But events transpiring while I was off in beautiful surroundings have not stopped our devolution into a country that is nothing like the one I grew up in and certainly not one I want to see develop.  So much has happened i hardly know where to start.  So for this post I’ll start by re-visiting an old posting on Social Security.

Some of you may remember back when I wrote that by comparing Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, Governor Perry of Texas should apologize… to Charles Ponzi.  In Ponzi’s case he actually seemed to have tried to make the pyramid scheme work while our government never has.

I took a fair amount of flack over that characterization but thought to just wait and see who turned out to be right.  This week the government itself just told us the answer… I was right.

This week the government’s actuaries, who originally told the Obama administration and the public that the fund would be solvent… until 2036, re-examined their numbers and concluded that it will be in the completely out of money at least three years earlier than they thought when they tried their best to help Obama by saying that.  Now they have admitted the system will be bankrupt, that is not able to meet its obligations by 2033… at the latest.

Let me copy an article by Andrew Napolitano on this news.

“This revelation should come as no surprise to those who monitor the government and its deceptive ways. When he first introduced Social Security, President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that under Social Security the federal government would be holding your money for you. He deceptively fostered the idea that Social Security would be a savings account, into which employees and employers would make contributions and out of which guaranteed monies would be paid to those who reached the age of 65. Essentially, he claimed that you’d get your money back.

“The politicians believed him, but the actuaries and the judiciary understood that the government would never hold anyone’s money for him — as if it were the custodian of a bank account. In the first of several challenges to the constitutionality of Social Security, the Supreme Court found that the Social Security fund did not consist of your money. It was merely tax revenue.

“Did you know that?

“It also held that since Congress’ law-making authority is limited to the 16 discrete delegated powers granted to it in the Constitution (a truism few in Congress accept as binding) but its spending authority is open-ended (a conclusion that must torment James Madison’s ghost), Congress could collect funds, claim it was holding the funds in a savings account and then spend those funds as it saw fit — for those in need after age 65 or for any other purpose.

“Did you know that?

“And, in a curious yet revealing one-liner in the Supreme Court opinion upholding the constitutionality of Social Security, even the court recognized that there would be no trust fund in the traditional sense when it found that the tax dollars collected and supposedly designated for Social Security were “not earmarked in any way.”

“Did you know that?

“Eventually, the government would acknowledge that what it first called a savings account and then called old-age insurance and then said would be fortified by a trust fund did not even establish a contractual obligation to those who have paid the Social Security tax — which would be all of us. Thus, the feds have conceded and the courts have agreed that the money you have involuntarily contributed to the so-called trust fund is not yours and can be spent by the government as it pleases, just like any other revenue that the feds collect.

“Did you know that?

“The so-called ‘trust fund’ is not money that the government “holds” for you, as FDR promised. It is not money to which you have a lawful claim, as he claimed. It is not a guarantee for you, as he led the public to believe. The so-called trust fund is merely the difference between what is collected and what is paid out. And the feds just acknowledged that in 21 years, they are likely to pay out more than they will collect.

“Perry did not succeed this time in his quest for the Republican nomination. But he did succeed in articulating a hard truth: The same federal government that prosecutes people like Bernie Madoff for paying out more than they collect does the very same thing under the color of law.

Is a Ponzi scheme — which is basically theft by deception — lawful just because the government runs it? The Supreme Court has, in the past, clearly said yes.”

This state, California, has done the same thing to its citizens.  The lottery, was sold to us and continues to be promoted as a source of funding for education, a need that in my opinion ought to be our first or at least second priority.  But the establishing law contained a clause that said if the State Assembly declared an emergency it could appropriate all of that revenue into the general fund.  And every year — EVERY YEAR — one of the first items of business when the Assembly convenes is to declare that emergency and appropriate all lottery revenues into the general fund where it can spend them in the same profligate ways it does all of the other tribute it receives from us vassals.

My Question is, “Are you OK with that?”  On either the state or federal level?  If so you will be thrilled with what is in store for you if Obama wins re-election.  The gloves are off and what you need to know is out there.  The problem is that the main stream news simply will not tell you, or else buries the data on the back pages knowing few will plow through all the garbage to get to it.

The real question, as November approaches, is a simple one; in fact I do not recall it ever being so simple and so straightforward.  Do you believe that you as an individual are entitled to protection from responsibilities and consequences and it is the government’s main role to provide you with everything you want?  Or do you believe  that each individual is responsible for their own well being and should rely on the government only when they have been blind-sided by catastrophic events for which they could not reasonably have been prepared?

Do you believe the government knows best how to run enterprise and best how you should spend your money and, in fact, how much you should make?  Or do you believe the best way to move the country forward is to have government do only what the Constitution, it now ignores, specifically provides grants it as its powers?

Do you believe the government ought to have the power to tell you how to live, what to do with your life and any revenues generated by your labors and can even force you to buy what it says or destroy your livelihood (as is going on now in Michigan where pig farmers are being told by the state that hogs are an “invasive species” and must be destroyed)?  or do you believe you know better what you should buy for yourself, how to spend what you earn, and have the right to apply yourself and move anywhere up the economic ladder your ambition and skills will take you and then be rewarded for that success?

THe philosophies on open opposition in this upcoming election have never, NEVER been clearer.  Prior to this election, those two opposing views have never been the real core values and policies for voters’ decisions about who should be president.  But they are the ONLY questions of value this time.  Entitlement or self-sufficiency are the core but competing principles driving the two sides and for the first time in our history we seem to have a growing number of people, mostly from the fantasy land of academia, the thug-ridden world of unions, or the delusional world of young people raised with a sense of entitlement for simply being alive, who believe openly in entitlements, socialism, and communism as viable economic and political theories.

They have, with marvelous misdirection, wrapped their rhetoric in the banner of democracy as if that was a magic word or concept and relied on the likelihood that most of the dumbed-down populace does not realize our country has never been and was not supposed to be a pure democracy, something Plato referred to as the rule of fools.

To accept the ideology that any of the flavors of socialism actually works to better the society it rules, unless some outside source of revenue apart from the tribute required of the population (such as in Finland where oil revenue props up the government) you have to toss out all of human political-governmental history.  Why?  Because of all the times those social theories have been applied, not a single example exists where it has raised the standard of living and improved living conditions despite its promise to do just that.

This time getting truly informed about what has and has not worked and why is critical.  You must, MUST, as was never before really necessary, do your research on this.  Don’t take what anyone tells you, including me, at face value until you have done your own research.  Find out for yourselves what has, in the litany of governments around the world and throughout time, worked and what has not.  And before you fall prey to the emotional arguments of “fairness” or that great canard of “social justice,” research how the success of various systems of economic and political authority changes with the level of complexity and maturity of the population being governed.  What works perfectly on a tribal, hunter-gatherer level falls apart starting with the agrarian, surplus driven stage of development.  And that perfect tribal system turns really ugly in the industrial stage.

Please, I beg you, don’t take my word for it, don’t take ANYone’s word for something so important as the future of this country and therefore the future of your children and grandchildren. Become truly, personally, individually informed.  Only with an informed electorate driving this republic will it have a chance of continuing.  One of the founders (the quote has been attributed to several people) when asked what they had just given the people, responded, “We have given you a Republic… if you can keep it.”

Never before, has that issue been more at the forefront of an election than this one.

The news has been in a state of near rapture over so many untimely deaths to report and wax philosophical under a veil of crocodile tears.  Like traffic slow ups as people drive by accidents hoping for their morbid glimpse of blood and gore so they can then go their way clucking about how awful it was, the new seems to gleefully look forward to the next report of some horrid miscarriage of life.

From Afghanistan to France,  Florida to Chicago to L.A., we’ve recently seen a spate of untimely passings; people whose lives, in terms of sheer years, were nowhere ready to die but instead had a potential of productive exciting lives yet ahead of them. But Death came for them anyway… it did not care about those hopes or dreams or potentials.  The only thing “fair” about Death is that sooner or later it will come calling for us all.

Being a card-carrying old fart I’m now at that spot I used to observe in older relatives where instead of a Facebook source, the obit column had more of your friends’ pictures.  To me, because of the connections, when a friend dies it is still untimely and too soon.  Too many rivers left to run, too many jokes left to laugh at, too many stories left untold, too many loves left unloved, too many options now closed forever all add up to a long list of things unfair, or so it seems.

But much as we may wish it, even with advances in medical procedures, we’ve not found a way to stop crazed behavior, keep idiot savages from driving airplanes into buildings, remove unfounded but very real paranoia and fear from our lives.  Death is far from being out of options when it comes to creative ways to remove friends, family, and others from life when they had so much to live for.

And the bottom line is that you truly do not have even the slightest guarantee that when you say goodbye on any given day to a friend, parent, child, student, teacher, boss, employee, and watch them walk away that you will ever see them again alive.  Perhaps if we said our goodbyes with the sincerity and passion we would do if we KNEW that person was leaving to their likely death, we could instill more love and more security and start to chip away at some of those inexplicable and psychotic-seeming behaviors that the newspapers love to write about.

Perhaps if we greeted them with the same open gladness and joy we would have if we KNEW they had just narrowly escaped death, we could really start closing that circle of bizarre behaviors leading to inexplicable killings from otherwise “normal” folks.

The truth is, whether we know it or not, we all probably narrowly escape death many times every day.  A momentary distraction, a second’s earlier or later start, another’s hesitation or anxiety, all making that moment of death pass by slightly in front or slightly behind us go unnoticed and the life we walked away with completely unappreciated.  When we knowlingly “dodge the bullet” we show a gratitude for life we rarely show even though we unknowlingly dodge one with some frequency.

So hug your friends and families, let them know you love them even if at the moment you are not so sure about it.  You never know what that simple passionately positive greetings or goodbye might change for the better.

Life is a gift we have for a very limited time.  Since no one has returned to tell us differently, Death takes us on a very, very, very long ride forever.  Each moment we breathe is given to us to make a difference; not in the broader world perhaps, but at least in our own little worlds.  Is that difference you will make, whether you intend it or not, one you wish to be remembered by?  If that person you are greeting or bidding adieu were to die before you saw them again, what memory of you would you like for them to have as they fade away?

This time it was accomplished by high centering on my use of the term “promiscuous” to describe the activity for which the contraceptives were being sought.  ”How dare I use that term,” I was asked; and who was I to sit in judgment of her behavior?  I should apologize, I was told.  Well, I did no such thing and so I am not about to apologize.  But for the kool-aid addled among you I will explain it a little further.

First of all the term “promiscuity” is a word defining an abundance of casual sexual activity usually but not necessarily outside the bounds of a committed relationship or marriage.  It is not, to me at least, a value laden word, only a descriptive one and in that sense would appear to be accurate since the witness openly told the officials she needed contraception to the tune of about $1,000.00 over the span of law school.  At about $10.00 per month through Planned Parenthood, that amount covers far more than the typically three years of Law School even at one of the most prestigious and expensive law schools in the country.

However I did just look the word up and one of the definitions includes the word “indiscriminate” in choice of partners.  i know we now use the term discriminate at peril but I think it is a good word referring to making carefully analysis and choosing right from wrong.  In the case at hand I did not mean that particular definition since I assume someone going to Georgetown would be very discriminating in chosing partners based on class and social standing appropriate to their own agendas and future plans.  To the extent that I opened the door for those of you needing to choose the worst possible definition then I do apologize since I meant the term only in a quantitative senses not a qualitative sense.

But under any possible definition or even throwing the term out altogether, here is the bottom line: she is saying that someone other than herself needs to foot the bill so she can have protected sex and have a high statistical probability of not getting pregnant.

I have no moral issue here, no ethical dog in the fight.  Quite to the contrary, I like sex and think it is a wonderful thing.  I would rather have people engaged in consensual recreational sex than in fighting and killing each other.  When I was in college I would surely have been considered “promiscuous” by the same criteria I use here.  It simply means I had a fair amount of sex.  Period.  Moreover I am in favor of her not being pregnant since I do not think she exhibited the maturity a child deserves in a parent so I applaud her desire to use contraceptives.  But that is not the issue either.

That sex to which she is referring is recreational.  Good for her; I think people have a right to engage in it recreationally just as they have a right to go to a movie or see a play or go camping or just sit at home and rent something to show on the TV.  What they do in the privacy of their own space, so long as they are not hurting someone else or forcing themselves on someone else, is their own private business and does not, in my belief system, even bump into issues of my own sense of morality or my business.

However, what DOES bump into my business is when I am being asked to help pay for it.  Most recreational activities have some obvious foreseeable economic impact, i.e. they cost the participants something to engage in them.  Tickets for the movies, gas for the country drive, food at a restaurant.   Sex is no different, especially at that age.  To be safe or elude pregnancies mean buying some sort of product to address that.  If the product fails, which is not all that uncommon, or if it was not used in the first place, then a foreseeable outcome is a pregnancy and that most certainly has an economic impact whether it is terminated or carried to term. An unexpected but easily foreseeable outcome these days is some STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) that is clearly a potential uninvited guest to every such intimate get-together.

Because those obvious and predictable costs stem from a voluntary, recreational activity, I do not believe it falls to me, as a taxpayer, to pick up some or all of the tab.  I think that cost is ALL on the participants.  That someone CHOSE not to protect themselves or neglected to protect themselves from any of the possible outcomes does not raise in me, directly or indirectly, a requirement to foot the bill.

And as far as government is concerned, I do not think it is any of their business either; and I mean that totally.  I do not think it within the power and authority of government to prohibit or forbid those activities.  But neither do I think it within their Constitutional authority to facilitate it and ask us to pay for the outcome.  However, that is not a moral objection, it is a philosophical and political objection, an economic objection to thinking it OK to ask me to pay for someone else’s choices and voluntary behaviors.  I am opposed to that.

But that is a completely different issue from whether or not it is ever OK to hurl spiteful, hurtful, demeaning invectives at someone simply because you are in political disagreement and that was the ONLY issue addressed in the post on Hatred.

So c’mon, get over it!  Either deal with the real issue and decide if you are OK with the use of hate speech so long as it is your side doing it, or not.  And then openly say so and support your opinion as I have tried to support mine and then we’ll let readers judge for themselves.  If you want to address and debate those other issues that is fine, I’ll be happy to do so.  But they are separate ones for other posts and discussions.

So first, answer the question posed here and do it publicly for all to see as I have expressed my opinion publicly.  Stand proudly for what you think is right and wrong or sit down and shut up when you become a target.

But in this case, it is the insertion or spin of a very different issue trying to turn the discussion away from the real problem (whether or not government has the authority to tell ANYONE much less religious institutions that they must buy or contribute to purchasing things or services which they deem morally reprehensible) into one of women’s health that is bogus.  And only a day or two after what should have been the quickly forgotten event of a young woman being brought in front of congress to argue that we, the people, should contribute to paying for her (or anyone else’s) promiscuity, thanks to a talk show host’s thoughtless diatribe, the issue has, sure enough, taken on a new and completely spurious face.

Oh come on, this is not the same thing or the same issue as when a doctor prescribes medicine for a true medical condition that just happens to also be used as a contraception.  Title X, a currently existing law, mandates that such medications for such medical conditions be provided by insurance.  And even if it did not, those medications are available at virtually ANY Planned Parenthood for about $10 per month’s prescription.  So it cannot be argued honestly that women are currently in such a state that they cannot either get insurance coverage for medicines needed for medical issues or that even to facilitate sex the medicine cannot be obtained readily and inexpensively.

So why the flap?  Because Obama desperately needs it.  His economic record is pathetic and his ability to lie about it is becoming more and more obvious.  In the face of CBO numbers just released, he went public with a retelling of those numbers that bore no relationship to the government’s own figures.  His disciples, of course, listen only to him and probably never even hear the other side so he gets away with it and keeps his fawning followers.  But for the rest of us, he needs issues that resonate with the normal folks and this new take, a perspective of women’s health, is about as perfect as one can get.

But surely, you might say if you are one that actually reads and hears all sides, no one could be falling for this?  And surely in the day and age of extraordinarily foul mouthed so-called humorists, spewing scatological and gynological “jokes” using the ugliest and most hurtful of terms on a daily basis, some of whom purposefully direct such insults at women simply because they disagree with their political philosophies, no one would really get upset over a slur as innocuous as to call someone a “slut,” you might say.  And to call them a prostitute?  Good grief, it is legal in some places, common in all others, the name of the game in congress where selling virtue for profit is a near mandate, and a name so meaningless it is sometimes even applied to artists who have the nerve to want to sell their work by others who seem unable to sell theirs.  It is a word that has long ago lost its sting.

Unless…

Unless one of those demon conservatives does it to a liberal.  You will note that ALL of the so-called humorists calling politically active women demeaning, denigrating names are liberals aiming at conservatives.  And they suffer not a peep of blowback for it.  But when a conservative, lowering himself to the same stupid level that liberals adopt as their signature stance, does the same thing… wow…Armageddon has just been unleashed.

Don’t think so?  Let me copy you in on a conversation (so-called) on Facebook.  Now I have a truly love-hate relationship with Facebook.  It is sometimes an easy way to keep up on what some of my real friends are doing.  But it is also the host to some of the most infantile, inane, self-indulgent material in the universe.  And now that we are in the silly season of a presidential election and I am “friended” mostly by people inhabiting academia, the avoidance of reflective thinking is readily on display.  Here indeed are the people Arthur C. Clarke described in Academia as individuals, “…whose education has surpassed their intellects.”

They are sometimes monumentally narrow minded and unreceptive to any thoughts not bearing the liberal-progressive stamp of approval.  Immediately they picked up on the drum beat against Limbaugh in post after post after post all using the same rhetoric having obviously had their thoughts formed for them by the same sources.

I had planned on doing what I have always done: shake my head at the display of well honed, perhaps nearly perfected blindness to any ideas except those pre-approved by the party inquisitors, but the rampant hypocrisy was simply more than I could quietly bear.

So here is the straw that broke the camel’s back for me.  It started as usual, with one of them “sharing” some ugly screed that was supposed to indicate wit and insight via the shorthand of denigrating and demeaning epithets.  And then the ‘shared’ post was joined in with comments from the poster and friends…

JT — This buffoon [talking about Limbaugh – dk] just doesn’t know when or how to keep his mouth shut and stop the string of non-stop profoundly offensive utterances even in a supposed apology. I cannot believe to find out who used to advertise (AOL, Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom…) on his network show.

Regardless of pulling their ads, these panderers to his poison should be boycotted for supporting him in the first place.

Now here is an early hint to the author’s perspective.  The views expressed that ran counter to the poster’s own views were ‘profoundly offensive’ and consisted of ‘poison’ and any business who believed in allowing speech of the other side to exist (as opposed to “free speech which means speech from the liberal side), should be boycotted.

TS – I think this guy needs to engage his brain and its filter before he opens his mouth…

JT – What brain?…i think the years of prescription drug abuse have numbed whatever decency he may have ever had, if any.

Of course had this been Alan Colmes or Al Franken or Jon Stewart or some other liberal talk show host, those years of pain medication for a back problem would have been wonderful, shown the need for socialized medicine so that they would not have had to resort to extra legal means of obtaining them, and in any case, freeing them from the pain would have probably been seen as sharpening their wit.  So it is amazing to note the apparently liberal medical opinion that pain medication effects conservatives differently and negatively. Don’t think so?  Go back and read about JFK or even FDR and the wonders of medication that helped control their pain.

But then it got even more off the rails.

JP – I can’t believe that Americans have let him come this far! Any of the candidates…I really wanna move to a more progressive country somewhere in Europe. It’s ridiculous how rights such as marriage, birth control, even breast feeding in public are questioned.

It was at this point that after following this thread and several others parroting the same talking points with various degrees of coherency, I simply had heard enough and decided to jump in.  I was curious as to how sincere their apparent indignation over a general use of such hateful language really was and the easy way to test that was to see if that indignation was widely applied or only selectively.

David King — You know I agree with you on this JT, what he said was uncalled for, inappropriate and intolerable. But when Bill Maher called one conservative woman a c**t and another a t**t, [words studies have shown virtually every woman finds deeply offensive – DK] or when Ed Schultze called several of them sluts, I don’t recall hearing a peep of indignation about it.  When Olberman goes off his meds and calls conservative women a slut or, my favorite, a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick” that is apparently just dandy. How come?

 Or is it that it is quite OK to slander women with whom you disagree but inexcusable to hear a slander toward one with whom you do agree? I just want to get this straight so I’ll know how to react and how to interpret reactions in the future…

Am I to understand that according to liberal ethics, women can be separated and categorized as to who can be disparaged in the foulest of language and who cannot based primarily on their political orientation?

This elicited an almost immediate response from another reader…

JG – Sarah Palin is a dumb twat. Maher hit that one on the head.

 Yes, I know, that instantly made my case for me but I could not resist commenting even though now it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

David King — Thank you JG; in the classiest of language and the most erudite, deeply analytical, and profoundly insightful exhibition of intellectual engagement, you just answered my question… along with a few unasked ones. It brings to mind an old cliche about mutually accusatory communications between pots and kettles. You have admirable demonstrated that they are both right. Thanks again!

I confess I thought the irony expressed would jolt him into realizing how he had sounded.  But I was wrong — and pointedly so — as shown by his response.

JG – Glad I could answer all your questions by merely stating the obvious.

Now here was someone coming into a battle of wits completely unarmed and shielded only by the cleverness existing only in their own mind. Napolean said that when an opposing general seemed bent on their own destruction the thing to do was get out of their way.   But for some of the other readers who might have missed the real point I decided perhaps if I restated it that would help.  After all, who, with half a brain and a shred of ethics, is really going to support the type of discourse I was attacking?  Maybe if I helped them by giving a clearer, stronger example of what I believed was the “high road” they would see it and try to get on it before they all looked somewhat less than erudite.  So I tried again.

David King — In my opinion, a world in which pretending to demonstrate wit or insight by using foul, personal, ugly invective, much less using hurtful, demeaning, denigrating words to describe anyone based on philosophical disagreement, but especially women, is “obvious,” is a sleaze ridden world of galactic level hypocrisy and not in a position to cast stones at anyone for pretty much anything.

It was stupid and unacceptable when Limbaugh did it, but it is no less so when some opponent of his does it.  If that is the disgusting level of civil discourse appropriate on one side of the debate then I am only too happy to be on the other side.   And I will happily excoriate them as well if they lower themselves to the level of the crass side as Limbaugh moronically did here. That is language and a level of intelligence best reserved for Maher’s side where they can do it with impunity apparently because insufficient ethics can be found in the whole collective to call such behavior into account. And, I admit, you are correct… that does seem to be obvious.

It turns out however that I was overestimating the audience…  And at the same time I was underestimating their devotion to ignoring the bigger issue and high centering on their own side.

JT – Whoa….Flame Wars…back to potty mouth Rush…did you actually listen to his entire rant…he thinks she needs so much sex for her birth control pills she should post videos of her sex acts on YouTube in return for Obama Care contraception!

Do any conservatives actually aligns themselves with this sort of crazy talk…it’s sad that political discourse has degraded into a “Lucha Libre” style of performance ideology porn.

Clearly I was not getting through.  So, now a touch frustrated, once again I restated…

David King — Without resorting to sophomoric, immature, illiterate monosyllabic “potty mouth” rhetoric to match his, I think I’ve been pretty clear that I think what Limbaugh said was inexcusable, stupid, and open for condemnation.  I have no interest in defending or trying to excuse that sort of discourse from him.  What appears to be different about my position is that I do not believe it excusable when ANYone does it; and yet it appears that some believe it is OK when those on their side do it but not OK when those on the side opposing them do it.  I think that is hypocrisy gone to seed; I don’t think it is OK when ANYONE does it.

I also think Limbaugh was stupid to do it because he should have realized what a gift it was to the other side to allow them, based on his lapse of brain activity, to move the discussion off of the limits of governmental power and into the arena of women’s health care and if he had half of the intellect he claims for himself he would not have provided that barn-door-sized opening for them to toss out such a monumental red herring and take the discussion far away from any real issues that might be at play.

 So I think he was stupid on so many different levels it is mind boggling. But neither his stupidity nor his crass insensitivity excuse equally, perhaps even more egregious behavior coming from the other side. Two wrongs never equal a right. At least not to me, not ever.

 Perhaps that is OK for you but I think this discussion is important because it goes to the very core of who we, the people who will be deciding the outcome of the election, are. It reveals clearly, “obviously” to use James’s term, what the values and what the degree of analysis and insight is going into decisions by those on the various sides and I think that is worth letting this social community see for themselves.

 By now this thread is so far down the page of posts it takes longer to scroll down to find it than it does to read or respond and it appears settled that the individuals who follow that particular set of “friends” are sufficiently indoctrinated in their views they can admit of no other.   Not a single person had a positive thing to say on the side of seeking greater civility in this debate.  No one was bothered that the social community, in that case, Facebook, could see by their responses where they stood and so they are apparently OK with it. I am truly saddened by that.

Then it occurred to me (some trains run late…) Does this not seem like a replay of the exchange of the past few posts? This can accomplish nothing and go nowhere productive.  So my remaining question is simple:  JT asked if any conservative allied themselves with such language as spoken by Limbaugh re the female law student.  The unfortunate and ugly truth is that I’m sure there are some that do.  But I’m not one of them and have said so both here and elsewhere about as clearly as I know how.  And I believe I am representative of the majority of people whose political, ethical, and moral views are in the same ball park as mine.

But how about the reverse, do liberals, or to be more specific, do you, if you are liberal, ally yourself with the use of such language and think it is OK when aimed at women so long as they are on the other side of the political fence from you?

And if so, please tell me how is it exactly that this elevates the level of political debate and delves into the complex issues facing our country and our world to better prepare us to make reasonable and rational decisions for ourselves as to what directions we ought to be taking?  How does hiding behind labels of any kind, much less this kind, help us to understand the world around us?  Or is that not the objective in the first place and it is rather to simply get you to see the opposition not for what they really believe but simply as the demonizedm, dehumanized enemy to be defeated at all costs?  And even then, given the nature of the political arena at the federal level, what does being a slut or any of those other ugly female degrading terms have to do with their positions and likely votes?  Where is the tie in between label and reality?

When I checked again this morning for any replies, I was hoping that I might have stirred up someone somewhere who realized that ugliness and hate speech should not be OK for either side.  Someone holding true to their liberal philosophies but disclaiming any connection with this type of speech whether uttered by the other side or their side.  But there were none so I assume the exchange is over. A non-answer is itself an answer.  That conclusion so saddened me by what it revealed that I ended my interaction with that Facebook post with this last additional comment.  And with it I will end this blog post as well.

David King – A day has gone by without comment.   Hmmmm.  I confess I thought at least one person, perhaps a woman, might have joined in and said something even to the effect of, “David, I disagree completely with your apparent political view but have to agree that using words like that to demean, belittle, dehumanize and denigrate women are not acceptable, no matter who is doing it.”  But since such a post was never made I have to assume that my initial assertion is correct. 

Blind partisanship is so thoroughly ingrained here that evil is defined as “them” and therefore demonized they are fair game for any form of invective, and since “good” is defined as “us” any such invective hurled our way is, by definition, some form of poison and a sacriledge to our political faith.  But it is precisely that blind “us vs them” attitude that allows for the bigotry you rightly oppose on other issues, it facilitates and perpetuates hate and hate, unfortunately, has no compass; it spews forth in all directions because its real source is internal. 

Many of you know that first hand, many have felt the sting of hatred aimed at you based not on who you are or what kind of person you are but on some single, totally irrelevant characteristic.  It hurts doesn’t it.  It is infuriating and unfair. There is no excuse for it being applied to you and you know it. 

But by the same token there is no excuse for you to apply it, even by implication, to someone else simply because they may have a different view for how the country needs to be headed.  You know that one can like or dislike some single thing a person does without that effecting your overall appraisal of them; any parent knows this effect as does any lover. 

Even intelligent people sometimes do stupid things.  That is the unfortunate byproduct of being human.  But you should be rearing up and shouting out that while it is fair to call one out for stupid things whether friend or foe, it is fair and reasonable to engage in passionate but civil debate over important topics, there is no legitimate reason to let that devolve into hatred based on some single characteristic or belief. 

That no one has written that here, indeed that one of the comments even repeated one of the more hateful labels one can make to a women, is not a sign of simple insensitivity, it is not cute, it is not clever, it is not funny… it is a sign of hatred.  For letting it go unchallenged, some of you, at least those claiming to have a brain and some shred of ethical sensitivities, ought to be ashamed of yourselves. 

I now have the answers I sought so will plague you no more and you can go back to your world of hate-filled invective and I now know how to interpret it and react to it.

And the truth is I was not so much angry at Ellen as I was surprised and confused that she would hold to her position that there was no other side to it except the one she presented, even after I spent all that time quoting the other side.  After all, I had not asked her, or anyone else, to accept the other side as correct, just to admit it existed.   But she refused, holding to the assertion that no other interpretation than the one she presented was possible and that the issue was well and long settled.  So I felt compelled to add that last entry just to tie up — or burn off — any loose ends.

But the exchange was revealing and hopefully so to anyone reading the blog.  It appears to me that the side of the political aisle which her argument represents is simply not interested in reality — ANY reality — that conflicts with their ideology.  It is like the old bumper sticker: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!”

In fact their ideology is far more akin to a religion than a political philosophy in terms of how they accept its tenets at face value and on faith despite all history and reason to the contrary.  And all the while they are evangelizing their “faith,” they are denigrating believers in other religions, especially Christianity, for basing their beliefs the same way – on faith.

I find that fascinating nearly as much as I find it infuriating.  But it certainly helps to explain, by example, why our current crop of legislators is so dysfunctional and grid locked.  Both sides cannot see past their own ideologies and we have, trying to steer this ship of state, two navigators both of whom have thrown their compasses away, now pointing in different directions.  It is the willfully blind on one side shouting slurs at the willfully blind on the other.

This past week we have seen another example of a red herring used skillfully to take our eyes off of the real issues.  A young female law school student, trying to turn the power play over mandated health care into an issues of both women’s rights and women’s health testified in Congress.  She delivered a tearjerker of a speech talking about how she and her friends were embarrassed at not being able to afford contraception at the local pharmacy.  She did ignore the fact that within blocks of her school was a Planned Parenthood facility that gives them away free to anyone and that many private health care plans do too.  Her like-minded listeners also skimmed over the bottom line that she was, essentially, asking for us, the taxpayers, to pay the costs so she could enjoy her recreational sex and implying that there was some “Right” to do that.  In fact, the issue was presented in such an obviously bogus, whiny, self-entitled, self-indulgent, stereotypically left leaning package that, left alone, it would have been forgotten quickly as the mediocre try to re-frame the issue that it was.

But into that quagmire stepped Rush Limbaugh, and in an attempt to be cute, he completely forgot that it is OK for liberals to call conservative women the foulest of names and imply the most heinous of deviant activities to them without raising a single eyebrow or cry of unacceptability by the press or other liberals.  He further failed to take note that even women’s groups can call a conservative woman a fake women with impunity in that hypocrisy laden world.  But worst of all, he failed to remember that to use even a mild slur toward a liberal women, was akin to blasphemy and heresy elevated to a capital crime, and in that state of forgetfullness he called her, gasp, a “slut.”  What was he thinking?

Instantly, the left was revitalized and given new life and a new cause célèbre.  By reducing himself to their own level of invective, which is protected when they do it, Limbaugh gave them a gift of bogus issues that could, in this frenzied environment, give them the election.

Immediately the cries of a “war on women by the right” was emblazoned on banners across newspapers and social networks, all using Limbaugh as the poster child for the women-hating right.  The fact that there is not a shred of reality behind it is no longer part of the engagement.  Those on the right are now forced into a position to try to defend against a non-existent attitude, something incredibly hard to do, especially when, just as in the exchange with Ellen, no amount of quotes supporting women and women’s causes, will even be accepted as existing.  It is, as was my exchange, essentially pointless.

And the truly bad news is that this completely bogus issue, is so volatile that it has the potential of allowing the press to remove all interest in the really important issues facing this country starting with the economic debacle and debt crisis, plus the powder keg waiting only a spark in the middle east, or even the issue of energy independence and pricing, because those do not paint a very good picture of the current administration and, frankly, have never been couched in emotional or powerful terms.

“Debt Crisis,”  “Fiscal disaster,”  “Gas prices,” or even “Middle Eastern War” are terms and phrases so non-emotional, so intellectual sounding, and to which we have become so calloused, that despite the fact they could destroy this country they have nowhere near the riveting effect of a completely fallacious issue such as “war on women” which, even if it were true, would not be as overwhelmingly devastating as a failure of our economy, or a breakout of war in the middle east.

And Limbaugh, who prides himself on a uniquely astute insight into all things political and geopolitical, should have, if his self appraisal is anywhere near accurate, seen the fallout likely to come from his comments. That he did not, is simply stupid on his part.  And that he should then offer such a lame “apology” and defense of his comments simply fans the fires already in full flame.

But if we end up allowing the cleverness of the administration folks who seized on Limbaugh’s moronic gift to them, turned it completely around and blew it so utterly out of proportion with a truly brilliant campaign using the press and their own side’s foul mouthed spokes-puppets to continue doing the very thing they are now decrying;  if we do not insist they too are called to account for such demeaning comments and demand that calling women foul names is not ever OK, it is not funny, it is not a sign of cleverness or profoundness, and it is simply not acceptable no matter what political orientation they might personally have, then we really will have contributed to that war on women and maybe helped it to become real.

We have pointed out, accurately, that Islamic theocracies have stupidly failed to use their best resources (their women) and continue to hold them in a state of virtual bondage, willing to keep them from even driving, from holding public office or severely limiting it to token positions, to keep them illiterate, to denigrate and demean them, to truly hold them as not second or even third class humans but even lower where they deserve “honor killing” if they step out of the line set for them by men.  But, in my opinion, it is only a matter of degrees of difference from that heinous, ignorant, savage view to ours if we think it OK to call women the foulest of names and use the most ugly descriptors of them ONLY because they are women who hold opposing political points of view.

Just like the savage and ignorant men of that belief system who keep their women in a state of slavery (because, in their own words, they –the men– are not men enough to resist the charms and distractions of the women), in our culture we have men so threatened by powerful, dynamic, intelligent women who just happen to disagree with them that the only form of engagement is not intellectual, not debating on the issues where the women may likely be smarter, but to demonize, dehumanize, or in some way denigrate them in order to reduce their standing and position.

And ladies, you need to take note of which side is the most egregious in this behavior.  Certainly male idiots on both sides do it, but it is only the left that seems to have certified this line of attack as acceptable.  If I were a woman, they would be a problem for me.  As a man who likes strong women, it is definitely a problem for me.

So to bring this full circle, you have seen, in the last few posts, an exchange between a women and myself who disagreed on a political/legal point.  If I had been a liberal disagreeing with her, I would most likely have called her some foul name related to deviant activity or a disgusting reference to some intimate body part.  Instead, I took the time to dig into the issues and try to provide examples leading, I had hoped, to her at least accepting that there was another side.  She provided a solid and cogent argument to support her position.  I respected that ability so I would far prefer to get her to expand her points of reference and then turn her abilities toward more productive or reality based positions than to blow her off with a stupid epithet and then lose the potential of a future ally on things that might be truly important.

Except in congress, apparently, good, well-intentioned, intelligent, passionate people can agree to disagree on nearly every possible topics and yet come together to fight for one upon which they DO agree.  But not if they have become enemies because one of them, or both of them, failing to convince the other on some points, resorted to name calling and hurtful, unacceptable labeling.  I see no reason to ever go there.

But that is just me.  Perhaps you disagree?

But… Wow!  That new comment, coming after all this data was posted, is beyond mind-boggling in a really sad sort of way.  In order to Give Ellen the benefit of the doubt, I have to assume she had not read the latest posts when she entered her last comment even though the timing would suggest the last comment was in response to these new posts.  Nor, apparently, has she really grasped the whole point of my post(s) which was simply that there existed more than one legitimate side to the debate.  So before I move on forever, let’s briefly review, shall we?

I never claimed that there did not exist those who passionately clung to the side of the debate she represents… in fact I provided some additional quotes from some supporting that side.  In fact I said I thought she laid out that side of the argument quite thoroughly.

Nor did I ever claim that the other side, even though it is the side I believe, has ever been accepted as THE final conclusion.  Even if I agreed with Ellen’s side it would never, in the light of reality and readily available data, lead me to assert that it was the ONLY side of the argument of any merit or that the issue was non-existent.

To claim one’s own view is the best and to attempt to support that with quotes from fellow like-thinking people is, in the end, what debates are all about and she has done an admirable job of doing just that.  But to claim that there are no other points of view that base their conclusions on firm history and legal comments is simply to ignore reality as well as to ignore the 35 pages of material spread over 5 posts of quotes and decisions that clearly display thinking to the contrary.

I can only assume therefore that she truly believes I fabricated all of the quotes in the last five posts; but since it is all too easy to look up and verify these days that would have been self-destructive of me to do if I wished to retain any credibility.  Nevertheless, once again, I invite any and all of you to do the research for yourselves.  Do NOT rely on the points of view of any one person and that includes me.  If the issue seems relevant to you then take the trouble to check it out for yourself.

But in her last comment Ellen does not stop at simply asserting it is her way or the highway.  She goes further to give a couple of reasons why we should accept as the final words on the topic, the titles or affiliations of some of the specific people uttering or writing some of her supporting quotes.  And with that we start to get off of the intellectual reservation.  In fact, I think those rationales call into question more than simply the conclusions…  For example:

To apparently claim credibility for political/philosophical conclusion by pointing out that the author of it is “conservative” (or a member of ANY political group for that matter) is a complete non sequitor for me at least.  I have written numerous times that I do not believe that any one individual has a direct pipeline to ultimate, comprehensive “TRUTH” much less a collection of individuals adopting some label or other.  Having an “R” or a “D” after one’s name or title does not confer a deific imprimatur of infallibility; such is not in the possession of us mere mortals.  Not since the first Vatican council declared in July of 1870 the doctrine of papal infallibility has anyone had the gall to declare themselves or their positions free of the possibility of error in ANY circumstances.   That is, until this exchange…

And claiming that having a “foreign” surname is an indicator/predictor of voting stances on the subject is patently inadequate and ignores the fact that unless you have a Native American derived name, virtually ALL American last names are actually names from afar — or anglicized versions of them.  But directly to the point, speaking only for myself, I know a half dozen people and students whose surname is unchanged from their ancestors but who are 3rd and 4^th generation Americans.  So that is the ultimate in meaningless rationales.

It also implies that a newly minted American would likely think that to protect their fellow immigrants and move them up the chain of command in our government was more important than resolving or adhering to the law or the best interests of their newly adopted country.

And that same rationale also gave, magically, to electors and members of the electoral college a power they do not posses since their sole job is currently only to carry forward the will of their constituents.

It surely is clear to all readers that Ellen firmly and honestly believes her interpretation is the only one to be taken seriously.  It is always sad, in any major debate, especially one over something as complex as legal and political issues, to run into the single issue for which ‘true believers’ believe, as an article of faith, that there can be no other legitimate view than their own.

It is hardly deniable that life is very much simpler for them to be sure.   Decisions are easier, conclusions are clearer and faster to make.   And it makes problem solving more efficient since there is no reason to address, much less fix, a problem one refuses to admit even exists.

I can tell you honestly, I often wish the world were that simple or perhaps, more accurately, that simplistic.  But to me it is not.  And to argue that there IS no other view than one’s own that has any merit is precisely the sort of partisan positioning that has brought our congress and country to a point of gridlock.  Should one wish to see that in action I would submit this exchange; if ever that unwillingness to even consider the other side has been displayed clearly, it is in this exchange where we are not even arguing over which interpretation is correct but over whether or not there IS another interpretation possible.

We are watching a situation develop on this small scale and over something of practical irrelevance, that when that other interpretation is spelled out and shown to be held by a litany of people from the early days of the Republic until the present, that listing is not countered with the assertion that those people are just incorrect in their thinking, but rather that its existence is, de facto and by definition, well, non-existent since it does not match the one that debater holds.

My personal opinion is that following the same source as admitted by the founders as their reference, Vattel, the intent of the wording in the Constitution was that “Natural Born Citizen” was defined differently than just “Citizen.”  But that is just my own personal opinion.  The difference between Ellen and I in this is that I am willing to let her hold to her personal opinion and even admit there exists some supporting documentation to reinforce it while believing there is also support for a contrary view.

But she, on the other hand, is not willing to allow me or you to even accept the possibility that there is another point of view much less that it just might have some validity.  That tells me clearly that further discussion is pointless.  She will counter with more quotes from her side but I already accept that her side exists and assume that neither I nor you need further convincing of that.

But that was never the point; not of the post that started all of this and not of the 5 posts supporting my contention that a counter argument exists, and not of this comment.  All I tried (and am trying) to do was point out and itemize that another view exists as well and has as much (and in my personal opinion, more) reason and history to support it.  To keep on asserting that no other opinion is present, that the matter has been decided definitively once and for all and universally accepted, is simply to refuse to read or acknowledge the existence of all reality to the contrary.  As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.    The difference is that those who CAN NOT see usually want to… those who WILL NOT see want nothing to do with whatever is out there to see.

All of us are familiar with people in our lives whose view of themselves and their opinions is one of personal rightness and infallibility.  At work, at school, on the TV are countless people who see the world through their own belief windows upon which is engraved the guarantee of their own correctness.  I make no such claim for myself, only that I am still in search of the answers.  To wish to engage in a discussion as to why one interpretation of an issue is better than another makes perfect sense and may lead to a greater understanding.  But to run into the position that no other interpretation than their own is even possible is a position allowing no debate, no discussion, no growth.  To continue down this path is simply pointless and meaningless for me.

So if Ellen wishes to keep posting quotes supporting one side of the issue and claiming those remove any credibility for other sides, at least until it gets more boring than it already is I’ll allow those comments to be added.  But I have already conceded her view exists.  And I’ve just made my case that other opinions exist as well and perhaps ought to be considered… and that is all I set out to do in the first place.   I have never argued that I want for all readers to agree with me, only that I want them to engage in the intellectual activity of actually thinking about these topics.

To me, claiming there existed not any answer but one’s own is nothing more than a means of avoiding that thinking process and quickly, to me, becomes stunningly boring.  Facilitating ossification of narrow views by providing opportunity to continue it is even more boring and useless in my opinion.   So now this is my last comment on it.

Ellen you are free to continue to beat this dead horse and insist that, in spite of a lot of material I’ve posted to the contrary, and a world of data available to anyone willing to do the research, that there are no other opinions on this in play.  Knock yourself out with that effort.  You have provided already lots of good references to support your conclusion as to a proper interpretations but none to indicate unequivocally that it is no longer open to any interpretation except in the opinion of political writers.  I think, however, that together we have given readers a wealth of references and quotes and citations from which they can then make their own decisions.  I am now bored to tears with it and am done.

CONCLUSION

So, after all of these parts, here is what I see as the bottom line for our little debate.  You have just waded through material showing the contrasting opinions on this topic.  All of this has simply been to show that, in accordance with the first assertion that started this, there is a divergence of thought on it even currently.  After reading the initial assertion along with Ellen’s comments, you, the reader, will have a simple question to answer:  “Did I mislead you when I asserted that this whole topic is a red herring to detract from more important issues, and, (and this is the part Ellen attacked) that it has not been truly settled by the courts?”

As the only judge in the courts of your own personal opinions, each of you gets to make that ruling as you see fit.  You could certainly pick up research where Ellen and I have left off to further enlighten and inform your own conclusions.  Which side you take is not the point of this; the point is that there is, in my opinion, more than one side that is still in play.

But if the only point of continuing or commenting is to post something where you will latch onto the parts you like and denigrate the parts you do not like, that is no longer reasoned discussion or debate.  Personally I’m inclined to quit wasting time on a project that can have no practical value even if my conclusions were accepted as true but will only result in you selecting more quotes to support your position.  All that is really being shown is that each of us can find resources to support our own positions.  I did not think that was ever in question.  Hammer away at it till readers are all brain dead if you wish but I am done with it, over it, and ready to move on.

If anyone, wishes to continue posting comments and arguing it out then I will allow those comments so long as they remain reasoned, civil, and do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks; those I will excise from the comment list.  I, on the other hand wish to get back to the more important issues of the day and times and do not intend to respond again on this topic since, for me, I am satisfied in the validity of my position that it is unsettled.

But I do want to thank Ellen.  Although this specific issue remains an irrelevant one to me, and a real time waster in and of itself, the research it has inspired – as all good research will do – has brought other things to my attention.  Some of those are simply the kinds of fun stuff someone like me with an insatiable curiosity finds fascinating but some of which feeds into parts of the current political debate that ARE relevant for us.  I would not have done that without the kick her comments inspired so I am grateful to her.

But now, can we get on to questions that actually have an impact?  Even if i am right i am not convinced anyone would take any action in this case, and wsith the precedence set it will be hard to assert it in the future.  But maybe the result will be that an amendment will be created that DOES answer it once and for all in the proper method.

One can only hope…

(CONTINUED FROM PART 4)

(CONTINUED FROM PART 3)

And it was erroneous in its understanding of English Law.  In 18th-century England, there was indeed a distinction between “subjects” of the English king and “citizens” of an English town or city. The jus soli principle applied to English subjecthood but did not apply to English citizenship. Anyone born in England or its colonies was an English subject by birth. But, and here is the problem for Gray’s reasoning: a bad premises.  In 18th-century England and its colonies, contrary to his assertion, you could claim citizenship by birth only if your father was a citizen at the time of your birth. Although English “subjecthood by birth” carried a connotation of birth in a particular place, English “citizenship by birth” carried a connotation of inheritance from one’s father.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, is U.S. law. However, the Court’s reasoning in that case, given its inherent flaws, is not a particularly solid basis on which to argue in favor of anyone’s eligibility to be president.

Ellen makes much of the concept of Jus Soli, the rule or law of the soil to assert that anyone born on U.S. soil is then de facto a Natural Born Citizen.  That is certainly what Justice Gray implied so it is reasonable for someone using that case to pick up on one of the critical points.  But is it correct?

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court’s reasoning was based largely on the English common law “rule” that, generally speaking, children born on English soil were, at birth, English natural-born subjects, regardless of whether their parents were subjects or aliens. According to the majority’s opinion, this “rule” of English common law was “in force” when the U.S. Constitution was being written and thereafter “continued to prevail” in the United States:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. (Page 169 U. S. 658, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

I already noted that in fact, “subject” and “citizen” were not the same thing under that English Law but read here the dissenting note of the same issue.  In his dissenting opinion, Justice Fuller argued that the majority was factually incorrect on this point. Regarding the “rule” of English common law, the minority and majority disagreed, not over a matter of law, but over a matter of American history:

And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction… (Justice Fuller, Dissenting Opinion, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

P.A. Madison (a writer for the Federalist Blog) agrees with Justice Fuller’s understanding of American history. When the original thirteen colonies gained their independence and became States, they retained aspects of English common law for their own convenience. But English common law did not “continue to prevail” at the Federal or national level (Madison(2006)).

George Mason (1725-1792), called the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and considered one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, is widely quoted as saying:

The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)

How much clearer does it need to be?

In 1884, the following commentary appeared in the prestigious American Law Review:

In Wheaton v. Peters, the Supreme Court say: “It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.” (Collins)

 OK, let’s make it even clearer… In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that English common law did not “control” at the national or Federal level after the United States gained its independence from Great Britain:

The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now. (Audio/Video: Justice Scalia speech, Nov 22, 2008)

Now the debate was never over or settled however, as many still adhered to the literal jus soli viewpoint. Before Ellen adds another post with such views let me do some work for her.  Here are some opinions in opposition to mine and the ones above.  Later in American history, the Opinion of Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates (1862), the Opinion of U.S. Secretary of State William Marcy (1854), and the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), echoed the same viewpoint — that you are a U.S. citizen (and presumably a U.S. natural born citizen as well) if you were born in the United States, regardless of your parents’ citizenship at the time of your birth.

In 1864, Edward McPherson wrote that birth alone in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship:

And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country constitute the nations, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a [natural born] citizen … (McPherson, p.380)

In 1866, George Bancroft expressed the same viewpoint — that all persons born on U.S. soil are natural born citizens:

“…everyone who saw the first light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen” (Bancroft, p.201)

Early we noted when, in 1983, Judge Richard Cudahy (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) expressed his opinion that US-born children of illegal immigrant parents are “natural born citizens”

So it is clear that various “authorities” (including, but not limited to, those cited above) have expressed the opinion that birth within the United States is, by itself, sufficient to confer “natural born citizen” status. But, throughout U.S. history, other authorities have expressed an opposing opinion — that one is not a natural born citizen unless one’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth.

In 1789, two years after the Constitution was adopted, David Ramsay argued that a child naturally receives, at birth, the citizenship of its parents:

“[Birthright citizenship] … is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. … The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776. … From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring.” (Ramsay)

Ramsay’s comments were made in connection with a dispute over William Smith’s eligibility to serve as a U.S. representative from South Carolina. Despite their disagreement on the eligibility issue, Smith agreed with Ramsay that a child naturally receives, at birth, the citizenship of its parents, particularly its father:

Vattel, the author we have shown was heavily relied upon by the founders, wrote,

“The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (William Loughton Smith, as quoted in The Documentary history of the first Federal elections, 1788-1790, Volume 1, pp.178)

In 1811, the U.S. State Department refused to recognize James McClure as a U.S. citizen (Publius Enigma). McClure was born in the United States, but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. He would have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if he had been born in a state (such as Virginia) which confers state citizenship to anyone born within its borders. At the time, anyone who acquired state citizenship under state law was automatically a citizen of the United States. But McClure was born in a state (South Carolina) which had not enacted any citizenship laws. In the absence of state citizenship laws, United States citizenship is conferred only to persons born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens:

Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States — he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does — for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen — but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such. (“Case of James McClure”, The Alexandria Herald, Vol. I, No. 37, October 7, 1811, page 2, left-most column)

In 1820, Virginia Representative A. Smyth indicated that one’s citizenship at birth is determined by the citizenship of one’s father at the time of one’s birth:

“When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.” (Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820, in Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol VII, 1858, p.30)

In 1845, an article entitled “Massachusetts and South Carolina”, appearing in The New Englander, explained that, in the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” means a U.S. citizen not owing allegiance, at birth, to any foreign state. According to the article, all adult U.S. citizens are presumed to owe allegiance to the United States exclusively, but a natural born citizen owes exclusive allegiance from the time of her or his birth:

The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases the word ‘citizen’ is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. (“Massachusetts and South Carolina”, The New Englander, Volume 3, 1845, p.414)

In 1859, Attorney General Jeremiah Sullivan Black clarified the distinction between a native and a naturalized citizen. All adult U.S. citizens are presumed to owe allegiance to the United States exclusively. The native is a citizen who never owed allegiance to any sovereignty other than the United States.

There can be no doubt that naturalization does, pro facto, place the native and adopted citizen in precisely the same relations with the Government under which they live, except so far as the express and positive law of the country has made a distinction in favor of one or the other. … Here none but a native can be President. … A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born. … They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. (New York Times: Attorney General Black’s Opinion upon Expatriation and Naturalization, July 20, 1859)

(CONTINUED IN PART 5)

(CONTINUED FROM PART 2)

The reasoning that Ellen and others follow arises, in part, from the Supreme Court opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  As noted before, Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States in 1873. His parents were Chinese immigrants and permanent legal residents of the United States, but were not U.S. citizens. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled, in a 6 to 2 decision, that Wong acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.  The opinion in that case read in part:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Horace Gray, Majority Opinion, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898).”

Please note the carefully crafted wording in the decision and note it as much for what it does NOT say as for what it does.

• The Supreme Court did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen.  It merely ruled that he was a citizen.
• The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen because, at the time of his birth, his parents had “permanent domicile and residence” in the United States and was “carrying on business” in the United States. President Obama’s father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident. He was visiting the U.S. temporarily, to obtain an American education.
• The Court mentioned that Wong’s parents were subject to the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 between China and the United States. That treaty contains an unusual provision, not found in other U.S. treaties, which grants Chinese immigrants the right to change their “home and allegiance”. Although permanently-resident Chinese immigrants were not permitted to become naturalized U.S. citizens, they had (at least in theory) the right to become “nationals” of the United States; and children born in the United States, of U.S. “nationals”, are citizens within the originally-intended meaning of the 14th Amendment (Objectively Gray). Obama’s father was not subject to any treaty which recognized a change of “home and allegiance” other than by naturalization.

In the majority opinion, Justice Horace Gray cited sources which seem to suggest natural born citizenship requires something more than birth on U.S. soil. For example, he quoted the following from Minor v. Happersett (1874):

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”  (Minor v. Happersett (1874), as quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898))

 Justice Gray also quoted from an article, by Horace Binney, which used the term “natural born” in connection with a child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child of an alien. In Binney’s opinion, both children were U.S. citizens, but only the U.S.-born child of a citizen was labeled “natural born”:

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (Binney (2nd ed.), as quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898))

The 14th Amendment theorists are quick to point out their interpretation of The Court’s Reasoning. i.e. that even though the Court did not hold (or rule) that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone, Justice Gray’s reasoning seems to support that conclusion.

• Under English common law, all children born on English soil (except the children of foreign diplomats and alien enemies) were natural-born subjects. According to Justice Gray, this English common law rule “continued to prevail” under the Constitution, suggesting that the jus soliprinciple of English common law controlled the Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen.
  • Justice Gray cited Lynch v. Clarke (1844), in which Vice Chancellor Sandford had ruled that Julia Lynch was a U.S. citizen at birth. Miss Lynch was born in New York, but at the time of her birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens. In his dicta, the Vice Chancellor expressed his opinion that Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen. (See Question 16: Julia Lynch)
  • Justice Gray also cited Circuit Court Justice Swayne’s opinion in United States v. Rhodes (1866). According to Justice Swayne, the term “natural-born citizen” should be interpreted and understood according to English common law: 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 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. (Justice Swayne, as quoted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

As those familiar with the law know, often the dissenting opinion is as important as the ruling and frequently forms the basis for challenges and overturning of precedence.  In the dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Fuller mentioned natural born citizenship:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not. (C.J. Fuller, Dissenting Opinion, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

And from a legal and logical standpoint there are problems with Justice Gray’s reasoning in my opinion.  Among the facts directly opposing the Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

• Justice Gray ignored (deemed “not admissible”) the transcripts of the 1866 congressional debates, which provided direct evidence as to the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment;
• Justice Gray relied on an erroneous footnote in an article by Horace Binney;
• Justice Gray misrepresented four prior Supreme Court rulings, none of which supported his contention;
• Justice Gray ignored the fact that, in 18th-century English law, the terms “subject” and “citizen” were not synonymous — the manner in which one became an English subject by birth was not the same as the manner in which one became an English citizen by birth.

OK, so that is a pretty bold statement; for a layman observer to challenge a justice’s reasoning.  But we must never forget, at least until the present administration, it was the government who worked for us not the other way around.  The justices, just like representatives and the president, at least back int he day of this decision, worked for the people so the people have a right to question them.

(1) Justice gray ignored (deemed “not admissible”) the 1866 congressional debates:

In his written opinion, Justice Gray admitted that his understanding of the word “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment was based on presumption, not direct evidence. The transcripts of the 1866 congressional debates, in which the Framers clearly explained the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment, were ruled “not admissible”.  What?  That was central to the case and it was inadmissible?

The words ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment … as the equivalent of the words ‘within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States’… Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. (Wong Kim Ark, 1898).

The Supreme Court did not consider evidence showing that the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” was sole and complete jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power. (For a discussion of the originally intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment, see Question 14: Jurisdiction).  This questioning of the ruling did not start with me by any means. According to the Federalist Blog, the Court’s refusal to consider such evidence was “inexcusable”:

“A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.” (Justice John Paul Stevens, as quoted by Madison(2006))

(2) Justice Gray’s reasoning relied on an erroneous footnote in an article by Horace Binney.  Ellen said I could not rely on as research by one writer (which I have not) but then used a quote of his against me.  Well she was right about having to check for consistency for reliance on writers and here is such an instance. There were three published editions of Horace Binney’s article, The Alienigenae of the United States and there were some substantive differences.  The first two editions were published in December 1853. The Third (Final) Edition was published in the American Law Register in February 1854.

All three editions cited the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: (Naturalization Act of 1790; emphasis added).

Here is one big problem… In the first two editions of Binney’s article, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was quoted incorrectly:

[T]hat the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens — with a proviso, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who had never been resident in the United States. (Misquote of Naturalization Act of 1790, in Binney (2nd ed.), p.21, emphasis added).

In the misquoted text, foreign-born children do not receive U.S. citizenship solely by descent from their parents. Rather, these children’s U.S. citizenship depends on their subsequent residence in the United States.  Based on the misquoted text, Binney added a footnote asserting that descent, by itself, is never sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship at birth:

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (Binney (2nd ed.), footnote, p.22).

Justice Gray cited Binney’s footnote, both in the Opinion of the Court and in the Court’s ruling. But here is the problem, Binney’s footnote was factually incorrect, in large part because it was based on an incorrect quote of the 1790 Naturalization Act. In the final edition of Binney’s article, the 1790 Naturalization Act was quoted correctly and the footnote was deleted).

(3) Justice Gray misrepresented earlier Supreme Court rulings:

Justice Gray’s reasoning relied on four prior Supreme Court rulings:

• Inglis v. Trustees Of Sailor’s of Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830);
• Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830);
• Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 102, 109 (1832); and
• McCreery v. Somerville, 22 U.S. 354 (1824).

Justice Gray misrepresented all four of these rulings. None of them supports his contention (See Appendix 5: Wong Kim Ark reasoning).

(4) Justice gray ignored the fact that, in 18th-century England, the manner in which one became a “subject” by birth was not the same as the manner in which one became a “citizen” by birth.

Justice Gray quoted a North Carolina state supreme court opinion:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the king of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. … Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European king to a free and sovereign state. … British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; … and all free persons born within the state are born citizens of the state. … The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.  The sovereignty has been transferred from the man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the state.’ (Justice Gaston, State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b.20,24-26, as quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark).

When the thirteen colonies became independent states, some of them (including North Carolina) chose to base their citizenship laws on the jus soli principle of English common law. This choice was a matter of convenience. It was not dictated by English common law or convention.

(CONTINUED IN PART 4)