With lyrics
{;^)
Posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by SatinDoll
butterdezillion opined: “At this point I have no way of knowing which of the researchers and/or lawyers are genuine and which are disinformation agents throwing out false stuff just to throw a monkey wrench in the works for those who are genuine.”
There are ways. For example, look at what people were saying *before* the particular individual was at issue. Which of the “researchers and/or lawyers” from whom we now here were, before 2008, arguing that for a native-born citizen to eligible for the presidency, both of his or her parents had to be citizens? Near as I can tell, the answer is zero.
Edition after edition of Blacks Law Dictionary defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in the jurisdiction of a national government. The sixth edition included, “i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” Who said that was wrong, and said so before they needed reasons to deny that Obama can be president?
Could this have been from o-bot disinformation agents: “It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.” [Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).] Barack Obama would have been seven years old at the time.
Obama was a college undergrad when the United States Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit considered illegal alien Sebastian Diaz-Salazar’s petition to stay deportation, and wrote: “The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.” [Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156/diaz-salazar-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service ]
How about: “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).] Obama was still unknown, as he first made news when elected president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990.
Plus, who considered Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo to be legal scholars before this Obama eligibility stuff? If they were not such before, how could they be now? They’ve gotten nothing through peer review and in court they’ve face-planted every time.
This deportation case is absolutely worthless to the OBot cause. President Carter appointed comrade judge Cudahy who put that in his opinion and who only regurgitated the illegal immigrant lawyer's lamination. If you had been paying attention in the last 2 1/2 years here, you would have likely saw that this bit is totally unsupported obit dicta. And BTW, the illegal immigrant was deported despite the nonsense by circuit judge Cudahy.
““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.
{;^)
It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 (1964)
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 658.
In Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22 (1913), the Court ruled:
“These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101;Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827.
and in Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, (1939):
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries, and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of 331*331 the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of twenty-one years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be `right reason’, and I think it is law.”
and also, United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, (1929):
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens. All alike owe allegiance to the Government, and the Government owes to them the duty of protection. These are reciprocal obligations and each is a consideration for the other.” Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22.
Placemark.
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.
* * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American [sic],” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
...Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ms.Herlihy, in the title and body of her paper, gave the game away, noobie.
This is about destroying the United State of America so as to establish a socialist utopia under the rubric of Globalism.
All those items you mentioned are meaningless, because there is a huge gulf between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’.
You can find the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ as recognized by the Feds here:
U.S.Citizenship & Immigration Services - Citizenship
(There is no mention of natural born citizenship because it isn’t a statutory type of citizenship.)
Natural born citizen ONLY appears in U.S.law, specifically in the U.S.Constitution, as an eligibility requirement to be President. It is an eligibility requirement, like being age 35 or being a resident in the U.S. for the past fifteen years.
No one has the right to be President. One must be eligible.
Well...
Perhaps the term “truckloads” was inaccurate. Regardless, it remains true that Amazon had too many for me to buy them all, so I settled on two for my library.
I posted a few links for you because you couldn’t seem to find any on your own. It just so happened that the ones I picked out ran from the late 1800’s to the 40’s. I disagree that this is a problem, especially since one of those textbooks (Advanced Civics; The Spirit, the Form, and the Functions of the American Government) is still in print, and I assume in use, today. I bought the 19-0-something edition because that one struck my fancy.
Why would textbooks from the 1800’s through the 40’s be less valid anyway?
Now, back to the question...
It is entirely possible that some folks were told in school that an NBC required two citizen parents. Just as some were told that the 2nd Amendment only applied to State militias and the 1st amendment was all about the separation of church and state. Or that ‘Separate but equal’ was just dandy. They may have even had a civics text that said so.
But as I stated in my post that set this off:
“If this were actually the case, it should then be a relatively simple matter to produce a civics textbook from the era with this information.
Yet I understand that no one has been able to do this.”
I stand by that statement.
So why should you give a damn?
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.
“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]
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.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Article II, Section 1, of the U.S.Constitution.
I’m going to bed. You’re wasting my time.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.