Posted on 09/12/2011 10:26:19 PM PDT by STARWISE
COMPLETE TITLE
US Attorney General Cushing Made Clear That Citizens and Subjects Were Not The Same Under US Law
###
I have a very in depth analytical blog coming soon concerning the underlying history of the US Supreme Court’s precedent defining a natural born citizen as one born in the US to parents who were citizens via the case of Minor v. Happersett.
That case had two issues, citizenship and voting rights. The citizenship issue was determined by the SCOTUS directly construing the “natural born Citizen” clause from Article 2, Section 1.
This is the only US Supreme Court case to have directly construed the clause. As such, it remains as good law and precedent which means Obama occupies the White House in direct contradiction to standing US law.
My next blog will settle this issue conclusively. For now, I would like to reach back to a speech (bottom of pg. 409-410) made by Virginia Minor – a staunch woman’s suffrage activist – at a St. Louis convention in 1869:
“In 1856, the question came before the Attorney General, Mr. Cushing, as to whether Indians were citizens of the United States, and as such, were entitled to the privilege of preempting our public lands.
He gave it as his opinion that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the act.”
According to US Attorney General Cushing, a “subject” is not a “citizen”. Therefore, “natural born Citizen” cannot mean the same thing as “natural born Subject”.
Attorney General Cushing determined that domestic subjects were not entitled to the same rights as US citizens because “subjects” are not “citizens”. And a “natural born subject” has never meant the same thing as “natural born Citizen”. Never. That’s a complete fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
...Ping!
But doesn’t that raise some other problems? After all, Chester A. Arthur was born in the US, to an American mother, but his father was Canadian. At the time, this was investigated, but the decision was in the end that he counted as a natural born American.
But doesn’t that raise some other problems? After all, Chester A. Arthur was born in the US, to an American mother, but his father was Canadian. At the time, this was investigated, but the decision was in the end that he counted as a natural born American.
I've read otherwise: That AT THE TIME he ran for President, Arthur's BIRTHPLACE was in dispute (was he born in Canada?), and it was decided he was born in the U.S.
To have a foreign-born father doesn't prevent someone from being a natural-born citizen, as long as the father is a citizen at the time of the child's birth.
The question of his father's citizenship (his father was not a citizen at the time of Arthur's birth, but became naturalized when he was 14) didn't become an issue until 2008, when Leo Donofrio researched it and published it in his blog.
The truth, as many have observed, is simple once it is explained. Donofrio explained it, noting that the left knew all the time, and actually edited archived supreme court cases at justia.com to keep the curious off the trail.
That Elizabeth Minor was a natural born citizen, was not just a fact, it was essential to the decision in Minor v. Happersett. To prove that the 14th Amendment didn't alter suffrage, Chief Justice Minor needed a constitutional definition of a citizen before the 14th Amendment, and before 1866, such a definition did not exist, except those definitions adhered to by the individual states, which were anything but uniform. C.J. Minor, noting that citizens are either natural or naturalized, and that Elizabeth Minor was born to citizen parents on our soil, was a natural born citizen, independent of the 14th Amendment, and thus a citizen, avoiding the quandary of the uncertainty of who were citizens (just read Wong Kim Ark!). Minor v. Happersett used the common law definition of a natural born citizen to make his decision independent of the 14th Amendment, which interpretation he was adjudicating. That fixed the definition in the Constitution forever, or until the Constitution is amended. It was, as well, a clever line of reasoning. There may have been another path, but Minor took that one, even stating in his decision, that the common law definition of natural born citizen was never doubted, but that who were citizens was still uncertain.
Remember, every one of our senators, including Barack Obama, and except John McCain, signed a senate resolution, SR511, in Mar of 2008, attesting that that they had no doubt that a natural born citizen must have been born to citizen parents. Find it in the Senate Archives. The fix was in. That is why none of them is trustworthy. Perhaps they can plead a fear of race war, but look at what the ineligible office holder is doing in the meanwhile. The only congressman with the courage to speak out, Nathan Deal of Georgia, was run out on phony ethics charges, and became governor of Georgia. The ruling class won't speak the truth, which will be in our archives until the Constitution is declared heretical, or, more likely, has become completely irrelevant - a living constitution - and with its irrelevancy will go our freedom.
Here is the core of Minor v. Happersett, the reasoning which established as precedent the definition of a natural born citizen, often claimed by the left as dictum - unnecessary to the decision - but as the reader can see for himself, absolutely essential to Justice Minor's argument:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their Page 88 U. S. 168 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
There now no doubt about what the law says, and about the definition of natural born citizens. Remember, before the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional definition for a citizen, only for a natural born citizen. Most citizens are natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment was to correct the omission of aliens forcibly brought to the US, and make them citizens, so that their children are natural born citizens. Donofrio doubts that anyone will ever address Obama’s ineligibility, but those who care should understand that there is no longer any legal doubt thanks to Donofrio. Both parties are complicit, because McCain wasn't a natural born citizen either.
This could be an issue which crystallizes the difference between "Republicans," and constitutional conservatives. This voter will never vote for an ineligible candidate, but did out of ignorance for McCain in 2008. Latinos who value a constitutional republic will not vote for a scofflaw, just as black voters in California rejected same sex marriage. It is racist to assume family oriented and god fearing Latin or black families would vote for a Cuban just because of his family origins, if they were told the truth, and had the reasoning of our founders and framers explained. Requiring that our president be born to parents with sole allegiance is an ancient and wise idea; and it is the law.
STARWISE wrote: “Keep digging, LD!”
LD has dug himself into a deep enough hole already. With his latest birtherish case, Old Carco LLC, he is likely to surpass Orly Taitz’s record of having to pay $20,000 for pushing a frivolous suit. Jones Day, the firm that trounced Donofrio and his partner Steven Pidgeon, summed their fees to $128,762.50. That does seem high, and a good lawyer might be able to dig D&P out, if only they had one.
Does in not occur to you, STARWISE, that lawyers who face-plant in court, every single time, might not be your best source of legal analysis?
Donforio’s argument here is no better than his previous epic fails, and possibly worse. Yes, our government denied Indians, Native Americans, privileges that citizens enjoyed. We’re not proud of it, and we fixed it at least tot he extent that it is not the law today. What’s more, even if we hold our noses and pretend it was right, it still wouldn’t help Donofrio’s case. Showing that someone asserted “subject” to be different from “citizen” doesn’t even attempt to show that “natural born” means something entirely different when applied to “subject” than when applied to “citizen”. It’s nonsense.
Wrong. It was never investigated back then.
Go back to your nap.
thecodont wrote: “To have a foreign-born father doesn’t prevent someone from being a natural-born citizen, as long as the father is a citizen at the time of the child’s birth.”
I can find solid references for the first part of that, the part before the comma. I know of just one case where a court clearly spoke to the point in a case where presidential eligibility was at issue; in that case a three-judge panel unanimously held:
“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, Court of Appeals of Indiana, November 12, 2009]
There may have been some doubt long ago, about births before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Whether Barack Obama or Marco Rubio would have been eligible one and a half centuries ago is not the issue. Obviously they would not, if only because their negative ages would have fallen far short of 35 years.
Our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, was born in the U.S. to a foreign father. People questioned the fact of whether he was born in the U.S., but no one said Vice President / President Arthur’s eligibility depended on whether, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen. Some cranks started saying that recently, but only when they realized that Arthur’s presidency utterly refuted their claim that Obama could not be president.
Wong Kim Ark has zero to do with Presidential eligibility. You are spreading disinformation, liar.
Ankeny v. Daniels, Court of Appeals of Indiana, November 12, 2009, isn’t national law.
The following information comes from our government, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, and describes the three statutory types of citizenship - native born (jus solis), derived citizenship (jus sanguinis), and naturalized citizenship.
CITIZENSHIP
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
To become a citizen after birth, you must:
Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
Apply for naturalization
*****************************************
Note: all three types of the above are U.S. citizens. All may serve in the U.S.Congress, as either Representatives in the House, or as Senators in the Senate. Natural born citizen is not mentioned as it is not a type of citizenship.
Per Article I, Section 2 and 3 of the United State Constitution, Representatives and Senators shall be Citizens of the United States.
The ONLY place “natural born citizen” appears in our national laws is as an eligibility requirement to be President of the United States.
Per Article II, Section 1, clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The eligibility requirement to be President is not the same as that for Congress. Simply being a “citizen” is not enough.
Our founders understood the difference. Here is where the definition exists in national law:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/
ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor [Minor vs. Happersett] is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but 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. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.
On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:
“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:
“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”
Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.
While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.
Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
*****************************************
So, Sun, I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party seriously considered amending the U.S. Constitution eligibility requirement so that Henry Kissinger (born in Germany) or Arnold Schwarznegger (born in Austria) could run for President. Thank God they didn’t do that and reason prevailed.
As recently as 2006 there was a paper written by Sarah Herlihy claiming that the ‘natural born citizen’ requirment was stupid and prevented the U.S. from being part of the Globalism movement. THAT gave away the real intent of so-called Progressives; that United States sovereignty was a constraint on the establishment of a socialist Global government.
It was NOT investigated to a conclusion. Chester Arthur lied about his father's age and date of naturalization. Without evidence to the contrary a case could not be made to prove Arthur was born to a foreign male. You assume the truth was discovered and that the legal authorities accepted it as consistent with the "natural born citizen" requirement. It was not, and the authorities were unaware of Arthur's perfidy.
You are sadly misinformed.
Thank you for your input. Must be a new shift on board.
To the contrary. The Legal and Court system has become so corrupted by Liberal insanity, that only those people who refuse to follow current ideology can be trusted to get it right. Any legal system that asserts the 14th amendment justifies abortion is itself invalid, and it's pronouncements ought to be explicitly rejected.
You advocate following the dictates of the current powers. I advocate following natural law and original intent, and the current powers be d*mned! Their world is doomed. We only need bide our time.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
BUMP!
“Arthur’s father’s date of naturalization was two years after his birth. The original argument was that a person born in the US with only one citizen parent was not a natural born citizen. While Arthur did thwart the claims then, same as Obama is doing with the claims of being born in Kenya, if you read some of the editorials of the day, it eerily echos today’s headlines.
As Cort Wrotnowski indicated in his Supplemental Brief to the SCOTUS back in December, President Chester Arthur was not a “natural born citizen”, and hid those facts until his death.
From that Supplemental Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8830185/Wrotnowski-v-Bysiewicz-Supplemental-Brief
The definitive biography of Chester Arthur’s life is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. Since Chester Arthur burned his papers around the time of his death, this biography fills many gaps with interviews of family members and authentic documents such as the Arthur family Bible.
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
Post #9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2319764/posts
“Ankeny v. Daniels, Court of Appeals of Indiana, November 12, 2009, isn’t national law.”
It sure trounces these Internet rants.
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.