Posted on 10/20/2011 1:12:42 PM PDT by Danae
This entire issue is bunk.
Yup, Donofrio was saying that in the summer of '08. Well, their problems were different, but that neither of them were eligible.
Sorry, guys, the Court did not here rule on the issue. It said that Group A had always been considered NBC, with doubts about whether Group B was NBC.
This does not constitute a ruling as to whether those with these doubts are correct. The Court only notes that such doubts exist.
He was born in Colon, Panama. That isn’t the base. Not even close. If I recall they tried to use the “canal zone” to strech the defination, but either way, it is the reason McCain didn’t bring it up. He didn’t want Minor discussed any more than Obama did. Obama of course had a LOT more reason to want minor repressed. A WHOLE LOT MORE.
I am thoroughly incensed. So, what can we do about it?
FTA: Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations. And In two documented cases actual text was removed.
Who did it, and who is going to be prosecuted?
BTW, I read the entire article at The Examiner and did not get one single pop up. Thanks for posting.
How are we, the American people, going to get a case before the SCOTUS when they continue to claim no one has standing?
I do not like McCain, but saying that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen is the height of tin foil hat conspiracy theory nuttiness.
Oops, Minor v. Happersett!!!! Not Minor v. Blackstone! (D’oh)
Correct. But the Supreme Court did not limit the definition to that.
"At common-law ... 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, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Whether "natural born citizens" includes children born within the borders without reference to the parents is in doubt but not resolved for purposes of this case.
Thats what all the Obots said in 08.
It is however, accurate. McCain has the same problem Obama does regarding his citizenship standing. McCain got a resolution from the Senate, and that does say something. However, being born outside U.S. Territory according to Minor v Happersett means that McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen in the eyes of the law. I would LOVE for him to bring his case to SCOTUS, maybe THEN we can get another legal Opinion on the matter, in modern times.
That being said, Minor is still the Precedent, and the law.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett...
Game, set, match.
Fine. So POST THE ARTICLE. Why must one go to Exami-AIDS to see it?
You wrote it, you can post it.
Ummmmm... I DID. Post 16...
Ha ha!
(Posting with out reading the thread since 2001)
Is that your tagline?
Heh...
EXACTLY!!!
And it got erased off the internet before people even knew about minor v Happersett, by someone(s) who DID know what it meant to Obama.
I might also add, that it takes me a few minutes to fiddle with HTML. I am NOT a coder.
BTTT.
Danae, I believe the term Robots is a misnomer, there is a robots.txt file, or a simple code snippet used to tell a web crawler (google cache, archive.org, etc...) to not crawl a given url or domain. I can look into the proper term(s) further if you like.
That is pretty much exactly what Leo found. As far as I know, it is an accurate description. If Justia goes to remove itself off of InternetArchive.org, that would be an admission of guilt. And believe me, we are watching the archive to see if Justia puts up mor of them on the pages we have published today, and the ones Donofrio has published at his site: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/
Agree. I suppose every faction has its loonies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.