The dregs of birther remainders.

[bob]

And before clerking for Brennan Stone clerked for J. Skelly Wright, who was not chopped liver.

A ham sandwich, perhaps?

(I kid; Wright was a noted D.C. Cir. judge.)

* * *

P&E comment:

A test comment. This is a test. Do not approve or release.

Best free site, hands down.

(Since deleted.)

[bob]

Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article as labeling President Trump’s (and one Paul Ingrassia’s) Haley ineligibility claims as being “bonkers.”

Speaking of Ingrassia:

[Sam the Centipede]

Is Barack Obama still controlling the weather in Iowa?!?!?

What a monster!

[RTH10260]

Just wait until HAARP generates the winter storm winds that flip votes

[Reality Check]

Since Trump wondered down into the Birther cesspool again to the delight of the dregs aka birther remainders I decided to post about this on my blog.

Let’s Talk About Nikki Haley

Bonus: John Woodman pops up in the comments.

Additional bonus: a really stupid new Birther pops up in the comments:

BigJymn says:
January 12, 2024 at 4:33 pm (Edit)

Show us the law; voted on and affirmed by Congress; and entered into the Federal Registry? We’re waiting………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Reality Check says:
January 12, 2024 at 4:53 pm (Edit)

Waiting for what?

BigJymn says:
January 12, 2024 at 5:05 pm (Edit)

The law that grants automatic birth right citizenship to a child born to non-citizens.

Reality Check says:
January 12, 2024 at 5:18 pm (Edit)

OK,

8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

BigJymn says:
January 12, 2024 at 5:43 pm (Edit)

Not a single word referring to a child born to non-citizens. If you are referencing section (f); as most people do; it ONLY applies to a child with UNKNOWN parents (orphan) who was discovered at age 5 yrs or less in age; and not being proved that he was born outside the US before said child turns 21. That child is NOT a citizen before reaching 21 years of age. If a child born to non-citizens; and has a U.S. birth certificate; then the parents ARE known; and is ineligible for U.S. citizenship.

Reality Check says:
January 12, 2024 at 6:28 pm (Edit)

Section (a) of 8 US Code Section 1401 stands on its own. Parentage does not matter. Anyone born on US soil is under the jurisdiction of our laws unless the parents have diplomatic immunity and that would pass down to the child. Therefore Nikki Haley was a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. You seem not to have even a basic understanding of our laws.

BigJymn says:
January 12, 2024 at 7:07 pm (Edit)

A subsection CANNOT stand on its own. if you notice the semi-colon at the end of that text; it means “and” in the legal world. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the parents MUST be U.S. citizens. The U.S. government DOES NOT have jurisdiction over non-citizens (foreign nationals) nor the children born unto them; whether born in the U.S.; or elsewhere. This has been upheld in the courts for over 100 years. Your wishful thinking doesn’t change that fact.

Reality Check says:
January 12, 2024 at 7:31 pm (Edit)

The first part of section 1401 says: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”. That means that everyone listed in each subsection is a citizen at birth. No court has ever supported your conclusion. Non citizen residents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If an alien commits a crime they can be tried in US courts. You are really spouting nonsense now. Go read US v Wong Kim Ark.

PS: if we followed your logic of changing each semicolon to an “and” there would be no citizens at all.

[pipistrelle]

P&E: Will the New York Post Publish our “NBC” Comment?

P&E: The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep:

Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”

* * *

First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added)

Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added)

A fair-ish point, but the article's premise still stands: nowhere (including the 12th Amendment) are the eligibility requirements defined.

Instead, [the article relies] on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.

Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article as labeling President Trump’s (and one Paul Ingrassia’s) Haley ineligibility claims as being “bonkers.” He added that against the backdrop of the 14th Amendment, there was “no legitimate case that would disqualify Haley from the presidency based on her parents’ citizenship.”

[Usual snipped.]

Therefore, against the foregoing empirical, factual backdrop, it would seem that a far better case can be made for labeling the NY Post article, as well as the CRS and 14th Amendment “citizen at/by birth” narratives – rather than President Trump’s post – to be “bonkers.”

Stone has taught at Chicago Law (currently the third best school in the nation) for 50(!) years, including seven years as dean. Before teaching, Stone clerked for Brennan.

OTOH, the background of "DeMaio" is unknown, and Ingrassia appears not to have passed the bar.

"one Geoffrey Stone," like he's a rando. "she claims," like it's not widely acknowledged he's a constitutional expert. I guess Laity could and would put rando Stone in his place.

[Reality Check]

In researching for my article on Haley I found Ingrassia calls himself a constitutional scholar even though he only graduated from Cornell in 2022. I didn't know he had not passed the bar.

[northland10]

Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article as labeling President Trump’s (and one Paul Ingrassia’s) Haley ineligibility claims as being “bonkers.”

Speaking of Ingrassia:

It's Iowa. There's nothing halfway about the Iowa to treat you, when they treat you, which they may not do at all.

[bob]

In researching for my article on Haley I found Ingrassia calls himself a constitutional scholar even though he only graduated from Cornell in 2022. I didn't know he had not passed the bar.

Yeah; he smells like he failed the bar (but that's just my WAG).

It is hi-larious that, in birfer (and MAGA, but I repeat myself) world, anyone who agrees with you is a scholar. Heck, you can call yourself a scholar, because it isn't a specific title.

Ingrassia writes for the the Gateway Pundit; he's a scholar. A former SCOTUS clerk who has taught for decades at one of the best law schools; also a scholar. They're in equipoise.

[Sam the Centipede]

But bob, those fancypants college lawfolk clearly aren't experts like the birther brains trust because the collegers don't understand Teh Constimatution as the professors of Rondeau University repeatedly, oh so repeatedly, explain!

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

[noblepa]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

If you've actually READ the Constitution, something I suspect these self-styled "Constitutional Scholars" have not done, makes you one.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

If you've actually READ the Constitution, something I suspect these self-styled "Constitutional Scholars" have not done, makes you one.

Oddly enough, that was the first thing I did,

[Dave from down under]

[Suranis]

I even read the Irish Constitution.

[northland10]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

If you've actually READ the Constitution, something I suspect these self-styled "Constitutional Scholars" have not done, makes you one.

Oddly enough, that was the first thing I did,

I imagine many of us, at least after the whole birther thing started with Obama have not only read the Constitution, which we likely already knew well from school many moons ago, we have also read other things including but not limited to, Blackstone, Vattel (yes, I have read all of their sacred book), the debates in convention, WKA, various debates from the development of the 14th amendment, Calvin's case, that Minor case that the birthers always get wrong, Yick Wo v Hopkins, and various things posted by our bloggers (Doc, NBC, Woodman, RC, Bad Fiction, etc) and their commenters, like Ballantine. I even read a bunch of early state constitutions, though I don't remember if I have read the Irish Constitution (I may have and forgot, sorry, mousy).

I must have missed the memo that you need only read that which confirms to the opinion you already have and the result you have already decided upon.

[Reality Check]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

24th?

[bob]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

24th?

I have yet to see Bush the Younger's birth certificate. (Or Elder's.)

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Sometime last month, I hit my 24th anniversary of fighting birtherism. Does that make me a Constitutional Scholar?

24th?

McCain in the 2000 election when he was running against Bush the Lesser in the primaries. The internet was not nearly as mainstream then, so McCain birtherism died out pretty quick, but not before I learned how to look up court cases through my university email. 14th Amendment, WKA, Minor v Happersett all came up, but de Vattel didn't come into the fray until after Obama arrived on the scene 8 years later.

[Reality Check]

McCain in the 2000 election when he was running against Bush the Lesser in the primaries. The internet was not nearly as mainstream then, so McCain birtherism died out pretty quick, but not before I learned how to look up court cases through my university email. 14th Amendment, WKA, Minor v Happersett all came up, but de Vattel didn't come into the fray until after Obama arrived on the scene 8 years later.

Yes, I seem to recall McCain's birth circumstances coming up in a NYT article in the winter of 2000. Since McCain faded fairly quickly I never gave it much thought.

Wasn't that the same year that Rove used robocalls in SC insinuating that McCain had fathered a black child? Politics were so quaint in those days. No wonder McCain on a few occasions chose to screw the Republicans.

[bob]

WVIB: Bills-Steelers playoff game postponed to Monday.

Haley is on to Laity, and she doesn't care about your sportsball.

[bob]

P&E: The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep

P&E: Who Can Handle the nbC Eligibility Truth?:

As interest continues to once again pick up in the presidential eligibility issue following President Trump’s post suggesting that Nikki Haley might not be a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”), and thus ineligible, some interesting reactions and observations have surfaced. In this offering, your humble servant will address some of those new items. And reader fair warning alert: this post is long…., but, if you have gotten this far past the title, arguably well worth reading.

As a preliminary matter, readers not already familiar with the topic may find it useful to first review some of the prior postings here at The P&E on the nbC issue. Those postings include many by, among others, nbC warriors CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) and Robert Laity; the intrepid P&E Editor, Sharon Rondeau; and, yes, your humble servant.

So, to answer the headline's question: Not "DeMaio," Laity, Kerchner, or Rondeau.

In the NBC article, authors Vaughn Hillyard (a political reporter for NBC News) and Amanda Terkel (politics managing editor for NBC News Digital) reference Ha-vahdh emeritus law professor Laurence Tribe. They quote him as claiming that the argument that Haley is ineligible is “totally baseless as a legal and constitutional matter” and criticizing President Trump’s post as potentially being the playing of the “race card against the former governor and UN ambassador as a woman of color.”

Nonsense. The nbC issue has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender. It has everything to do with foreign nationality, foreign claims of allegiance or dual loyalties and the intention of the Founders to protect the presidency from the insinuation of foreign influence, regardless of ethnicity, gender…, or even personal pronoun preferences.

Yeah, there's no correlation between race and nationality.

Indeed, the article even quotes another lawyer, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance – a Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. appointee and now an MSNBC columnist – conceding that, Mr. Trump’s post aside, “nonetheless, the question of the [definition of the] term ‘natural born citizen’ has not been fully fleshed out in the courts….” (Emphasis added). This admission would seem clearly to put to rest the misinformation that the matter is “settled” and that those tinfoil hat “birthers” should just “give it a rest.”

"Fully" is doing all the work there for "DeMaio."

Memo to file # 2: your servant is not gonna “give it a rest” here at The P&E.

But "DeMaio" won't venture beyond Rondeau's skirt of moderation. And certainly not into a courtroom.

Apart from the NBC reaction to President Trump’s post, the left-leaning magazine Salon also chimed in with an article by one Gabriella Ferrigine, described as a “news fellow” at Salon. The use of the gender-specific masculine term “fellow” at the Salon website is problematic, unless, of course, “Gabriella” is “transitioning.”

In case there was any doubt that "DeMaio" was both stupid and abrasive, as "fellow" is almost entirely a gender-neutral term.

If, as former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance admits, the nbC issue “has not been fully fleshed out in the courts…,” it is at bare minimum premature, if not plainly foolish, for “journalists” and purportedly esteemed professors of law to spout contrary nonsense.

For Professor Tribe to assert that President Trump’s suggestion regarding Nikki Haley’s claimed nbC status is “totally baseless as a legal and constitutional matter” or for Mr. Neuborne to joke that “someone ought to tell Mr. Trump that the North won [the Civil War]” telegraphs the trivialization of a significant and unsettled question of constitutional law. Professorial bad form, even for professors emeritus.

For those born in the United States, there's literally no serious debate, unless you listen to Eastman, who is a criminal defendant about to lose his bar card.

The nbC issue remains alive here at The P&E and neither Paul Ingrassisa – author of the article precipitating Mr. Trump’s post – nor “45” himself should throw in the towel. In fact, they might consider – figuratively, of course – soaking a towel, wringing it out, then snapping it at the posteriors of those who “can’t handle the truth.”

Boasting about being a dead-ender is a weird flex, but "DeMaio" is nothing but weird.

[realist]

Great post, bob.

[Luke]

[pipistrelle]

P&E: The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep

Apart from the NBC reaction to President Trump’s post, the left-leaning magazine Salon also chimed in with an article by one Gabriella Ferrigine, described as a “news fellow” at Salon. The use of the gender-specific masculine term “fellow” at the Salon website is problematic, unless, of course, “Gabriella” is “transitioning.”

In case there was any doubt that "DeMaio" was both stupid and abrasive, as "fellow" is almost entirely a gender-neutral term.

The Old Norse word for a partner, felagi, means literally “one who puts down property.” Such people were those who laid together their property for some common purpose.

COMMUNISTS! SOCIALISTS!