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

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,5501,551-1,578 next last
To: Natufian

You didn’t answer any of my questions. You’re just repeating the same stuff without addressing any of my content. This is why it is a waste of time to talk to you.

Lurkers (if there are any), take note.

Lurkers, the cross-check for which of us (Natufian or me) is accurate is the additional requests using the standard wording to confirm the authenticity of a copy. Bennett asked Onaka to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record” and Onaka would not verify that. KS SOS Kris Kobach asked Onaka to verify that the “information contained in” the White House image is identical to the information contained in the original record, and Onaka wouldn’t verify that. Remember, he has to verify whatever the requestor asks him to verify, as long as he CAN.

If Natufian is right, then why wouldn’t Onaka verify that the information contained in the White House image was identical to the information contained in the original record? He was not asked if the information “matched”. He was asked if it was IDENTICAL. And he would not verify that. He also wouldn’t put his own initials next to the signature stamp of those 2 verifications, nor the raised seal.

The only verification he would put his initials and the raised seal on was the one where no birth facts were asked to be verified and it was only asked if the “information contained in the White House image matches”(which would work equally well for a non-valid BC as for a valid one, because the White House image doesn’t contain any information about evidence to support a late filing or alteration).

IOW, the only one Onaka had no qualms about was the request that works equally well for a non-valid BC. Which is exactly how MDEC designed their request. Because they knew that Onaka had verified to Bennett that the record is non-valid and they knew Onaka COULDN’T verify anything except that the claims that are actually included on the forgery are also claimed on the non-valid record. The non-valid record has extra information, though, that the forgery doesn’t have - specifically the notations that the BC is late and altered. They couldn’t even switch the order of the words around, to ask if the information in the original record matches the information in the White House image, because then the request would be asking about everything that’s on the real record, including the LATE and ALTERED stamps, and that DOESN’T match what’s on the White House image, because the White House image lacks that information.


1,501 posted on 03/14/2013 5:05:31 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1494 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; MamaTexan; Mr Rogers; Jeff Winston
DL: "What does the verdict have to do with the understanding of the Justices on a point of law? Dicta or Holding, the Judge is still stating the understanding of the court. Making it part of a verdict does not make the opinion of a judge any more or any less correct."

I assume you feel exactly the same way about Justice Gray's and the other five justices' opinion in Wong Kim Ark.

MT: "We were not discussing the Minor decision YET.

We are discussing Wong Kim Ark.

Until I have your response on that subject, the discussion of court cases will proceed no further."

Fair enough.

From WKA two passages:

The first explains the English Common Law and its application to the US.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

The second passage explains the 14th Amendment and how it creates "natural born citizens".

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."

[The 14th Amendment makes citizens of everyone born in the US except children of foreign ambassadors, of invading armies and of members of Indians tribes.]

"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides".

[It's the citation to Lord Coke and the Calvin's Case that is the key. The allegiance owed by an alien to the US is as Lord Coke said in the Calvin's Case, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject"". He is using Lord Coke's words to show what applies in the US. The child born in the US to alien parents is natural born. And he repeats the Binney quote as being proof of his assertion.]

1,502 posted on 03/14/2013 6:31:22 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
I've shown you the decision and what it said....verbatim.

Yet you STILL have no comment on the fact it states;

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes 'natural born'.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of 'citizen' in their decision....

Why? Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States

-----

[The 14th Amendment makes citizens of everyone born in the US except children of foreign ambassadors, of invading armies and of members of Indians tribes.]

Well....that's VERY odd!

One of the guys who helped write it didn't seem to think so.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

1,503 posted on 03/14/2013 7:06:12 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1502 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“I’ve shown you the decision and what it said....verbatim.
Yet you STILL have no comment on the fact it states;

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes ‘natural born’.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of ‘citizen’ in their decision....

Why? Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States.”

Are you talking about Minor or Wong?

The first part of your comment:
1), 2), and 3) are the Minor decision

and

“Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States.””

This is from the Wong decision.


1,504 posted on 03/14/2013 7:38:39 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1503 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
It does NOT say that in English common law. Minor screwed it up, which is what happens when judges start making throw-away comments.

A screw-up??? The Minor court was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court affirmed that the Minor holding was based on citizen parents?? Why did they do that if it was a "screw-up"???

1,505 posted on 03/14/2013 7:42:42 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1433 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
The first part of your comment: 1), 2), and 3) are the Minor decision

Look again.

Wong Kim Ark
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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] 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 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.

-----

This is from the Wong decision.

Yet another post from with no discussion, nor any rebuttal of the previous points made.

I must say, your becoming quite the disappointment.

1,506 posted on 03/14/2013 7:49:32 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1504 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“Justice Waite specifically says that natural born citizenship isn’t defined by the 14th amendment”

And he was correct. It was defined by English common law at the time of Independence. That was the language of the law then.

This is wrong in two ways. Waite said it was the "nomenclature" of the framers of the Constitution to define NBC as all children born in the Country to citizen parents. You already admitted this is NOT in English common law. Second, the Minor court gave a negative declaration that was affirmed by the Ark court. The 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The 14th amendment only recognizes citizenship for those born in the country to resident aliens. If that is equivalent to English common law, then it means that English common law does NOT define NBC. Again, the only way this can be reconciled is to admit which common law the Minor court used to define NBC by requiring citizen parents. We all know where it came from, so it's okay to admit it and to admit you've been wrong about this from day one.

1,507 posted on 03/14/2013 7:59:25 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1479 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

“wow, so if I am on vacation while pregnant, say I am in the Bahamas chilling on the beach, and my baby comes early, my baby is not a citizen? Just want to clarify....”


Yep, so don’t travel the world when there’s risk of giving birth.


1,508 posted on 03/14/2013 8:00:56 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mylife

“wow, so if I am on vacation while pregnant, say I am in the Bahamas chilling on the beach, and my baby comes early, my baby is not a citizen? Just want to clarify....”


If that was true, Romney would have won. He agreed with everybody’s position.


1,509 posted on 03/14/2013 8:02:06 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The Minor court screwed up by using Vattel as if he gave an accurate summary of common law. However, the passage they used didn’t use the term NBC, and only a bad translation from 1797 made it look like it did. And that passage was not an attempt to summarize English common law, anyways.

That is why a statement made in passing, irrelevant to the case, is not considered binding. For Minor’s purpose, all that mattered is that no one disputed the idea that a child born in the country to two citizen parents was a citizen.

That is why WKA, with a long and detailed review of the law and the meaning of NBC & NBS is considered binding, and Minor is not. Minor was not about who is a citizen. It was about if all citizens had a right to vote. It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship one.

That you cannot see that is proof you are nuts.


1,510 posted on 03/14/2013 8:07:55 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1507 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
The second passage explains the 14th Amendment and how it creates "natural born citizens".

I admire a good imagination as much as anyone, but there is NOTHING in that passage that says the 14th amendment creates natural-born citizens. That term is not even contained within the passage. The phrase that Justice Gray uses is "citizenship by birth." This is a separate phrase. He uses it several times in the decision but completely separate from natural-born citizen. Further, he specifically says that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizen while he says that the 14th amendment DOES define "citizenship by birth." These are two different things. NBC requires citizen parents and citizenship by birth requires parents who are resident aliens, which he specifies: "all children here born of resident aliens."

It's the citation to Lord Coke and the Calvin's Case that is the key. The allegiance owed by an alien to the US is as Lord Coke said in the Calvin's Case, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject"". He is using Lord Coke's words to show what applies in the US. The child born in the US to alien parents is natural born. And he repeats the Binney quote as being proof of his assertion.

Yeah, not so much. Calvin's case establishes a fundamental rule that requires parents and the child to have perpetual allegiance and direct obedience to the crown. There's is no parallel for this in U.S. law. The closest we come is through the subject clause, which Gray cites as the parents having permanent residence and domicil. That's not the same at all. Second, the Binney quote shows how weak this citation is. Read it closely:

as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen

"As much a citizen" does not mean "equal to" a natural-born citizen. An apple is as much a piece of fruit as an orange, but an apple is still not an orange. While someone like Obama MIGHT be a citizen (if he could legally prove he was born in the U.S.) he is still not a natural-born citizen unless he was born in the country to parents who were its citizens. If this were "key" to defining 14th amendment citizenship for Wong Kim Ark, the decision could have stopped here, but it doesn't. Instead it goes on for almost 40 pages trying to build a stronger justification for making Ark a citizen. This is because Gray had to try to trump his own legal precedent in Elk v. Wilkins as well as try to get around Slaughterhouse and Minor. He did so by creating a second and SEPARATE class of citizenship through the 14th amendment that is NOT the same thing as natural-born citizenship.

1,511 posted on 03/14/2013 8:17:18 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1502 | View Replies]

To: edge919
He did so by creating a second and SEPARATE class of citizenship through the 14th amendment that is NOT the same thing as natural-born citizenship.

Exactly!

1,512 posted on 03/14/2013 8:28:14 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1511 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The Minor court screwed up by using Vattel as if he gave an accurate summary of common law. However, the passage they used didn’t use the term NBC, and only a bad translation from 1797 made it look like it did. And that passage was not an attempt to summarize English common law, anyways.

The translation is not "bad" (well, maybe for Obama apologists). The translation was changed to fit the prevailing understanding of the term. Second, it's not a screw-up in any sense. The definition and decision was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court cited that definition and posed NO PROBLEMS with the definition, and gave the holding based on Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents. The WKA court RESPECTED that definition and STOPPED using the term NBC after the citation of Minor. Instead, Gray uses a separate term that is ONLY defined by the 14th amendment. And that is different because he specifically said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't have it both ways.

That is why a statement made in passing, irrelevant to the case, is not considered binding.

It wasn't made "in passing." The statement was used to reject Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen. And if it was made in passing, why did Justice Gray cite it verbatim in Wong Kim Ark?? And why does the Luria decision cite Minor and NOT WKA as the Supreme Court precedent on Art II presidential eligibility if it was just "made in passing"??

It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship one.

Wong Kim Ark and Luria prove otherwise:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...

Why does Ark point out the highlighted part if it is JUST a voting rights case?? And here's Luria which again cites Minor in terms of citizenship:

Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. 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, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

See, that's a lot of uses of the word "citizen" and NO use of the term "voting rights" ... and NO MENTION of Wong Kim Ark. Hmmmmmm. Spin, Obots, spin.

1,513 posted on 03/14/2013 8:30:32 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1510 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“The translation is not “bad” (well, maybe for Obama apologists). The translation was changed to fit the prevailing understanding of the term. Second, it’s not a screw-up in any sense. The definition and decision was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court cited that definition and posed NO PROBLEMS with the definition, and gave the holding based on Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents.”

You are factually incorrect. The translation WAS bad, since the term NBS (sujets naturel in French) was not in that passage, although Vattel used it once elsewhere, so he knew about it. That means he CHOSE not to use it.

And WKA only cited Minor to show that the Slaughterhouse decision was wrong, and the WKA decision did not, in any way, endorse the passing comment found in Minor.


Here it is:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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 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.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

That is NOT, in any way, an endorsement that two citizen parents are needed to be a natural born citizen, particularly since the spent half the decision showing it was NOT.


Sorry, edge. You are a nut.


1,514 posted on 03/14/2013 8:59:59 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1513 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You are factually incorrect. The translation WAS bad, since the term NBS (sujets naturel in French) was not in that passage, although Vattel used it once elsewhere, so he knew about it. That means he CHOSE not to use it.

Vattel used the term "naturel" which the framers translated as "natural-born" in 1781. The translation of Vattel was changed to fit this to the contemporary and prevailing understanding. Why else was it changed?? Why would it be changed to a "bad" translation instead of FIXED from a bad translation?? Like always, you aren't making any sense.

And WKA only cited Minor to show that the Slaughterhouse decision was wrong, and the WKA decision did not, in any way, endorse the passing comment found in Minor.

The Minor citation doesn't show that Slaughterhouse is wrong. It only shows that it wasn't comprehensive. Slaughterhouse considered exclusions via the subject clause. The Minor exclusion is NOT based on the subject clause. A person born to citizen parents would also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but that's not what the Minor definition of NBC is about. It's an exclusion to the ENTIRE citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. This is the simple truth you aren't honest enough to admit. Why else do these courts keep bringing up citizen parents??

And it's already been shown several times that you don't understand what you're quoting in this passage or that you're simply lying about it. It's time for you to admit the truth. Namecalling doesn't stop you from being wrong on this. You know I'm right. It's time to admit it. You've been schooled over and over and over and over. /i

1,515 posted on 03/14/2013 9:15:35 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1514 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Your questions are irrelevant or maybe I should say they are only relevant to someone who is ignoring the facts and looking to construct an extremely complex and lumpy conspiracy theory.

You can parse the wording and interpret the minutiae of the documents as much as you like but you fail to address the core of the issue.

1. Arizona SOS Bennett asked the Hawaii DOH to verify the facts of Obama's birth and listed out all the data points from the Obama BC released by the WH.

2. The Hawaii DOH sent a verification of Obama's birth back to Bennett.

3. Hawaii law states that any verification shall be considered for all purposes that the event took place as described and that all the facts of the event are as described by the applicant (Bennett).

Those three points are hard, undeniable facts and they are deadly to your conspiracy theory which is why you don't want to talk about them.

Making a song and dance about the presence or otherwise of Onaka's initials on the responses is just handwaving. They are not relevant. They neither add weight to nor undermine the legality of the verification.

Focussing on whether he used the words 'matches' or 'identical' is more posturing. They are not relevant and do not affect the legality of the verification.

That's why no one believes you.

1,516 posted on 03/15/2013 1:15:46 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1501 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Vattel used the term “naturel” which the framers translated as “natural-born” in 1781.”

No. The equivalent French term was ‘sujets naturel’, as was normally used in legal documents to translate both NBS & NBC. The mistranslation of Vattel took place in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution.

“The Minor citation doesn’t show that Slaughterhouse is wrong.”

It was only cited in WKA to show the Slaughterhouse decision included a wrong phrase, one that the court had NOT thought out before writing - as Minor did not bother to think things thru before calling Vattel common law. At no time does WKA cite Minor as evidence about the meaning of NBC.


1,517 posted on 03/15/2013 7:09:06 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1515 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

More dodging. I’m not going to waste my time on you any more.


1,518 posted on 03/15/2013 10:01:26 AM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1516 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Typical. I haven’t dodged anything. I’ve addressed your questions time and again (they’re not relevant) you just don’t like the answers.

It is you who has repeatedly refused to engage on the effect of the Hawaii statute regarding verifications and I’m not surprised. If I was as wedded to a fringe conspiracy theory as you are, I’d probably be reticent to factor in some hard facts that destroy it as well.

Maybe it’s time to realise that your theory is so fringe that no one else buys it. At all.


1,519 posted on 03/15/2013 10:41:20 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1518 | View Replies]

To: edge919
While someone like Obama MIGHT be a citizen (if he could legally prove he was born in the U.S.) he is still not a natural-born citizen unless he was born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

Twice now the voters and the electors found Obama to be qualified. As it is their job under the Constitution to select our presidents, it is their job to either determine whether candidates are in compliance with constitutional qualifications. In both of the last two elections, the "birther" issues were widely debated and a decision was made.

So, either the voters and the electors rejected your definition of the term "natural born citizen" or the they determined that Obama's father was someone who was an American citizen. I think the former more likely than the latter.

If Mr. Cruz runs, the voters and their electors will consider his qualifications to be president. If you feel he fails to meet the constitutional qualifications, then let the voters know about your feelings before they perform their duty.

In approximately 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and the electors have performed their constitutional function without any extra-constitutional interference by any Supreme Court attempts to reject a candidate's qualifications. The voters and their electors will continue to decide these questions and select our presidents per the Constitution.

1,520 posted on 03/15/2013 7:41:47 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1511 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No. The equivalent French term was ‘sujets naturel’, as was normally used in legal documents to translate both NBS & NBC.

It's two words. Each is translated separately. In 1781, the framers translated 'naturel' to be natural-born.

The mistranslation of Vattel took place in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution.

The 1797 translation FIXED the previous translation which was bad.

It was only cited in WKA to show the Slaughterhouse decision included a wrong phrase, one that the court had NOT thought out before writing - as Minor did not bother to think things thru before calling Vattel common law.

The "wrong phrase" had nothing to do with the Minor decision. The Minor decision was binding so Gray had to figure out a way to work around it because Wong Kim Ark was CLEARLY not a natural-born citizen.

By the way, thanks for pointing out the the Minor definition of NBC is based on Vattel. You're arguing against yourself again. Good job there. Second, don't be an idiot on the use of the term common law. Blackstone in his commentaries referred to the Law of Nations as common law.

At no time does WKA cite Minor as evidence about the meaning of NBC.

Wrong. He explained how the Minor decision determined that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. And then he gives the holding based on Minor being born to citizen parents.

You CAN'T get around this. You've admitted this is based on Vattel, so that proves the Minor court REJECTED English common law in defining NBC, and the WKA decision AFFIRMED the Minor decision. Calling it a "screw-up" doesn't explain why the Minor court insisted on using this definition or why WKA says affirms that Minor was born to citizen parents. My guess is that these courts were respecting Marshall's citation of this Vattel passage in The Venus, but they wisely corrected the translation to say natural-born citizens.

1,521 posted on 03/15/2013 11:18:30 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1517 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Twice now the voters and the electors found Obama to be qualified.

Not at all. This is an example of circular logic and an unsupported assumption. The act of electing him doesn't make him Constitutiionally eligible. Plenty of people who voted for him don't know his background, don't understand how the SCOTUS decisions make him ineligible, and an alarming number who voted for him just don't care if he meets the Constitutional requirements. The electors exercise a partisan function, so there's no inherent assumption they will be honest or respect the Constitution.

As it is their job under the Constitution to select our presidents, it is their job to either determine whether candidates are in compliance with constitutional qualifications.

Where does it specifiy that voters have a job to make sure candidates are in compliance?? Let's see a direct quote form the Constitution.

In both of the last two elections, the "birther" issues were widely debated and a decision was made.

The so-called "birther" issues were not debated honestly or fully. Procedural hurdles have been used to prevent voters from getting a legitimate and unfettered examination of Obama's credentials.

So, either the voters and the electors rejected your definition of the term "natural born citizen" or the they determined that Obama's father was someone who was an American citizen. I think the former more likely than the latter.

Sorry, but this is a meaningless assumption. A concensus in support of an error doesn't make the error correct. And who would have determined that Obma's father was an American citizen?? This is outright nonsense.

If Mr. Cruz runs, the voters and their electors will consider his qualifications to be president. If you feel he fails to meet the constitutional qualifications, then let the voters know about your feelings before they perform their duty.

That's what we're doing right now. The Supreme Court gave a clear and exclusive definition for anyone honest enough to comprehend and respect it: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

In approximately 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and the electors have performed their constitutional function without any extra-constitutional interference by any Supreme Court attempts to reject a candidate's qualifications.

More circular logic. It hasn't been necessary until Obama was errantly elected.

The voters and their electors will continue to decide these questions and select our presidents per the Constitution.

... or not. Obama was NOT selected per the Constitution.

1,522 posted on 03/15/2013 11:39:05 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1520 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
1. Arizona SOS Bennett asked the Hawaii DOH to verify the facts of Obama's birth and listed out all the data points from the Obama BC released by the WH.

Right and some of those "data points" were contained in the DOH's standard vital-records request form that Bennett submitted along with the list and electronic copy of the alleged LFBC. It's important to note that he sent them more information to verify than they actually returned, which legally means the additional information was not verified, thus the WHOLE of the LFBC is not verified.

2. The Hawaii DOH sent a verification of Obama's birth back to Bennett.

Not immediately and not without a bunch of unnecessary consternation.

3. Hawaii law states that any verification shall be considered for all purposes that the event took place as described and that all the facts of the event are as described by the applicant (Bennett).

Which becomes a problem when the letter of verification FAILS to verify "all the facts of the event" as was described by the applicant.

Focussing on whether he used the words 'matches' or 'identical' is more posturing. They are not relevant and do not affect the legality of the verification.

This is incorrect. Under the state and federal rules of evidence, the caretaker of the records has an obligation to say if the copies are "correct" or not. That's why it's a critical omission when Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. refused to verify all the information and refused to verify that the copy is true, correct and/or identical to the original birth certificate on file. Second, Onaka used different terminology to "verify" different parts of Bennett's request. He did NOT use the DOH's legal term for a live certificate of birth to verify Obama's place of birth. This man is a professional. Why would he change the language??

1,523 posted on 03/15/2013 11:49:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1516 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Where does it specifiy that voters have a job to make sure candidates are in compliance?? Let's see a direct quote form the Constitution.

Article 2 of the Constitution empowers electors to vote for our president. A majority of electors is required. The same Article provides electors with directions as to qualifications - age, citizenship and residency requirements. Just read it. It's all laid out for the electors.

What you won't find in the Constitution is any textual support for the role that you propose for the Supreme Court - to screen and approve the qualifications of candidates. If you are suggesting that electors might make a mistake, you are really suggesting only that you might disagree with or disapprove of their analysis, findings and decision. Please keep in mind that your proposal to create an extra-constituional role for the Supreme Court (screening and approving candidates) would carry with it the same risk in that you might very well disagree with Supreme Court analysis, findings and decision. There just isn't any constitutional way to ensure that you will not disagree with the decisions made by whomever is constitutionally empowered to make the decision.

Our Constitution empowers voters and their electors to select presidents. Our Constitution empowers the Congress to remove presidents through an impeachment process. You might prefer that the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to perform (or supervise) those functions, but at present it does not.

One good reason for not adopting your proposal to create a candidate screening role for the Supreme Court is the institutional limitations of the Supreme Court. If the justices want to disregard public records (birth certificates) or to question their accuracy, how are the justices to even begin to investigate and determine the location of births where there are no competent witnesses (other than the candidate) living? Should they hold a trial in the Supreme Court and hear witnesses? Should they empanel a jury to find facts for them? Or, should the findings of fact be made by some local judge or jury and the Supreme Court just adopt those findings if they like them? How does the Supreme Court resolve factual issues of paternity and parental citizenship (if the court feels that those facts are relevant to a candidate's qualifications) when, as is often the case, all witnesses to the candidate's conception are deceased or unavailable?

I don't like your proposal. I don't think that a judge, a petit jury or a small group of judges would be better than voters and their electors at resolving inherently doubtful issues like birth locations and paternity.

In post 1473, I tried to illustrate the problems with your proposal. Those who are frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court has avoided becoming involved in any of the recent "birther" controversies should try to understand that the selection (and removal) of presidents is a political and not a judicial function.

Fifty-seven straight elections without anyone ever really "knowing" for certain where any of the candidates were born or "knowing" for certain who might have been the candidates' real fathers demonstrates that we don't need the Supreme Court to screen candidate qualifications. Our system works.

Those who maintain that they "know" the true facts and "know" that the voters and their electors were twice mistaken in thinking Obama qualified would be well advised to prepare for 2016. If they think Cruz or any other candidate is unqualified, they should make their pitch to the voters because, under our Constitution, the voters and their electors decide. The Supreme Court can't and won't help. What must the justices do to be more clear about that?

What we have been seeing for some 57 straight elections is the system that was manifestly intended by those who designed the procedures for picking presidents. The system may not be perfect, but it works.

1,524 posted on 03/16/2013 4:42:45 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1522 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

I’ll suggest that looking into the backgrounds of the authors of these various Acts would be informative, 4Zoltan. This has invariably been the case whenever a jarring, anachronistic use of the term “subject” has arisen past nationhood, to the point that even some fairly early observers took note and attributed base motives and a desire to confuse. Much as today, come to think of it.


1,525 posted on 03/16/2013 6:08:20 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“You’ve admitted this is based on Vattel, so that proves the Minor court REJECTED English common law in defining NBC, and the WKA decision AFFIRMED the Minor decision.”

No. The Minor court, which did NOT investigate the meaning of NBC, screwed it up. It didn’t matter too much, because it was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE, not a citizenship one. WKA did not, in any way, affirm the Minor court’s use of NBC, and spent half the decision showing it was WRONG.

Edge, you are a fruitcake. You are not sane. But I’ve posted the full quotes, so if anyone sane IS reading this thread still, they will know the truth - something you are incapable of recognizing.


1,526 posted on 03/16/2013 7:50:15 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1521 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“I’ll suggest that looking into the backgrounds of the authors of these various Acts would be informative”

In 1780, John Adams drafted the Massachusetts constitution, in it he uses both terms “citizens of the Commonwealth” and “subjects of the Commonwealth” as as “citizen” and “subject”.

“And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”

“Art. XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character.”

“Art. II. And in order to provide for a representation of the citizens of this commonwealth, founded upon the principle of equality, every corporate town containing one hundred and fifty ratable polls, may elect one representative”

“And, that the citizens of this commonwealth may be assured, from time to time, that the moneys remaining in the public treasury”

“Art. XIII. In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts, in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.”

“Art. XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.”


1,527 posted on 03/16/2013 9:14:15 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1525 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

I’ll have to look up the 1780 Constitution of Massachussetts for context to see for certain, but it appears that the language shifts when specific refrence is made to (those) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.


1,528 posted on 03/16/2013 10:47:15 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Upon what status did Virginia Minor’s voting rights hinge had she indeed possessed such a right in the judgement of the court, Mr. Rogers?

As plaintiff her claim was that she possessed eligibility to vote on the basis of being a 14th Amendment citizen, so citizenship actually was determinative.

She lost.


1,529 posted on 03/16/2013 10:52:25 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1526 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Her complaint was that the 14th entitled her to vote.

"The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.

It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge."

"Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed....

...The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."

1,530 posted on 03/16/2013 11:54:26 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1529 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
So Virginia Minor's citizenship was central to the case then, contrary to your contention. She sued on the basis of being eligible to vote as a 14th Amendment citizen and lost because she was not made citizen by mechanism of the 14th but was found in fact to be a natural-born citizen, born in the country to two citizen parents.

Not every judge is Horace Gray, giving prattling, irrelevant tours of Western Civ trying to create openings to negate his own prior decisions, Mr. Rogers.

1,531 posted on 03/16/2013 12:05:33 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1530 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Horace appears to have been trying to legitimize Chester ... for appointing him to the unSCOTUS? Sure looks that way.


1,532 posted on 03/16/2013 12:07:26 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1531 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Her citizenship was a well established legal fact. Her contentions were that A) the 14th made her a citizen, and B) it gave her the exact legal rights of all other citizens.

Contention A was laughed at, since there was no legal basis for it anywhere in our history. Contention B was rejected as well. Since A was so totally insane, Minor is considered a voting rights case, establishing that not all citizens have a right to vote.

The court made no attempt to explore the limits of NBC citizenship, and expressly stated so. Had there been any possible legal question, they would have needed to do so - but they did not. Minor specifically did NOT rule on the meaning of NBC, and it said so in the decision.


1,533 posted on 03/16/2013 12:17:46 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1531 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Well, now. That’s interesting. Chester A. Arthur appointed Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court?

Certainly sounds like a quid pro quo, doesn’t it? Obama and Kagan springs to mind. It’s as if they studied the Arthur administration for some odd reason. Is that administration particularly noteworthy otherwise?


1,534 posted on 03/16/2013 12:34:16 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1532 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

It stated who was without a doubt a natural-born citizen and expressed doubt as to the *citizenship* of anyone not born in the country of two citizen parents, Mr. Rogers. Read what the words actually say, not what you want them to mean.


1,535 posted on 03/16/2013 12:38:21 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1533 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Read like an adult, for a change:

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 [n6] 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,” [n7] 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 [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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

Only in Birther Bizarro World does an opinion change what it is talking about a dozen times in one paragraph.

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Oh no! You need citizen parents to be a citizen!

Nope. The meaning didn’t change from the front of a sentence to the rear. He wasn’t discussing 12 types of citizenship.


1,536 posted on 03/16/2013 1:09:20 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1535 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; Mr Rogers
So Virginia Minor's citizenship was central to the case then, contrary to your contention. She sued on the basis of being eligible to vote as a 14th Amendment citizen and lost because she was not made citizen by mechanism of the 14th but was found in fact to be a natural-born citizen, born in the country to two citizen parents.

No. Virginia Minor’s petition to the SCOTUS (actually her husband’s petition because as a woman, she could not petition the SCOTUS herself) was based on the Constitution AND the 14th Amendment, specifically the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th that states: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14 Amendment, as RegulatorCountry correctly states, did not make Minor a citizen as she already was a citizen before the 14th Amendment – something the SCOTUS affirmed to be true. However Minor’s claim was not actually that she was made was a citizen by 14th Amendment but that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause made the State of Missouri’s denial of voting rights to her, a violation of both the Constitution AND the 14th Amendment.

The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "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." The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—*but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 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.

That is why any discussion in the ruling pertaining to Natural Born vs. any other definition of citizenship; either by statute or common law, by naturalization, via parentage, was a Dicta *, **, (1) in this case as the SCOTUS found that such further explorations were irrelevant to Minor’s case as her citizenship was ruled, even under the most narrow of definitions, not in question. Thus the actual question in Minor v. Happersett was whether the Constitution as amended by the 14th, Section 1 in particular, granted her as a citizen, suffrage and whether the Missouri State Supreme Court was correct in upholding the Missouri State Constitution clause that stated that only men could vote and whether this was in violation of the U.S. Constitution as amended by the 14th – Something the ruling found (on some rather specious grounds IMO) did not.

(1) dictum - n. Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis for judgment. The standard counter argument is: "it is only dictum (or dicta)." - See also: dicta obiter dicta”

The court then asked whether the right to vote was one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption in 1868. Citing a variety of historical sources, it found that it was not. The court reasoned that the Constitution of the United States did not explicitly give citizens an affirmative right to vote and that, throughout the history of the nation from the adoption of the Constitution, a wide variety of persons—including women—were recognized as citizens but denied the right to vote. For example, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, none of the original Thirteen Colonies gave all citizens the right to vote, all attaching restrictions based on factors such as sex, race, age, and ownership of land. The opinion continues that "it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared”.

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

”If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. ”

The Court then went on to say:

”The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen. ”

”It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed. ”

The Court then went on to point out all the various State voting laws, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and since; some that placed State residency requirements on “freemen” or imposed taxpaying or land owning requirements on them, none of which BTW, granted suffrage to women (NJ once did grant suffrage to women but that was later withdrawn in 1807).

The Court also pointed out that one didn’t even necessarily need to be a citizen in order to vote in some States:

” Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.”

So contrary to many of the “birther’s claims, the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett did not rule on what constituted a “Natural Born Citizen” either under the Constitution or as amended by the 14th. The ruling however found that neither the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment granted women the constitutionally enumerated and protected right to vote that could not be abridged or denied via State law.

Oh, and BTW, a little thing called the 19th Amendment overruled Minor v. Happersett anyway, so the whole argument is moot.

And ironically if Virginia Minor had in Minor v. Happersett, asked the Court if she was eligible to run for POTUS, they most likely would have ruled that she was, but that under the Court’s interpretation at the time, she would not have been entitled to vote for herself or for anyone else. If the 19th Amendment had never been passed, the same would apply to Sarah Palin.

1,537 posted on 03/16/2013 2:01:54 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1531 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Ah, the voice of reason. Well and truly stated. Refreshing!


1,538 posted on 03/16/2013 2:59:55 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Article 2 of the Constitution empowers electors to vote for our president. A majority of electors is required. The same Article provides electors with directions as to qualifications - age, citizenship and residency requirements. Just read it. It's all laid out for the electors.

I admire a good imagination, but honesty is more important here. There are no "directions" for electors on the qualifications. The eligibility requirements come two paragraphs after talking about the job of the electors. The paragraph in between talks about the responsibility of Congress to determine the time and "chusing" of electors.

What you won't find in the Constitution is any textual support for the role that you propose for the Supreme Court - to screen and approve the qualifications of candidates.

The judicial power authorized by the Constitution applies to: all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. Is there some part of "all Cases" you don't understand??

One good reason for not adopting your proposal to create a candidate screening role for the Supreme Court is the institutional limitations of the Supreme Court.

Institutional limitations?? Sorry, but the excuses here are getting ridiculous. Is there not an inherent institutional limitation on the Congress when the majority party is the same as the party of the president??

Those who are frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court has avoided becoming involved in any of the recent "birther" controversies should try to understand that the selection (and removal) of presidents is a political and not a judicial function.

Nonsense. The removal of a president takes the same form as a judicial trial. The only difference is that the responsibility is specifically designated to the Congress. Unfortunately, we already know this is a flawed system because of inherent political bias. I'm not wasting time on the other excuses. And that's all they are: excuses.

1,539 posted on 03/16/2013 3:01:29 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1524 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No. The Minor court, which did NOT investigate the meaning of NBC, screwed it up.

They DID investigate the meaning of NBC. Read the decision. The first fourth is about who the original citizens were, as defined by the Constituion.

It didn’t matter too much, because it was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE, not a citizenship one.

The voting rights were tied directly to a class of citizenship. WKA AFFIRMED this when they gave the holding in Minor. Luria AFFIRMED that Minor established a precedent on Art II presidential eligibility based on its citizenship determination. I've given direct quotes. You can't get around this, so it's time to admit you're wrong..

Edge, you are a fruitcake. You are not sane.

Nonsense. You're a typical liberal who relies on the three B's to try desperately to get out of your losing argument: bluff, B.S., and bully. It's not working and you know it. You've proven most of my points for me by admitting that Minor was relying on Vattel, and when YOU pointed out the Luria decision several months ago. Thanks for making my arguments so easy to prove.

1,540 posted on 03/16/2013 4:02:38 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1526 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
So contrary to many of the “birther’s claims, the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett did not rule on what constituted a “Natural Born Citizen” either under the Constitution or as amended by the 14th.

- - -

And ironically if Virginia Minor had in Minor v. Happersett, asked the Court if she was eligible to run for POTUS, they most likely would have ruled that she was, but that under the Court’s interpretation at the time, she would not have been entitled to vote for herself or for anyone else.

How exactly would the court be able to rule V. Minor would be eligible for president if they didn't define natural-born citizen. This is a self-contradiction, unless you were quoting someone else.

1,541 posted on 03/16/2013 4:06:59 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1537 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“I’ve given direct quotes. You can’t get around this, so it’s time to admit you’re wrong..”

No, you haven’t. Not if read by someone who understands basic English. But of course, in your world, the courts ignore your interpretation because of a Great Conspiracy, when in reality they reject it because you are nuts.

Minor:

“In 1867, Minor co-founded and became the first president of the Woman’s Suffrage Association of Missouri (later an affiliate of the American Woman Suffrage Association). Minor personally sided with the National Woman’s Suffrage Association, prompting her resignation as President of the Missouri Association. At an 1869 convention in St. Louis, Minor stated that “the Constitution of the United States gives me every right and privilege to which every other citizen is entitled.” Later that year, Francis and Virginia Minor drafted and circulated pamphlets arguing for women’s suffrage based on the newly-passed Fourteenth Amendment.

On October 15, 1872, Virginia Minor attempted to register to vote in St. Louis. When election registrar Reese Happersett turned her down, Virginia (represented by Francis) filed suit in the Missouri state courts. The trial court, Missouri Supreme Court, and United States Supreme Court all ruled in favor of the state of Missouri. The Supreme Court unanimously held “that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”, and that the decision of who should be entitled to vote was left to the legislative branch.”

“Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote.

The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.”

Of course, Wiki is also part of the Great Conspiracy...

:>(


1,542 posted on 03/16/2013 5:54:18 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1540 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The judicial power authorized by the Constitution applies to: all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. Is there some part of "all Cases" you don't understand??

Well, there was a "case" in Luther v. Borden (1849), but the Supreme Court determined that it could not properly decide whether Rhode Island was being governed by a "republican" form of government (as required by the Constitution). The Court felt that, under the Constitution, " it rests with Congress [and not the Court] to decide what government is the established one in a State":

"For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." [Emphasis added.]

Next, read "cases"like:

Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon (1912) (similar to Luther);

Chicago & Southern Airlines v. Waterman (1948) (After citing the institutional limitations of the judiciary to gather certain facts, the Supreme Court stated: "But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.")

Gilligan v. Morgan (1948) (In response to a "case" concerning the proper training and use of the National Guard, the Supreme Court didn't dare venture to decide: "It would be difficult to think of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was intended by the Constitution to be left to the political branches directly responsible -- as the Judicial Branch is not -- to the electoral process. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.")

Even an incompetent like Orly Taitz can construct a "case" by finding a plaintiff, naming a defendant or two and filing a complaint. But, as the above "cases" show, the Supreme Court can be expected to decline to decide an issue that is, per the Constitution, to be decided by someone else (like the voters and their electors).

There are good reasons that the Supreme Court has shown no interest in interfering with the two decision by voters and their electors that Ovama is qualified. It's not the Supreme Court's job to interfere in such political decisions and, even if it were, it has no sensible way of resolving the factual disputes. If they were forced at gunpoint to decide Orly's case, they would vote 9-0 in favor of Obama. They will never attempt to disqualify a presidential candidate based on the "natural born citizen" provision.

The Founding Fathers did not think that the Supreme Court should decide all important questions for us. Your proposal that we should worship judges and hope they solve all of our problems for us reflects an attitude about the judiciary that the Founding Fathers simply didn't share.

Historical support for my view on this is now 57-0. After 2016, it will be 58-0. Make your pitch to the voters and their electors.

1,543 posted on 03/16/2013 6:10:44 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1539 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Don't be ridiculous. Since when does the Supreme Court rely on a "wiki" to summarize the holding of a case for them?? Again, you can't get around the actual facts. The Supreme Court gave the holding of Minor in Wong Kim Ark and INCLUDED the inconvenient fact that the Minor court based Virginia Minor's citizenship on being born to citizen parents, contrary to her argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Are you going to call this a "screw up" too???
1,544 posted on 03/16/2013 8:58:05 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1542 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Well, there was a "case" in Luther v. Borden (1849), but the Supreme Court determined that it could not properly decide whether Rhode Island was being governed by a "republican" form of government (as required by the Constitution).

Ummm, you do understand this has absolutely nothing to do with presidential electors?? You were arguing that the electors have unspecified directions for determining the "qualifications" of a candidate. This immediately fails because several states have laws that allows voters to challenge any and all candidates on the basis of eligibility. If this were only left up to the electors and were just a political question, then these state laws would have to be unconstitutional.

The Founding Fathers did not think that the Supreme Court should decide all important questions for us.

Based on what ... your wishful thinking??

Your proposal that we should worship judges and hope they solve all of our problems for us reflects an attitude about the judiciary that the Founding Fathers simply didn't share.

Yikes, here comes the pointless melodrama that inevitably accompanies every losing argument. Nobody said anyting about worshiping judges.

Historical support for my view on this is now 57-0.

Nonsense. You're still making an assumption based on circular logic. You're not even agreeing with your own obot brethern who want to believe that there were several decisions in these lawsuits, such Ankeny, that they believed, declared Obama to be Constituionally eligible (except Ankeny never actually did this). You guys can't have it both ways. If it's a political question over which the courts have no authority, then Obama was never found to be eligible. If it's not just a political question, then these courts have failed to apply Supreme Court precedence: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And we stil have the Luria decision that cites other Supreme Court decisions in defining parameters of presidential eligiblity. Why would they do this if it's a political question they can't touch??

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, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

1,545 posted on 03/16/2013 9:10:42 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1543 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The decision in Minor would have been identical IF they HAD declared that the 14th made her a citizen. The source of her citizenship - NBC, 14th or naturalization - was irrelevant to the decision. Thus it was not a citizenship case. The source of citizenship had nothing to do with the decision.

Wiki often gives a good, simple summary - and I was hoping a good, simple summary would help you. I’ve long known you cannot read 1-2 sentences, written in adult English, without totally screwing them up.


1,546 posted on 03/16/2013 9:17:04 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1544 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The decision in Minor would have been identical IF they HAD declared that the 14th made her a citizen.

You're not helping your argument. All this does is beg the question as to why they didn't just accept her argument, and it still doesn't address why Wong Kim Ark said her citizenship was due to birth to citizen parents. Remember, Justice Gray took exception to inclusion of "consuls" in the Slaughterhouse decision, but he took NO EXCEPTION to Minor's inclusion citizen parents in determing Viriginia Minor's citizenship. Again, YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THIS. Sourcing Wiki does NOT trump Wong Kim Ark's DIRECT CITATION of the holding. All you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

1,547 posted on 03/16/2013 9:21:04 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1546 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Wong Kim Ark said her citizenship was due to birth to citizen parents”.

No. It did not. But since you cannot read two sentences without getting things backwards, and have trouble with just one, I cannot convince you.

However, 50 states, 535 members of Congress, and every court agrees with ME. Deal with it, nutjob!


For those not familiar with it, here again is the full quote of Minor as used in WKA:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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 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.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”


To what purpose did WKA cite Minor?

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later...”

Less than one sentence, edge, but I’m sure it is long enough to confuse you...they were REJECTING “the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” - a view erroneously made in the Slaughterhouse case.


However, this quote is from section 5. The sections of WKA discussing NBC were sections 2 & 3, concluding, in the words of Kent:

“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.”

And with Binney’s comment:

“The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,

(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)

such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.”


1,548 posted on 03/16/2013 9:49:23 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1547 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Rogers is now going into "baffle" mode, citing large amounts of text, hoping to confuse the argument. Here's the direct quote one more time.
The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States,
None of your arguments mean anything until you can be honest enough to admit this says her citizenship is due to birth to citizen parents. You're desperately trying to create a game of connect irrelevant dots, but NONE of it disputes this one, simple direct quote. Again, YOU CANNOT GET AROUND THIS.
1,549 posted on 03/16/2013 9:56:48 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1548 | View Replies]

To: edge919
If it's a political question over which the courts have no authority, then Obama was never found to be eligible.

Repeatedly, I have stated that Obama was found to be eligible by the voters and their electors in accordance with the Constitution. Repeatedly, I have stated that the judiciary does not have the power to reverse that decision. No court has and no court will.

If it's not just a political question, then these courts have failed to apply Supreme Court precedence: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And we stil have the Luria decision that cites other Supreme Court decisions in defining parameters of presidential eligiblity. Why would they do this if it's a political question they can't touch??

While the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of citizenship and has even made references to the term "natural born citizen" in the context of determining the status and rights of individuals tangled up in our immigration system, the Supreme Court has never hinted that it has the power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified.

For the life of me, I don't know what accounts for your distrust of the voters and their electors. Voters and their electors know that they cannot elect a person who doesn't meet the qualifications. They know that they cannot select a president and vice-president who are inhabitants of the same state. They know about the age requirement and the residency requirement. It's their job to select only qualified candidates. And, I think most people believe that they do a much better job than could be expected from a roomful of elitist judges at the Supreme Court.

The good news for you is that you can be a voter, too, and you can judge for yourself the qualifications of the candidates. And, if you prefer to let Emerich de Vattel tell you how to vote, that's your right. Frankly, I think his fans will have a difficult time convincing other voters that it's best that we now turn our future over to some 18th century Swiss egghead who liked to anesthetize himself with fuzzy thinking/speculation about the nature and origins of citizenship. But, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Go for it.

Don't waste your time waiting for some judges to come along and reverse the decisions of the voters/electors. They're not coming. There are good reasons why the score remains 57-0.

1,550 posted on 03/16/2013 10:49:20 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1545 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,401-1,4501,451-1,5001,501-1,5501,551-1,578 next 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