Stupid Kentucky Birther Denies Being A Stupid Birther!!! (Or, More KY Puh-lease!)

DIY Kentucky Birther Todd House wrote a letter to the Gannett Courier Journal editor a few weeks ago (9-5-2012) where he denied being a “Birther.”  Here it is in its entirety, with a link below where you can view it along with the numerous comments. After reading this, you should go to the website, and peruse the comments:

I am not a “birther.” I am a constitutionalist.

The Constitution either means what it says or is relegated to the dustbin of history. The U.S. Supreme Court has the imperative duty to resolve the issue of “natural born citizen” once and for all. This is an intellectual, legal and historical question that is very pertinent today.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that only a “natural born citizen” is eligible for the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, there is no definition of the term in that document. But the reasons for this unique requirement were and still are well understood.

And that is the rub, for it requires some study of the history of the founding and the political philosophy of the founders, subsequent precedent and familiarity with U.S. and world history to comprehend the seriousness of this issue and, only then, arrive at an informed opinion. Regrettably, few seem to have done their homework. But even those who have disagree, inviting robust debate that all should embrace in a free society. But, for an ultimate resolution, the U.S. Supreme Court must decide it. Ergo, my suit challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the ballot in Kentucky. According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen. So, even assuming that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was never a U.S. citizen and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen and ineligible for the office of president of the United States.

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate. It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had. My effort intends just and only that.

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

L. TODD HOUSE, M.D.

Louisville 40204 –

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/

http://www.courier-journal.com/comments/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/Reader-Letters-Not-birther

What a crock of crap! Where is the basis for this statement:

According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen.

I am not aware of any such notes and letters UNLESS one has already decided on the meaning of the term natural born citizen. If you already believe that being an NBC requires two citizen parents, then every time you see the term you can find justification for your belief.  BUT, if you approach the words with an attitude of “Gee, what did the Founding Fathers mean by natural born citizen???”, then you become free to understand the REAL definition, which is found in Section III of Wong Kim Ark (1898):

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

and what does “born in the allegiance” mean??? Further down in Section V:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory,[wild Indian exception omitted].

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

Darn, that is sure hard to understand.  For persons born in the United States, their parents must not fall into the two exceptions.  And then we find this HUGE FRIGGIN LIE:

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate.

No they don’t.  Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars just read Wong Kim Ark and see pretty quickly what the words mean. Even reasonably intelligent non-lawyers get it. The only people on the other side of this issue are stupid Birthers.  Birthers who can’t or won’t understand the few paragraphs from the case. That is why the Birthers keep on getting bounced out of courts across the country on their asses. That is why their cases are called frivolous, and why they are being assessed legal costs for wasting everybody’s time.

This statement is cute, too:

It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had.

Uh, the Supreme Court has done told us way back in 1898 what the answer was for people born inside the United States.  See above. What part of that don’t you get??? Then we get the “Don’t tease me even though I’m stupid” plea from Mr. House:

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

Where’s the fun in that??? If you are so darned STUPID that you can’t understand those few paragraphs from Wong Kim Ark after four years, then you all deserve cynical pejorative disparaging you get, and more. No, Mr. House, you aren’t a constitutionalist. You’re just a stupid Birther.

Pull your head out of your rear end.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. The real caption on the photograph is “Billy” Winslow touring in his airship Barnum & Bailey Show 1910. You can find it, and other interesting photographs here:

http://assemblyman-eph.blogspot.com/2009/03/vintage-circus-photos.html