This is straight out of history, in books your liberal whipmasters have repressed by not telling you about them...
Go look for yourselves.
. . . . See # 71.
Thanks, Danae.
Posted on 02/29/2012 2:58:09 PM PST by edge919
ROTFLOL
Oh, man, would that cause a crash and burn. After all of the "he was born in Hawaii" antics I just don't see that as a winning proposition.
And USC 8 ever looms over his head as his father always was, and always will be, an @"alien"!
This is straight out of history, in books your liberal whipmasters have repressed by not telling you about them...
Go look for yourselves.
. . . . See # 71.
Thanks, Danae.
@Federal Defenders of San Diego
@David Freedman Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle
True that brah!!!
Let's imagine for a minute that Barry's team knows that Sheriff Arpaio is going to reveal that Barry was born in Kenya.
Wouldn't they resort to exactly this kind of shameless, desperate legal citation?
Why include the Marguet-Pillado case in the eligibility filings in PA and GA unless it had some bearing on Barry?
What would be the similarity between Barry and M-P that would justify a citation in cases that could go to SCOTUS?
It is pathetic to have to reach down to an unattributed jury instruction for an illegitimate foreign born child...oh wait!
You are welcome...but thanks is literally owed to Leo. Who knows how many hours he has dedicated to this? A whole lot, weeks of brick and mortor research...
No, Credit belongs to him. I tip my hat, gracefully curtsey, and whole heartedly applaude his sincere dedication to history and the law. God bless him.
Tying the federal courts up in knots is something this bunch is obviously proud of...as demonstrated by the ludicrous M-P case with the three remands...and trying to insert cover for Barry's eligibility.
The People's Republic of CA is a colossal mess these days, sadly. I'm glad I left, but I do miss the landscapes.
Mark for later.
The Wong Kim Ark decision does not end on page 666, although it certainly gives us a nice metaphor for Hussein Obama. No, Gray knew this was not legally sufficient, and it clearly makes a distinction between non-NBCs and real NBCs. An apple is as much a piece of fruit as a banana, but an apple is not a banana. In looking at this analogy, Obama is a fruit.
Let's skip ahead to page 680:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
If Binney was binding (say that five times fast), then why does Gray say anything about Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents?? The answer: Because she fit the Minor court's one and only definition of natural-born citizen. This is why a couple pages later, Gray equates the term "citizenship by birth" specifically with the 14th amendment. He is, thus, no longer saying ANYTHING about natural-born citizenship. Instead, Gray still had to build a strong case that the 14th amendment would include people who were previously excluded as NOT being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even though Gray references Binney again, his decision does not conclude until nearly 39 pages AFTER the passage you quoted. It is dicta and it does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Instead Wong Kim Ark affirmed Minor: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these are the natural-born citizens.
How on Earth does a reputable court put Ankeny and MP head to head with the UNANIMOUS decision in Minor and the UNANIMOUS affirmation of Minor’s NBC definition in WKA and decide that dicta from a state appeals court that never declared Obama to be an NBC and a circuit court decision based on errant jury instructions is a precedent?? Ankeny unwittingly proved its conclusion was not supported through footnotes 12 and 14.
Of course Harlan/Nolo Chan/... isn't being honest. That isn't his job, or intention. It is encouraging to see three Obot names assigned to Danae’s excellent thread. That means that they are growing more concerned lest more begin to understand the truth, which is complicated enough. For Obama's cadre the ends justify the means. We still prefer a society where Taquia is not morally ordained. The alliance between Islam and its sanctioned liars and the left, with its paid liars is worth noting.
I take just a slight issue with your characterization of the Minor court: “The Court rejected that argument.” While you are correct, that doesn't expose why the court defined and depended upon the “never doubted” definition, “born on the soil of citizen parents” definition.
Again, acknowledging Leo Donofrio for the clear analysis, since Virginia Minor's assertion was that the 14th Amendment granted her suffrage, and since naturalization statutes had just been provided for constitutionally, the only jurisdiction granted the Supreme Court, a structurally sound proof depended upon the only never doubted constitutional definition for a citizen provided before the 14th Amendment. The only Constitutional definition was in Article II Section 1. That the framers included it to insure that presidents be born to citizen parents on our soil is irrelevant. Most citizens are natural born. But, as Justice Waite explains, because Elizabeth Minor was a natural born citizen, there being only two classes of citizens, she was a citizen before the 14th Amendment. Since the 14th Amendment never mentioned suffrage, it could not have changed her right to vote. It was a clever proof, but an easy target for Obots looking to confuse.
A definition is not a variable. A definition doesn't change as a function of context. To say that H2O is water means that replacing one term with the other doesn't change the meaning of a sentence or assertion. The frequent nonsensical claim that having accepted the never doubted definition doesn't imply that the court wouldn't allow the child of a sacred cow and an Airedale, not born on our soil, to be president. They simply didn't get to sacred cows or Airedales (Obots usually use "aliens", but I like Airdales; the logic is just is false)
A definition means that the symbol, natural born citizen, and the phrase, born to citizen parents on our soil, mean the same thing, and may be used interchangeably. That explains the wisdom of Bill Clinton, who noted that “It depends upon what "is" is.” "Is" means the same as.
Minor v. Happersett certainly defined natural born citizens, and that definition, used in dozens of cases, was our common law as understood by our framers, as one of them, Chief Justice John Marshall, so unequivocally explained. Without asserting the definition, which could not depend upon dictum, Minor v. Happersett has no legal basis. Mrs. Minor's status, without Article II, would have been indeterminate before 1868, the 14th Amendment. The definition was turned to precedent to decide her case. That precedent has been cited often since, including by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, and never re-defined. (It was questioned, at least by Justice Ginsberg in 2003, when she didn't know the correct definition, and didn't like what she was told, since some of her grandchildren were born overseas, albeit to citizen parents.)
I disagree that naturalization statutes had just been provided for Constitutionally. The Minor court didn't rely on the 14th amendment for Constitutionally providing naturalization statutes. Maybe this wasn't what you intended to say. The court referred to the original Constitution and the Nationality Act of 1790 to provide for naturalization statutes.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
- - -
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
I know what Volt obama should sit in.
The 14th Amendment was the first time the Constitution defined other than a natural born citizen. Before that citizens were defined using the criteria of each state. That is why the framers told Congress to make a uniform rule for naturalization - Article 1 Section 8. Understandably busy with other issues, including citizenship, which they may have been avoiding, it took abolitionist John Bingham to force the issue in The House. Bingham made a clear distinction between native born citizens and natural born citizens in his addresses to Congress.
The war of 1812 was brought up only in the context of WKA. I think it is irrelevant to WKA. Do you?
“This is why a couple pages later, Gray equates the term “citizenship by birth” specifically with the 14th amendment. He is, thus, no longer saying ANYTHING about natural-born citizenship.”
Yeah, right. He spent half the decision discussing something irrelevant to the case.
In reality, he went on to show there was no difference between being a NBC & citizenship under the 14th. I know YOU don’t understand that, and never will. You are not sane.
But the courts CAN read, using normal English, and they DO understand what the Supreme Court wrote over 100 years ago.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:
“citizenship by birth within the country”.
So why did Virginia pass a law adopting Enlgish common law? It’s right there in front of you in black.and white. It is still on the books.
Nice to see you again. Hope things are going well.
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.