Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Rat Called Tandem (natural born Citizen, GA ballot hearing, Obama)
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 2/4/2012 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 02/04/2012 3:17:29 PM PST by rxsid

"A Rat Called Tandem.

[UPDATED: 2:12 PM - Cindy Simpson's top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.

Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.

I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.

But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)

Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; donofrio; malihi; naturalborncitizen; obama; referent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last
To: rxsid

My sad conclusion.
0bama does not have a US Birth Certificate
ALL of 0bama’s school records show 0bama is not a US Citizen.
0bama will never show his records.
0bama could have sent down one of the two “certificates” (LOL) obtained last spring.

For various reasons, no one will compel 0bama to demonstrate he is eligible to hold any office.


51 posted on 02/04/2012 5:42:00 PM PST by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

I really don’t believe this, Rove is part of the problem, protecting the ruling class from any input from we the people. Every day, something new is brought out describing the erosion of our liberties.The Tea Party could endorse God himself, and the traitors from both parties would over rule the will of the people to protect their power to control.Semper Fidelis, to God and the Constitution of the United States.


52 posted on 02/04/2012 5:45:15 PM PST by gunner03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
When discussing INTERNATIONAL LAW, yes. Not when discussing US citizenship by birth.

The very NOTION of citizenship is regarding a relationship between one nation and others. That makes it a function of INTERNATIONAL LAW, or don't you comprehend? The only reason a nation has to look at citizenship internally is to designate people who it has no claim upon. i.e. Foreigners.

All the states that were in the Union at the time have since then approved the 14th.

Point a gun at someone and say "Who wants to be first?" and you will get your entire group of hostages to accede to your wishes. You don't even have to point guns at them.

It is BECAUSE you idiots refuse to read it that you get your butts handed to you every time you go to court - EVEN WHEN THE OTHER SIDE DOESN’T SHOW UP!

No, it's because the LEGAL IDIOTS have been sucking on the Wong Kim Ark Teat for so long that they are blind and drunk to any other evidence. We can't help that the courts are full of people who were wrongly taught. THAT mistake started a long time ago. All we can do is work to spread the meme that Anchor Babies and Birth tourism is a ridiculous brain dead stupid result of the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th amendment!

You cannot get any more pathetic than that! You can get your asses whipped by an absolute ZERO!

Not at all. What you call "get our asses whipped" is nothing more than the residual stupidity inherent in our legal system. I wouldn't expect a Jew to get a fair trial in a Nazi court, and I wouldn't characterize it as "getting his ass whipped." I would say that justice was not to be had in a court that looks past evidence and rules on personal prejudice.

53 posted on 02/04/2012 5:46:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Who provided the English language manuscript for the 1797 edition Vattel’s Law of Nations. When was this manuscript penned?


54 posted on 02/04/2012 5:47:05 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The root problem is quite simple, 0bama will NEVER demonstrate he is eligible for any office. 0bama’s past will always be sealed. The burden of proof lies with 0bama, and no one will “hold 0bama’s feet to the fire”
Second, we have the added difficulty to prove a negative.


55 posted on 02/04/2012 5:48:49 PM PST by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
What about rummy Chick's contention that the lower court used the term "natural born citizen" and the Supreme Court in it's holding ruled "upheld without exception" ?

Would that not change the understood meaning of Wong Kim Ark to be a decision that he IS a "natural born citizen"?

56 posted on 02/04/2012 5:50:00 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I’ve got to go folks, catch ya tomorrow.


57 posted on 02/04/2012 5:51:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I doubt that the Judge was “smart” enough to dream up the “Tandem” ruling. We have to find the e-mail or phone call from the Obama camp that TOLD HIM to go in that direction!


58 posted on 02/04/2012 5:53:30 PM PST by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

You evaded my question...you wrote. “WKA was decided correctly”.

How was it decided correctly? Was it a correct decision giving citizenship to the children of aliens or an alien parent?

How is this a correct decision?


59 posted on 02/04/2012 5:53:53 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

What needs to happen is the Indiana case being appealed.

That has GOT to happen or we are going to be hogtied with that obamanation for the rest of history.

I am so tempted to write about this, but Cindy Simpson, Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo are all doing a brilliant job of putting this latest atrocity into context.

Not to mention a recent article at Anti-Mullah. Hat tip to the poster who sent it to me.... I won’t drop names in this one. But I think Alan at Anti-mullah has a REAL point to make here.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2012/02/iranian-origin-judge-rules-obama.html

Saturday, February 04, 2012
IRANIAN ORIGIN JUDGE RULES OBAMA A NATURAL and OK!
RECEIVED EMAIL

Dr. Taitz, I don’t know why Judge Malihi would take the route he did. I thought he had a back bone and Kemp looked to me like he has one too from what he wrote.

You presented your case well, which gave rise to so many unanswered questions. As an American, Malihi, should have been dying for answers to those questions. Why isn’t he?

Was Obama born in 1890? Is he curious even slightly why Obama isn’t going to practice law anymore with his superior degree from Harvard?

What about those name changes, he’s not interested in the questions that surround his various identities? No good American, in their right mind, I am talking real patriots, would be able to just walk away without the answers, if they had watched and read the hearings like the rest of us.

He was the Judge for crying out loud! I can’t believe he would be satisfied without the answers to your questions. Well, my prayer is that our good Lord continues to prepare a table before you in the presense of our enemies and annoint your head with oil as your cup runneth over, so that surely goodness and mercy will follow you and all good Americans all the days of our life so we shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever! God Bless you Orly!

The whole country (the ones who matter that embrace one nation under G-d) love you and value every single thing you have done. The only thing I can think of that must keep you going is that the light of the Lord and all his angels are leading you every single step of the way. Praise G-d for that!

Answer: I don’t know, what happened to Malihi. I know, that he is not American by birth.,

He is Persian, Iranian. The last name and the first names of his parents are all Persian.

He is an appointee of the Democrat governor Zell Miller.

(Alan Note: Similar to Judge David Carter in California being a Clinton apppointee, who under similar circumstances also folded like a wet napkin and used a member of the Obama law firm defense team to write his equally shameful, cowardly capitulation decision/motion to dismiss. Should he still be calling himself a Marine and staining them?)

The only thing, that I don’t know, is:

Alan note: whether it was a set up from the start or whether someone got to him recently (including the Islamic Regime in Iran which could put pressure on Malihi if he or his wife have any relatives or even close friends they could harm, still in Iran).

Remember and note how Obama protects Islamic Iran and refuses to take action against Iran’s surrogate Syrian brutal, mostly Iranian conducted slaughter in Syria.

Note: how Obama is blocking legislation to allow frozen Iranian funds in the USA to be drawn upon to pay American survivor relatives from the 1983 bombing in Lebanon - as per the judgment issued by a Federal Court - saving Iran around $2.5 BILLION!

Was any of this an incentive/ purchase/bribe/inducement to Islamic Iran to threaten physical FATAL violence on Malihi and family? And their ability and prediliction to murder opponents is a well known, proven fact.

Was this judge’s own foreign background, specially IRANIAN, a key for his deciding the IMPOSSIBLE that Obama is a “natural born citizen”? He based it on a still unproved location of birth and IGNORED the fact that Obama’s father was NOT an American, which is a deciding factor to disqualify Obama from claiming the right to be President or at the very least on the ballot next time around?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hellfire and bloody damnation... I am all out of freaking tinfoil... Not that I need it now. None of us does.


60 posted on 02/04/2012 5:59:23 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Just watched THE PATRIOT. Mel Gibson’s character said “An elected legislature can trample on a man’s rights just as much as a king can.” How true today.


61 posted on 02/04/2012 6:01:05 PM PST by Terry Mross (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

The GA judge is Iranian?


62 posted on 02/04/2012 6:05:31 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Law of Nations is not relevant at this point.

Wong Kim Ark rejected in the lower court because of controlling authority.

SCOTUS affirmed without exception.


63 posted on 02/04/2012 6:06:12 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2012/02/iranian-origin-judge-rules-obama.html


64 posted on 02/04/2012 6:11:10 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

DING DING DING... we have a winner. Yes, apparently so.

I wonder how many family members he has in Iran.... was there a quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.


65 posted on 02/04/2012 6:14:54 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

But the fact that there was a dispute strongly suggests that the 14th Amendment did not resolve that issue. The decision closest to the 14th Amendment did not claim that the 14th Amendment spoke to the definition of “natural born citizen”.

Wong Kim Ark didn’t even try to find out the meaning of the common law AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION. It used as its source somebody explaining the then-modern British Nationality Act - even though the WKA court had acknowledged that the authority at the time the Constitution was written was VATTEL (who contradicts the source they cited).

That’s basically like looking to the modern definition of “gay” to find out how to understand the lyrics, “When Irish eyes are smiling, all the world seems bright and gay...”


66 posted on 02/04/2012 6:17:46 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Your knowledge regarding the Law of Nations is what you’ve been conditioned to know.


67 posted on 02/04/2012 6:23:08 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

“Your knowledge regarding the Law of Nations is what you’ve been conditioned to know.”

All I need to do is READ the lower court of Wong Kim Ark who REJECTED Law of Nations using THOSE VERY WORDS.


68 posted on 02/04/2012 6:24:56 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“Wong Kim Ark didn’t even try to find out the meaning of the common law AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION.”

Yes it did. It went back to 1609, and worked its way forward.

There is no denying that the colonies used the phrase ‘natural born subject’ all the time. And in the years following the Constitution, they used it interchangeably with natural born citizen, or native citizen.

Again, quoting from the decision birthers usually avoid reading:

“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, 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.

III. 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.”

Also:

“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”

And:

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

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

And

“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

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 [p664] 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 one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.”


BTW - the word Vattel is not found in WKA. If it referenced him, it certainly did NOT acknowledge that Vattel was the authority on citizenship. Remember, according to Vattel, it doesn’t matter where you are born, but to whom. US law has NEVER followed that principle.


69 posted on 02/04/2012 6:32:56 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
“Was it a correct decision giving citizenship to the children of aliens or an alien parent?”

I evaded nothing. I explained the ruling, IIUC, as interpreting the 14A to have made WKA a 14A citizen at birth, a new subclass of citizens at birth that needed clarification after the passage of the 14A. This is the subclass of citizens at birth, children of aliens and foreigners, about which the Minor court said there were doubts, but which could not reach to resolve at the time.

WKA was correct in resolving those doubts in favor of WKA being a 14A citizen at birth, IMO.

70 posted on 02/04/2012 6:34:03 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Danae
“What needs to happen is the Indiana case being appealed.”

IIRC only had to do with the Indiana electors in the 2008 election and since that election was certified...case closed.

It will be much more effective to contest Barry's ballot eligibility from scratch for 2012, not after the horse is out of the barn from 2008, IMO. Contest that and also any evidence of criminal forgery, such as we hope Arpaio is developing.

71 posted on 02/04/2012 6:38:29 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Lord Coke and the Calvin’s case is quoted more than once. All the judges in England heard that case. It was a seminal case and heard long before the writing of the Consitution. King James was from Scotland. This case was a very important case and changed the nature of who could own land .


72 posted on 02/04/2012 6:39:56 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

That was written in 1769 - shortly before the Revolution. Blackstone was considered the authority on English common law.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp


73 posted on 02/04/2012 6:47:49 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; RummyChick
The WKA court explicitly said they were ONLY ruling on whether WKA was a 14A citizen. Even the Ankeny court admitted this in a footnote. This is the whole point of Leo Donofrio’s excoriation of the Ankeny court for waiving a wand and deciding that considering WKA and the 14A “in tandem” made Obama an NBC.

I disagree with RummyChick and would rather agree to disagree with her than to rehash her argument. I prefer the conclusions of law of Donofrio and Hatfield as applied to the different facts in Minor, ARK, and Ankeny.

74 posted on 02/04/2012 6:54:53 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Too bad the Ankeny Court did not read the brief written at the time in the language of the time by The United States of America in the Wong Kim Ark case.


75 posted on 02/04/2012 6:57:46 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Here is another example:

“2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England.”

It comes from the The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, written by Congress to protest the Stamp Act.

http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html

You see, the members of Congress and the colonies were well acquainted with the phrase ‘natural born subject’. Now, did NBC come from that common term, or from a translation of Vattel made 10 years after the Constitution?


76 posted on 02/04/2012 6:59:37 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

You stated “WKA was a correct decision”.

Do you believe the children of aliens or an alien should be a citizen if born in the US?

Yes or No.


77 posted on 02/04/2012 7:05:29 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“Resolved, that by two royal charters, granted by King James the first, the Colonists aforesaid are declared intituled to all the Privileges, Liberties & Immunities of Denizens and natural-born Subjects to all Intents and Purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.”

From House of Burgesses on May 30, 1765, as written by Patrick Henry.

http://research.history.org/pf/declaring/henrysResolutions.cfm


78 posted on 02/04/2012 7:11:27 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; RummyChick
“Do you believe the children of aliens or an alien should be a citizen if born in the US?”

I don't accept your framing of the question.

Under our Constitution, SCOTUS gets to make that call, whether I like it or not (belief has nothing to do with settled SCOTUS rulings, IMO) and they made that call in WKA...deciding that WKA’s parents WERE subject to the jurisdiction of the US by being domiciled here at the time of WKA’s birth and therefore WKA was a 14A citizen at birth.

I do not BELIEVE this applies to Obama...meaning that I believe that if the facts of Obama’s alleged birth came before SCOTUS, Obama would NOT be a 14A citizen because his father was a non-immigrant foreign exchange student.

I reserve the caveat that I BELIEVE that SCOTUS would grant Obama a mulligan and allow him to be NBC at birth if Obama argued that his mother was single at his birth and only had unitary US citizenship due to the bigamy of his father.

79 posted on 02/04/2012 7:17:35 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

80 posted on 02/04/2012 7:25:14 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Minor specifically stated it was NOT trying to give a comprehensive definition of NBC.

I disagree. Minor explicitly defined NBC and said that there was NO DOUBT about their explicit definition (born in the country of parents who are citizens).

Minor explicitly expressed DOUBTS, but doubts ONLY regarding whether the children of aliens and foreigners were CITIZENS, not whether they were NBC. Look the sentence regarding the children about whom there are doubts. The doubts are about whether those children are citizens, not whether they are NBC.

Minor reached a conclusive and NO DOUBT definition of NBC and they applied it to Ms. Minor. They said there was no need to resolve the CITIZENSHIP of the children of aliens and foreigners since Ms. Minor was NBC. Only with the ARK case were those doubts regarding 14A children of aliens and foreigners resolved.


81 posted on 02/04/2012 7:28:57 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Superbirther it is your opinion it’s ok the children of aliens can be citizens if born in the US.

superbirther stated the WKA decision was a correct decision.

superbirther this decision opened the doors for millions anchor babies.

superbirther wants to hide behind the subject to jurisdiction definiton in the WKA decision.

Its ok for superbirther the children of aliens can be citizens as long as they are living here...lol

superbirther let me remind you..a nation cannot survive unless its citizens are born from citizens.

The clock is ticking.


82 posted on 02/04/2012 7:39:30 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Photobucket
83 posted on 02/04/2012 7:59:33 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The paragraph read:

“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 [p168] 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.”

You can try to claim that they defined NBC, but he defines “natives, or natural-born citizens” as being in contrast (”distinguished from”) “aliens or foreigners”. He doesn’t contrast NBC with other citizens even. NBC is used only one time in the paragraph, and he uses citizen to describe the same people (”citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens”). It uses citizen & natives and NBC as equivalents.

You may not accept it, but no court has ever read it the way you do. Nor should they.

In the previous paragraph they wrote:

“This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Two classes - born, and made. Not three - born to citizens, born to aliens, and made. Just two.


84 posted on 02/04/2012 8:00:20 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
"I do not BELIEVE this applies to Obama...meaning that I believe that if the facts of Obama’s alleged birth came before SCOTUS, Obama would NOT be a 14A citizen because his father was a non-immigrant foreign exchange student."

Thank you! THIS is the argument they should have made - that WKA didn't apply to Obama's situation. It may or may not have won, but it is a logical and supportable argument.

What does NOT work is for birthers to ignore WKA.

85 posted on 02/04/2012 8:03:14 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
My daughter who is a born dual citizen, is also eligible. She, and thousands like her can become president and use our Armed forces to protect their home country. Just like Osama, she is recognized as a citizen in two countries when born. Yet she will have dual rights for life, in both countries. She has the American BC, and that is all that she needs to qualify.

Imagine a country so stupid as to give the keys of their defense to a dual or foreign citizen. That is now the USA.

No citizens of another country in the world would be so stupid.

86 posted on 02/04/2012 8:06:56 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
“this decision opened the doors for millions anchor babies”

WKA was abused by modern progressive activists long after the WKA justices were all dead! I don't blame the WKA court for that, and I don't think it is logical or fair to do so. The WKA justices never approved illegal immigrant's anchor babies. They were careful to prove the legal, permanent resident status of WKA’s parents at the time he was born.

Due to WKA, Mario Rubio became a citizen and is a great Senator, but not eligible to be POTUS, IMO. His parents were LEGAL immigrants. How many FReepers don't believe Rubio is even a citizen, or Nikki Haley, or Bobby Jindal? Their parents were all legally in the US when they were born.

87 posted on 02/04/2012 8:50:50 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Actually it would not surprise me if, by the time the courts get done with it, “Natural Born Citizen” will mean ANY citizen (however that citizenship was obtained) who was not born by caesarean section.

And some time later, a future Supreme Court will take it further and decide that excluding the caesarean section born citizens denies them the opportunity to pursue happiness and is therefore unconstitutional.

Just kidding of course, but that is how silly the anti-Constitutionalists are getting.


88 posted on 02/04/2012 8:59:05 PM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

By UN code, anyone born caesarean is prima facie Roman.


89 posted on 02/04/2012 9:21:36 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Wait a minute “superbirther”...you stated “WKA was a correct decision”.

WKA will be this country’s demise.

Very few on this forum will agree with your WKA assessment.

Stop hiding under the skirt “superbirther”. Be a little more careful in your word selection..you may out yourself.

No need to respond superbither.


90 posted on 02/04/2012 9:32:34 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
So how do we control Dual citizen presidents who are loyal to foreign countries?

We are all swirling down the toilet bowel with people who voted for Obama, like stink on shit.

How many billions of dollars has Obama sent to a foreign country, Kenya, that he calls his home country?

A born dual citizen has just borrowed and pissed away 5 trillion dollars that my kids will have to repay. Let me repeat. A man who has held foreign citizenship has pissed away 5 trillion dollars, on loan to the American people.

I don't give a shit what your f-ing theories are. We have a disloyal foreign citizen in the White house pissing away American blood and security!!!

91 posted on 02/04/2012 9:34:45 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I honestly don’t know WHAT to expect anymore.. It is getting scarier by the day :/


92 posted on 02/04/2012 9:37:32 PM PST by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
And by the way Rogers, our Dual citizen president started a war in Libya without congressional approval.

He has not one ounce of respect for my constitution yet he took an oath to protect and defend it. The Kenyan SOB probably laughs when he hears the casualty reports.

Defend that sleazy POS all you want.

93 posted on 02/04/2012 9:53:05 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; bushpilot1
All one has to do is read the question before the Court.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...

The question was answered...
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 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.

He was a citizen by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

94 posted on 02/04/2012 9:56:00 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Your spot on.

Some future supreme court will decide that America is a universal Idea, and all people are born citizens of America.

Unfortunately, before that happens, some Mohammedan will probably launch a nuke into DC before they get the chance.

Its a good Idea to go down to Washington's home on the potomic. You can see that this country was lead by a General. It took blood to get this freedom. We now have some ass wipe from a third world country sitting in the Oval Office, pissing it all away.

95 posted on 02/04/2012 10:03:46 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1
they dont care about jindal or rubio, they got their commie in for 4 or 8 years and they are happy commies.

If the NBC clause of Article II can be redefined out of effect, then why not section 1 of Amendment XXII?

After all amendment X is pretty well dead.

96 posted on 02/04/2012 10:10:03 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“Remember, according to Vattel, it doesn’t matter where you are born, but to whom. US law has NEVER followed that principle”

Bullshit. If a US citizen gives birth to a child in France , he is a US citizen from birth. To whom you are born is a key factor in our law, you dumb twit.

You like to mix apples and oranges, Subjects and citizens. Intentionally fogging the distinctions. Your so full of crap, your posts stink like Kenyan manure.

97 posted on 02/04/2012 10:30:06 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You can try to claim that they defined NBC, but he defines “natives, or natural-born citizens” as being in contrast (”distinguished from”) “aliens or foreigners”. He doesn’t contrast NBC with other citizens even.

He makes the contrast by where the sentence is placed. For what you want to believe to be true, the sentence that characterized the first class as NBCs would need to follow the sentence on the class of persons for which there is doubt. What exactly is the purpose of saying anything about citizen parents if NBC can be applied more broadly?? Why were citizen parents emphasized when it wasn't part of Virginia Minor's argument??

98 posted on 02/04/2012 10:30:55 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Was it a correct decision giving citizenship to the children of aliens or an alien parent?

Yes, but not natural born citizenship.

99 posted on 02/04/2012 10:43:42 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Who are the natural children in Shakespeare’s Henry the V -

‘Were all thy children kind and natural?’

Not sure you’ve seen me post this before..


100 posted on 02/04/2012 11:04:32 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson