. Let’s keep on track, here, those of you who hate Meese’s to pieces. A tip of the hat to Mr. Jinks! And the part of that quote that reeks the most is:
“The popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen—is historically and legally inaccurate.”
Historically and legally inaccurate? How about Wong Kim Ark ? The 1898 SCOTUS Case.
Wong Kim Ark
One could stretch the Meese quote, to make it fit Wong Kim Ark. Yes, diplomats’ children don’t count. Children of invading soldiers don’t count. Most Indians, at that time, also counted not. But today, in 2010? Haven’t seen an “foreign” military force invade us lately. Indians fell out of the exception in 1924. Which pretty much leaves us the children of diplomats to worry about. Which I won’t look up, but total births in the United States are about 4 million per year. I’ll assume there were 4,000 children born to diplomats. That’s maybe 1 child in a 1,000 the statement applies to. For the other 999 children, it just isn’t true.
That’s the part that is “something of very low standard or quality.” The part that stinks the most. The intentional misuse of the law, to mislead the Peanut Gallery. But, that statement by Meese was footnoted. Did either Meese or someone else just miss Wong Kim Ark in all the confusion?
And, when one goes to the link for that statement, we find this article, May 10, 2007; Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform by Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.:
Meese Cite
We find that language provided above, about half-way down the article at the bullet point–“Clarify Birthright Citizenship” with footnote (20). And when we go to footnote (20) it takes us here:
[20] John C. Eastman, Ph.D, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 18, March 30, 2006. See also Edward Erler, "Citizenship," in Edwin Meese III, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2005), pp. 384–386.
And, Eastman’s article is also separately cited in The Post and Email. One would think that merely citing straight to Eastman article would have been enough, but you know, it never hurts to play to the Peanut Gallery with a quote from a former Attorney General of the United States. Sometimes that “new car smell” can work wonders with a clunker.
Eastman Cite
And if one reads the Eastman article, one finds that Eastman has indeed read Wong Kim Ark. He just disagrees with their call. By 7-2 the Wong Court found Wong Kim Ark “safe”. Eastman thinks Wong was “out.” Eastman believes the Wong Court, took a wrong turn. Fair enough. It’s a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But for Eastman, or Meese, or The Post and Email, to set forth that the reasoning in the Wong Kim Ark case, which is that aforementioned:
“. . . popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. . .”
- - -is historically and legally inaccurate.”
is, well.....historically and legally inaccurate. It’s a stinker.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. Botherum
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Ding Show of the Century!
YOU'LL SEE THE FREAKS, THE STRANGE PEOPLE, THE WEIRD PEOPLE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT THEY DO, HEAR WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT."
And the First, Is Dr. Orly Taitz, Well Known Attorney for the Birther Movement!
Yes, Dr. Taitz will be appearing here for your Amusement and Entertainment!
Madame Rosetta, our Authentic Gypsy Fortuneteller Deluxe, has peered into her magic Crystal Ball---And, seeing that Dr. Taitz's Quo Warranto RICO Action, will be dismissed because she lacks Ex-Relator status, has peered into the future....into the dark Recesses of Future Time to bring us Dr. Taitz's Response.
And here it is, presented exclusively for your viewing pleasure:
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
NOT AN EX-REALTOR DISMISSAL
UNDER THE LIFE, LIBERTY,
AND PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS CLAUSE
COMES NOW, Dr. Orly Taitz,
1. It is uncredible and inbelievable that one should be dismissed on a Quo-Warranto Petition on the Status Technicality of being a Inactively-Licensed Realtor, instead of an “Ex”-Realtor. They are almost the same thing.
2. I have two other jobs, as an Attorney, a Dentist, and a Full Time Mother that, for all practical purposes, would keep me from working much as a Realtor, anyway. Maybe three, if I become Secretary of State.
3. Plus, if I am prejudiced against, and lose my Law License, I will need to re-activate my Real Estate License, to make up the extra income. For example, my emission hose needs fixing.
4. The Pursuit of Happyness Clause of the U.S. Constitution is clearly plural. (See generally: Vattel —The Law of Nations) I should NOT be limited to one Pursuit at a Time. I should be allowed to Pursue the Kenyan Usurper! AND Pursue a Commission on that Charming 2-Bedroom Bungalow, with all appliances, if I get the chance.
5. Further, I can easily multi-task having maintained, as ADMITTED by the USDA “numerous frivolous suits” at the same time.
6. Plus, people should quit “throwing stones” about MY typos!
Further, I sayeth NAUGHT.
Respectively Submitted,
/ s
Dr. Orly Taitz, Inactively-Licensed Realtor
Yes folks--That is the way it is going to happen! In the future.
presented by Dr. Botherum, Esq.
And the First, Is Dr. Orly Taitz, Well Known Attorney for the Birther Movement!
Yes, Dr. Taitz will be appearing here for your Amusement and Entertainment!
Madame Rosetta, our Authentic Gypsy Fortuneteller Deluxe, has peered into her magic Crystal Ball---And, seeing that Dr. Taitz's Quo Warranto RICO Action, will be dismissed because she lacks Ex-Relator status, has peered into the future....into the dark Recesses of Future Time to bring us Dr. Taitz's Response.
And here it is, presented exclusively for your viewing pleasure:
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
NOT AN EX-REALTOR DISMISSAL
UNDER THE LIFE, LIBERTY,
AND PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS CLAUSE
COMES NOW, Dr. Orly Taitz,
1. It is uncredible and inbelievable that one should be dismissed on a Quo-Warranto Petition on the Status Technicality of being a Inactively-Licensed Realtor, instead of an “Ex”-Realtor. They are almost the same thing.
2. I have two other jobs, as an Attorney, a Dentist, and a Full Time Mother that, for all practical purposes, would keep me from working much as a Realtor, anyway. Maybe three, if I become Secretary of State.
3. Plus, if I am prejudiced against, and lose my Law License, I will need to re-activate my Real Estate License, to make up the extra income. For example, my emission hose needs fixing.
4. The Pursuit of Happyness Clause of the U.S. Constitution is clearly plural. (See generally: Vattel —The Law of Nations) I should NOT be limited to one Pursuit at a Time. I should be allowed to Pursue the Kenyan Usurper! AND Pursue a Commission on that Charming 2-Bedroom Bungalow, with all appliances, if I get the chance.
5. Further, I can easily multi-task having maintained, as ADMITTED by the USDA “numerous frivolous suits” at the same time.
6. Plus, people should quit “throwing stones” about MY typos!
Further, I sayeth NAUGHT.
Respectively Submitted,
/ s
Dr. Orly Taitz, Inactively-Licensed Realtor
Yes folks--That is the way it is going to happen! In the future.
presented by Dr. Botherum, Esq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
