Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

Washington TImes ^ | 5 minutes ago | By Matthew Patane

[drewh]

Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t said whether he has presidential ambitions, but Sunday he won one of the first straw polls for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

The Texas Republican captured 45 percent of the 504 votes cast by attendees at the Western Conservative Summit, a day after drawing several standing ovations during his luncheon speech at the fourth annual conference.

“We shall see what sort of crystal ball summiteers have in awarding that decisive nod to Sen. Ted Cruz, who was so magnificent from this platform,” said John Andrews, founder of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, which hosted the event.

Placing second was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who delivered the keynote address Friday at the three-day summit, with 13 percent of the vote.

Tied for third were Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, with 9 percent each. Mr. West was the conference’s featured speaker Sunday, while Mr. Paul received the most votes among those on the ballot who didn’t attend the conference.

[Jeff Winston]

Jeff I would like to get your published references for Marshall, Story, and Kent as to their actual opinions/decisions on the definition of ‘natural born citizen. With due respect to your opinions I believe these men’s actual presentations would help my personal understanding.

Marshall, Story and Kent all lent their approval to Bayard's "Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."

I have been giving the publication date for this book as 1834. The first edition was actually published in 1833, with the second edition following the next year.

There were reprints over the years, including in 1840 and 1850.

The following is from the 1840 reprint of the Second Edition:

 

Exactly who is eligible to be President is an important, high-profile item. Even so, birthers might be able to plausibly argue that one distinguished expert had somehow missed a glaring error. But Marshall, Story AND Kent? And other distinguished jurists as well? Not a chance.

The fact is, Bayard published his book, stated with crystal clarity that "natural born citizen" meant "citizen by birth," and that anyone born a citizen overseas because he had US parents was eligible to be President.

And not one person had the slightest word of correction to say to that. Because everybody agreed.

Marshall corrected him that Congress didn't need the assent of the States to build military and post roads. They already had it. That's how carefully Marshall read Bayard's book.

[Jeff Winston]

Again, that image says 1834. Should say 1833.

I did have the date right, though, in my long list of quotes on what “natural born citizen” meant in early America.

[CpnHook]

As shown by your own quote, Marshall wasn't quoting Vattel for the purpose of defining citizenship. He wasn't placing any particular mark of approval on Vattel's ideas about domestic citizenship.

You are correct.

He was trying to see what Vattel, as a writer on INTERNATIONAL LAW (the Law of Nations) had to say about how much we respect the property of one of our own citizens residing permanently in another country as being the property of one of our citizens, and how much we regard that person as being a participant in that other society with which we were at war.

Yes, though to be a bit more precise, en route to answering that question Marshall frames a key issue as the domicile of the person. It's in this context that the quote of Vattel is placed:

I entirely concur in so much of the opinion delivered in this case as attaches a hostile character to the property of an American citizen continuing, after the declaration of war, to reside and trade in the country of the enemy, and I subscribe implicitly to the reasoning urged in its support. But from so much of that opinion as subjects to confiscation the property of a citizen shipped before a knowledge of the war, and which disallows the defense founded on an intention to change his domicile and to return to the United States, manifested in a sufficient manner, and within a reasonable time after knowledge of the war, although it be subsequent to the capture, I feel myself compelled to dissent.

So citizenship was not at issue; the person was accepted as being a citizen without discussion. What was at issue was domicile, because the point of international law hinged on that. One has to read the quote in question in view of the issue in the case:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

Marshall tells us what part of Vattel is significant for him by discussing it after the quote ("A domicile then . . .") Proponents of the "two citizen parent" theory miss this point, being either unfamiliar on how to properly read a case or else being so mesmerized at seeing the words "indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" they stop reading further.

There's no relevance to the definition of citizenship here. That's not what Marshall was ever talking about.

Again, correct. Dissenting opinions are, by definition, obiter dicta, and even within Marshall's dissent the part from Vattel about "citizen parents" isn't even pertinent to the dissent's point, so it is in that sense doubly irrelevant. That cases like Wong Kim Ark which address the citizenship issue disregard Marshall's dissent in The Venus is easily understood.

The same mistake is made by the Vattel proponents when they appeal to Minor v. Happersett. That case did not present the question of the birth status of a person born in the U.S. to an alien parent(s), so that opinion is irrelevant in any case where that question is actually presented.

[Nero Germanicus]

“The same mistake is made by the Vattel proponents when they appeal to Minor v. Happersett. That case did not present the question of the birth status of a person born in the U.S. to an alien parent(s), so that opinion is irrelevant in any case where that question is actually presented.”

---

Exactly.
When challengers to Obama’s eligibility have attempted to cite Minor v. Happersett as precedent, they have been given short shrift. For example:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

Judge Gordon is a 2009 appointee of Republican Governor Jan Brewer. Judge Gordon was retained in his judgeship in the Arizona election of 2012 AFTER the decision excerpted above, with 79% of the vote in the November, 2012 election.

[noinfringers2]

Jeff thanks for the information you gave. The first thing that got my attention was the expression that the Founders had a very serious concern about foreign influence or’evils’ as noted. The second thing was the expression that the ‘citizen by birth’ precludes the possibility that any ‘foreigner’ ever to be a candidate for POTUSA. However, the crux of our reading and/or difference appears to be in the authors comments as to ‘natural born citizen’. First of all Bayard notes ‘all children of citizens who have resided in this Country though born in a foreign country’ are ‘natural born citizens. It is the wording ‘of citizens’ that locks the meaning of ‘natural born’. From my reading of the history of the dialogue at the time coupled with Bayard’s notice and warning I believe ‘of citizenS’ refers to the parents of the child and not to any ancillary combination of parents. This discussion leads me to take that according to Bayard McCain was eligible for POTUSA without any resolution by/from the Senate. The resolution was just a smokescreen for Obama’s eligibility.

[Jeff Winston]

Excellent comments on THE VENUS.

If I might elaborate a bit more:

The ruling in The Venus was that a US citizen living in Britain, who shipped goods before hearing that war had broken out, had no right to keep his property. It could be confiscated by an American privateer and not given back.

It was agreed that certain parties in the case were naturalized US citizens living in Britain.

No rule of natural born citizenship was decided or even considered in the case.

No rule of Presidential eligibility was decided or even considered in the case.

No determination even of who WAS and WAS NOT a US citizen was decided or even considered in the case:

The great question involved in this and many other of the prize cases which have been argued is whether the property of these claimants who were settled in Great Britain and engaged in the commerce of that country, shipped before they had a knowledge of the war but which was captured after the declaration of war by an American cruiser ought to be condemned as lawful prize. It is contended by the captors that as these claimants had gained a domicile in Great Britain, and continued to enjoy it up to the time when war was declared, and when these captures were made, they must be considered as British subjects, in reference to this property, and consequently that it may legally be seized as prize of war in like manner as if it had belonged to real British subjects. But if not so, it is then insisted that these claimants having, after their naturalization in the United States, returned to Great Britain, the country of their birth, and there resettled themselves, they became reintegrated British subjects and ought to be considered by this Court in the same light as if they had never emigrated. On the other side it is argued that American citizens settled in the country of the enemy, as these persons were, at the time war was declared were entitled to a reasonable time to elect, after they knew of the war, to remain there or to return to the United States, and that until such election was bona fide made, the courts of this country are bound to consider them as American citizens and their property shipped before they had an opportunity to make this election as being protected against American capture.

There being no dispute as to the facts upon which the domicile of these claimants is asserted, the questions of law alone remain to be considered.

The majority made the point that Vattel, as a writer on the law of nations, said that establishing a DOMICILE in another country changed a person's status. Such a person is

"a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages."

They also said that this subjects the property of such a person to capture by his home country, because for as long as he is resident of the other country, he assumes the character of a subject of that country. In fact, Vattel goes so far as to describe him as "a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens."

This comment, incidentally, may explain why Marshall included Vattel's comments about the "natives, or indigenes." The case mentions the term "native citizens," so how Vattel defines that is relevant to provide context.

When the US citizen moves back home, he is accepted here as a US citizen again. But if he had property confiscated before he pulled up his foreign domicile and moved, tough luck. As the majority says:

It is contended that a native or naturalized subject of one country who is surprised in the country where he was domiciled by a declaration of war ought to have time to make his election to continue there or to remove to the country to which he owes a permanent allegiance, and that until such election is made, his property ought to be protected from capture by the cruisers of the latter. This doctrine is believed to be as unfounded in reason and justice as it clearly is in law.

Chief Justice Marshall dissented, saying that he agreed the property of a US citizen who continued to live in a country we were at war with was fair game. But he maintained that the US citizen should be allowed to keep his property if he showed that he was promptly returning to our country rather than staying in the country we were at war with:

I entirely concur in so much of the opinion delivered in this case as attaches a hostile character to the property of an American citizen continuing, after the declaration of war, to reside and trade in the country of the enemy, and I subscribe implicitly to the reasoning urged in its support. But from so much of that opinion as subjects to confiscation the property of a citizen shipped before a knowledge of the war, and which disallows the defense founded on an intention to change his domicile and to return to the United States, manifested in a sufficient manner, and within a reasonable time after knowledge of the war, although it be subsequent to the capture, I feel myself compelled to dissent.

Marshall's quote from Vattel has absolutely nothing at all to do with establishing some sort of definition of "citizen." STILL LESS any point whatsoever about establishing a definition of "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN." It simply has nothing to do with that.

Chief Justice Marshall is simply saying that there are citizens, there are inhabitants (what we would today call non-resident aliens, or people in the country on a work, study or tourist visa), and permanent inhabitants. The last are people who have gotten their "green card" and are there to stay.

But in Marshall's day there were no "green cards." The question was simply whether the US citizen had established permanent residence in Britain, and if so, what that permanent residence (or DOMICILE) meant in the event of war breaking out between the US and the UK.

So it's a discussion of:

"There are citizens, inhabitants, and permanent inhabitants. The permanent inhabitants have established a domicile. Here's some discussion on what that means."

And here's that discussion:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there."

Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

Marshall continues with comments such as this one:

The stranger merely residing in a country during peace, however long his stay and whatever his employment, provided it be such as strangers may engage in cannot, on the principles of national law, be considered as incorporated into that society so as immediately on a declaration of war to become the enemy of his own. "His property," says Vattel, "is still a part of the totality of the wealth of his nation..." So yes, it has to do with how Americans living abroad are regarded when we go to war with the country they're living in, whether their property is subject to seizure, and questions of exactly what domicile, or permanent residence, means.

It is also crystal clear: The case DOES NOT have anything at all to do with what qualifications in American law make a person a United States citizen in the first place, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have the faintest thing to do with the definition of natural born citizenship or Presidential eligibility.

[Jeff Winston]

Ping to some more analysis and quoting of The Venus (1814) in 486.

[Jeff Winston]

Jeff thanks for the information you gave.

You are very welcome.

The first thing that got my attention was the expression that the Founders had a very serious concern about foreign influence or ’evils’ as noted.

They did. But every historical source I have ever seen attributes this to the kind of political maneuvering and scheming in Europe that allowed someone like an established nobleman in one country to go over to another country and gain influence and power. I have yet to see any indication that they were at all concerned that a child who was born here of immigrant parents and who most likely grew up in some place like Philadelphia or Charleston might exercise any kind of significant "foreign influence."

By all accounts, such a person was not a foreigner at all. He was a native son of the United States, a country that had people of English, German, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, French, and Swedish descent. Among a few others.

Nor do they seem to have been at all concerned even about a child of American parents who might have simply grown up in Paris and moved to the US at age 21. If you ask me, that probably gave more possibility of "foreign influence." But they promptly declared such people should be considered as natural born citizens.

What they were concerned about was some royal dude from England or somewhere coming over here with a lot of flashy titles and high-class garb and a big retinue, and buying his way into power.

At the time the Constitution was established, there was talk of getting a European prince to come over here and set up a new monarchy. THAT'S largely the kind of stuff they wanted to guard against.

That, and putting the army into the hands of someone who might have more loyalty to folks back home in England, who we might yet end up fighting again (as we did, just 25 years later).

This discussion leads me to take that according to Bayard McCain was eligible for POTUSA without any resolution by/from the Senate.

I agree.

The resolution was just a smokescreen for Obama’s eligibility.

I see this differently.

That I attribute to the current formal status of the law, and to the current state of legal scholarship on the issue.

Legally, there is really no doubt about the natural born citizenship of someone born on US soil, even to non-citizen parents. Like Obama. The Supreme Court settled that back in 1898, in the Wong case. That Obama is a natural born citizen was only strengthened by his having an American mother.

But legally, the case of a Ted Cruz has never been formally ruled on by the Supreme Court. So in the legal sense, there is at least SOME consideration that it's possible they might rule otherwise.

In terms of the opinion of scholarship, when Romney's dad, George Romney, born in Mexico, ran for President, there were those who wrote articles questioning his eligibility. This is within memory.

So as far as our Congressmen were concerned, there was enough doubt in the minds of the public and of at least a few scholars about McCain to pass a resolution saying Congress believed he was eligible. There was not enough actual doubt about Obama to pass a similar resolution.

[noinfringers2]

I believe that the recent situations with Snowden and the soldier would seem to negate any thoughts that children or young adults cannot/will not turn on the USA.I wouldn’t trust ex President of Egypt Morsi’s two sons who were born in the USA as Muslims to be POTUSA. Some would make such possible only because of being born in the USA. I believe the Founders were aware of the possibility and dangers of family and other influences. Of course they did not account for 2plus generation actions

[Jeff Winston]

I believe that the recent situations with Snowden and the soldier would seem to negate any thoughts that children or young adults cannot/will not turn on the USA.

We've always had traitors, and always will.

I don't think Snowden is a traitor, though.

I wouldn’t trust ex President of Egypt Morsi’s two sons who were born in the USA as Muslims to be POTUSA.

There are a LOT of people I wouldn't trust to be POTUSA, including the current occupant of the office.

Hillary Clinton? Would you trust Hillary Clinton? How about John Kerry? John Edwards? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi? Dianne Feinstein? John McCain? John Boehner?

Some would make such possible only because of being born in the USA. I believe the Founders were aware of the possibility and dangers of family and other influences. Of course they did not account for 2plus generation actions

There's no record that they discussed the natural born citizen requirement outside of the committee.

I don't think they tried to restrictively cover everything. They were counting on us not to mess things up too badly.

[MayflowerMadam]

One thing Hussein has accomplished is lowering the bar for future candidates’ eligibility. The dems were successful in putting in place someone whose citizenship is questionable; that door swings both ways for conservative candidates. (Of coure a conservative would actually WIN the election while the dems achieve it by election fraud.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Sophistry. I don't care if the case is about the best flavor of bubble gum, if a Supreme Court Judge identifies as agreeing with a specific principle of law, it reflects *HIS* opinion on the matter.

What the case is about is irrelevant to the point. Your side tries this same dodge in Minor v Happersett. You allege that BECAUSE the case was not about Presidential Eligibility, the opinions of the Judge as regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" is irrelevant.

This approach might yield fruit in goofy world of lawyer-speak, but in the real world, it is recognized as being utter crap.

Not buying it, and completely baffled as to why you think anyone should buy that.

[DiogenesLamp]

“The same mistake is made by the Vattel proponents when they appeal to Minor v. Happersett. That case did not present the question of the birth status of a person born in the U.S. to an alien parent(s), so that opinion is irrelevant in any case where that question is actually presented.”

Exactly.

And what did I say? Here comes Mr. Legal Suck @$$, to assert that exact point.

Again, this argument is based on the premise that Judges are completely ignorant of the law, EXCEPT when they are addressing a specific case. I perceive that this line of argument has nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with straw grasping from people who do not like what they say.

Beyond that, it misses a very obvious point. When Jackass Jeff is quoting the opinion of Rawle, or Bayard, or whoever the hell he is quoting lately, there is no outcry to make a distinction between a "holding" and "orbiter dicta." (because the writers and lawmakers are expressing an opinion, not holding a d@mn trial.) But when it comes to Judges expressing legal opinions DURING a trial, they are not extended the same courtesy of accepting what they say as their opinion; A courtesy which Jeff et al routinely extends to all the non-judges out there.

You intentionally invoke a different standard for Judges than for anyone else, then you have the gall to come here and attempt to convince us that this is a reasonable thing to do?

Your argument on this is much the same as your other arguments; Complete lawyer excrement which only "procedure worship" fools will swallow.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not even going to read your comment. I'm sure it goes something like this:

"Rah Rah for our team!" Blah blah blah blah blah..."

The notion that Judge's opinions are of lesser worth than that of writers, lawmakers, French Valet's, Spanish Janitors, and "some guy over at the mess hall named Bernard", is so idiotic and false on the face of it that only a deluded sap and his fellow sappers would offer this as a plausible argument.

[DiogenesLamp]

Legally, there is really no doubt about the natural born citizenship of someone born on US soil, even to non-citizen parents. Like Obama. The Supreme Court settled that back in 1898, in the Wong case.

Yeah, what was that holding again?

"Children born in the United States generally acquire United States citizenship at birth via the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

And of course we have Justice Waite specifically asserting that the 14th amendment does not define "natural born citizen." (of course not, it didn't exist in 1787.)

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.

Once again, you people rely on the weakest possible standard of "citizen", and then you deliberately conflate "citizen" with "natural citizen".

Drink your Anchor Baby soup Jeff.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't think they tried to restrictively cover everything. They were counting on us not to mess things up too badly.

They DELIBERATELY, and with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT restricted the office of the Presidency to only those who could demonstrate the strictest qualifications for citizenship.

And every since then, Jeff and co have sought to weaken the strict standard and replace it with a NOTHING standard. Jeff even convinces himself that it was always their intention to have a standard which doesn't accomplish their goal of keeping foreign influence out of the Presidency.

Eat your Anchor Baby soup Jeff.

[CpnHook]

Sophistry.

Rather, it's called "reading a passage from a case in context" (the correct approach) rather than "quote mining" (the fallacious approach, which is what you attempt).

I don't care if the case is about the best flavor of bubble gum, if a Supreme Court Judge identifies as agreeing with a specific principle of law, it reflects *HIS* opinion on the matter.

Read in context, C.J. Marshall is analyzing a point about domicile in a case involving international law. You can't take a small portion of the material he cites which actually speaks to a different point not at issue, apply that to a completely different context (municipal law involving citizenship), and claim that represents the Judge's view on that other matter. That's absurd.

What the case is about is irrelevant to the point. Nonsense.

The proper distinction must be made between those portions of a judge's analysis that are pertinent to the issue before him (what's termed the ratio decidendi of the opinion) and materials that are tangential or completely extraneous to the question at issue (what's termed obiter dicta).

You can lay a blowtorch to the entire legal system and give it no credence, if you so wish. What you CAN'T do (if you're going to argue coherently) is dismiss with a hand wave any case you don't like, while simultaneously taking fragments of particular cases you do like, interpreting those according to alternative principles you fashion, and then claim you've proven something. Again, that's absurd.

Your side tries this same dodge in Minor v Happersett. You allege that BECAUSE the case was not about Presidential Eligibility, the opinions of the Judge as regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" is irrelevant.

What "I" allege (and I stated this explicitly in my post) is that the case didn't present the question of the birth status of a person born of an alien parent(s), so the case holds no analytical (precedential) value as to any case which actually presents the latter question. (In fact, the Minor court explicitly states that it had no need to address that question).

This approach might yield fruit in goofy world of lawyer-speak, but in the real world, it is recognized as being utter crap.

We can test your statement here empirically and ask whether outside the "world of lawyer-speak" anyone (political commentators, historians, Congress, etc.) understands the Minor case to have exclusively defined "natural born citizen" for Presidential eligibility purposes. And the answer is: No. No one I've seen inhabiting the world outside of the Through-the-Looking-Glass bubble of Vattel Birtherism reads Minor to stand for that proposition.

Not buying it, and completely baffled as to why you think anyone should buy that.

The proposition that statements made in a case which are relevant to the question at issue are the statements to be accorded importance, while other statements not relevant to the question at issue are not to be given such importance isn't really that difficult to grasp.

You can read cases according to your own personal rules, if you wish. That's the prerogative of inhabiting Wonderland. I'm merely explaining why it is that no one who understands how cases historically are composed and interpreted will give your argument credence.

[Nero Germanicus]

Every post you put up says the exact same thing using slightly different words. You don’t respect judges who disagree with you and you think that the American judiciary is corrupt. I get it. Saying it over and over again becomes tedious.
I find Jeff’s historical research to be informative. The ad hominems and flame wars, I skip over and ignore.

If eligibility challengers didn’t continue to file lawsuits and appeals, I wouldn’t be commenting on the opinions, holdings or the obiter dicta that comes from them.

[Nero Germanicus]

Jeff says: “There was not enough actual doubt about Obama to pass a similar resolution.”

However in 2009 the House of Representatives did include a “whereas” clause in a resolution that acknowledged Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The resolution passed 378-0.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hres593/text

[DiogenesLamp]

Read in context, C.J. Marshall is analyzing a point about domicile in a case involving international law. You can't take a small portion of the material he cites which actually speaks to a different point not at issue, apply that to a completely different context (municipal law involving citizenship), and claim that represents the Judge's view on that other matter. That's absurd.

Were it irrelevant to his point, he would not have cited it. Or do you only consider him a fool when it suits you? Justice Marshall started his quote of Vattel where he did because he regarded it as SALIENT to the point. Were it not, he would not have bothered with it.

Given your tendency to cite IRRELEVANT crap, I can only surmise you project this same weakness onto other people, but I assure you, Justice Marshall is more competent than are you.