We know how birthers love to rewrite definitions. They started with "natural born citizen." But my favorite now is the rewrite of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" to mean "Hawaii has to obey subpoenas from Georgia" like this one:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/07/ ... stitution/

Now, I am wondering. How will you jail the WHOLE STATE of Hawaii?

Any other major rewriting of definitions? I think it is good to keep track of them all in one thread.

Curious. My copy of the Constitution:


doesn't have these words:

...and googling that phrase produces a full page of results entirely comprising RWNJ sites.

So yes, you can add "The Constitution" to the list of things the birthtards are rewriting.

And by the way... considering how they utterly ignore the "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the ... records" part, can you imagine how fast they'd walk this shit back if it was a Hawaii attorney working for Obama who had issued a subpoena against, say, Corsi?

Because full faith and credit only works one way (apparently): when the party demanding or applying the "act, record or proceeding" is white, and the object of the "act, record or proceeding" is black.

I'm sure that qualification is in there somewhere. Papers, boy!!

Ironically, there is an "acknowledged" exception for out-of-state judgments because such judgments may contravene a state's own laws. And it is the fear of other states' marriages (interracial, same-sex) that led to DOMA.

They don't seem to recognize that the United States Constitution applies due process in every state, and that the Full Faith and Credit Clause says nowhere that it magically creates personal jurisdiction across the entire universe.

If a court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. That applies as well to innocent victims of abuse of process by tarantula-lidded Moldovan illegal immigrant lunatics.

Bear with me verbalobe if it's just my sarcasm detector wobbling....but are you hinting that the "records" part of the FF & C Clause wording might actually ever be deemed to include "subpoenas"?

He's "hinting" that the "records" part includes vital records, i.e., birth certificates.

No ... I was actually being fairly straightforward, albeit nonspecific. I was referring to State-certified birth certificates as "records." Which, as we know, do not fall under the special Birther Version FF & C Clause.

(I was being sarcastic to suggest that the Constitution enshrines a one-way racial exception for the FF & C clause. But I guess that was obvious. )

Duuh! Understood.......heel of hand duly self administered to forehead

Civil Rights Attorney
Constitutional Attorney
Dissident (or decedent, if you will)
Trial
DISCOVERY!!!

They have switched the meanings of 'dicta' and 'holding.'

Heh. You wrote "holding" and "dicta."

I recently ran accross a birther who claimed that Barack Sr. was "Domiciled" in Kenya while he was taking classes at the University of Hawaii.

That's one hell of a daily commute.

Domicile refers to your permanent residence. When you travel, or go somewhere else to study temporarily, you are not domiciled there since you have no intention to stay there permanently.

Did Obama, Sr. express an intent to stay in Hawaii? He did after all marry the U.S. citizen mother of his child, who was born in Hawaii....

They've also switched the meanings of "victory" and "failure."

He had been in Hawaii for two years prior to Jr's birth, I don't kow if the state of Hawaii had residency requirments back then, but today if you live there for a year, you are a resident. Yes, I know that there is a diference between domicile and residency, but I think in this case it's rather trivial.

Apparently, there are different kinds of legal domiciles for different purposes and the legal definitions change with time and jurisdiction.

Clearly, Obama, Pere, would have as Kenya as his domicile of origin. However, when he and Stanley Ann obtained a divorce, it would depend on where they were living and which jurisdictions or states were involved. It is not clear the Senior Obama would have returned if INS had granted his requests to renew his visa. Or whether or not he wanted SAD to petition for permanent residency for him. He did not voluntarily return to his domicile of origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_%28law%29

Whoever wrote that has clearly misquoted the Constitution. But as a practical matter, it is a nearly correct (if very slightly overbroad) statement of the law. The real problem as I see it is that a subpoena is not a judgment. Period. End of discussion.



The other part – about how an administrative law judge in one state can find an official in another state in “contempt of court” and have them arrested and jailed in the other state – well, that’s just plain hilarious birferpuff.

My hunch is that whoever wrote that little two-part fantasy probably does have some experience with contempt of court orders. Namely, it's probably a deadbeat dad who got nailed in another state. So why is that different? Hint: Among other not-so-subtle distinctions, when that child support order that you scofflawed was entered, the adjudicating court had personal jurisdiction over you. Get it? I didn't think you would.

Well that would depend on which definition of the word "Jurisdiction" you are using.

Quite true. Sigh. Quite true.

Here are some other words that have special meaning for birfers:

bias
corrupt
traitor, treason, treasonous
misprison of felony
criminal

All the other things they call judges who do not give them what they demand.

Deadbeat parents must face the consequences of interstate treaties on reciprocal enforcement of orders relating to support and custody. The Full Faith and Credit clause is not self-enacting. Here is a helpful article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Re ... upport_Act

Let me know when a birther uses the term: "Subornation of false muster."

it's only a matter of time.