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

Skip to comments.

JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED SCOTUS OPINIONS
Natural Born Citizen ^ | July 1, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by SatinDoll

The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.

***************************************************

This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.

There needs to be an investigation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Government; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous; Politics; Reference; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; birthcertificate; certifigate; corruption; cwii; elections; eligibility; fraud; justia; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; president; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-183 last
To: SatinDoll

SatinDoll wrote:

[I had quoted:] ““It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]”

It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.


Pryor’s assertion passed peer review to appear in the Yale Law Review. What’s more, no one can find any record of anyone disagreeing — that is — not until just recently when people wanted to argue that Barack Obama is not allowed to be president. If I’m wrong on that and, as you claim, it was not settled law in 1988, just show me some reference from our time — but before Obama became a candidate — that disagreed. Please don’t bother showing arguments from before U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was dicided (1898), or talking about people born before the 14’th Amendment (1868). I’m not claiming that it was already clear and settled when Charles Evans Hughes was born in 1862.

What have you got? As I cited to literature of the discipline, Gordon wrote that the eligibility of the native-born was clear in 1968, and Prior wrote that it was well-settled in 1988. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or was the name-calling the best you can do?

Pryor and Gordon had no partisan axe to grind. As history turned out, their articles helped Republican presidential candidate John S. McCain III. While the eligibility of the native-born was already clear and well settled, “whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.” [Pryor 1988] John McCain was just such a person, and their papers helped resovle that he was eligible.


151 posted on 07/03/2011 1:52:27 AM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“President Carter appointed comrade judge Cudahy who put that in his opinion and who only regurgitated the illegal immigrant lawyer’s lamination.”

I don’t get the argument there. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, the President nominates and with advice and consent of the Senate appoints federal judges. A federal judge’s office does not depend upon you or I approving of the nominating and appointing officers.

As for what is dicta, in what cases was presidential eligibility even at issue? There was some litigation around Eldridge Cleaver being too young when he ran for president in 1968, but that’s not the issue here. From 2008 on, some people challenged Obama’s and McCain’s eligibility, and got thoroughly trounced in court. The clearest judicial statement I know of on the specific matter here was a unanimous opinion of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” [Ankeny v. Daniels]


152 posted on 07/03/2011 2:27:45 AM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan

I don’t give a damn whether Pryor’s assertion passed peer review to appear in the Yale Law Review. Yale, Harvard, and Princeton do NOT make U.S. law; Congress makes U.S.law and SCOTUS determines its constitutionality.

Whatever universities fancy academically for the moment means NOTHING. Hell, seventy years ago many of those same universities thought Mussolini was a genius!

Read the following information on Panama and citizenship carefully, and remember - citizenship does not equal ‘natural born citizen’.

Panama Canal Zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

CITIZENSHIP

Although the Panama Canal Zone was legally an unincorporated U.S. territory until the implementation of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1979, questions arose almost from its inception as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitution followed the flag. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States.{3] On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated: “While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.”[4] Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States.[5] Until the rulings in these so-called “Insular Cases”, children born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone had been subject to the Naturalization Act of 1795, which granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens.[6] This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403.[7] It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.[8]

References

1. “Panamanian Control”, Panama Canal, infoplease.com, http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0860218.html, retrieved 2008-06-02
2. Rhonda D. Frederic (2005), Colón Man a Come”: Mythographies Of Panama Canal Migration, Lexington Books, p. 33, ISBN :0739108913, http://books.google.com/?id=CSNTpYIB228C
3. United States Supreme Court, Downes v. Bidwell.
4. (PDF) Not Part of United States, The New York Times, July 29, 1904, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C06E1DF113BE631A2575AC2A9619C946597D6CF, retrieved 2008-06-02 |
5. United States Supreme Court, [1].
6. “Nationality” in: 7 FAM 1111.3 (c).
7. 8 U.S.C. § 1403
8. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1403, paragraph (a): “whether before or after the effective date of this chapter”.

Quote from above: “,,,grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904,..but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.”

Being a citizen DOES NOT equal natural born citizenship.

John S. McCain is not a natural born citizen. Congress can only change the U.S.Constitution through amendment, and that requires the approval of a majority of the states.

Neither Obama nor McCain are natural born citizens; therefore they are not eligible to be President of the U.S.A.


153 posted on 07/03/2011 2:55:16 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Article II, Section 1, of the U.S.Constitution.


154 posted on 07/03/2011 2:57:47 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan

I’m going to bed. You’re wasting my time.


155 posted on 07/03/2011 3:08:13 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

SatinDoll wrote: “I don’t give a damn whether Pryor’s assertion passed peer review to appear in the Yale Law Review. Yale, Harvard, and Princeton do NOT make U.S. law; Congress makes U.S.law and SCOTUS determines its constitutionality.”

Congress confirmed Barack Obama’s election, and Congress recognizes him as President. The Chief Justice of the United States — A.K.A. Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court — swore Obama in as President (twice!). Federal courts all over the nation, including the Supreme Court, have welcomed and sworn in judges nominated, and with advice and consent of Senate appointed, by President Obama.

SatinDoll, if you don’t care what the peer-reviewed literature of American Law says, that’s just a statement of how far out you’ve gone. Congress and the Judiciary constantly cite the literature. If you refuse to take any clue, then Obama remains president and you remain clueless. I expect that’s fine with Obama. Does it work for you?

I may disagree with many here when I say this: The 2008 presidential election made me proud to an American. We had two great candidates: one liberal, one conservative, both of whom connected with the mainstream. Eight years before, I had thought that a Bradley versus McCain race would be a great contest, and ‘twould have been even better had Colin Powell ran.


156 posted on 07/03/2011 4:37:06 AM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“Hello, noobie.

If it is settled law, then why are Democratic-socialist lawyers, like Sarah Herlihy, demanding Article II, Section 1, be changed?

Here’s why - when the Court held that Virginia Minor was a citizen under Article 2, Section 1, because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. It is United States law, period.”

Hi there, oldbie!
“Settled law” can be changed by a new decision of the Supreme Court at any time. Whenver the Constitution is amended, it revises what was settled law.

For example the Framers prohibited taxing personal incomes. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified and the federal personal income tax became the law of the land.

The Roberts court is obviously unimpressed with Minor v Happersett being “stare decisis” for Article II, Section 1 eligibility. They have already rejected hearing appeals that attempted to use Minor as a precedent in the briefs submitted for Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro.

Minor was a women’s suffrage appeal under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that had nothing to do with presidential eligibility. Virginia Minor wanted to be able to vote and thought that the 14th Amendment gave her that right.


157 posted on 07/03/2011 10:02:51 AM PDT by jh4freedom (Mr. "O" has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

You probably know this by now but Leo Donofrio was NOT “lying”. I saw this story long before it was posted here. I read it in the comments as they were posted. I went to the Justia site and they did NOT have that case cited. It’s been added back in since, apparently. I’m not lying. I saw it with my own eyes. Just because you see it now, after it’s been returned to the correct language, does not mean that back in 2008 when this issue was being discussed, the citation was there. It wasn’t there then, or the other day. It wasn’t there until after Donofrio publicized it, and then someone put it back. NOW it’s there. This is very like Wikipedia and Google. Scrubbing and then reversing course when caught.


158 posted on 07/03/2011 11:01:01 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jh4freedom

Only Congress can remove a President, not SCOTUS. Attorneys are wasting their time in the courts. When Congress has had enough of the incompetent, bumbling, community organizer in the White House, they’ll remove him from office. If not, the voters will do so. Obama keeps violating the Constitution and refusing to uphold laws, both impeachable offenses.

The U.S.Constitution can be amended; well, duh!

I know what Virgina Minor wanted, thank you very much. But Supreme Courts often take on cases and make surprising determinations no one anticipated.

The first should have been expected, as Virginia Minor wasn’t a citizen under the 14th Amendment. She was born in the United States of citizen (2) parents, so she was a natural born citizen as that Supreme Court determined.

Further, SCOTUS determined that the U.S.Constitution doesn’t state whether men or women have the right to vote, which set the stage for the 15th and 19th Amendments.

“...Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [”minor v happersett” “women are citizens”] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.”

“But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:”

“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”

“2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

“That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.”

“It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.”

“But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.”

“The Court also held that the Constitution did not grant anyone a right to vote. So, our country chose to amend the Constitution by the 19th Amendment and thereafter all citizens were directly granted a right to vote by the Constitution.”

“But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. AND THEY DID THIS BY SPECIFICALLY AVOIDING THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND BY SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUING ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1.” [Capitalized emphasis mine,]

Per: MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/


159 posted on 07/03/2011 2:28:45 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Only Congress can remove a President, not SCOTUS. Attorneys are wasting their time in the courts. When Congress has had enough of the incompetent, bumbling, community organizer in the White House, they’ll remove him from office. If not, the voters will do so. Obama keeps violating the Constitution and refusing to uphold laws, both impeachable offenses.

The U.S.Constitution can be amended; well, duh!

I know what Virgina Minor wanted, thank you very much. But Supreme Courts often take on cases and make surprising determinations no one anticipated.

The first should have been expected, as Virginia Minor wasn’t a citizen under the 14th Amendment. She was born in the United States of citizen (2) parents, so she was a natural born citizen as that Supreme Court determined.

Further, SCOTUS determined that the U.S.Constitution doesn’t state whether men or women have the right to vote, which set the stage for the 15th and 19th Amendments.

“...Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [”minor v happersett” “women are citizens”] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.”

“But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:”

“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”

“2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

“That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.”

“It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.”

“But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.”

“The Court also held that the Constitution did not grant anyone a right to vote. So, our country chose to amend the Constitution by the 19th Amendment and thereafter all citizens were directly granted a right to vote by the Constitution.”

“But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. AND THEY DID THIS BY SPECIFICALLY AVOIDING THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND BY SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUING ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1.” [Capitalized emphasis mine,]

Per: MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/


I see. So from your perspective, there has been a tremendous amount of wasted effort attacking Obama’s eligibility through the judicial branch when it is the legislative branch that must act in order to effect change.
Now I understand why the Supreme Court has failed to accept any of the Obama eligibility appeals that have already applied for hearings.

Do you think that the Senate’s conservative Republicans will be able to get 20 Democratic Senators to go along with the Senate RINOs and “moderates” to get to the 67 votes needed to find Obama guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?


160 posted on 07/03/2011 4:34:25 PM PDT by jh4freedom (Mr. "O" has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: jh4freedom

It’s all politics.

How effective are outraged citizens when they go banging on Congress because the President is violating the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold? Does Congress listen?

Congress ignored Americans when they screamed “NO” about Obama’s Healthcare legislation: many were voted out of office last year as a result. That left a Hell of a mark.

Now, even worse, Obama has made economic decisions that are dragging the nation down economically and refusing to uphold laws with which he doesn’t agree. That last is definitely an impeachable offense.

Will he be impeached? Tried and thrown out of office? I suspect there may well be an impeachment, but the Democratic Party will force him to resign rather than see the Party decimated as the result of a trial in the Senate. Obama is hiding much of his past; the Democrats don’t want the truth publicly outed for it will destroy the Party.

The Obamas already has a bolt hole: he spent over $20Million dollars of OUR money to help Kenya rewrite their national constitution. In the process, it was rewritten so Obama is now eligible to run for President of Kenya.

Rumors from staff at the White House indicate that the Obamas have overseas bank accounts. Gee, what a surprise!


161 posted on 07/03/2011 5:44:00 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

It’s all politics.

How effective are outraged citizens when they go banging on Congress because the President is violating the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold? Does Congress listen?

Congress ignored Americans when they screamed “NO” about Obama’s Healthcare legislation: many were voted out of office last year as a result. That left a Hell of a mark.

Now, even worse, Obama has made economic decisions that are dragging the nation down economically and refusing to uphold laws with which he doesn’t agree. That last is definitely an impeachable offense.

Will he be impeached? Tried and thrown out of office? I suspect there may well be an impeachment, but the Democratic Party will force him to resign rather than see the Party decimated as the result of a trial in the Senate. Obama is hiding much of his past; the Democrats don’t want the truth publicly outed for it will destroy the Party.

The Obamas already has a bolt hole: he spent over $20Million dollars of OUR money to help Kenya rewrite their national constitution. In the process, it was rewritten so Obama is now eligible to run for President of Kenya.

Rumors from staff at the White House indicate that the Obamas have overseas bank accounts. Gee, what a surprise!


Which Democratic Senators do you think would vote to remove Obama from office for any of the offenses that you mention?
Do you think that RINOs such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Richard Lugar, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would vote for Obama to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?
Of course it’s “all politics.” The Constitution established impeachment as a political process: the House has to VOTE a Bill of Impeachment and the Senate has to VOTE for guilty or not guilty. Any time politicians vote, it’s political.

I would be happy if we could start by getting just one committee of the House of Representatives to hold a hearing on the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen.” It wouldn’t even have to focus directly on Obama, just on the Founders’ intent with that choice of words. That would be a place to start.


162 posted on 07/03/2011 6:56:21 PM PDT by jh4freedom (Mr. "O" has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: jh4freedom

I have no idea which Senators would vote to remove Obama from office. Frankly, it would be unlikely the issue would get that far without intense pressure being applied for Obama to resign.

Congress doesn’t need to do anything vis a vis ‘natural born citizen’. There already exists legal precedent. The fact is, Progressives and Liberals don’t like it one bit.

What needs to happen is on the state level. Each state must ascertain that candidates to national office - president and vice president - meet the U.S.Constitutional eligibility requirements stated in Article II, section 1.


163 posted on 07/03/2011 7:55:59 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
I was able to find plenty of links to civics textbooks without your help, just none that would have been used during the time that I went to school. You didn't post a link to a book from the “40’s” the latest copyright on the books you posted was 1936. Once again you are exagerating. The whole point of your post was to discredit my statement and those of many others here that we were taught in school that a Natural Born Citizen was born in the country with parents who were citizens of the United States.

“Why would textbooks from the 1800’s through the 40’s be less valid anyway?”

Cherry picking books from antiquity has nothing to do with what I was taught in school. You took this challenge on yourself when you said that there were “truckloads” available on Amazon and “it should then be a relatively simple matter to produce a civics textbook from the era”. It is not quite as easy as you thought is it?

So for the sake of argument... if Osama Bin Laden had taken an underage American wife and had a child that was born in this country and then took the child back to Pakistan to be indoctrinated to hate America... in your opinion is that child constitutionally eligible to be president? If so... what safeguard do you think the framers were trying to take by specifying that the president must be a natural born citizen?

164 posted on 07/03/2011 9:17:03 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I have no idea which Senators would vote to remove Obama from office. Frankly, it would be unlikely the issue would get that far without intense pressure being applied for Obama to resign.

Congress doesn’t need to do anything vis a vis ‘natural born citizen’. There already exists legal precedent. The fact is, Progressives and Liberals don’t like it one bit.

What needs to happen is on the state level. Each state must ascertain that candidates to national office - president and vice president - meet the U.S.Constitutional eligibility requirements stated in Article II, section 1.

I agree with you.
The emphasis must be placed on the election of 2012. It’s a “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” situation.


165 posted on 07/04/2011 11:17:51 AM PDT by jh4freedom (Mr. "O" has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Kleon; butterdezillion

If you read closely Leo Donofrio’s comment about the quite interesting edits to the Justia database, you will see that it’s not just a question of a missing case name.

In the case Pope v. Williams, Justia apparently greatly shortened the text of a crucial paragraph that referred to Minor vs. Happersett, as well as removed the name of the Minor case.

Kleon’s exemplar of an assumed problem with their software cannot explain the massive editing of that paragraph in the Pope case.

Can you give us more examples, Kleon? If not, then can you explain how you happened upon this one other instance, unrelated to Minor vs. Happersett?

If Justia had such a problem with their software, which damaged their “mission” to provide the public with accurate information, then where’s a notification on their site of this problem and an explanation for how it happened and when it happened and how and when they fixed it? Not to mention an apology and a promise to do better, or is that beyond the realm of possibility, given the personages involved?

One might surmise that the Brown case exemplar was a pre-planned rationale (aka, a cover story) for the “error” in those too conveniently removed references to Minor vs. Happersett, just in case somebody among the public should notice before the election. (Like “birthers”?)

Even so, even if there’s such a software error, it does not explain the edited paragraph in Pope, unless Kleon can show us that other cases were edited in the same way, with actual paragraphs from SCOTUS cases being shortened and with sentences removed from the text of the case.

How can Kleon explain the editing of that paragraph in the Pope vs. Williams case BEFORE July 25, 2008, just as with the Boyd vs. Nebraska case? Same timeframe exactly.

The Wayback Machine, on March 1 2007, has the only archived example prior to July 2008. This cached page from 2007 showed the full paragraph with the reference to Minor vs. Happersett BY NAME on the Justia website.

That paragraph has suddenly been “fixed” on Justia since Donofrio reported his finding. It remained in edited form on April 3, 2009—the last “crawl” for that webpage in the Wayback Machine. But in the Google cache, it still REMAINED in edited form on May 23, 2011.

Therefore, the paragraph was “fixed” between May 23, 2011 and today, but certainly after Leo Donofrio outed them. It was fixed within the past few days because when I read his comments ON June 30, 2011, I immediately LOOKED at the Justia site. The Pope case was exactly as Leo Donofrio portrayed it—allegedly “deceptively edited” for political reasons. Many people have saved screenshots, not only from Justia and the Wayback Machine, but also from the Google caches.

Here’s an excerpt from the paragraph in question, as it should and does read at the FindLaw site, which is for “legal professionals” as opposed to the public:

“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the Federal Constitution.”

Now here’s the same paragraph, as “deceptively edited” according to Donofrio, from the Justia site, as it appeared between July 2008 until only a few days ago:

“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the @ 88 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.”

Where’s the part about STATES controlling the right to vote in any election—it being within their jurisdiction? Meaning, one might suppose, that it’s up to the states to decide who gets on the ballot (vetting candidates) and decide specifics about electors and how they vote. Or so I assume, not being a lawyer myself but being able to read.

One can guess why, in July 2008, somebody was concerned about states acting upon their Constitutional right to control elections and also that inconvenient SCOTUS precedent that proves Obama was never eligible to be placed upon ballots, not being a natural born citizen, by his own admission. July 2008 was arguably when the “birther” issue began. When citizens began to write to their representatives and publicize this issue.

Here are links. First the web archive and then a link to Donofrio’s more specific explanation:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080801000000*/http://supreme.justia.com/us/193/621/case.html

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/#comment-18616


166 posted on 07/05/2011 9:36:58 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It isn’t just anyone with a liberal bent, if you research the persons involved in the Justia site, you will find many interesting connections, some of which lead to the usual suspect—Soros. Obama, Podesta, Sunstein, and Soros, among too many others, envision a “progressive” Constitution by 2020 and a new global order, too, based upon Marxism. Many lawyers and computer technologists are helping with this progressive “progression”, all to proceed, of course, without any vote of the AMERICAN people, especially not a Constitutional amendment to bring about their longed-for 2020 progressive Constitution. They KNOW the American people would never amend their Constitution in the way the progressives, and Soros, wish. So they will find another way to impose it upon us.


167 posted on 07/05/2011 10:24:26 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Kleon; butterdezillion

Sorry. I caught up with comments on this thread and see that other examples were given of the case NAME being missing in some other cases on Justia. I still haven’t seen an example of the text being radically altered, also.

The fact that these examples come so quickly to mind might support my contention that perhaps a certain number of other cases were messed with in order to provide cover (like when the cauterizers of Obama’s passport file also peeped at Hillary’s and McCain’s, in order to throw people off the trail, to make them think Obama’s file wasn’t their target, when the investigation proved otherwise. What was cauterized? Will the people ever know? I can guess.)

I checked the Wayback Machine and the timing for these alterations also fit with the convenient alterations of the crucial cases elucidating Obama’s ineligibility.


168 posted on 07/05/2011 10:36:43 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson
It isn’t just anyone with a liberal bent, if you research the persons involved in the Justia site, you will find many interesting connections, some of which lead to the usual suspect—Soros. Obama, Podesta, Sunstein, and Soros, among too many others, envision a “progressive” Constitution by 2020 and a new global order, too, based upon Marxism. Many lawyers and computer technologists are helping with this progressive “progression”, all to proceed, of course, without any vote of the AMERICAN people, especially not a Constitutional amendment to bring about their longed-for 2020 progressive Constitution. They KNOW the American people would never amend their Constitution in the way the progressives, and Soros, wish. So they will find another way to impose it upon us.

I put all the people you named and the classes of people like them under the umbrella term of "liberal." There are various flavors of Liberals, but they all have in common the notion that government should be used to equalize or rectify things they see as unfair.

169 posted on 07/05/2011 12:17:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Agreed.


170 posted on 07/06/2011 8:47:46 AM PDT by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
The one thing a President should never EVER do is piss off the Supreme Court.
Are these Democratic Party moles pulling this shit, or what?

We need some serious input from attorneys with extensive experience before the Supreme Court, as well as long-standing legal firms (100 years or more) to determine the extent to which this "US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com" is connected to official government sources. Is this an official part of the Judiciary Department? Is there any vetting required as there is for our intelligence agencies?
If the deletions were deliberate at which level must the perpetrator(s) have existed to pull it off?
Are these official U.S. Records?

Have the employment records between 2007 and 2011 also been compromised?
Who is best positioned and has the authority to investigate this "anomaly?"

I hope this thread reaches enough eyes to prevent its immedediate disappearance.

Shades of Sandy Burglar!!!

171 posted on 07/07/2011 6:38:38 PM PDT by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Justia.com is privately owned, like Google is privately owned, and basically does the same thing - connect referenced material, in this instance legal cases.


172 posted on 07/07/2011 7:11:31 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Hey Butter!

I have a comment on something you said:

“Kleon says he’s seen a Way Back Machine page showing that it happened elsewhere. He’s even posted a direct link that is supposed to take me to that page. But my computer won’t go to it. Apparently all this “evidence” is like the mythical unicorn that only appears to true believers. lol.”

I watched this whole thing develop. I literally watched these cases which Leo documents on his site be found, I saw them myself. Leo stated very clearly that it would disappear off the net the same way the first two cases in July did. So he screenshotted everything. I did a number myself, and I included in my article that the wayback machine would stop showing these pages as soon as the .txt robots from Justia could be written for them. We had hoped that Justia would come clean, and thie was their opportunity, Instead, they covered up again by trying to sweep it under the rug.

We knew that the Obots and others would go and say... oh this is a forgery. No. It isn’t. It is a deliberate tactic being used by Justia to try and make this go away.

It isn’t working. There is too much evidence. thus, obots etc are forced to attack the images, because the information IN the images is so complete and so dakmming they have no defense. If you can’t kill the message, kill the messenger right?

Well, I am a witness to all of it. That is why I wrote in Examiner the way I did. I KNOW what I saw and have complete confidance in what I saw.


173 posted on 10/25/2011 1:54:30 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“Fair enough, I can see that argument. It doesn’t address why they didn’t expunge the references from the other law archives, like FindLaw”

I can answer that for you easily. Findlaw was originally founded by Tim Stanley. He sold it to West Publishing for 37 Million and got a 200K salary and stayed on as an employee. Well the new owners and Stanley didn’t see eye to eye, and Stanley got sued for Breech of Contract. tha tcase got settled, but Findlaw and Justia are not buddies.

Whoever messed with Justia’s site had access to Justia’s code. NOT the code of other sites. Whoever made the changes had access to Justia. Thats why you do not see it elsewhere. But keep im mind, Stanley said that the “error” affected their entire Supreme Court Server...


174 posted on 10/25/2011 2:02:36 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Yes, I believe what you said about that. Kleon was claiming that the Minor v Happersett cases weren’t the ONLY ones where they did that so it must have just been some little formatting change they made and then coincidentally changed it back right after Donofrio pointed it out.

But now that we’ve seen that Waybackmachine is willing and able to manipulate their stuff to cover for Obama, that means that they could easily have changed a Wayback page to make it seem like the same phenomenon happened with other cases besides Minor v Happersett. That’s the way they have functioned with everything else: when somebody notices a discrepancy, quick, create a forgery that has the same discrepancy and then say, “Well, it must not be a discrepancy because it happened this other time too...”

For instance, they are STILL trying to claim that the BC’s were alphabetized a month at a time before being numbered at the end of the month - even after I’ve pointed out repeatedly that Okubo said they were numbered the same day they were received in their office except in very rare instances. They’ve come up with Waidelich’s BC and now this other one that WND had an article about - both trying to show that Obama’s number is not a discrepancy. But Okubo said what she said, so now we’ve just got 3 discrepancies instead of one.

I hope that makes sense. I’m about brain-dead right now. My co-worker has been in the hospital so I’ve been covering for him, at the same time as working on sewing a quilt for a wounded soldier (that’s supposed to be done by Veteran’s Day) and planning a youth-led worship service for All Saints Day. A lot of details and a lot of work. All stuff I love to do but sleep would be nice too. In the meantime I just hope my sleep-deprived mouth doesn’t say anything too stupid. lol


175 posted on 10/25/2011 4:52:08 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I don’t know that the Wayback Machine has anything to do with it. Justia can insert .txt robots on their end to exclude certain specific URLs from being readable at Wayback.

It wasn’t some little bit of formatting either. There was specific text removed, citation numbers got changed, the case name got removed, there was a LOT going on there, and no “ .* “ in regex can do that. the * includes or excludes only the characters associated with it, its a qualifier, and it has to have some thing to qualify, in this case it was “Minor v. Happersett” and the specific text of other cases which made a variety of statements which didn’t have that case name in it also got removed. That is no accident.

I don’t know the other history you are speaking about with regards to Hawaii. So I can’t really address that. Internet.org has been around since the internet began, thats 1986, back when it was a university communication system.


176 posted on 10/25/2011 7:33:57 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I think this scrubbing of web resources by leftists is widespread. When Rev. Wright became an issue on the Sean Hannity Show, I looked up his church website, http://www.tucc.org/ . It had 10 items identified as its purpose. One of these 10 was American slave reparations. A couple weeks later the website had changed, and I couldn’t find it on the Wayback Machine ( http://www.archive.org/web/web.php) , even though it shows up. After this Justia story, I went back and checked again, and Wright’s church has a new site. If you search the old site, http://www.tucc.org/ , you will see what I mean. The new site, http://www.trinitychicago.org , shows that it was established Sep. 2008. Go figure. More hiding of Zero’s past.


177 posted on 10/26/2011 10:42:24 PM PDT by horsappl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: horsappl

This hiding of his past history goes back quite a ways.

The Democratic Party sent an activist to Jakarta, Indonesia, back in July, 2007, to buy up all the Indonesian government’s record on Barry Soetoro/Barry Obama. This included all Soetoro family pictures, as well.

He was a little boy back then. What is to hide?

Unless, of course, he isn’t really who he claims to be.


178 posted on 10/27/2011 12:18:30 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan; LucyT; onyx; TheOldLady; SatinDoll; Red Steel; little jeremiah; MHGinTN; ...

I may disagree with many here when I say this: The 2008 presidential election made me proud to an American. We had two great candidates: one liberal, one conservative, both of whom connected with the mainstream.

Well you're right about one thing, almost everyone here would disagree. You were proud? PROUD? You were proud that a Marxist idiot won the Democratic nomination? I have NO doubt that you also voted for him... NONE! and if you think McCain is a conservative, you are even crazier than I thought.

179 posted on 01/03/2012 9:43:36 AM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Blade Byron is an RINO. Simple as that.


180 posted on 01/03/2012 9:54:18 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: central_va; mojitojoe

I disagree that BB is a RINO. He posts on Fogbow. He’s hardcore leftist. Troll to de max.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2712126/posts?page=47


181 posted on 01/03/2012 11:16:34 AM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Get him mj!

Like your new tag line, makes sense.


182 posted on 01/03/2012 11:20:04 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Federal appeals court rejects another lawsuit challenging Obama’s citizenship
Friday, December 23, 2011 3:53:44 PM • 51 of 60
BladeBryan to liberalh8ter

Ron Paul has had nothing to do with the their nonsense. Likewise, contrary to what some 9/11 inside-jobbers pretend, Rob Paul had nothing to do with that crank nonsense either.
Both liberals and conservatives respect Dr. Paul for his principled stances, and both are frustrated by his tenacity. The man holds some unpopular positions, but that’s no excuse for falsely putting him on such utter crank nonsense.


183 posted on 01/03/2012 1:33:10 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-183 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