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

Skip to comments.

Ankeny's Error: Virginia Minor could run for president; Wong Kim Ark could not
Indiana Appeals Court ^ | 2/5/2012 | edge919

Posted on 02/05/2012 2:16:29 AM PST by edge919

In the ballot hearing in Georgia, Judge Malihi cited Ankeny v. Daniels from the Indiana Appeals Court to define natural-born citizen, using jus soli criteria to declare Barack "No Show" Obama to be eligible for Georgia's primary ballot, despite the lack of actual legal evidence to prove whether or not Barry was even born in the United States or not. That aside, the ruling is based on an errant conclusion.

Keeping things simple, the best way to emphasize why Minor v. Happersett is the one & only legal precedent and Wong Kim Ark is not, is to use Ankeny v. Daniels to show where it admits that its rationale is flawed. The Indiana Appeals Court admits there was an NBC definition in Minor:

"Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

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 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.

First, there's a clear error. Ankeny says the 14th amendment and Article II were read in tandem. This is false. The 14th amendment was used by Virginia Minor in an argument to claim she was a citizen, and from that citizenship she had a right to vote through the privileges and immunities clause. The Supreme Court rejected that her citizenship was due from the 14th amendment. But before they got to Article II, they covered the other way you could become a citizen ... by self-declaration and political unification.

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.

This is kind of important, because it rejects the English common law theory of natural-born citizenship AND it rejects the trite argument that the courts have only recognized two ways to become a citizen. When the country was formed, those persons loyal to the United States were the original citizens and their children were natural-born citizens. But by treaty, those persons loyal to the crown and their children, even those born on U.S. soil AFTER the declaration of Independence were natural-born subjects. This was formalized through the Treaty of 1783. Thus, the Constitution, being established only four years later was not going to use a standard of citizenship that allowed anyone born on the soil to be president. This explains why the Minor court said that "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" was the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" ... it matches the Law of Nations, and it's why the court characterized this type of citizenship EXCLUSIVELY as natural-born citizen. By using this definition, this would have made Virginia Minor legally capable of running for president even though the court denied she had a right to vote.

Ankeny argues that Minor "contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." A) This is false, because Minor contemplated several combinations of factors related to citizenship including split nationalities:

... in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.

The Minor court considered every combination it considered to be relevant, but it purposely and willfully only characterized ONE class of persons as natural-born citizens: those born in the country to citizen parents.

B) The other reason Ankeny's conclusion is false is because the Minor distinction of children born to citizen parents serves no purpose if not tied to how natural-born citizenship is exclusively defined. The characterization is self-limiting: "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." For those latter persons to be citizens, they must rely on other means of citizenship such as through the Constitution or statutory law. If jus soli was enough to be a natural-born citizen, then the court could have simply accepted Minor's 14th amendment argument, but they did NOT ... and Ankeny admits it:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution, so this means that the 14th amendment does NOT define NBC. This destroys Ankeny's assumption that jus soli is enough to be an NBC. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark says this same thing, and it cites and affirms the Minor definition of NBC. The Ark case knew it could not apply the NBC definition to Wong Kim Ark, so it relied on applying common law, with some stipulations. Ankeny cites some of that common law, but it was dicta.

Ankeny claimed that "Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." I've already shown this is false, but it's important to understand that under Ankeny's logic, Wong Kim Ark ALSO left this question open. And they admit it, by way of footnote:

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural-born citizen. Again, using Ankeny's logic, this means the question is "left open." Why rely on a case that does not declare its subject an NBC, when the other one does?? Ankeny says it's immaterial to all but 44 people, which were all the people who were president, but this is false. The NBC criteria is to protect the public by trying to ensure we have a president who is less subject to foreign entanglements ... and that criteria would be material to ANYONE and EVERY ONE who wants to run for president.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court made Virginia Minor eligible to run for president, but by Ankeny's own admission, it did not do so for Wong Kim Ark. The court contemplated the scenario Ankeny says was left open. By their own reasoning, Barack "No Show" Obama can NOT be a natural-born citizen, even if he were born in the White House rose garden.
1 posted on 02/05/2012 2:16:45 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: edge919
The Constutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"
2 posted on 02/05/2012 2:36:43 AM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Nice. Stealing it.

3 posted on 02/05/2012 2:37:53 AM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

I’m always stealing from edge919.


4 posted on 02/05/2012 3:10:09 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edge919
14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

16 We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.

5 posted on 02/05/2012 3:12:19 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The GA court is required by Federal Law to accept certification by other states as fact.

The State of HI has hidden what is really the issue. This must be uncovered within the state of HI.

No proof has been that BHO, Jr. was in fact born in HI. All public release are in a form that makes authentication impossible. If this was a simple as releasing a COLB, this would have been over. IT IS NOT.

I do not believe he was born in HI. Which is contrary to what is stated by the state of HI. If he was not born in the U.S., he is not a U.S. Citizen, much less a natural born citizen.

Instead of the “butler did it” in this case the “grandma did it”.

What will it take for this to be uncovered? For the right people to want it uncovered.

I think we are being suckered by the GA court. The new Obozo appointment to the appeals court which will review the GA case if it is appealed, is bought and paid for. She was noted as having done work on this exact issue prior to his election. She got the job to silence this challenge.


6 posted on 02/05/2012 3:24:51 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

If an appeal is made this this judge’s ruling, is it sure to fail? This ruling cannot stand when bho’s case isn’t even presented ...


7 posted on 02/05/2012 3:46:15 AM PST by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
@ Georgia Secretary of State to Obama Atty Jablonski
Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

No celebrations quite yet. Just more of the same...continue to distract, continue to try and convince everyone it's pointless and useless to continue 'cause a decision has been rendered.

We'll see what happens next. The ball is in SoS Kemp's court (pun intended) now. (I originally posted that @here)

8 posted on 02/05/2012 3:47:11 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
If an appeal is made this this judge’s ruling, is it sure to fail?
You've missed a step. See #8.
9 posted on 02/05/2012 3:50:14 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Ken522

I was impressed by SOS Kemp’s statement. He did however say he would abide by the Administrative Judge’s decision.

I am confident that Obozo is an illegal president, and possibly not even a U.S. Citizen, much less a natural born U.S. Citizen.

Was not being negative about moving forward, but also am aware of the appointment Obozo recently made for the appeals court which will have jurisdiction of any appeal.

The Dems have anticipated this evidently.

There are no records of Obozo’s past. None. That does not happen except if his identity is false. And it is.


10 posted on 02/05/2012 3:58:17 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
He did however say he would abide by the Administrative Judge’s decision.
Where?
11 posted on 02/05/2012 4:17:16 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: edge919

IMO the Judge ruled against his own subpoenae.

No way in hell should a ruling go against the side that shows up in court against the side that doesn’t.

I guess there is no such thing as a default ruling in Georgia.


12 posted on 02/05/2012 4:24:37 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Was not being negative about moving forward, but also am aware of the appointment Obozo recently made for the appeals court which will have jurisdiction of any appeal.
______________________________________________________

Did I miss something? The article I read on the appeals appointment indicated it had not yet been approved by the Senate. The article also indicated that there are a number of his appointments that are being held up in the Senate.


13 posted on 02/05/2012 4:33:26 AM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
I was impressed by SOS Kemp’s statement. He did however say he would abide by the Administrative Judge’s decision.

You can't just make statements like yours without backing them up.
This is how conflict starts.
As the SoS for the State of Georgia Mr. Kemp is aware of the weight of his words.
You need to take the time to do the legwork on your statement and back it up. Otherwise, all you're doing is wantonly spreading a fire.

This is not a slight, nor do I wish to pick a fight. I would simply like to flesh this out. If it's BS then it needs to be cut off at the pass.

14 posted on 02/05/2012 4:46:10 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

Thanks.

I was not aware that the appointment had not passed Senate Approval.

Now that you mentioned it, I think the article I read indicated that she had been previously approved by the Senate for other positions. Will have to go back and look at that again.


15 posted on 02/05/2012 4:51:15 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: iontheball
The article I read on the appeals appointment indicated it had not yet been approved by the Senate.
Got link? I would like to read that.
16 posted on 02/05/2012 4:58:36 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

IF YOU'RE NOT TOO BUSY, COULD YOU MAKE A DONATION?



Click the Pic


Support Free Republic

17 posted on 02/05/2012 5:05:20 AM PST by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-free zones are playgrounds for felons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I went back and re-read the letter from SOS Kemp to Obozo’s legal staff concerning the court case.

It did not say he would support whatever the administrative judge decided in the letter. It said he would review it.

I am going to have to try and backtrack and see where I got the impression that he would support the judgement of Judge Malihi.

If I miss-stated what SOS Kemp said, it was not intentional.

I too wish this forum to be for discussion, not arguments and name calling.


18 posted on 02/05/2012 5:31:50 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So Judge Malihi equates citizenship at birth with Art. II natural born citizenship and the constitution grants congress the authority to pass laws regarding citizenship.

USC Title 8,1401 states the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS.


19 posted on 02/05/2012 5:43:16 AM PST by loucon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
If I miss-stated what SOS Kemp said, it was not intentional.
I didn't figure it was. No need in substantiating something that isn't real.

I too wish this forum to be for discussion, not arguments...
If I feel I'm right I'll try to be persuasive. If I know I'm right I will argue.
Different strokes, different folks.

20 posted on 02/05/2012 6:18:18 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

Looks like you were right about the approval:

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=100450406112

“A year ago, the ABA committee vetted Mercer University law professor Daisy Hurst Floyd for the opening, but Obama didn’t nominate her. Now the administration finds itself without a nominee at the start of an election year, historically a tricky time for getting a judicial pick through the Senate.”


21 posted on 02/05/2012 6:29:47 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
I guess there is no such thing as a default ruling in Georgia.

The plaintiffs were offered a default ruling. They turned it down, insisting that evidence be submitted and the case be decided on the merits.

22 posted on 02/05/2012 6:35:08 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
insisting that evidence be submitted and the case be decided on the merits.

The case was not decide on it's merits.

23 posted on 02/05/2012 6:46:36 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
If an appeal is made this this judge’s ruling, is it sure to fail?

I don't know. Not a lawyer. If I were I probably still would not know. But if we watch the actions of SOS Kemp we may soon know if he thinks an appeal will fail.

24 posted on 02/05/2012 6:49:22 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The plaintiffs were offered a default ruling. They turned it down, insisting that evidence be submitted and the case be decided on the merits.

The judge then limited them on the evidence they could offer and then ruled that they did not present enough evidence to be probative and persuasive for the court to consider.
25 posted on 02/05/2012 6:59:22 AM PST by loucon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: loucon
The judge then limited them on the evidence they could offer and then ruled that they did not present enough evidence to be probative and persuasive for the court to consider.

When you offer "expert" witnesses, they need to have some credentials. The law is pretty clear on this. Orly's "experts" had no qualifications other than the willingness to say what people wanted to hear.

26 posted on 02/05/2012 7:06:22 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

So they presented their evidence , the Defendents didn’t even make a showing and the Judge decided against the plaintiffs.

Makes sense to someone I see.


27 posted on 02/05/2012 7:15:14 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Mr. Donofrio wrote on the matter of Chester A Arthur back in 2008. Donofrio discovered that Chester A Arthur did obfuscate WHEN his dad came to the US, here's a quote of Arthur on his dad's immigration history:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.
Donofrio goes on about that quote, and the trickery engaged in by Arthur:
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman.

Chester A Arthur's Dad did DID become an officially naturalized US Citizen, but only after Chester was born. THAT is what Chester hid.

See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

28 posted on 02/05/2012 7:33:11 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: loucon

>>...So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS...<<

It would depend upon how one defines “Natural-Born-Citizen” as it appears in Art.II. Is it defined the way it was commonly held and accepted during the time of the framing of our Constitution -or- do you define it as a few judges in clear defiance of common-sense have done?

My point: The courts could legalistically re-define anything commonly-held today (ie: “marriage”). It does not make it true outside of the courtroom in the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, too many of us (citizens and politicians) accept court rulings that defy common-sense at face value out of some perverted belief that the courts are superior and infallible. Hence, there’s not much we can realistically do about it.


29 posted on 02/05/2012 7:33:27 AM PST by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“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.”

From the DISSENT of WKA...that would be the LOSING side.


30 posted on 02/05/2012 7:38:01 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

I had read what you quoted before.

I was simply excerpting the footnotes in the case as cited in the Indiana Appeals court.

Not being an attorney I am often corrected about things that seemed clear to me that by the law were incorrect.


31 posted on 02/05/2012 7:46:27 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Question?

With all the brilliant legal minds in the U.S., why has no one come forward with a solution to uncovering Obozo’s hidden past?

We all know it is out there, but removed from private view.


32 posted on 02/05/2012 7:48:32 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

I did understand that your post was wholly quotes from the GA Administrative Judge’s opinion.


33 posted on 02/05/2012 7:49:27 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

MacKay answered that in 1841. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx.html

The chapters labeled “11. The Slow Poisoners” and “14. Popular Admiration of Great Thieves” seem apt, but the whole work is an education.


34 posted on 02/05/2012 7:57:35 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Yes, an excellent read:

“Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm

I first read it in a library up in KS during a long weekend alone during a business trip.

Tried to find a hard copy but was unsuccessful. Finally found it on project Gutenberg.


35 posted on 02/05/2012 8:06:01 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: edge919

U.S./?? dual citizens worldwide are nodding yes to this Georgia decision.

Maybe my dual citizenship brother-in-law will move back to the US and become POTUS someday like Obama. I’m gonna advise he become a constitutional lawyer so his qualifications are clear. /s


36 posted on 02/05/2012 8:06:46 AM PST by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
But if we watch the actions of SOS Kemp we may soon know if he thinks an appeal will fail.

I think he will put Obama on the ballot. He punted his decision to the court inferring he would stand by its recommendation. He is off the hook and now has cover by giving weight to the Maliki decision.

37 posted on 02/05/2012 8:13:15 AM PST by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TauntedTiger
We can and should encourage Mexican citizens to run for president on a third party ticket. We should help fund it.

This would permanently fracture the Democrat party and cripple their electoral college strategy.

Stripping the Democrats of California electoral college votes would be huge. We just need a Mexican with an American BC. He could appeal to all Mexicans in his native language with promises to cede California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to Mexico. If the rules have changed, we need play by them. So be it.

38 posted on 02/05/2012 9:02:03 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: loucon
So Judge Malihi equates citizenship at birth with Art. II natural born citizenship and the constitution grants congress the authority to pass laws regarding citizenship.

The problem is that this does NOT follow the legal precedents that were cited. The Supreme Court only used English common law to prop up the 14th amendment, not to define natural-born citizenship. That had already been exclusively and decisively defined in Minor v. Happersett. That unanimous decision made it clear that natural-born citizenship was outside the province of Congress. This was the question that Ankeny said was left open, but was in reality, fully addressed by the Minor court. A 20th century nationality act is irrelevant. It does not and cannot override the Constitution.

39 posted on 02/05/2012 9:11:42 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Rogers, you’ve got a major problem when the dissent is the only thing that comes close to saying what you want the Wong Kim Ark decision to say. Fuller is not talking about anything in the majority opinion. He’s only speaking in historical terms, which is true. Fuller also lamented that children born abroad to citizens would NOT be citizens according to the 14th amendment because they weren’t naturalized in the United States. Nothing in the majority opinion says ANYTHING about either of these issues. We can only go by what it says, not what you want it to say.


40 posted on 02/05/2012 9:17:01 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; edge919; philman_36; bushpilot1; Red Steel; rxsid; Spaulding; BuckeyeTexan; LucyT; ...
“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.” (WKA dissent)

Progressives have seized on this interpretation of the WKA majority opinion to create anchor babies. The WKA majority justices CANNOT be blamed for this, IMO. The WKA majority protected the Minor court's definition of NBC by NOT changing it and NOT applying it to WKA.

This claimed “conclusion” in the dissent was rejected and refuted by the WKA majority. The majority explicitly affirmed the Minor court's definition of NBC by leaving it untouched. The WKA majority took up the citizen rights of non-NBC children of aliens about whom there was doubt regarding their citizenship, NOT their NBC status. The WKA majority expanded citizenship rights to this subclass of non-NBC children of domiciled aliens at birth.

On its face this dissent does not correctly state the conclusion of the majority that WKA was as much a citizen as a natural born citizen, but did NOT declare WKA to BE an NBC!

The WKA dissent has ZERO value as precedent and is not even dicta.

41 posted on 02/05/2012 9:18:02 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: edge919; Mr Rogers
“Fuller is not talking about anything in the majority opinion.”

I regard Fuller to be the first person to FAIL to parse the Minor v. Happersett language correctly...so I agree with Mr. Rogers (ouch!) that Fuller is describing exactly what he believes the “conclusion” of the majority to be! Unlike Mr. Rogers I disagree with Fuller's interpretation of what the WKA majority ruled because Fuller's dissent is based on a false parsing of the Minor NBC language.

The Minor majority did NOT extend NBC status to the children as Fuller claims, but ONLY CITIZENSHIP. Even the Ankeny court and Malihi admit that Fuller was wrong...but then, as Donofrio points out, using the magic word “TANDEM” as in viewing WKA in TANDEM with the 14A, the citizenship of Barry's mom TRUMPS the fact that neither WKA nor the 14A granted NBC status to WKA. Go figure!

42 posted on 02/05/2012 9:31:09 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Oh no Rogers, the losing side is America, as a whole.

We got stuck with the Kenyan citizen drunk with power and driving us into bankruptcy and ruin.

The real losers are the American children born today that will have to pay back this Kenyans 5 trillion dollar loans that he has squandered like his drunk father used to drive, with same results.

The winner in all this is a Guy named Odinga who is getting a billion dollars a year from his cousin in the Oval Office.

43 posted on 02/05/2012 9:31:55 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The Ankeny appellate case was almost entire, unnecessary dictum written to do just what it did here.

Here is the final ruling:

"For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss.M Affirmed. CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur."

The governor's motion to dismiss had nothing to to do with WKA, it had nothing to do with MvH or another SCOTUS ruling or the Constitution itself.

The motion to dismiss was due to lack of ability provide relief since Indiana could not remove a sitting president.

And when it went the appellate level they added pages and pages of dictum that looks like it came from the same source as CRS reports on the subject. It probably did.

In hide site - the default ruling should have been taken. We know there is an aversion to lawyers being the same room as any Hawaii birth document. Maybe that would have forced that issue. He seemed to ready to do that but the plaintiffs insistence of all of this muddied the water so badly he used the cover of Ankeny to avoid leaving the SoS with an unclear path.

As FBI guy says in the movie National Treasurer - "somebody's got to go to jail." To get this off center. That seems to be the case.

44 posted on 02/05/2012 9:32:37 AM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

However, the dissenting justices were correct in that anti American communists and tyrants would construe the majority decision to allow foreign citizens access to drive our country into bankruptcy and ruin.

So the dissenters need to be praised for their insight.


45 posted on 02/05/2012 9:45:20 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; edge919

NBC = NBS. That is the argument made in the first half of the WKA decision, and it lead inevitably to the idea that WKA & possibly Obama are natural born citizens.

And in truth, natural born subject WAS an extremely well known term describing citizenship in the colonies, and was used interchangeably with NBC for years after the Constitution.

Given that the Founders used the term NBS regularly to describe themselves, is it really likely they pulled the term NBC from a translation of Vattel made in 1797? THAT is the challenge the birthers have refused to discuss.

However, there is a small chance that WKA could be thrown out - IF you can convince the court that the legal history of NBS in common law could not have anticipated a time when people could enter a country for a couple of days, have a kid, and depart. Tourism just wasn’t a part of 15th & 16th century thinking.

And WKA does assume the parents are here legally, and discusses domicile - a factor usually ignored.

There is an argument that could be made that Obama Sr was not domiciled here, and that the English common law that defined NBS did not anticipate an African coming to the US to study and then leave. It could be argued that Obama Sr was more like an ambassador, in terms of 15th century thinking, than a common citizen. If so, then UNDER WKA, Obama Jr would NOT be a natural born citizen, because his father was here at the request of a foreign government.

THAT argument, if given weight, would toss Ankeny out.

Minor does not and has never defined NBC exclusively, and no court will EVER say otherwise. If you don’t want to lose forever, then you need to take WKA and the undoubted meaning of natural born subject/citizen into account, and give the court a reason to say Obama Jr doesn’t qualify.

Until then, Obama won’t even need to show up to kick your asses.


46 posted on 02/05/2012 9:47:25 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I regard Fuller to be the first person to FAIL to parse the Minor v. Happersett language correctly...so I agree with Mr. Rogers (ouch!) that Fuller is describing exactly what he believes the “conclusion” of the majority to be!

Except that he's not. Fuller was addressing the argument brought up by the appellant based on a citation from the lower court. The reason this assumption fails is proved at the conclusion of the dissent, where Fuller says he agrees with the majority on how to determine 14th amendment citizens, EXCEPT in Wong Kim Ark's case where the treaty with China was controlling.

In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.

Read the underlined part above. It agrees that children become 14th amendment citizens at birth by being born to parents permanently located in the U.S. Past the underlined part, it notes that the "will of their native government" can prevent such persons from satisfying the subject clause. Keep in mind, that earlier in the dissent that Fuller specifically cites Vattel for the definition of NBC and that definition completely agrees with the Minor definition. Fuller, after all, is the guy who wrote the Ex Parte Lockwood decision that cites the Minor language correctly.

Unlike Mr. Rogers I disagree with Fuller's interpretation of what the WKA majority ruled because Fuller's dissent is based on a false parsing of the Minor NBC language.

It's not based on Minor at all and it's NOT based on the majority opinion in WKA. You're reading something that isn't there.

47 posted on 02/05/2012 9:50:52 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
They turned it down, insisting that evidence be submitted and the case be decided on the merits.
Really?! Hmmmm, let's see what was actually said.

@http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama-JudgeMichaelMalihiFinalOrder-GeorgiaBallotAccessChallenge-2.3.2012.pdf
Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.

It seems you forgot something. It says right there that the Plaintiffs asked the Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and the evidence.
Yet he chose to rule solely on the merits, not on the merits and evidence.

48 posted on 02/05/2012 9:56:54 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
NBC = NBS. That is the argument made in the first half of the WKA decision, and it lead inevitably to the idea that WKA & possibly Obama are natural born citizens.

This is false. You're stretching dicta and playing connect the dots for something that was NEVER said in WKA. What they really said was NBC = born in the country to citizen parents and that NBS + permanent residence and domicil = 14th amendment "citizenship by birth." Rogers, if you C&P the entire WKA decision, it will prove my point. Try it.

Given that the Founders used the term NBS regularly to describe themselves, is it really likely they pulled the term NBC from a translation of Vattel made in 1797? THAT is the challenge the birthers have refused to discuss.

No, actually James Madison noted that natural-born citizenship to the state superceded British subjectship ... the latter was a secondary allegiance that was dissolved when the state declared its independence from Britain. He also noted that citizenship was a birthright through the parents. The founders could NOT be U.S. citizens if they strictly adhered to English common law because it required perpetual allegiance. The 1797 translation of Vattel follows the understanding of how "naturel" was translated in 1781, which = natural-born.

49 posted on 02/05/2012 9:57:39 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

The ALJ was supposed to present Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There were no findings of fact that Obama was born in the United States, only an assumption or a “consideration” as Malihi said he considered that Obama was born in Hawaii. The conclusions were not law, but what the Ankeny court wanted the dicta to say. My OP shows that what the law actually says is contrary to the conclusions based on the dicta. Minor was declared an NBC and Wong Kim Ark was not. Minor could run for president and Wong Kim Ark could not. Tested by this rule and the ONLY law that was cited, Obama cannot run for president nor is he Constitutionally qualified to hold office.


50 posted on 02/05/2012 10:02:54 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 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