A Birther in The Woodpile - CA GOP Atty. Gen. Candidate

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.