Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Wasn't Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf ^

Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last
To: DTxAg
But Happersett says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." So aren't they equating native born and natural born?

That is exactly right. Justice Waite in MvH, following the language of Vattel from the Law of Nations," equates natives and natural-born citizens ... and in BOTH circumstances, this refers ONLY to persons who are born inthe country to citizen parents. Vattel says the place of birth is not as important as the citizenship of the father.

After the Wong Kim Ark decision, the term "native-born" has been genercized to refer to persons who are domestically born within a country's jurisdiction, but the decision itself made a clear distinction that preserves the meaning of the term natural-born citizen as meaning those persons born in the country to citizen parents. And clearly the court in WKA says the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Native-born does NOT appear in the Constitution and is NOT the requirement for presidential eligibility. That term is only natural-born citizen. That definition has not changed: All persons born in the country to parents who were its citizesn.

101 posted on 01/11/2012 9:29:52 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

Even in todays online dictionary there are multiple definitions of ‘native’ that may address your question.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native

“1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one’s native land.
2. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature; inherent: native ability; native grace.
3. belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people: Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.”

What seems to be the ‘default’ definition that leads to your question is item 1 above. It is simply ‘place of birth’.

But look at number 3 - “belonging by birth to a PEOPLE REGARDED AS INDIGENOUS...”. That definition is the one that is more synonymous to ‘natural born’ that #1.

So ‘native’ does not just mean ‘place’.


102 posted on 01/11/2012 9:36:23 AM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The only relevant passage is this:

Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.

IOW, the Plaintiffs did not present a valid argument for which relief could be granted. Everything else is just fluff. Telling me repeatedly to read post 27 (which I did a long time ago, thanks ....) does not change the facts.

103 posted on 01/11/2012 9:49:09 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Telling me repeatedly to read post 27 (which I did a long time ago, thanks ....) does not change the facts.

If you read post 27 "a long time," ago then why did you say you read the PDF instead in post 67??? The passage you cited here doesn't show any "facts." It's a legal dodge. The court claims the Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, yet they cited Vattel who is quoted by the Supreme Court in one of the decisions cited by the Indiana judges. Why is that okay for the Supreme Court but not for Ankeny to do??

Second, I've shown where these Indiana judges misrepresented the plaintiffs' argument in a direct contradiction. IOW, this court has a severe problem: either they lied about what the plaintiff's argument was or they were too stupid to realize that they contradicted themselves and misrepresented what the plaintiffs were arguing. What this leaves us with is a court that severely undermines its own credibility and legal reputation. This case does NOT help Obama other than to provide poorly supported subterfuge.

104 posted on 01/11/2012 10:10:40 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I pointed you to the exact reason given for dismissal - the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Govenor was legally required to verify the candidate’s eligiblility.

The court then got long winded trying to demolish the 9 claims made. Whether they did a good job in that is immaterial.

Your post 27 does not address the reason for the dismissal and is also immaterial in so far as it pertains to this decision.

The Plaintiffs were idiots. They should have had decent counsel. They were unprepared at the trial level and lost. The had very little ground to stand upon at appeal and lost. They ran out of time / money / desire to appeal further, or were denied outright.

Can you show that the Govenor IS required to verify a candidate’s eligibility? That is the ONLY point that can be contested in the ruling.


105 posted on 01/11/2012 10:37:26 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Amazing. Your response to a reasoned argument is to try to get the reasoner banned.

Would you care to point out where exactly I have violated any FR posting guidelines, other than perhaps in having a different opinion from you? But then I must have missed the section about always agreeing with Godebert as a prerequisite of FR membership.


106 posted on 01/11/2012 10:39:06 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

I am no fan of Obama and believes he lies constantly. But this in and of itself does not differentiate him from pretty much any politician. This is largely because most Americans will not vote for politicians who tell them the truth. Thus politicians are by definition liars.

I voted against Obama and will vote against him again. But I believe he is a native-born citizen under the Constitution as it presently stands. He is a bad President, not an ineligible one.

You know, if you expel from your ranks all who oppose Obama but don’t buy into the more hysterical birther claims you will wind up with a very small coalition.


107 posted on 01/11/2012 10:44:07 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“I am no fan of Obama and believes he lies constantly. But this in and of itself does not differentiate him from pretty much any politician. This is largely because most Americans will not vote for politicians who tell them the truth. Thus politicians are by definition liars.”

So you’re saying Obama is no more dishonest than the average politician. Really? Is he roughly as honest/dishonest as Newt? As Santorum? As Perry?

Sounds like moral equivalence to me. ‘Sure Obama lies, but so do they all, and he is no worse’.

Really?? What an interesting position.


108 posted on 01/11/2012 10:48:45 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; edge919; bluecat6
Many thanks to the three of you. I understand your positions more clearly. I had originally interpreted Happersett this way:

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 [natural born] 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.

I put "natural born" in brackets as that was what I thought they had meant, so I interpreted Happersett as defining one way to be a NBC but not the only way. Others previously pointed out the error.
109 posted on 01/11/2012 10:55:46 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

In case there’s any ambiguity, that was a polite but definite question. I.e.: according to your reply, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference, integrity-wise, between Obama, Newt, Santorum and Perry. They are all equally big liars. That is what you said. Do you stand by it?

Or, by some strange coincidence, do the characteristics you ascribed to politicians as a class just happen not to apply to the current three GOP frontrunners? What astronomically unlikely odds that would be, according to your own statements.


110 posted on 01/11/2012 11:37:20 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Thanks for all the posts everyone. They have been most helpful.


111 posted on 01/11/2012 11:40:42 AM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

i think the key passage in MvH is hard to read correctly for many people. It shifts gears several times, and it is more easily understood if the whole case is read, instead of just reading that key passage.

Regards,


112 posted on 01/11/2012 12:28:37 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
I pointed you to the exact reason given for dismissal - the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Govenor was legally required to verify the candidate’s eligiblility.

Sorry, but you didn't bring anything new to the table. I already talked about this point in post #18, where I said:

The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle ... failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.
The court then got long winded trying to demolish the 9 claims made. Whether they did a good job in that is immaterial.

I thought you said you read the PDF?? The court didn't try to demolish the nine claims. This is what they said:

Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1

They "revise and restate" the nine issues into two: Can the governor be held responsible and the issue of natural-born citizenhip. The problem, as I pointed out is that in "restating" the issues, they actually mischaracterized the issues and lied about the plaintiff's arguments.

The Plaintiffs were idiots. They should have had decent counsel. They were unprepared at the trial level and lost. The had very little ground to stand upon at appeal and lost. They ran out of time / money / desire to appeal further, or were denied outright.

Right. That's enough insults and excuses to make it easy to avoid admitting the myriad of flaws in the appeals court decision that I pointed out in detail in post #27. I would advise reading that post.

Can you show that the Govenor IS required to verify a candidate’s eligibility?

This isn't my claim. The state of Indiana does, by law, require presidential candidates to be Constitutionally eligible:

IC 3-8-1-6
President or Vice President
Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

... and by law, the Governor is required to provide certificates of ascertainment for presidential elections.

IC 3-10-4-7
Assembly of presidential electors
(c) As provided by 3 U.S.C. 6, the governor shall deliver to the electors present six (6) duplicate originals of the certificate of ascertainment of appointment of the electors mailed to the Archivist of the United States.

It's not clear under the law how the governor can sign or deliver a certificate of ascertainment if or when neither of the candidates are eligible. Maybe the law omits a procedural necessity here, but it's not too hard to understand why the governor was named in the lawsuit since he has responsiblity for part of the process. The Indiana Appeals Court doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this. They say the plaintiffs didn't cite an authority, but at the same time they also willfully misconstrued the plaintiffs' argument about presidential eligiblity, so it's not clear whether the court's claim about the governor's legal responsibility is supported or not. I don't know whether the plaintiffs cited the law that I've cited or not. The court simply punted the claim by denying whether the argument was supported by a reference to authority. It doesn't change the fact their song and dance about natural-born citizenship is in error.

113 posted on 01/11/2012 1:06:15 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg
FY(additional)I:

In the times that surround the Constitution, Natural (& Naturel in Frech), Native and Indigenous (or Indigenes in French) were all alike in meaning or significance. Some early examples include:

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ


 

The new royal and universal English dictionary ...: To which is prefixed, a grammar of the English language, Volume 2
Author: J. Johnson
Publisher: Millard, 1763
Original from Columbia University
Digitized: Sep 16, 2009

Found: http://books.google.com/books?id=OmtHAAAAYAAJ


 

The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University


From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ


 

Regarding the 14th Amendment, and the present day bastardization of it...

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

[1]

 

Additional information regarding the framers of the 14th Amendment and their intent:

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Because the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments first section was to end the denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution was imperative to first define citizenship of the United States. Otherwise, a State could refuse to recognize newly emancipated slaves as citizens by withholding the right to sue, make contracts, due process, purchase property, etc. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.

Continued at length...

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.

Continued...

Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama was born owing allegiance to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, regardless if born in HI (or some other state)...inheriting his foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright. He even admitted as much in plain view on his campaign website.

Being born owing allegience to two different countries was unheard of in 1787.

Today, while the U.S. government recocognizes such a possibility, it does not mean such recognition changes the meaning or intent of the term "natural born Citizen."

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

And this...

US State Department Services Dual Nationality

... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. ...

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

The issue, here, really boils down to one of divided allegiance and ultimately national security. Our Commander in Chief must not be born with foreign allegiance owed, nor the possibility to aquire by birthright, citizenship(s) in other countries.

Obama was born a British Subject, possibly a U.S. "citizen", was granted Kenyan citizenship around age 2 when that country declared their independence from G.B. (apparently loosing that Kenyan citizenship when he allegedly didn't reaffirm it when he was a young adult) and possibly even had Indonesian citizenship by way of his Indonesian step dad, Soetoro.

He never would have fit the "natural born Citizen" definition known to the founders and framers of the nations, the framers of the 14th Amendment, or various SCOTUS justices including Chief Justices Jay, Marshall and Waite, etc.

114 posted on 01/11/2012 1:19:43 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

framers of the nations —> framers of the nation


115 posted on 01/11/2012 1:25:02 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Sorry, but you didn't bring anything new to the table.

Oh, gee, so sorry that I agreed with your original thought in post 18. I guess since you had it "first" I can't use it. I'll just move along then to another thread.

116 posted on 01/11/2012 1:52:33 PM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Do you understand how a debate works?? You acted like you were arguing against me on this point, but you basically repeated something I already said. In fact, I suspect you probably got the idea from reading my post to begin with.


117 posted on 01/11/2012 2:10:40 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Obama Exposer; Sherman Logan; DiogenesLamp; An.American.Expatriate; Godebert
He never would have fit the "natural born Citizen" definition known to the founders and framers of the nations, the framers of the 14th Amendment, or various SCOTUS justices including Chief Justices Jay, Marshall and Waite, etc.

That, in my opinion is the bottom line. A proper analysis of NBC as that term appears in the Constitution would necessarily include a determination of the meaning the drafters and ratifiers likely intended when they used the term.

The historical record and contemporaneous writings of those individuals strongly suggests they intended that the commander-in-chief of our nation's military have an allegiance to the new country that came from a American bloodline.

George Washington who served as the commander during the very precarious times of our American Revolution emphasized this point on several occasions in connection with the government sending him general officers, and he is no doubt one who insisted on its application.

If this is not true, there was no need to go to the additional effort of specifying anything beyond "citizen" as was done for senators and representatives, as a qualification for the CinC. Nor did the Congress need to go to the later effort to correct an oversight by an amendment extending the NBC requirement to, but only to, the VP as well.

Most on this thread agree on the meaning of NBC, the dispute rages over whether Minor, in its own words, conclusively defines NBC and whether, if it does, it sets out a binding holding.

As Sherman points out above, the USSC may not rule the way conservative’s desire. Minor may be helpful in any litigation on the point, but it also presents a risk. And that risk is found in the two possible interpretations of its language as pointed out upthread. Even further, a court as sharply politically divided as the current court (4-4-?)could also seize on the statement: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.

Imagine the result a liberal court could reach with that statement. We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, but if the court decides two citizen parents are not required to be NBC and embraces the authority expressed in this later sentence, then it is an open field. For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.

118 posted on 01/11/2012 4:11:28 PM PST by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The language of the decision states that there are doubts as to whether others are Citizens, not whether they are Natural Born Citizens. The case concerned a question of voting rights, which would first require a determination of citizenship; as it was certain that the Mrs. Minor was a Natural Born Citizen, it was unnecessary to further inquire as to whether she was an ordinary Citizen under any rule of jus soli.
119 posted on 01/11/2012 4:47:33 PM PST by NJ_Tom (I don't worship the State; I don't worship the Environment - I only worship God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Photobucket
120 posted on 01/11/2012 7:17:40 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: edge919
In fact, I suspect you probably got the idea from reading my post to begin with.

See my Post 6

121 posted on 01/11/2012 9:32:21 PM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

That post doesn’t mention anything about the governor’s responsibility toward vetting presidential candidates.

Of course, this idea, again, isn’t new:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2824280/posts?page=31#31

“Ummmm, you’ve ignored that the first half of the unanimous opinion of 3 based the meat of their decision on denying that the governor had any responsibility to vet presidential candidates.”


122 posted on 01/11/2012 9:43:16 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: edge919

No, it just said they were idiots that had nothing to appeal, but I guess I thought this because of your later post and not because I took the time to actually read the decision and determine that the OP’s Red Herring about the NBC had no bearing whatsoever on the question he posed - I still doubt his intentions in posting this in the first place.


123 posted on 01/11/2012 9:51:41 PM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
Most on this thread agree on the meaning of NBC, the dispute rages over whether Minor, in its own words, conclusively defines NBC and whether, if it does, it sets out a binding holding.

I've asked this question in regards to Minor several times. Maybe you can answer. What point does it serve for the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the citizenship of the parents if not for how it relates to the definition of NBC?? It's a narrower definition of citizenship than is required for determining voting rights, which they admit here:

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.

Why does the court emphasize citizenship by way of being born to citizen parents?? And why is that affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark definition when it gives the holding in Minor?? Nowhere in Minor does it specifically say that Virignia Minor was born to citizen parents, but it is definitely understood by Gray:

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.

Why emphasize this??? The direct question is if ALL citizens are voters, so why go to all the trouble of narrowing the criteria in regards to Virginia Minor if not for defining NBC??

We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, ...

Really. Where exactly do you think this was sorted out at???

For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.

This is nonsense. For the longest time, most Obama skeptics were only citing Vattel's definition of natural citizenship, not Minor. In Ankney v. Daniels, the court said the plaintiffs did not cite to authority (meaning the Supreme Court), so some of us got wise and understood we needed to specifically reference the Court using a definition of natural-born citizen that matches Vattel's. The best instance is in Minor, but it is not the ONLY one. Wong Kim Ark also cited the Minor definition and affirmed it, and went further and emphasized that a) the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens and b) that the court was committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Whether anyone has to alter or eradicate Minor is an irrelevant sideshow. Minor provides an inconvenient, yet authoritative and conclusive definition of NBC. It is given specifically to satisfy the clause in Article II. The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever. It's demonstrably wrong.

124 posted on 01/11/2012 10:08:02 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Namecalling isn’t a substitute for logic and reason. Calling the plaintiffs idiots is pure laziness. What exactly are YOUR intentions?? I notice you’ve punted on replying to any of the myriad of problems that were pointed out in the Ankeny decision in post 27 and 113. IOW, you’re not adding any substance to the thread.


125 posted on 01/11/2012 10:20:26 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I call them idiots because they tried to take this case to trial without decent counsel. That was idiotic. It was even MORE idiotic to appeal it without counsel.

How can I add substance to something which has no basis?

The only grounds for appeal in this case is if the plaintiffs can show that they DID provide evidence that the Govenor is required to verify the candidates eligibility. Everything else is just a waste of time.

The Court could have written in it’s ruling that they believe the NBC clause means that any child born naturally (i.e not via c-section, etc...) in the US is a NBC - but that STILL wouldn’t be grounds for appeal UNLESS they used that to actually dismiss the case.

The case was dismissed, rightly or wrongly, based on one thing only - the failure of the plaintiffs to show the the Govenor failed to perform his duties.

So, if you want to rail against badly argued / written judicial opinions - which have no bearing on the actual decision itself - more power to you!


126 posted on 01/12/2012 12:27:02 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg; Sherman Logan

Your reply was the height of sanctimony. I asked you to quote my offensive words and you were UNABLE to do so. Quote exactly what I said that got you so worked up-—i.e.: provide my exact words w a link—or stop being such a jackass.

As for S. Logan, answer this. What conservative in the history of the world has ever answered a question w a default, knee-jerk resort to Moral Equivalence? I know of no case where any conservative ever has; Moral Equivalence is anathema to conservatives.

Liberals, though, live and breathe Moral Equivalence. They resort to it as naturally as a fish swims in water.


127 posted on 01/12/2012 6:40:00 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: edge919; All
Maybe you can answer. What point does it serve for the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the citizenship of the parents if not for how it relates to the definition of NBC??

My answer is in the next paragraph, with the following condition. If you happen to agree you do not need to say a thing. If you should disagree with the answer, just write it off as sadly mistaken, I can live with that. You are certainly free to discuss it with others, just do not respond to me.

Thank you. The wording of your question demonstrates that parental citizenship may only "relate to" and not entirely define NBC. Minor's citizenship was stipulated, and the court referred to NBC solely as a means of determining whether even the highest form of citizenship should, via the intent of the 14th A, trump a state law that prohibited its female citizens from voting. It concluded, under the very best circumstances for a U.S. female, that despite the 14th A, a state could indeed deny its females the vote.

It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court. That is why the holding of the case does not mention NBC. That is also why it has been cited in cases limited to 14th A disputes for its manner of testing the 14th A, but has never been cited in a case as providing for a defintition of NBC because the later cases were not concerned with NBC.

Think of it this way, if the court had mentioned "bread" and noted such was available in loafs and was sometimes wrapped, that would not have conclusively defined bread.

The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever.

Many readers of this thread will note Edge's mischaracterization the way the "no doubt" language was resolved on this thread, and recognize the intellectual dishonesty in his post.

128 posted on 01/12/2012 6:49:35 AM PST by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Quote exactly what I said that got you so worked up-—i.e.: provide my exact words w a link—or stop being such a jackass.

As I said before, your original post was nonsensical (if you can't find your own initial post questioning Sherman Logan in this thread, that's on you). You took to questioning a 5-year Freeper based on an accusation that he/she was an Obot troll because he/she disagreed with the interpretation of a SCOTUS case. Your post was nonsensical since you asked another Freeper whether he/she thought Obama suffers from a specific psychiatric condition, as if that proved anything. You apparently didn't think your question through, since someone can say "no I don't think Obama suffers from that particular mental disorder" or "I don't make psychiatric diagnoses" and still be conservative.

You've now ratcheted that up by continuing to question a 5-year Freeper, apparently based on his/her belief that all politicians lie. And if you want sanctimonious, read your recent posts to Sherman Logan. If you'd like to criticize other Freepers by defending the honesty of politicians, go for it.
129 posted on 01/12/2012 7:14:12 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

You can’t quote what I said because there was nothing offensive about it. You are harassing and haranguing me over something I never even said.

Or if not, then are you the new Posting Police? Have you made it a crime to ask, on a conservative site, if Obama is a liar? Does JR know you are harassing people for daring to ask such an outre question?

What is your problem? Why are you stalking me???


130 posted on 01/12/2012 7:22:27 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
I call them idiots because they tried to take this case to trial without decent counsel. That was idiotic. It was even MORE idiotic to appeal it without counsel.

Sorry, but this is pointless fudging ... you begrudge them for not having "decent" counsel, yet out of all the eligibility lawsuits, including those WITH counsel (decent or otherwise), this is the ONLY one where a court made an attempt, albeit a poor one, to address the merits of the question of natural-born citizenship. And then YOU admit the only thing of merit that the said court used to dismiss the case had nothing to do with that same question. The bottom line is that the Indiana Appeals Court does not carry any legal weight on this question outside of Indiana ... and their ill-formed opinion of natural-born citizen does not outweigh the clearly articulated definition as used by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases.

So, if you want to rail against badly argued / written judicial opinions - which have no bearing on the actual decision itself - more power to you!

This is a debate forum and there are plenty of people who resort to this poor decision as if it is, in the words of the OP, the "gold standard" for defining natural-born citizen. Railing against ignorance is a good thing. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

131 posted on 01/12/2012 7:22:53 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Whatever - have a good time ....


132 posted on 01/12/2012 7:32:40 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Since you're unable to find your own posts, I will help you. Your original post to Sherman Logan said this:

Perhaps the difference lies in their view of Obama. Blade wouldn’t even admit Barry is a liar, much less a pathological liar. He was an Obot Troll *who didn’t even try to hide it*.

Sherman, in your view is Obama a typical Malignant Narcissist, who lies almost every time he opens his mouth? [I had to toss in ‘almost’ because presumably he once in a while says, ‘I’m up for a round of golf’ or ‘I want to run out and grab something hot, salty and greasy, followed by a decadent dessert—just to get Shelly’s goat’.[


This was in response to Godebert's accusation that Sherman Logan was an Obot operative since Sherman Logan disagreed about what a SCOTUS case stood for. So, you did take to questioning a 5-year Freeper based on the accusation that he/she was an Obama supporter because of a disagreement over how to interpret a SCOTUS case. And you've compounded that by continuing to question him/her apparently because you disliked the statement about politicians lying.

Now, stop the crybaby stuff about stalking. You asked me a question and I answered. If you don't want to continue the conversation, stop posting to me here and I'll do the same.
133 posted on 01/12/2012 7:36:56 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

Ever since you responded to a post Not Addressed To You, all you’ve done is harass and harangue me. My quote stands on its own merit. I asked if Obama is a liar. For whatever reason that ignited your fuse and you’ve been mischaracterizing my quote ever since. I ask again, what is your problem? Why are you so offended that the question is raised, on a conservative site, as to Obama’s honesty and integrity? Do you run all over FR attacking anyone and everyone who dares to ask if Obama is a liar?

Otherwise, why single me out? Why are you stalking me???


134 posted on 01/12/2012 7:45:16 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Why are you so offended that the question is raised, on a conservative site, as to Obama’s honesty and integrity?

Sorry goof, but your posts are there, and you weren't merely asking if Obama is honest or has integrity. You first asked about whether a poster thought Obama had a specific personality disorder, then continued to question the poster because all politicians lying is something you don't like.

Now stop posting to me, you stalker. See, I can whine, too.
135 posted on 01/12/2012 7:51:25 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

You are lying about me. You are totally mischaracterizing what I said. You have to. Otherwise your personal attacks on me, your harassing and haranguing and stalking, make no sense. I.e.: you have to lie about me to justify your false accusations.


136 posted on 01/12/2012 7:56:01 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Like I said, your posts are there. Good day.


137 posted on 01/12/2012 7:58:04 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

You are one of the nastiest people I’ve met on this site or anywhere else. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Gibraltar. For some reason, questions about Obama’s integrity set you off—or at least they do when I ask them. [Again, why single me out??? People are characterizing Obama as a liar all over FR. Where are the links to you attacking them???] You see questioning Obama’s honesty as a green light to come after me, out of the blue, and start harassing me/mischarcterizing my every word.

None of what you accused me of re: Logan was true. It’s all a concoction of your fevered brain. My original post actually sought to distinguish between Logan and a troll that was zotted. It came down on Logan’s side, though your personal animosity toward me prevented you from seeing it.

I would not want the harangue to which you’ve subjected on my posting history. It stinks.


138 posted on 01/12/2012 8:08:08 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
For some reason, questions about Obama’s integrity

Now who's lying? You don't get to rewrite history. You were not attacking Obama's integrity, despite your recent attempts to spin it that way. You were questioning Sherman Logan after an accusation of being a troll. And you have clearly not come down on Sherman Logan's side, as Sherman Logan responded and agreed that Obama lies but you then continued criticizing him/her for the answer. Now, we can continue, or we can part here and likely meet again elsewhere. Your choice.
139 posted on 01/12/2012 8:21:11 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

Keep digging. Your lies about me stink like a week old dead whale carcass.


140 posted on 01/12/2012 8:27:29 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Then hit the Report Abuse button and report the “lies”. After all, if the “lies” are that bad ...


141 posted on 01/12/2012 8:30:59 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

If somebody put a gun to your head and said, ‘Tell the truth about Fantasywriter’, you’d end up dead.

Sad but true.


142 posted on 01/12/2012 8:34:37 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
If somebody put a gun to your head and said, ‘Tell the truth about Fantasywriter’, you’d end up dead. Sad but true.

You assume they'd live past pulling the gun and talking. ;)
143 posted on 01/12/2012 8:40:15 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

“It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court.”

That is a very interesting statement. And it may explain why the Minor decision is not usually cited as having defined NBC.

The best example of this comes from the Wong Kim Ark case.

In his dissenting opinion Chief Justice Fuller makes several claims about what the majority opinion means. He says that according to the majority, the Constituional terms “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” were defined based on English Common Law. That would have been an excellant time to point out that Minor is binding precedent for the definition of NBC. But he doesn’t mention Minor.

Later in the dissent, he says that it is inconceivable to him that children of visiting aliens born in the United States are eligible to the Presidency while children born overseas to American citizen parents are not eligible. And again he doesn’t cite Minor as precedent.

And this is the Justice who wrote the Lockwood decision only a few years earlier. If Chief Justice Fuller doesn’t interpete Minor as defining NBC, it is hard to image any court today saying that it is. Which may explain why the Indiana Court of Appeals said this about the Minor decision,

“Thus, the Court [in Minor decision] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”


144 posted on 01/12/2012 10:07:07 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
I don't understand this obsession with wanting to control how I respond to what you post. In order to clarify what I'm responding to, it's most efficient to quote what you post and to reply to that post.

The wording of your question demonstrates that parental citizenship may only "relate to" and not entirely define NBC.

My question was based on the premise of one definition of NBC (which is why I said THE definition). How the criteria relates to that definition is strictly for entirely defining the term. Second, the wording of my question is irrelevant to the fact that Justice Waite uses the characterization of NBC for only one set of citizenship criteria ... one that looks like it was basically plagiarized from Vattel's Law of Nations.

Minor's citizenship was stipulated, and the court referred to NBC solely as a means of determining whether even the highest form of citizenship should, via the intent of the 14th A, trump a state law that prohibited its female citizens from voting. It concluded, under the very best circumstances for a U.S. female, that despite the 14th A, a state could indeed deny its females the vote.

That's an interesting thought, but the ruling doesn't say anything about a need to determine the highest form of citizenship or whether such citizenship would trump state laws. Instead, Waite explores different ways one can be a citizen and whether voting is one of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. IOW, he's not finding whether the highest form of citizenship can or can't trump a sate law, but whether the lowest form of citizenship (14th amendment) added to the privileges and immunities of citizenship, and whether state laws are actually denying pre-existing P&I of citizenship.

It's interesting that you classify this as the highest form of citizenship, which actually strengthens the idea that when Waite identified two classes of citizens at birth, that he only characterized one as NBC based on the specified criteria.

It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court.

The definition was used to dispute a citizenship claim through the 14th amendment. If that concept is NOT conclusively defined, then it doesn't actually reject the argument because the other class of citizenship matches the criteria for 14th amendment citizenship. IOW, there's no point in characterizing the higher form of citizenship of NBC if it is not an exclusive definition and characterization. That the citizenship of the parents is included as part of the holding solidifies that the NBC definition is exclusive. It also explains why Horace Gray went out of his way to avoid declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a a natural-born citizen more than 20 years later.

Think of it this way, if the court had mentioned "bread" and noted such was available in loafs and was sometimes wrapped, that would not have conclusively defined bread.

You're using an oversimplified analogy. NBC is a hyphenated and modified noun and "bread" is not. A better analogy might be a term like whole-wheat bread.

EXAMPLE: It was never doubted that baking flour that contains the bran, germ and endoplasm results in a loaf of wheat bread. This is whole-wheat bread, as distinguished from white bread and Texas toast. Some authorities go further and include as wheat bread those made from flour without reference to bran, germ and endoplasm. To this class there are doubts, but never the first.

The characterizing adjective "whole-wheat" is defined by a specific set of criteria the same way that "natural-born" is defined by a specific set of criteria. The ONLY way to reconcile that the second class is actually NBC is to satisfy the criteria that is not refenced, which is the citizenship of the parents. It's a self-limiting definition, otherwise, there's no point in using the characterization.

145 posted on 01/12/2012 10:40:14 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
This is a poor argument. You're relying on a speculative statement in a dissent which isn't based on anything that is actually stated within the majority opinion. Besides the assumption is wrong. The appeal to the Supreme Court brought up the point that Fuller was responding to, because it was based on a citation made by the lower court. Fuller addresses the speculation made in the appeal, but the majority punts this point entirely. Second, it fails because the majority opinion still quoted, affirmed and respected the Minor definition of NBC.

The Indiana court was all over the place and it fails because it admits that Wong Kim Ark was not declared to be a natural-born citizen. By footnote, the Indiana court tries to brush off this inconvenient fact by claiming its immaterial because the eligibility requirement is only relevant to those persons who become president, ignoring that it's actually a safeguard for the people.

146 posted on 01/12/2012 10:49:07 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan; Obama Exposer
Thank you for your analysis of several decisions that have cited Minor. The analysis sheds light on important aspects that are at a level I have not addressed. It will be interesting to see whether, or how others on this thread respond.

I argued a few years ago thatMinor clearly resolved the NBC issue, but eventually realized that it did not say what I and many others believed it said.

The final quote in your post reveals the risk inherent in any review of the issue by the current court. Again, that risk is undoubtedly viewed as a value by liberals.

OE, my apologies if I and others have hijacked your first post on Free Republic.

147 posted on 01/12/2012 11:43:59 AM PST by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I’ve made it clear that we disagree.

I think Minor states that born on US soil of two citizen parents is an NBC but does not limit NBC status to this specific example.

You seem to think that Minor states that NBC status is limited to born on US soil of two citizen parents.


148 posted on 01/12/2012 11:46:55 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Just how do you know that BladeByran runs thefogbow?


149 posted on 01/12/2012 11:48:42 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I don’t feel so threatened by opposing or contrary opinions that I think they need to be silenced.


150 posted on 01/12/2012 11:48:46 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson