Gee, I assume they'll be teaching everyone that a President needs to have 2 citizen parents?

Someone's corrected it now. Not me, I was going to but someone beat me to it.

I think it's 'interesting' that the most recent ad -- that is still being used last week to accompany articles about Kemp's decision -- purports to be about the Constitutional definition of NBC, and nowhere mentions Minor v Happersett.

It does have the circles-of-guano Venn Diagram, however.

* shakes fist * JUSTIA!!!!

Thanks! Interesting side note -- here's what the history of the page says:


Hmmmm....

Kerchner at Apuzzo's:

Kerchner "helpfully" does not provide any citations.

It would appear Kerchner is referring to the candidacy of Fernando Poe, Jr.:

It is "curious" that a patriot like Kerchner would imply we should look to a foreign court to interpret the U.S. Constitution. It is not so curious that Kerchner did not understand the holding of this case.

IP from Atlanta, used in the past to delete a reference to Obama showing his long form BC.

Something Kerchner forgets (if he ever noticed ) is that the Phillipine constitutions have been jus sanguinis . Indeed from 1973 to 1987 an NBC there would have required two citizen parents or be covered by a grandfather clause.

You could very well be right. I was reading some cranky birther rants last night that invoked Hillsdale. (Shudder)

Kercher couldn't be more wrong. In the first place, the case apparently interpreted the 1935 Constitution, which has long since been replaced by a couple of Constitutions, most recently the 1987 Constitution. Nevertheless, I'll play. Just for funzies, let's try the '35 version, starting with Presidential eligibility.



OK, that's close enough. Mostly. But I wonder if maybe the Philippines defined citizenship in general like the United States. Oh, lookie there! The definition, quite conveniently, was right there in the Constitution!



You don't think that had anything to do with why the Court looked to establish filiation in the case Kershner talks about, do you? Was it the Law of Nations? I..don't..think..so. But moreover, the only type of citizenship not eligible for the Presidency is #5 (naturalized citizens). So what makes me think this? Well, let's fast forward to the current Constitution where Viola! Article IV has been significantly revamped!



My reading of this is that the Philippines went whole-hog "jus sanguinis", making their current Constitutional law totally inapposite in a U.S. Constitutional comparison. But...AND GET THIS...the ticket to the dance is ONE PARENT (either one). Furthermore, "natural born" simply means "not naturalized".

Right, CDR Kerschner. Riiiiight! You LSOS.

Under that definition McCain would not be natural born because there is a registration requirement for those born out of the country.

I read it to mean that the child does not have to perform any act to acquire or perfect his/her citizenship. It's the parents who register the birth in the same way they fill out the birth certificate.

"Kevin Goodin" over at Orly's FB page has the answer!!! It's all in the colors!!!!



So there you have it!

another wingnut balloon going up?

"Andrew Breitbart Drops BOMB on Team O: "I Got Video From Obama From College""

but... but... but then won't they have to admit he really was in college?

Was he playing basketball??

No doubt the video, if it exists, will have some creative Andrew Breitbart editing done to it prior to release.

I took the question to Kerchner, but he hasn't responded.

I *did* get a response from one "MichaelN," who first pointed out that the court decided based on Poe's father. To which I responded that Kerchner didn't say 'father', he said born 'to two citizens,' and Poe definitely had only one citizen parent.

MichaelN: "But we are not here to discuss Charles."
Me: "No, that's *exactly* the reason I'm here."

Well, while we wait for his "scoop" (of crap), here's a fun video of Andykins from last night outside CPAC throwing a trademark tantrum:


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/11/andrew-breitbart-losses-control-at-occupy-protesters/

To which our favorite MichaelN replied:
There ya go, Loren. You lost. Ya see, it's moot what Charles Kerchner thinks or writes, however inaccurate or misleading it may be.

Sigh. That guy is so dense he'd sink in a pool of molten lead. But that's moot too since the CONSTITUTION does not contain the WORDS "molten lead".

Maybe he'll release the "Whitey Tape" at the same time, Larry Johnson and "Editor Korir" standing beside him.

also on this thread:



so what are the odds that this bombshell vid consists of nothing more than bill and bernie pulling ol' andy's leg over drinks and aperitifs? how could they not resist?

Thank you Aaaaarrrggggh, There have been two members of the IL Council of Humanities who "quit" the group in protest over the dinner. They are both Springfield residents. One is a LincolnLand College instructor named KOCH. Who is stupid or clever enough to offer a dinner with ex- Weathermen in an election year? Especially when the sitting POTUS was falsely accused of palling around with these same terrorists? This has got to be staged. The Bill Ayers story didn't get traction last time. It won't this time either.

What Tracy (or any of these Minorite Vattelists) will never admit is that "allegiance" as used in American birthright citizenship is subtly different from "allegiance" as understood in lay terms, such as in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge has given these people the impression that allegiance is something voluntary and ephemeral, whereas in most of the citizenship discussions it is categorical. (After all, what voluntary allegiance could a newborn baby express?)

Their argument is circular idiotic: "US practice can't be jus soli, because everywhere jus soli is established and defined as US practice, it refers to "allegiance," and we know what allegiance is, allegiance comes at least partly from one's parents, and that doesn't comport with jus soli."

It's as if I've grown up with the sole understanding of "game winning" as being based on having the "higher numerical score." As long as I only watched football, rugby, soccer, hockey, basketball, and so forth, this definition has never caused me trouble. But then I read the rules for golf, and it keeps mentioning "a better score," "a winning score," which to me means a higher score. Ultimately I'm arguing that 115 beats a 90 in golf, even thought the golf books clearly say the 90 wins, because the 115 is higher, and I know better than golf players what "winning" means.

Here's how that translates to allegiance. Being born within the territory of the US -- so long as your parent is not a foreign diplomat or a member of an invading or occupying army -- accords you sole, permanent, ineradicable allegiance. It's like a magic spell. For all legal American purposes it wipes out any other claim of allegiance, jurisdiction, or loyalty that anyone -- including your parents, including foreign potentates -- may think applies, for any reason. You are of the Jewish race? You father is German? Your mother is Greek? You were born in a pentagram of blood and pledged to Hades? None of it matters. You are NBC.

US birthright allegiance is like a firewall. The British pass an Act regarding the colonial status of Kenya, and the citizenship of Kenyans? How does that affect ANY person born in the US? Not one bit.

Birthers like to point at the fact that to be naturalized one has to swear an oath of allegiance, and forswear any prior loyalties. Then they point to Constitutional case law that says "Natural Born is exactly like Naturalized except for the eligibility to the Presidency." And then they say, "but Naturalized have sworn sole allegiance, therefore NBC must be held to the same standard."

They might just as well say, "Golf is exactly like soccer, except lower scores win," and then "But Mickelson only shot a 64, and everyone else shot higher, so he's the loser. He is usurping the green jacket."

Allegiance is not a yardstick, NBC isn't held to the same standard. It IS, definitionally, the same standard. It is given to you. At birth. From being on the soil. Without an oath. Someone's idea of mixed allegiance doesn't trump native citizenship, native citizenship trumps mixed allegiance.

(This is my 'lay' rant - obviously not getting into legalities, like the fact that Obama Sr., while in Hawaii on a visa, was entirely under the jurisdiction of the US -- "in the allegiance".)