Shake out a few each month
to support Free Republic
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/09/2012 9:16:41 AM PST by Danae
[My previous report was in three parts, with the first being a rather extensive exposure of a misquote by the SCOTUS in both McCreery v. Somerville and Wong Kim Ark. The second part exposed fraudulent propaganda from Maskell's most recent CRS memo. And the final part examined Minor v. Happersett in light of some of the arguments being offered against its precedent, providing new analysis of key provisions of the holding therein. I am reprinting the section on Minor now as a separate post because it is crucial to understanding the case, and it appears to have been somewhat swallowed up by the first two parts.]
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.
…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:
“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
If Minor legally settled the law regarding NBC, do you suppose we would be having this discussion?
Do you think that all the lawyers, former prosecutors and judges sitting in the 2009 Joint Congress would have risked their reputations by not raising what would be the obvious?
Do you think the attorney presently arguing NBC in court, while referring to Minor , is incorrect when he acknowledges the law is unsettled?
When “authorities” have argued over the years that the meaning of NBC is yet to be formally resolved, perhaps by amendment, have they been advised to relax and consult Minor?
Bear in mind that both Minor and Ark dealt with the legal concept of ordinary citizenship and how, or whether, it applied to the parties. The key here is that just because a court happens to refer to and appears to define a concept (see my #14 above) that is not essential to its finding does not necessarily mean it has done so effectively, or that its opinion of the concept is legally binding on subsequent courts.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, but you don't exactly have room for making suggestions about "attitude" after saying I needed to rewrite a post in my own words (which ignored that the previous post WAS in my own words) and by complaining about so-called "bulky, cut and paste material" when there were only a few paragraphs that were cited.
Furthermore, Ark DID cite Minor for its definition of NBC. Read it in the following two paragraphs. The quote of Chief Justice Waite is from Minor v. Happersett.
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
This is the LAST reference in the Ark decision to the Constitutional term "natural-born citizen." It is defined as underlined, quoted directly from the Minor definition. The decision continues for 25 pages and switches to a different term, "citizenship by birth," which is NOT dependent on the parents being citizens. Justice Gray obviously recognized that he could not disrespect a UNANIMOUS decision, so he had to get very creative in order to give teeth to the 14th amendment.
If Minor legally settled the law regarding NBC, do you suppose we would be having this discussion?
If people read and understood Minor, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the premise of your question is flawed. Supreme Court decisions do not inherently put controversies and misunderstandings to rest. A great example of this is the abortion issue and Roe v. Wade.
Do you think the attorney presently arguing NBC in court, while referring to Minor , is incorrect when he acknowledges the law is unsettled?
The law becomes unsettled when people don't follow it. That's where the problem is. The Minor definition and the Wong Kim Ark affirmation of that definition speaks for itself. Whether the attorney you've referenced understands this, I can't say, because I haven't seen any quotes from whoever said attorney is.
The key here is that just because a court happens to refer to and appears to define a concept (see my #14 above) that is not essential to its finding does not necessarily mean it has done so effectively, or that its opinion of the concept is legally binding on subsequent courts.
The concept as defined IS essential to the finding of the court. Ark acknowledges this by emphasizing that Virginia Minor was born of citizen parents (which is never specifically stated in the Minor decision).
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...
Why do you think Gray did this??
From the changing of the original language proposed by Madison from born a Citizen, to John Jay's natural born Citizen.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay defined natural born Citizen in 1789:
Ramsay stated that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”, hence the need for the grandfather clause found in Article II, Section I, Clause V:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;
And finally, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
You can twist and squirm and obfuscate all you want, but the truth is there for all to see.
Wrong Patlin.
Only nubs post quotations with out links/citations. I am not parsing through your posts, I have better things to do like cleaning out the cat-box. You want me to read something, then give the case name and a link. Don’t make me or anyone else “scroll up” to figure out wtf you are talking about and quoting. Its called common courtesy, something most jerks lack.
You rock BP1! It really is just that simple isn’t it?
There are only 61 posts thus far in this thread and you are too lazy to scroll up? Give me a break. In the time you took to send the last 2 responses, you could have already clicked on the link and been reading away.
You are correct Art. Posters like patlin and others would have you believe precisely that. Any babe born in the USA is a NBC - that is flat out FALSE. natural Born doesn’t mean born in the USA, it means born in the USA to TWO parents who are it’s citizens, because THAT child can have no divided loyalties AT BIRTH. That child is 100% American with no potential conflicts with other nations having a citizenship claim.
A word of caution. This current court is COMPROMISED. It holds on it’s bench 2 justices who were appointed by the man they would have to judge as being constitutional or not. That is a MATERIAL compromise of those justices who would, by statute and rules of the court have to recuse themselves. If Obama is unconstitutional, their lifetime appointments to SCOTUS are gone...*POOF*.
Justice Gray of Wong Kim Ark fame was appointed by Chester Arthur, and I am beginning to thing that the mad deliberately put into his argument for the majority decision little items which would protect the man who appointed him, so that he would not lose his seat should Arthur’s secret get out. Arthur was 14 when his dad was Naturalized, he knew long before attending the naming convention which put him unexpectedly on the ticket for Veep. He wasn’t intending to run, and I believe that he knew he couldn’t, just never brought up the fact. We will likely never know, he burned his papers just before he died about 18 months after leaving office. I think Gray was protecting the hand of the man who elevated him to SCOTUS, because if it was discovered, both men would have been out in disgrace - much the same way I want Obama out in disgrace.
So with the Georgia case I have some hope. I am not holding my breath however. there is only 16 days before the hearing there, and much needs to come to the attention of the Judge in the case and the attorney who has gotten it this far, and no I am not referring to Taitz. Hatfield is his name I think. He is in my prayers!
I wish I knew.
God bless her!!! Good for her and congratulations for raising a child with intellect! Kudos to you! (hat tip) I hope that mine turn out half so well!! (they are well on their way really)
Obviously, though, incorrect practice has created much of the dual citizenship that exists today. Support for this position can be found in George Collins’ outstanding appellants brief (arguing for the US) in WKA—wherein he asserts:
[B]ecause the error has become almost universal and our people through ignorance have established a course of conduct under the authority of…’law taken for granted,’ that therefore the law has been superseded and nullified …[T]he injury to our country arising from the admission to citizenship of every person born on the soil, irrespective of his parentage, would be far greater and extensively more disastrous than the consequences apprehended from an enforcement of the law… http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
Of course the State Department has to deal with dual citizenship, because it exists, not because it is granted anywhere in our laws or constitution…
The 14th amendment was intended to be declaratory of existing law—applying it to newly freed slaves. I do not believe that it created a new class of citizenship.
Following Collins’ logic, even after the 14th, there are only 2 kinds of citizens—natural born and naturalized. Although the 14th didn’t use the term ‘natural born’, it nevertheless implied such—born on the soil, with no competing allegiance. Isn’t that “natural born” citizenship? If the child was born to a non-US citizen father, the child became a citizen when the father naturalized, or could elect to become a US citizen at majority—both of these scenarios conferred citizenship under naturalization.
Collins also rejected “…the doctrine that while [Wong] is a subject of the Chinese Emporer he is also a citizen of the United States and at majority had the right to elect between the two countries…” Collins asserted that “double allegiance…is not possible under our Constitution.”
Collins fully acknowledged that many born in the US to alien parents were considered citizens in practice—a practice inconsistently applied among states and even among government offices and departments.
The “doubts” expressed in Happersett, in my opinion, related to this inconsistent and incorrect application. The court didn’t need to address that issue, though, because Mrs. Happersett was not a part of the questioned group.
The only reason one would need to argue that the 14th did not address “natural born” citizenship would be because one posits that the 14th DOES grant citizenship to the children of aliens. I think that is entirely incorrect--remember the pesky little "subject to the jurisdiction" clause? It is not redundant to "born in the country".
If we were able to go back in time and ask Collins what he thought of the Obama situation—I think he would answer that not only is Obama not a “natural born” citizen, he was not born a citizen—unless his father naturalized or Obama himself did at his majority. And it would not matter that his mother was a citizen, because Collins explicitly rejected the granting of US citizenship at birth to a child with any competing citizenship under international law.
I do NOT believe that the 14th authorizes anchor baby citizenship. Anchor babies are in no way "natural born citizens." In the realm of severely needed immigration reform, that is a fight I will continue to engage...
She went to a very prestigious private school where many kids then went on to Harvard, Yale, you name it. Some kids got perfect SAT scores in her class. Many will be doctors.
She now has to reconcile her vote for Obama and 50 percent unemployment with her peers. I think this is giving her angst.
Both my adult daughters voted for Obama. I clearly remember the spring day that my younger daughter was with me, and I told her that Obama was not eligible and she could not vote for a man with foreign citizenship at birth. It was June 2008. She said that was all the more reason to vote for him. She got pissed off when I told her.
So my younger daughter is also a college grad, and very left wing. So from personal experience, I suspect this attitude, glee in voting for a foreign born citizen, is common with left wingers.
I have your 6 Sallyven. Well said!
Thanks...and oops, I meant “Mrs. Minor” not Mrs. Happersett!! :)
Nicely stated Sallyven & thanks for all the exhausting research you have done
IMO, dual citizenship exists because it would otherwise require legal action of some sort to establish the single, primary citizenship of persons who have competing allegiances. It doesn't exist in natural law, but in statutory laws which have been relaxed to allow multiple allegiances.
Following Collins’ logic, even after the 14th, there are only 2 kinds of citizens—natural born and naturalized. Although the 14th didn’t use the term ‘natural born’, it nevertheless implied such—born on the soil, with no competing allegiance. Isn’t that “natural born” citizenship?
Naturalization also means "no competing allegiance" but it is without regard to the place of birth. The difference between that and natural born is that one comes automatically by descent and the other comes by personal choice (or what they refer to as 'election,' such as when one reaches majority age).
The Wong Kim Ark decision clearly said that the 14th does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment is therefore, in essence, a naturalization act that takes place at birth, dependent on satisfying the subject clause through permanent residence and domicil. IOW, the parents may not have become citizens but have permanent domicil, thus those born of such person are collectively naturalized through the 14th amendment. Permanent residence substitutes for being a citizen, so it's a little bit like being natural-born, except that one has to determine whether the subject clause is satisfied. Such is not necessary for natural-born citizens.
It’s funny, looking back at that conversation in my back yard with my daughter, June 2008, I was convinced he would be rejected for his dual citizenship. I thought he would never get elected.
And here we are, almost four years later, with a born dual citizen executing our national government, and running again!!!
It’s easy to forget how unthinkable it was at the time.
To me, it was a seminal moment, like when the Challenger blew up. But the conversation I had with my daughter is what reminds me, so well, of how I felt.
You've probably seen these but am posting for all to 'spread the word.' I thought they were well done summaries of the whole Natural Born Citizen issue. Pass it on. . . This is not tinfoil, it's the rule of law!
We all need to stay on this. The NBC issue, Obama's aliases, his multiple Social Security numbers. Hopefully more states will get involved and not permit Obama's name on their state ballot. All of these issues plus absolutely no bonafides, none, need to be pursued. Who is Obama? What is he hiding and why?
Bears repeating: "Natural Born Citizen = Born on American soil of Citizen Parents."
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.