Reality check on Reality Check

Recently a comment popped up on an old article here. I used to close comments on articles older than 90 days but I changed that a while back since sometimes people happen to discover older articles for the first time and feel inclined to comment. On much busier blogs like Obama Conspiracy Theories that is not practical. The article was written in February 2012 following two devastating losses by the Birthers. One was the ruling in favor of the Empty ChairTM in Georgia by ALJ Michael Malihi. The other was the ruling in the Tisdale v Election Board of Virginia case in the Fourth Circuit in Virginia by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. In both cases the Brither plaintiffs were arguing the Vattelite nonsense theory that a natural born citizen must have been born form two US citizen parents. In both cases the judges ruled solidly against the Birther arguments. I won’t go into the details of the rulings because I have written about both as have other bloggers and members of the Fogbow. The title of the article was Time for Birthers to admit they are wrong and move on

The recent comment was left by someone named Janice. She wrote:

Wong Kim Ark was just for citizenship standing, not “natural born citizenship” standing–read Vattal [sic]

I replied:

I am sorry Janice but you are wrong. I have read both de Vattel (whose name you can’t even spell correctly) and the US v Wong Kim Ark. de Vattel said that citizenship in countries like England (and by inference the USA) is primarily based on jus soli (by the soil) and not jus sanguinis (by blood).

In the Wong Kim Ark case the majority concluded that there were only two types of citizenship (they actually cited Minor v Happersett on that) naturalized and natural born. Since it was in fact against the law for a Chinese person to be naturalized in 1898 the court painstakingly analyzed who were natural born citizens and concluded that the definition in the Constitution came from English common law. Therefore Wong was a citizen by way of being natural born.

If you are really interested in this subject and not doing a fly by I suggest that you read the very fine and well researched series of articles that John Woodman did on this subject at his blog starting with this article. There is also a great deal of information at other blogs like Obama Conspiracy Theories and NBC’s Natural and Native Born Citizenship Explored, both of which I have in my links bar on the right.

Finally, the courts have actually ruled on this. The Ankeny case in Indiana directly addressed this question as did a federal judge in Virginia in the Tisdale case just to name a couple. There are more.

Now if you want to discuss the specifics go read up and come back. I doubt I will ever see you again however.

As I suspected Janice was doing a drive by and never returned to defend her claims.

I noticed that I had made some predictions at the end of this article so I thought it would be fun to see how my predictions had survived the passage of time over two years.

  1. Orly Taitz’s influence in Birthistan will continue to decline.

  2. The two parent citizen theory that was always complete nonsense has been dealt a death blow.

  3. Politicians who actually have to face the voters will be more reluctant than ever to “Birf”.

  4. President Obama will appear on every ballot in every presidential preference primary and caucus.

  5. He will be on the ballot in every state and D. C. in November.

  6. Birthers will continue to be entertaining.

  7. Birthers will not heed my advice.

So how did the Reality Check of 2012 do? Let’s see…

  1. Ding! Ding! Just as I predicted Orly’s influence peaked with the Georgia ballot challenge when Birther’s actually thought Orly was going to have Obama come and testify at the hearing when Judge Malihi declined to quash the subpoena Orly found on the Georgia administrative court website and filled out. Today Orly has been completely shunned by Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio and many Birther web sites openly mock her.
  2. Ding! Ding! Ok, some of the Birthers like Apuzzo might argue it is still alive and Brooke Paige has a Vermont ballot challenge appeal of a denial pending at the Supreme Court. However, seasoned court watchers know his appear is dead. If you want me to wait until it is denied later this month to claim this one I can live with that.
  3. Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Birthers were convinced that the Cold Case Pose investigation and the ballot challenges would cause both incumbent Republicans and candidates seeking office to pick up the Birth banner. Not one sitting member of Congress was “on board” despite grandiose and spectacular claims by Gallups and Zullo. No Birther candidate won office unless you count the election Gary Kreep’s election to be a municipal judge in San Diego, CA. As far as I recall he did not run as a Birther or even mention that he was an attorney in a Birther case.
  4. He did as predicted. There was not even a serious challenger for the nomination.
  5. He was and won an solid majority of the electoral votes.
  6. I am still blogging and doing the show for the entertainment value.
  7. Well this goes without saying.

So I think ole RC did pretty well with those. I admit it was like shooting fish in a barrel as they say.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Birther Cases, Birthers, RC Radio and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Reality check on Reality Check

  1. ramboike says:

    Your biggest error, and deliberately done by you, is to equate that the new country America was still the same British colonies when Vattel wrote his book. You know the new country, a confederation of colonies now called states, had their allegiance as subjects to the British crown removed with the Declaration, America’s founding document.

    Not being content with your subject vs citizen deceit you went on to top that with your looney interpretation of the WongKimArk ruling. Hey, at least you’re entertaining.

    • Please explain how the Court ruled Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a naturalized citizen when it was illegal for a Chinese person to be naturalized at the time. The Court didn’t overturn the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chew on that one a while.

      • ramboike says:

        You should apologize to Janice for misleading her on “subject vs citizen”. The WongKimArk is alot of opinions.

        On the WongKimArk case I explained my position on that almost 2 years ago at Turncoat Johnny’s blog. You, Maggot Brown, Slow Jim, Sir Anus, along with some other Obots, were all there at the time. After reading the case with the ruling, along with opinions from a number of other sites explaining different aspects of it, I gave you intellectually honest opinion using reason and logic to say it was bad law. It wasn’t the 1st time SCOTUS ruled in favor of bad law. It doesn’t matter if noone agrees with me, only that I gave you my honest opinion.

        Kim Ark’s parents didn’t have allegiance to the United States and left to return to China. Kim Ark’s only claim to citizenship is popping out on American soil. That doesn’t make him a natural born citizen.

        • Yes, it did make WKA an NBC. So you can just ignore “bad law”? What a novel concept. Things we can mearn from Birthers. I guess we can ignore Citizen’s United and Heller then?

          • Thomas Brown says:

            Here’s a bad law that should just be ignored:

            Tha law that says nobody can build a pig farm next to rimjob-ike’s house. And preferably uphill from him.

          • ramboike says:

            Would there have been a WongKimArk case if the parents had been American citizens? The Chinese emperor had a claim to KimArk as his parents were his subjects. Subjects renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor was a capital crime and punishable by death.

            I found the Gray Court erred by using subject under ECL when subject was eliminated with the Declaration. The term citizen was started with a whole different concept. The Gray Court decided to make an exception in KimArks case an naturalize him, which means he couldn’t be a natural born citizen.

            Anything I say on this is from someone who has never had any formal schooling on law as I told you on Turncoat Johnny’s site at the time. All I can do is apply reason to it.

            Have you posed your naturalized question to the guys at Mario’s site? Maybe they’ve already spanked you on it and you didn’t tell me.

            • Jim says:

              Mario ignores the question, like you do. Blows him out of the water. So you admit you have no legal knowledge, yet feel anyone should care about your opinion about SCOTUS opinions? BTW, unlike you, the court addressed the change from subject to citizen. I still say, after all these years Dumbo, you should read the entire opinion, it’s a wonderful history of citizenship and addresses every one of your disagreements point by point. I know you don’t want to, but if you’re going to keep asking questions about it you should really try reading it and understanding it. I have no legal training and was able to follow it with no problem. After 5+ years, people who are curious read…people like you who don’t care and don’t read to learn.

            • Would there have been a WongKimArk case if the parents had been American citizens?

              Let’s consider for a minute how incredibly stupid that statement is. By law (The Chinese Exclusion Act) WKA’s parents were prohibited from ever becoming naturalized citizens. Therefore, according to your interpretation of the 14th amendment no person of Chinese descent could ever have become an American citizen no matter how many generations of his or her ancestors had been born on US soil.

              Of course there would have been no case if his parents were US citizens. Wong rightly claimed citizenship by birth under common law and the 14th amendment and the Supreme Court agreed. Leading legal scholars at the time agreed he would have also been eligible to run for president if he met the other requirements of age and residency.

              Have you posed your naturalized question to the guys at Mario’s site? Maybe they’ve already spanked you on it and you didn’t tell me.

              Mario has repeatedly dodged the question by inventing out of thin air (or pulling it from you know where) a heretofore unheard category of US citizen called “Citizen of the USA” or “born citizen” that doesn’t exist in US code or common law. The Supreme Court has recognized two paths to citizenship. Quoting from a case that Birthers love to quote:

              Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

              “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,

              and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

              I will leave it to you to figure out the case.

              • ramboike says:

                RC, is this your attempt to deceive?

                At approximately the same time the 14th Amendment was being added to the Constitution, the United States was signing a treaty with China that stated neither country would naturalize the other country’s citizens. Because of the right to expatriate it was written to appease the emperor of China.

              • ramboike says:

                It’s unfortunate for the Wongs but that is what the 2 governments agreed to. With that agreement the chinese in the United States remained subjects of the Emperor which would be passed on to include their off-springs residing in the United States. Having no blood & soil claim by the United States meant it took an act of law to make Kim Ark a citizen which you know eliminates natural. So Kim Ark couldn’t be a natural born citizen.
                Case Closed, end of story. Thx for playing. ~grin~

                • Ike

                  You are so close but you still do not get it. Yes, Wong’s parents could not naturalize because Congress had passed the terrible xenophobic Chinese Exclusion Act. However, the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in other cases because the Constitution empowers Congress to pass laws controlling naturalization. Where you went off the rails was claiming that it took an act of law to make Wong a citizen. Quite the opposite was true. The WKA court ruled that Wong was a citizen by the common law definition of natural born citizen and the 14th Amendment. In other words Congress could control who were naturalized citizens but not natural born citizens since they were defined by the Constitution and not by statute. Wong Kim Ark fell into the latter category.

                  By the way did you know that the Senate and the House of Representatives issued official apologies in 2011 and 2012 respectively to Asian peoples for passing the Chinese Exclusion Acts ?

                  PS: Tomorrow is Wong Kim Ark Day. Will you be celebrating?

  2. Jim says:

    ramboike says: “I am a complete idiot.”

    As has been shown to you by the courts over and over and over again.

  3. To bad you are completely wrong Rambo. Anyone with even basic legal training would have to come to the conclusion that Wong was NBC. Here is a hint son, if you have to create a fictitious third form a citizenship in order to make your conclusion work then your conclusion is wrong.

    Citizen is an umbrella term that encompasses all forms of citizenship, of which there are only two, Natural Born and Naturalized. As it was legally impossible for Wong to be a naturalized citizen, then he must have been natural born, which is confirmed by the dissenting opinion.

  4. ramboike says:

    RC, we are venturing into an area in law where I don’t feel I’m qualified and can only base what I say on the reasoning of a layman. I know it’s hard for Obots to understand that, but it’s true. Even the Mighty Ike has a few limitations. ~grin~

    I can’t see how 2 subjects of the Emperor of China, came here to the United States knowing full well they had limited rights as per the agreement with the Emperor, and have a child that is now considered a natural born citizen. Plus I don’t read the ruling as it saying Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

    • ramboike says:

      If that doesn’t beat all. Neither the lower court or the Supreme Count was asked to find Kim Ark a natural born Citizen.

      • NBC says:

        You are somewhat wrong. The government’s brief stated the issue as follows: Whether or not the lower court erred in finding that WKA was natural born.

        Of course, the court had to address this because WKA could either be naturalized or natural born and the court showed that he could not be naturalized and thus if he were to be a citizen he had to be natural born.

        Clueless… And not even that interested in reading the case I observe.

        How often can you be wrong on a single day Ike… How embarrassing, so are you going to blame obots for your foolish comments or are you going to take some responsibility?

        Do some research my friend and surprise us.

    • NBC says:

      Even the Mighty Ike has a few limitations. ~grin~

      I have seen few strengths. As to your beliefs, why not read and comprehend WKA?

  5. ramboike says:

    This is absolutely silly. When are you going to bring the lower court case where it found that Kim Ark was no longer a natural born subject of foreign-subject parents who owed allegiance to the emperor of China.and is now a natural born American citizen? if a ruling has to be made how can that be considered natural? If my dog was born of 2 pug parents can I get a court to rule it’s now a natural born poodle? Something very unnatural about all this. Lmao

  6. When are you going to bring the lower court case where it found that Kim Ark was no longer a natural born subject of foreign-subject parents who owed allegiance to the emperor of China.and is now a natural born American citizen? if a ruling has to be made how can that be considered natural? If my dog was born of 2 pug parents can I get a court to rule it’s now a natural born poodle? Something very unnatural about all this. Lmao

    You still have not read the ruling have you?

  7. ramboike says:

    RC

    I read the case, the ruling (Gray’s opinion), and also a number of sites giving an opinion on it. I then gave my best reasonable opinion. That was almost 2 years ago at Turncoat Johnny’s blog when you were there. Paraphrasing what I said: Kim Ark was found to be a citizen with all the rights that a natural born citizen would have except for being an Article 2 natural-born Citizen and qualified for the 2 offices of the presidency. I also stated it was bad law.

    • That was almost 2 years ago at Turncoat Johnny’s blog when you were there. Paraphrasing what I said: Kim Ark was found to be a citizen with all the rights that a natural born citizen would have except for being an Article 2 natural-born Citizen and qualified for the 2 offices of the presidency.

      It is revealing that you refer to John Woodman as “Turncoat Johnny”. It implies that if you dislike Obama you must therefore believe all the Birther nonsense. John Woodman actually wanted to believe the Birther lies about Obama’s birth certificate. However he had the integrity and honesty (something you lack) to look at the claims and weigh them for validity. He found all the forgery claims did not hold up under scrutiny. He did the same with the theories of Donofrio and Apuzzo on the definition of natural-born citizen. He researched sources thoroughly and wrote enough material on it to fill another book. He concluded they were wrong.

      You interpretation of WKA is wrong. Various courts addressed the question in the last two election cycles and ruled that anyone born a citizen on US soil is quite eligible to serve as president. You are entitled to your opinion of course but that doesn’t change the law. Uttering your wrong opinion over and over again will not change that. See Mario Apuzzo for the extreme example. No one has demonstrated that they are wrong in so many words in my memory.

  8. ramboike says:

    RC

    Here’s something else to think about: Had 3 of the 5 justices that agreed with Gray’s opinion favored Fuller’s it would of never became law. Had the Yale Law Review of that time been the justices it would of never became law.

  9. Northland10 says:

    Rambo:If my dog was born of 2 pug parents can I get a court to rule it’s now a natural born poodle? Something very unnatural about all this.

    Pardon me, your hood is showing.

  10. ramboike says:

    RC

    I had a problem with Woodman almost from the first time I read some of his comments. He was calling himself a conservative, member of the Tea Party, and if I remember correctly he claimed he voted Republican. Yet he joined with you & others calling the Tea Party, conservatives, and republicans racists.

    One of the arguments I had with Woodman was over him saying his theories were proof. I told him he didn’t understand theory vs concrete proof. He told me the reason I didn’t understand was because I didn’t have a scientific mind. So i gave him a scientific example and he said no more about it. Lol. I think the one I used with him was the example of the ever so often changing dinosaur theories by paleontologist. That was on Obama’s records.

    The problem with his research on natural-born citizen was the number of errors I found. Though most times they weren’t major and often off the citizenship facts it still was creating a problem as far as I was concerned.

    I don’t believe my opinion is wrong on WongKimArk. You say that because a few more judges favored Gray’s opinion over Fuller’s.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s