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: El Sordo

Yes, oddly enough, you’re still here.


51 posted on 01/10/2012 6:18:06 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they cannot be deceived, it's impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Nope, the case says that there is a class of citizen, the natural born citizen, that nobody doubts or contests their citizenship. These natural born citizens are persons born within the jurisdiction to 2 citizen parents. There are other people that have debatable or sometimes argued citizenship, but they don’t matter in minor v heppersett, because in this case the woman has NBC status.

No way around it.

You are either deliberately misleading in your analysis and reading of the case, or lacking the mental capacity to comment on it objectively.


52 posted on 01/10/2012 6:58:09 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 31 | View Replies]

To: Triple

The money quote from Minor:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. 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.


53 posted on 01/10/2012 7:10:32 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 52 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

what do you go by over at the fogbow?


54 posted on 01/10/2012 7:25:39 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Unlike you, I'm not going to dodge the questions you ask. In return, you need to answer mine. Which class did the Minor court characterize as natural-born citizens?? (Hint: It was only ONE of the two classes it mentioned.)

Do some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents?

Yes. Are these natural-born citizens? No, because they are only natural-born when the parents are citizens.

As to this class have there been doubts?

100 percent yes. If the parents were citizens, there would be no doubts. When the parents are NOT citizens, then the doubts must be resolved through non-natural means, such as statutory law or Constitutional amendment.

For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?

Absolutely not. Virginia Minor fit the courts definition of citizenship with no doubt ... the ONLY one that was characterized as "natural-born citizens."

Are you starting to understand yet?? These questions do NOT help your defiant position.

55 posted on 01/10/2012 7:48:12 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
The choice is:
A. Minor defines natural born citizenship as belonging to only those born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, or
B. Minor defines a particular class of citizens as natural born citizens but does not exclude the possibility of other classes.

This would ALMOST make sense if not for a couple of things.
A. Minor distinguished natural-born citizens from aliens or foreigners who can only be citizens through naturalization.
B. Minor explains a few paragraphs later how the children of aliens become citizens AFTER the father naturalizes.
C. This means the characterization of natural-born citizens is exclusive to one class of citizens ... because there are no doubts that must be resolved.
D. It makes no sense for the court to define natural-born citizens unless it is specifically setting them apart from those persons whose citizenship is dependent on statutory or Constitutional means. And the court is clearly setting this class of citizens apart. Notice how deliberate the court is in rejecting the 14th amendment in terms of conferring citizenship for those persons who have it naturally (through birth in the country to citizen parents):

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
- - -
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.

I've asked this question a few times. Why did the court emphasize citizenship of the parents. This emphasis is affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Why bring it up since the 14th amendment doesn't require citizen parents??? Why does the court give a narrower definition of citizenship than is needed to resolve the voting question?? Justice Gray emphasized this citizenship when he gave the holding in Wong Kim Ark:

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, ...
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that
56 posted on 01/10/2012 8:04:57 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: edge919; All

Let it go, Edge, I gave you the final word between us on this issue earlier today and you have already exercised that grant.

Other readers will note by Edge asking whether a FReeper on this thread could read, that she or he does indeed have an edge, and they may conclude that edge is rude and audacious. I concluded several weeks ago after exchanging at length and challenging Edge’s views that there was more, there was a lack of intellectual honesty and that it was fruitless to continue. That statement is not intended to be derogatory or malicious; it is just a personal opinion,


57 posted on 01/10/2012 8:25:46 PM PST by frog in a pot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

frog, it’s not your place to “give” anyone else on this site the so-called “final word” on an issue. You do understand how that comes across as extremely arrogant and hypocritical??

Second, I asked el sordo if he could read because he responded to my previous post by trying to minimize the facts as only an “interpretation.” Thus, the challenge to him is to read the actual case and answer a question that has a very simple answer. If what I said was only an “interpretation” then it must mean there’s another way to look at the cited material, yet the question was immediately dodged.

Third, the only lack of intellectual honesty is when you avoid a very detailed response to your post with a baseless accusation in regard to intellectual honesty. I back up EVERYTHING I post. And, I responded to your previous post with several points. Try addressing those points rather than give unsolicited personal opinions about me. If you value intellectual honesty, show that you have some.


58 posted on 01/10/2012 8:35:53 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So you’ll be getting a court to agree with you any day now, I expect.

Let us know how that goes.


59 posted on 01/10/2012 9:10:25 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Why do you keep dodging the question?? Which class of citizenship did the Minor court characterize as natural-born?? It has nothing to do with me getting a court to agree with me. Read the Minor decision and report what it says.


60 posted on 01/10/2012 9:30:02 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
Why would you think there was nothing to appeal? Please elaborate.

As I replied earlier - two idiots tried to represent themselves and lost the case due to bad arguments - they can't appeal thier own stupidity.

61 posted on 01/10/2012 9:37:58 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 23 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

They didn’t lose due to bad arguments. The court said it didn’t have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true because of its own bad arguments. Read post #27.


62 posted on 01/10/2012 11:05:56 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Obama Exposer

Obama Exposer already exposed a Dem operative lawyer troll who got subsequently banned - Blader Bryan. He’s doing a great job so far.


63 posted on 01/10/2012 11:26:17 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
It's rather disappointing that some folks who argue for opposing views get banned...

You didn't read that Blade Bryan was the founder of the ultra leftist 0bama supporting site Fogbow? Or you think such a leftist operative should be free to play on FR?

64 posted on 01/10/2012 11:35:28 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
From the link you helpfully provided: "So it is unlikely that the IN Supreme Court or for that matter, the US Supreme Court will touch the Natural Born definition anytime soon. If they do so, the IN Appeals Court has provided an excellent foundation of the legal precedents. Let’s keep our eyes open for any developments here.

I'd say that the discovery of Minor vs Happersett and related hijinks constitutes a Supremely significant development that is weightier than an IN Appeals Court ruling.

65 posted on 01/11/2012 12:56:40 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"Instead it says, that such persons' citizenship would be in doubt. IOW, in this context, natural-born means citizenship that is without doubt."

This.

There is absolutely no doubt about the citizenship of a Natural Born Citizen precisely because a Natural Born Citizen is the kind of citizen that cannot be any other kind, naturally. Born on US soil to US citizen parents. Seems pretty plain.

66 posted on 01/11/2012 1:39:07 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama" Eligibility: Don't let 'em (continue to) get away with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I read the pdf instead.

The plantifs were idiots who thought they were smart. Thier arguments were rejected as flawed by the court. The appeal affirmed that decision. There was nothing left to appeal and they probably ran out of time / money etc ...

I find it quite odd for someone to come to the forum with an agenda and immediately challenge the forum to explain WHY some idoits didn’t appeal the case in question further to the US Supreme Court.


67 posted on 01/11/2012 1:44:56 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 62 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

Thanks.

I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.

But I think that is not really clear. When what is meant by the wording of the Constitution is not really clear, it is entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court it established to clarify things. While I don’t believe the Court would rule the way so many at FR want it to, I do wish they would take a case bearing on this point and issue a ruling defining the terminology.

I also think a ruling deciding Obama was not eligible and therefore was improperly elected would be extraordinarily destructive. It would constitute the greatest power grab by the judicial branch in US history and would require it to make many thousands of followup decisions to determine which actions, if any, taken under Obama’s invalid authority are legal. The consequences of invalid decisions would then have to be straightened out. Cans of worms aren’t in it.

I think conservatives who cling to the notion that the disasters of the last few years can be reversed by a Court ruling are unconciously falling prey to the liberal notion that the Constitution as interpreted by the Courts is the answer to all our problems. That anything we don’t like can be declared unconstitutional and it will go away without appeal to Congress or the electorate.

I really, really don’t think that’s what the Founders intended. If the people want Obama out, that’s why we have elections.

I’m also unclear why so many seem to assume Biden would be any improvement on Obama.


68 posted on 01/11/2012 2:42:13 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Sherman: “I’m also unclear why so many seem to assume Biden would be any improvement on Obama”

I may not speak for the majority on this thread, but the main emphasis of this action now is to get Obama off the ballot for the 2012 election. As you said, most all of his actions to date may have been executed as a fraud, but that is water under the bridge. I would anticipate a finding in which Obama was not allowed a second term and write off his last four years as a massive deception on the part of the Democrat party. Perhaps there would be some penalty against that party since they did (with malice and forethought) get him elected.


69 posted on 01/11/2012 4:18:02 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: edge919
It noted that after the passage of the 14th amendment, that the Supreme Court said the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

This is a very important point. The O-bots all claim the 14th amendment makes anyone born here a "natural born citizen" but the Minor Court was well aware of the 14th amendment, and yet it still says "the constitution does not say who shall be natural born citizens."

This can only be read as the supreme court explicitly recognizing that the 14th amendment is NOT a definition for "natural born citizen."

Thanks edge for another arrow in my quiver.

70 posted on 01/11/2012 6:48:25 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Admin Moderator
You banned BladeBryan, but this Sherman Logan Obot operative is allowed to stay and soil the carpet in the living room? What gives?
71 posted on 01/11/2012 7:11:32 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"I have, BTW, no dog in this fight."

You are just as much an Obot operative as was BladeBryan.

72 posted on 01/11/2012 7:32:16 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.

....unless someone wrote it for him......

I think the surest way to determine if a judge is a kook or not is to see if they are a Democrat. If they are a Democrat, nothing they say should be accepted at face value.

Just as I predicted that Judge in Alabama (a bitter minority Democrat) would dismiss, she did. She won't say so, but I have no doubt she dismissed the case because she saw it as an attack on her and her party.

It is the same with the Supreme court. They are usually very predictable. On any issue before the court, the four Liberal incompetents will always be wrong, the four Conservative Judges will usually be correct, and the Waffler Kennedy will depend on which way the wind is blowing on any given day.

I Recall some wit discussing the litigation regarding the "gay marriage ban" voted on in California a while back. He said: "Why don't we save a lot of time and just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"

73 posted on 01/11/2012 7:37:27 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Godebert; Sherman Logan

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’.]


74 posted on 01/11/2012 7:43:33 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter; Godebert

You two are able to distinguish between “I disagree what Happersett stands for” and “Obot troll,” right? Or is this just another case of “anyone who doesn’t agree that Obama isn’t a NBC must support him”? Sherman Logan has been here for over 5 years with numerous posts, so you should be able to prove he’s an Obot troll (if it’s true) based on more than his/her disagreement with your reading of a SCOTUS case.


75 posted on 01/11/2012 7:54:05 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

Cite specifically what I’ve posted that warrants such a preachy, sanctimonious reply.

Specifically, word for word.


76 posted on 01/11/2012 8:02:18 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

You need to dig deeper. The clincher is that this obot (like all obot and Clinton trolls) is a typical South basher on the CW threads. That alone is acceptable to the management, though if you look at the posting history of obot trolls on Freerepublic, that is one trait they almost invariably have in common.


77 posted on 01/11/2012 8:03:26 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
It's rather disappointing that some folks who argue for opposing views get banned while others who flat out make stuff up and get to stay around.

The perception is that they are agents provocateur and not honest debating opponents. Repeating arguments which have been shot down over and over again is not the mark of an honest debater.

There are a few exceptions though. I think Mr. Rogers is not an Obot, I think he simply cannot distinguish his own emotional preference on the issue from what is actually true.

As for "making stuff up", I think this is less a case of people being intentionally misleading and more of a case that they are misinformed and then repeat that misinformation. It has happened to me once or twice. Once the facts are pointed out to me, I correct my miscomprehension.

78 posted on 01/11/2012 8:07:40 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Not sure i’d be wishing him “fair well.” I think “good riddance” would be more appropriate. As far as i’m concerned, he is an obfuscator. He served the same purpose as would a cow pie plopped onto the surface of something you were trying to read. It stinks, and obstructs your view of what you are trying to understand.


79 posted on 01/11/2012 8:13:43 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Sherman Logan
"Repeating arguments which have been shot down over and over again is not the mark of an honest debater."

Here is a typical example of this:

Sherman Logan argues that natural born is identical to native born.

80 posted on 01/11/2012 8:17:47 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Lol. You have a way w words.

I can understand why Blade spent his time here. I visited Fogbow recently, and the place is dead. Yes, they still halfheartedly mock some of our most well informed and dedicated researchers, but there’s not much fire there. It’s just distilled vileness, and even that is sparse.

Blade’s site reminds me of a play I once saw called ‘The Last Meeting of the Knights of the White Magnolia’. It was a comedy about a group of aging white men who had a society that excluded blacks. Problem was, they couldn’t attract any newer, younger members, and their outfit was dying of attrition.

Fogbow’s passion is dying, and my guess is it’s because Obama is such a mega-Class A Malignant Narcissist. When your reason for being is to defend a cult of personality, the person being defended needs to possess a basic grasp of what it takes to inspire and reward followers. Obama is so radically self-centered, self-referential, he can’t even do that.

So Blade drifts over to FR to get a little action on his favorite/sole issue—anti-birtherism. He was a moonbat Obot trying to sufficiently pass on a conservative site for no other reason that to shill for Obama. He should have been honest about who he was from the get go...but then he’s a liberal, and honesty is antithetical to the very core of his being.


81 posted on 01/11/2012 8:24:39 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Godebert; Fantasywriter
You need to dig deeper. The clincher is that this obot (like all obot and Clinton trolls) is a typical South basher on the CW threads. That alone is acceptable to the management, though if you look at the posting history of obot trolls on Freerepublic, that is one trait they almost invariably have in common.

Wow, so if a person disagrees with your reading of a SCOTUS case and what, thinks the South seceded to keep slavery instead of some deeper "states rights", then they're an Obot troll?

Cite specifically what I’ve posted that warrants such a preachy, sanctimonious reply. Specifically, word for word.

My reply was neither preachy nor sanctimonious. You took to questioning a 5-year Freeper with a length posting history based on another's accusation, when you could have simply looked at Sherman Logan's posting history on this thread and elsewhere. So far, the only evidence given to support the accusation of being an Obot troll is that there is a disagreement about Happersett and "South bashing." And your response to that was nonsensical, asking whether SL believes Obama has a specific psychiatric condition, as if that proves anything. How's reality treating you recently? I told you before it was the cure.
82 posted on 01/11/2012 8:27:12 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Where is Blade?

Fund raising in Palestine again?

83 posted on 01/11/2012 8:28:58 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

Me thinks thou protest too much.


84 posted on 01/11/2012 8:29:45 AM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Me thinks thou protest too much.

Ah, the favorite reply of someone who has made an allegation they can't back up. Now, if I accuse you of being a felon, you can't respond or you'll be protesting too much, right?
85 posted on 01/11/2012 8:33:37 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Here is a typical example of this:

Sherman Logan argues that natural born is identical to native born.

Strangely enough, there are a LOT of conservatives that also believe this. The ENTIRE STAFF at Ace of Spades seems to believe this. I do not count someone as an enemy agent just because they believe that "native born" = "natural born", but it is certainly indicative.

Edge has done a service in pointing out that the Minor court explicitly said "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

As the Supreme Court is DISCUSSING the 14th amendment, this is an absolute Admission that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT SAY WHO SHALL BE NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS!

The 14th amendment DOES SAY who shall be "native born" citizens. A clearer statement that Native citizens are not the same thing as "natural citizens" cannot be made.

Let me reiterate. According to the Minor Court, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. That is the left's entire argument being shot down in a nutshell.

86 posted on 01/11/2012 8:34:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
I confess, I called Blade a communist Sheetbag and he's vanished since then.

I think broke his shell.

87 posted on 01/11/2012 8:35:25 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: All

Oh, and speaking of BladeBryan and the Fogbowers—get this. They have figured out why we ‘refuse to accept Obama’s birth certificate’. Here’s the conclusion:

< < “Sterngard Friegen wrote:
esseff - the birthers just can’t get their heads around the fact that we have a President who’s half black. And is smarter than they could ever dream to be.”

I also think that they are confused because his black heritage doesn’t include slavery. The idea of a black person that doesn’t “know their place[sic]” probably makes them very uncomfortable. Plus he’s way smarter than them [sic]...

posted by Slartibartfast > >

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2149&start=1775


88 posted on 01/11/2012 8:35:25 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER; Obama Exposer

Trust me, he wore it as a badge of honor. He’s full on moonbat on wheels w a marxist chaser. Finally got the zot, thanks to a new member [Obama Exposer] who blew the lid of Blade’s lying Obot-shilling racket.


89 posted on 01/11/2012 8:37:43 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I have, BTW, no dog in this fight. The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by “natural-born citizen.” Personally, I tend towards the notion that it was a somewhat awkward way of saying “native-born” or a citizen by birth as opposed to one by naturalization.

This is a good time to interject this point. Your quote above is critical to the point. You said:

"The Constitution does not clearly state what it means by "natural-born citizen." Which is virtually identical to what the Supreme Court said in Minor v Happersett while they were discussing the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:

"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."

90 posted on 01/11/2012 8:41:13 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Thanks for the update.

I always suspected Blade was an O’Bunga sheetbag zombie.

91 posted on 01/11/2012 8:45:30 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The 14th Amendment DOES say who will be native citizens. The Court said it DOES NOT SAY who are "natural born citizens." This is a tacit admission that simply being a "native citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." If it were, the court would have said:
"The Constitution DOES say who shall be "natural born citizens. It says so right in the 14th amendment! " Ergo, proof positive that being a "native Citizen" is not the sole criteria for being a "natural citizen."


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?
92 posted on 01/11/2012 8:46:14 AM PST by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Thanks, I worked at coming up with just the right description of how I felt about him. (them.) :)

I think you are also right about the "needing some action" point. I find it annoying that this issue isn't being discussed on MORE websites, and i'm disgusted that it's relevance is slowly being displaced by the likely election results this year.

For me, it is not enough that Obama be thrown out of office, He should never be recognized as having been there legitimately in the first place. He is like an invading force which overwhelmed our Castle's defenses and sat on our King's thrown. Once he is thrown off the throne, it is not enough to claim he rightfully ruled while there. He needs to be exposed as an illegitimate bastard that never had a right to be there in the first place!

This is what our History books need to say, and this lesson needs to be hammered into the consciousness of America. He was NOT our President. He was a Con-Man that fooled the majority of Stupid people into letting him sit on the throne.

The corollary is that everyone who enabled him to perpetrate this fraud needs to be thrown in the dungeon.

93 posted on 01/11/2012 8:52:12 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Remember in late 2008. I believe it was Berg’s case that actually got onto the docket at SCOTUS. And the judge that seemed to make the most specific demands or may took the most interest was Justice Souter. This was in November. The case then is dismissed in December. 6 months later - Souter ‘retires’.

His sudden ‘retirement’ has been somewhat of a mystery.

Though a stretch, I have wondered if there is any linkage of his stance in the Donofrio case and his sudden retirement.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2128383/posts

http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1302645

From the above link there is this link - but it is dead:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

“Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of
standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of
judcial (sic) discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President...” “

So SCOTUS and Souter could have punted this case in November since it was accepted at judicial discretion.

They ended up punting the case in December. A few months later the ‘ring leader’, who apparently wanted to use the courts ‘judicial discretion’ to look into this issue, retires.


94 posted on 01/11/2012 9:00:38 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 73 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
They live in the world of their delusions. Herman Cain was having MAJOR support until the hit pieces started coming out. Alan Keyes is very popular among some of the more conservative circles in America. (I used to be a member of BAM-PAC.) Alan West, J.C. Watts,(I sent him money and campaigned for Him) Llyod Marcus, AlfonZo Rachel, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. are all highly popular in the Conservative movement.

Conservatism is a meritocracy based methodology. We believe a person ought to have the right to be as successful as their skills and talents will allow them to be. We actually DO look at their character, not their skin color. It is the Liberals with all their "affirmative action" programs that want to create a government mandated racial basis for success.

Screw them and their stupid beliefs, and by the way, Obama isn't smart, he's an IDIOT. (And so is anyone who thinks he's "smart." )

95 posted on 01/11/2012 9:03:30 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Trust me, he wore it as a badge of honor. He’s full on moonbat on wheels w a marxist chaser. Finally got the zot, thanks to a new member [Obama Exposer] who blew the lid of Blade’s lying Obot-shilling racket.

I noticed he stopped replying to me most of the time. :)

96 posted on 01/11/2012 9:05:49 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo; Jim Robinson

El Sordo, the person whose zot you are lamenting, BladeBryan, runs a site called thefogbow.com. Here’s just one of hundreds of anti-FR posts from that site:

< < A newbie Freeper links to Loren’s article exposing Corsi’s dubious journalism:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2824091/posts

The poor fellow didn’t realize that “free” means that only the Freep Official Truth is allowed, and is quickly banned. The usual Freep idiots do their victory dance for Konstitushanal Gummint. I’d feel dirty looking at FreeRepublic, almost like watching drunken derelicts paid to fight each other, or like making fun of mental hospital patients, if Freepers weren’t such a[$$]holes. > >

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2149&start=1750

(Thank you, Mr. Robinson, for removing a world-class obot, via the zot received by BladeBryan.)


97 posted on 01/11/2012 9:06:05 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

‘I noticed he stopped replying to me most of the time. :)’

Henceforth, it will ‘All of the time’.

;)


98 posted on 01/11/2012 9:07:52 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Read post #27. The court contradicted itself several times and made several flawed and unsupported arguments in response to the plaintiffs. The only thing they really did was say that they didn’t have to accept the plaintiff’s arguments as true. It’s a very poorly written and supported decision. Read post #27.


99 posted on 01/11/2012 9:14:58 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

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?

For most of this nation's existence, the term "native" was used interchangeably with "natural born". The Quote in Minor says this very thing. In the 19th Century, it was uncommon to find anyone who was "native born" but was not "natural born" because there were very few foreign parent transients when everyone arrived by sailing ship.

In the example you quote above, I am referring to the modern usage of the term "native" as opposed to the 19th century usage of it. Modern Usage is that a "native" is anyone born here, with no consideration of whether the parents were part of the community or not.

My point was that the 14th amendment describes exactly this modern usage of the word "native." It grants citizenship to anyone born here. The Central point of many Obama Legitimacy trolls is that this means the same thing as Article II "natural born citizen", and that the ruling in Wong Kim Ark does as well.

My drawing attention to the Minor Quote is to point out that the Supreme court SPECIFICALLY said the Constitution Does not SAY who shall be "natural born citizens." The Court Specifically said the 14th Amendment (which means just being born here.) Does not refer to "natural born citizens." This completely shoots down the argument that just being "born here" or being a "native" in modern usage, is the same thing as being a "natural born citizen."

That quote shows that the court said it is NOT the same thing.

100 posted on 01/11/2012 9:21:52 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | 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