Mississippi Democrat party running scared

scribd ^ | 05/06/2012 | edge919

[edge919]

The Mississippi Democrat party just filed a motion to dismiss a ballot challenge in from Orly Taitz on behalf of a couple of Mississippi voters. The motion, which is more than 200 pages contains a citation and copies from every known so-called "birther" case that has been filed. Also, in this challenge, they they seem to think this satisfies the Federal Rules of Evidence in regard to self-authenticating documents. The actual idea behind that rule is to submit certified copies of records to the court so that the documents can be inspected by all parties to ensure they contain the required certification elements. Also, they rely on out-of-court claims made on various websites to “verify” the legitimacy of said documents, when nothing in those statements contains an actual legal verification. The MDEC includes a ballot challenge in Illinois in which a photocopy of the printed PDF was submitted. Again, none of these items actually satisfies the FRE. The MDEC seems to be relying on a strategy of overwhelming the plaintiffs with everything they could find, plus the kitchen sink, ignoring that out of all the cited cases, not one time has a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate ever been submitted in any legal action. Out of the 200 plus pages in the Motion, an actual certified copy of Obama's alleged long-form would be compelling ... and Obama has TWO such copies, he alleges, so certainly he could loan one to them??

[DiogenesLamp]

To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2. There are some that would argue that that the matter is settled. They would have us worship at the alter of precedent either judicial or historical. Those that argue this, use defective logic. Think about it..... If someone publicly breaks a law and the violation is intentionally ignored or distorted by those whose duty it is to define or enforce it, does that make the law less valid? No it does not.... So better our discussion should focus on what the framers actually meant in article 2. Obama might get a pass simply because the matter is not settled. So far, most courts including U.S Supreme Court have not had the courage to take on this matter. We need to clearly define what is meant by the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of president of the United States. It is as simple as that.

I would suggest that the definition is in fact clear, rather we need to make people understand that the definition is clear, and likewise WHY it is clear.

The concept of being a "natural" citizen is relatively simple. It is a case in which citizenship is inherent in ones nature and requiring no act of law.

Without the 14th amendment *AND* the Cable act, Obama would not even be a citizen, and that is only *IF* he was actually born in this country. ( A circumstance yet to be demonstrated beyond doubt.)

[Save-the-Union]

Actually, I agree with you but there are a significant amount of people who don’t. (Hence this thread) They maintain that natural born means something different. Unfortunately, because there has been no judicial intervention, their argument seems to have a kind of merit. So now, we are in danger of not only having a second term of the Bama but if Romney chooses Marco Rubio, having a running mate on the republican side who also does not meet the natural born qualification to be president. This is the crises.

Yes Obama’s place of birth hence even his regular citizenship remains in doubt. We still need his original birth certificate as well as so many other documents. BUT how do you expect we will see them if the courts cower and do not order discovery? Remember the term “Controlling legal authority”?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes Obama’s place of birth hence even his regular citizenship remains in doubt. We still need his original birth certificate as well as so many other documents. BUT how do you expect we will see them if the courts cower and do not order discovery? Remember the term “Controlling legal authority”?

At this point I say "FIE" on the courts. I have little doubt that if we found a certified Canadian birth certificate for little Barry Dunham-Marshall-Obama-Soetoro, that the court would take any action.

I don't think ANY proof would provoke a response from the court other than a refusal to look at it. This is not about Law, it's about fear and politics. No court in the land wants to be responsible for burning cities and thousands of deaths.

We need to hammer on this man's ineligibility for the sake of our History and not yet written future, not for any realistic belief that a court would ever dare touch this.

[Save-the-Union]

“”We need to hammer on this man’s ineligibility for the sake of our History and not yet written future, not for any realistic belief that a court would ever dare touch this.”””

For the sake of our history, we need to do both.... hammer on the ineligibility and insist that the courts do their duty.

I just hope that Romney does not choose Rubio as his running mate so I can vote Republican with a clear conscience.

[4Zoltan]

“To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2.”

But that is not how some members of the Supreme Court view it.

Justice Scalia has written that in interpeting the Constitution, he does not look at the intent of the Framers, only what the words meant in 1787.

[Save-the-Union]

“”””Justice Scalia has written that in interpeting the Constitution, he does not look at the intent of the Framers, only what the words meant in 1787.””””

Well at this point, even that would satisfy me..... Because if the court takes up the issue and can accurately state what the words actually meant, then original intent will be more obvious.

[4Zoltan]

“Well at this point, even that would satisfy me”

Maybe. Here is what Justice Scalia said in 2005.

“Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don’t think it changes since then.”

“Now, obviously if you have that philosophy... foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like “due process,” the “right of confrontation” and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it’s all old English law.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352357/posts

[edge919]

This is all the more reason why Minor is THE legal precedent as a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..." Of course, the "nomenclature" is actually the Law of Nations since the definition of NBC is a near verbatim match:

Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens

Law of Nations: those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

[Yosemitest]

Barack Hussein is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, pure and simple. People can go to www.scribd.com and read their pages 20 thru 32 ,

Introduction, THE UNDOCUMENTED WORKER IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
Obama Uses Social Security Number Issued in Connecticut —
Whose Social Security Number Is Barack Obama Using?

For those of you who don't know, remember this:

The Democrats knew about this BEFORE Obama was elected in 2008!

8 Congressional attempts from June 2004 to February 2008 to alter Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution, proves to me

that the DNC knew that Obama was born in Kenya.

Read it for yourself.

What did Congress know about 'natural-born citizen'?
8 tries at eliminating requirement suggests organized strategy in place

Then look at these links.

1. June 11, 2003, Rep. Snyder, Vic (D) 108th congress, H.J.Res. 59

2. Sep 3, 2003, Rep. Conyers, John Jr., (D) H.J.Res. 67

3. Feb 25, 2005, Sen. Nickles, Don (R-OK) Senate Bill 2128, counter the democrats Natural Born Citizen Act - but Defines it wrong

4. Sep 15, 2004, Rep Dana Rohrabacher (D)(R-CA46) H.J.Res 104

5. Jan 4, 2005, Rep Conyers, John Jr., H.J.Res. 2 109th Congress

6. Feb 1, 2005, Rep Rohrabacher, Dana (D) (CA-46) H.J.Res.15

7. April 14, 2005, Rep. Snyder, Vic (D) (AR-2) H.J.Res. 42

8. Feb 28, 2008, Senator McCaskill, Claire (D) Attachment to a military bill Senate Bill 2678 Titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act.
DNC Presidential Candidate Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were cosponsors of this bill.

9. April 10, 2008, Sen McCaskill, Claire (D) (MO) Senate Res.511 passed declaring Senator John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
But it was never in question. It was cosponsored by DNC Presidential Candidate Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

Just before the 2008 election Barack Obama's election team spent $1.4 million blocking access to all of Obama's records.

Barack Hussein Obama II is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED.
There were 8 attempts by Democrats to try to "Change the Qualification Rules" BEFORE Obama was elected.
They KNOW Obama's ILLEGAL ... AND .... UNQUALIFIED!

Obama's record is hard to find.
Think about this.

"On August 4, 1961 Obama's mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa , Kenya .

Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obama?s went to the beach to cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial

General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!). Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth."

Here's something to ponder.

I think it more likely that the trip from Kenya actually occurred in August 1961, shortly after BHO-II's birth at the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa.

Ann and her newborn son flew from Nairobi to London, via BOAC Flight BA162 and then took the non-stop BOAC flight from London to Vancouver, Canada. She then traveled the 110 miles or so, across the border, to Seattle in time to start Fall Semester, night-school extension classes at the University of Washington.

The trip would be challenging for a new mother, but she was young, healthy, intelligent, and capable. BOAC was very accomodating to mothers with young children back in the 1960s. No real problem!

From the Airline Timetable Images - List of Complete Timetables, the cost of BOAC from April 24,1960 until October 1, 1962 was:

From Vancouver to Nairobi cost in Canadian Dollars:
Single Return
DL 1115.00 2026.80
F 1055.50 1918.80
T 764.00 1396.00
Y 701.00 1282.60



Passanger Fares could be "FLY NOW AND PAY LATER".
Arrangements could be made whereby residents of certain areas may, on payment of a 10% deposit, travel immediately and pay the balance of fare in monthly instalments.

If you're wondering about where the money came from, think about this.
Look at all the financial supporters Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. had.
"In 1959, Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya.
The program offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students.[22][23][24]
Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Jackie Robinson, and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk,
a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Sr.'s early years in the United States, according to the Tom Mboya archives at Stanford University.
Funds provided the following year by John F. Kennedy's family paid off old debts of the project and subsidized student stipends,
thereby indirectly benefiting Obama Sr. and other members of the 1959 group of scholarship holders.

Yes, it's quite clear that money wasn't a problem for the Marxists Revolutionaries.


Passanger Information for that time frame can be found here.
Connections from Nairobi - Lusaka - Salisbury can be found here.

The BOAC World Routes Map is found here.

Departure arrival times from Britian to Nairobi are found here.

Departure arrival times for London and Vancouver are found here.

Now think about those facts,and statements.
The forgeries I'm aware of, are the three Birth Cretificate Barack Hussein Obama II has forged.
I don't trust evidence put forth by Obama supporters.
The disappearance of too much evidence on Obama is strong enough for me to know that he was born in Kenya.

Read INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!

IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.

These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr.


Also supported by this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s which was used in at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.





The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.

http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/99/mode/1up

According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.



http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/14/mode/1up



A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:
- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday
(Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.)
; and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody)


As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. The only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence after August 1961 is a transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961.

The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Derived Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.

The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of the same number of students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and former Kenyan Prime Minister, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.



Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.

A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.

Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.



Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.

According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

In summary as stated by WhiskeyX

The revelation is the effort to hide and destroy any and all documents which could evidence the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama has not been entirely successful in regards to suppressing links to an apparent birthplace in Kenya. Jerome Corsi and his team of investigators were arrested and confined to their hotel by Obama’s cousin and the Kenyan government when they attempted to research the existence of a Kenyan birth certificate and give a press conference about their findings. They and othe rinvestigators reported finding evidence of a Kenyan birth certificate having likely been removed from the Kenyan birth records.

Likewise with the U.S. Passport records of Stanly Ann Dunham which are reported to have been destroyed, the trail of evidence has been stonewalled. The Immigration and Naturalization Service forms used by U.S. Customs for arriving passengers on microfilm at the National Archives is missing the one week of records for August 1961 in which it is suspected Stanly Ann Dunham returned to the United States with the newborn child. This is the only week of 1961 in which such records are missing, according to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and its Cold case Posse.

The INS record discovered in the out of the way library implies the effort of the Obama Administration and associates to scrub any evidence from government and other records has failed to be complete and effective in all respects.

Although the INS record does not name Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, the probability that there could have been another U.S. citizen mother giving birth to her child in that region including Kenya in the month of August 1961 and seeking the assistance of a U.S. Consular officer to obtain a certificate of citizenship are vanishingly small. Such an event in 1961 is virtually unique. Therefore it appears this piece of evidence can be fairly regarded as a preponderance of evidence providing reasonable cause for a legal investigation of a foreign birthplace for Barack Hussein Obama. Rather than preclude the likelihood of Obama’s birth in Kenya, this piece of evidence strongly suggests the possibility or even a probability of Obama’s birth in Kenya despite all of the previous doubts of its even remote possibility. In other words, this evidence is a potential game changer in the investigation of Obama’s native origin/s and citizenship.

Ponder that!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Airways_Corporation

[Save-the-Union]

Let me first say that I believe the framers intended that only children born to 2 citizen parents should be considered natural born.
But to me Minor is not clear enough to be used as precedent...... Minor basically clarifies something we all agree.... That children born of 2 citizen parents are natural born but it leaves open the possibility that others are also
“”””... 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. “””””
Why does it not say ..... as distinguished from (regular citizens)?
Minor never really clarifies the difference between regular citizenship and nbc. This confusion is further reinforced by the following “”””Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “”””
So from this we can conclude that there is no doubt that children born to 2 citizen parents are Natural Born but there are doubts about everything else? This is all too vague to be considered clear precedent. We need to put pressure on the courts to clarify this matter

[edge919]

Why does it not say ..... as distinguished from (regular citizens)?

Because it's paraphrasing from the Law of Nations. Second, I believe this court was taking a stand against the 14th amendment becoming too broad. They make a very fine point of how natural-born citizens don't need the amendment neither before nor SINCE it was adopted. Third, they are recognizing that the various states had different citizenship rules of which there was doubt, but that for persons who fit the characterization of natural-born citizen, there is no doubt. In effect, they're saying that the characterization of natural-born citizenship means citizenship WITHOUT doubts. As we learned in Wong Kim Ark, the 14th amendment carries plenty of doubts that have to be reconciled. This decision did so by using permanent residence and domicil to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment, thereby limiting it's impact to the children or resident aliens, which Obama does not fit, same as he does not fit the natural-born citizen definition.

Otherwise, what point did it serve the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the parents being citizens unless it was used to exclusively define natural-born citizenship?? This is the question that Foggers and Faithers can't answer without admitting that citizen parents were used to define natural-born citiznes. I don't find this vague at all. The Minor court explored every other way to become a citizen including naturalization (which is also part of the 14th amendment), but the court only characterized one set of circumstances as natural-born ... those persons born to citizen parents. If it could mean something else, they would have said so, especially considering that Minor argued she was a 14th amendment citizen. All the court had to do was accept that argument, but they did not do so.

[Save-the-Union]

Perhaps you are speaking above my head but to me, it is not very clear or complete. In this case (Minor v Happersatt) no one was arguing that Minor was not a citizen. The distinction between a regular citizen and a natural born citizen was not even an issue. Everyone agreed she was a citizen. The reason for her action was simply her gender. She was being denied the right to vote because she was a female.
The courts remark saying that it was never doubted that children born of parents who are citizen are themselves natural born, points us in the right direction but is more like a passing remark (obiter dictum) because it is not central to the actual case.
I maintain that we need a clear spicific definition. ....

example

A Natural Born Citizen Can ONLY be a child born of 2 U.S citizen parents who are subject only to the laws of the United States and not subject to any foreign authority or hold any foreign allegiance etc .... etc

Relying on Minor to come to the above conclusion is a mistake. Sorry, I just do not think Minor is a strong enough precedent.

[edge919]

Perhaps you are speaking above my head but to me, it is not very clear or complete. In this case (Minor v Happersatt) no one was arguing that Minor was not a citizen. The distinction between a regular citizen and a natural born citizen was not even an issue. Everyone agreed she was a citizen. The reason for her action was simply her gender. She was being denied the right to vote because she was a female.

Minor made an argument that she was a citizen on the basis of the 14th amendment. If it wasn't relevant or not an issue, there would be no reason for the court to bring it up. Second, why would they not accept that argument??

The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

The part in bold above is the citizenship clause from the 14th amendment. The court had no problem recognizing this and then rejecting it:

But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.

Do you understand what this is saying?? Women did NOT need the 14th amendment to give them the "position" of being citizens. They were already citizens without this provision. The court goes on to explain how people became citizens, and ONE of those ways is by the criteria that they exclusively characterized as natural-born.

And if it's not clear that they are rejecting the 14th amendment argument, they make it clear a few paragraphs later:

The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

When they defined Minor's citizen through the law of nations definition of natural-born citizen, it wasn't a passing remark. She has "always been a citizen from her birth." For this statement to have meaning, it has to rely on the natural-born citizen definition because that was the ONLY definition given that did not have doubt. We know this declaration was a legal precedent because the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed the definition of NBC by quoting the exact paragraph from Minor and THEN by giving the holding in Minor:

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, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

I maintain that we need a clear spicific definition. ....

There's no citizenship statute or definition that matches the language of your example, especially using the word ONLY to establish the criteria.

The Minor precedent was quoted and affirmed by another panel of Supreme Court justices more than 20 years later. Despite a split decision, that court agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen, and it said the court was "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." Minor introduced its definition of natural-born citizen to say there were two ways citizens could be added to the United States (after the first way, which was by being a member of the new society). The first way was birth and the second was naturalization. The natural-born are distinguished specifically from aliens and foriegners who must rely on naturalization or have the doubts about their citizenship resolved. Natural-born citizens do not have this doubt. They are simply defined as: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Eighteen Supreme Court justices agreed. There's no higher legal authority.

[Save-the-Union]

Thank You for your careful and complete reply...... Since we both agree that Obama is in no way eligible, the next step is for our position to prevail in court. If this can be done as you say by using Minor as the primary precedent, I am all for it. But whether we use Minor, fall back on original intent or use both, because a crime has been and is currently being committed in the highest office of the land, this matter needs to be adjudicated. The sooner the better. In spite of what you say, I still maintain that in order to end this controversy, we need a clear and complete definition by a current court using today’s language of the Natural Born Citizen requirement as it relates to the office of President of the United States. And I am not alone in my opinion. Doing nothing only reinforces historical precedent especially if Romney selects Marco Rubio as his running mate.