Posted on 10/23/2011 6:19:38 AM PDT by iontheball
Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1′s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Barry wasn’t born to illegals. His mother was born & raised here, and his father here with the permission of the US government - “in amity”, as the WKA decision discussed it.
WKA is not a binding decision, since the formal ruling did not use the definition of NBC. However, as dicta, it has held sway for over 100 years, and the Supreme Court has refused to take any birther cases challenging the dicta in WKA.
Birthers can complain about it, but if all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress and all the courts in the USA disagree with their legal ideas, then their legal ideas just don’t count for much.
In the end, the Declaration of Independence describes it well:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
The consent of the governed. That would include the majority that voted for Obama, the 50 of 50 states that allowed him on the ballot (and still do), the 535 of 535 members of Congress and every court without exception.
Obama will be removed at the ballot box, not by the Supreme Court throwing him out. I wish the birthers could figure that out, and channel efforts where there might be something to show for it.
?????????????????????
Again - Minor does NOT try to define NBC, and it can be found in many places besides justica, so what would be the point?
Why does EVERYTHING have to be a conspiracy to a birther?
I suggest you read the whole article...and not jump to conclusions.
I did. There is no there there.
What you are arguing is that WKA gives NBC (supposedly according to you for Presidential eligibility)to anyone born in the US of any parentage, including foundlings of unknown parentage and offspring of one or two illegal aliens. You cannot see the absurdity of your own argument. To construe the law that way would totally defeat the purpose of the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen clause. A decision of that magnitude contrary to common sense and will of the people would likely cause a real revolution. Please use some common sense and logic when trying to "interpret our laws.
What I did was READ the WKA decision. It was the court who said the meaning of NBC is found in English Common Law, and that in English Common Law, a child of TWO alien parents was a natural born subject.
NBC wasn’t a term made up in the Constitution. It existed as a legal phrase, with a well known legal meaning BEFORE the Constitution was written. WKA reviewed that legal history at length.
The Founders used a legal term with a specific meaning. That meaning did NOT require two citizen parents.
Rogers is funny - for years he posted only about western movie trivia and some very arcane religious denominational discussion.
Then, whammo - I guess it was about 2 years ago when 0h0m0’s eligibility or rather lack of it heated up (can’t remember specific time Rogers jumped into the fray) - he totally changed his tone and posted exclusively about how 0h0m0 is eligible and anyone concerned about it is an idiot. And copy/pastes the same proven wrong crap over and over and over again.
Maybe he’s posting about his other two topics again, I don’t bother chekcing what he’s up to.
I don’t know why he all of a sudden “got religion” regarding 0homo being a real natural born citizen and all, what motivated him, but it’s pretty weird.
like I said you are arguing for an absurd result. FYI WKA was decided before the first immigration law in the US, at that time there were no illegal aliens. The decision did not address them because there were none. Any subsequent decisions should include consideration of how the interpretation would affect illegal immigration. Take a look at Plyler v Doe and see that that decision is ripe for being overturned due to 1) the 1986 IRCA act and the detrimental effect of massive illegal immigration and its costs.
Do you think for one minute the SCOTUS would declare its okay for a child of two illegal aliens to become President of the US and is in fact a NBC for that purpose? That would reward lawbreaking, an unjust and absurd result. Don’t try to argue Obama had one USC parent and one student because that could not be broken out of the NBC as you represent it. You say anyone born here of any parentage short of a diplomat is an NBC for Presidential eligibility. You are a sick puppy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_legislation
My neighbors’ son was born in Turkey, while the father was deployed there. Both parents are birth citizens of the US. When the son turned 18, he had to go to Turkey to renounce his dual Turkish citizenship, or face Turkish military service. The parents assume he’s ineligible for U.S. Pres.
They’re correct.
He is a citizen though, if all the paperwork was done properly shortly after his birth, because he derives his U.S. citizenship from his parents (jus sanguinis - “by the blood”).
I suspect the purpose of the natural born citizen requiement - born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents ( jus solis + jus sanguinis ) - was to prevent someone who wasn’t born here or who was reared primarily out of the country, from ever becoming Commander-in-Chief.
BHO2 is a great example of why the founders thought that way!
The good news is your neighbor’s sone is eligible to stand for all other elective office, save the Presidency.
Bump for later.
The more strident you become, the more you prove my point that you ain’t nuffin but a DUmmie Troll.
LOL
“Rogers is funny - for years he posted only about western movie trivia and some very arcane religious denominational discussion.”
13 years, and somewhere around 13,000 posts, almost none of which involve movie trivia, and no more than 10% tops in the religion forum.
“he totally changed his tone and posted exclusively about how 0h0m0 is eligible and anyone concerned about it is an idiot.”
Never, ever true. Nor true now.
But truth isn’t something birthers care about. Attacking others? Yes. They will attack Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and pretty much everyone trying to get Obama removed thru the ballot box, because they can’t get over the fact that 99% of people think they are idiots.
The law is clear. It has been clear for over 100 years. All 50 states agree - legislatures and DAs. Every member of Congress knows it. Every court.
That leaves a small band of birther brothers, egging each other on at WorldNutDaily and these idiot reports. Go, Wolverines!
OK, more like, “Go, idiots & conspiracy nuts!” Birthers and truthers, fight on!
Idiots.
Why are all of obama's records sealed? Why was no journalist allowed to fully examine, up close and personal, the BC he waved in the air two years after the fact? Why does he have multiple social security numbers? He is a total con man. It's because of people like you labeling us "birthers" and the cowardly republicans in congress that we can't get legitimate answers.
The story is that it's not just Minor, but 25 other cases that refer to Minor. Did you not notice that?
The allegation in this story is that the references were removed while still tagging the articles as being complete texts.
Regardless of your opinion on the significance of the citations, do you deny that these changes took place?
-PJ
Again, since there are multiple sites that carry cases, having just one site do something screwy would have no impact.
And no, I’m not certain I believe it. IIRC, the original article on this goes back to a truther, and they are not known for honesty.
But lets suppose it did. Since it remains easy to access Minor on other sites, and since the Minor citation on that cite continues to have the text that birthers claim is critical, and since no lawyer agrees that Minor determined the extent of the meaning of NBC - probably because the decision specifically says they did not - what is the point?
For a hundred years, lawyers concluded that someone with an alien parent could, if born in the USA, run for President. That wasn’t a conspiracy to elect someone who had not been born.
Some examples:
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
““Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
State v. Manuel (1838)
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
““Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.”
William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon(1888)
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)
““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”
THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
This is not something that just came up with Obama in 2008. And no, Minor did NOT settle things in the mid-1800s, so there was no reason to scrub it.
Do websites sometimes lose stuff? Well, that has happened on our church website. And it usually comes back when they fix whatever went wrong. It doesn’t take a conspiracy to explain links going bad or stuff being dropped for a time from a website.
When you jumped in with both feet to the eligibility issue, I checked one year of your comments. One year. Average three comments a day, all about western trivia, western movie trivia, and arcane denominiational topics.
One solid year, it was easy because you didn’t post much. Then, wowie zowie - all of a sudden, you totally changed, tone changed (someone you had previously discussed with freepmailed me because they had noticed a very unusual change in your tone and attitude all of a sudden, and several freepers had noticed, and didn’t want to continue disucussing with you any more). Then you started nontstop on your insane and irrational eligibility trolling crap.
Odd, very odd.
When you started the attacks on eligibility threads, you had been here 11 years with 11,000 posts - that’s less than 3 comments a day on average. That’s just an observation.
You’re transparent and no amount of frothing and steaming fools anyone; it merely makes you more obvious.
Dude - projecting now?
Don’t worry. We’ll fight on.
Of that there is no doubt.
Liar.
At a minimum, if you went through a year of my posts, you would have read 1,000 posts - just out of curiosity about me. That would suggest you are desperately in need of a life!
And since I can’t recall ever posting about movie trivia or western trivia (or much about movies or western life at all, ever), you are a liar.
And since anyone can click on my name and start reviewing, it would be easy to see that you are a liar.
“Then you started nontstop on your insane and irrational eligibility trolling crap.”
Except that has never happened either. Ever. So again, you are a liar.
But that isn’t unusual, because a fundamentally honest person would read a couple of court cases and realize that birthers are full of crap. That they lie about things, such as what the Minor decision was about and what it said concerning NBCs.
“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 [p168] 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.”
For emphasis:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Oh golly! Look at that! The Minor decision can be found, online, free, at places other than justica!
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.