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