Free Republic

Minor said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizen. Nothing has been “merged” as you are claiming.

Ted Cruz was born to a fully qualified US citizen working temporarily in Canada.

Nobody says he wasn't, but the Supreme Court was clear that this is NOT natural-born citizenship. Minor v. Happersett said this type of citizenship falls under the naturalization authority of Congress. Second, any time another country's jurisdiction is involved, U.S. courts including the Supreme Court defer to international law or natural law, which is true with the Supreme Court in multiple cases involving citizenship questions. The precedent on natural-born citizenship was established in Minor with an exclusive definition. Cruz's politics have nothing to do with his citizenship. My posts are not trolling. Check my history. I've been very consistent on citing direct Supreme Court authority to back up what I'm saying. I can't make Cruz eligible based on a wishful invention of how I want to define natural-born citizen. Certainly Cruz has a better argument to citizenship than Obama because his father eventually became a U.S. citizen, but this is still not the same thing as natural-born citizenship.

Have you ever read ‘Minor v. Happersett’?

Yes, several times. If you had, you would know I'm absolutely correct.

It doesn’t conclude anything of the sort.

Yes, actually it does and this was affirmed by the quotes from Minor made in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.

The affirmation of judgment in Minor v. Happersett merely states they agree that a one form of natural born citizen is by two parents of a child born in the US, but in no way do they exclude any other natural born citizenship, as stated, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” They did not go into the other means of natural citizenship, so they did not exclude them.

The doubts were not about other ways to become natural-born citizens. The doubts were about other ways to become citizens. In context, they used one exclusive definition of natural-born citizen. And if you read the decision, the next paragraph goes into the only other known ways of becoming a citizen. Again, only one, birth in the country to citizen parents was characterized as natural-born.

The Supreme Court did already decide how to define Natural-born Citizen in Minor v. Happersett. That definition was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and the Minor precedent on presidential eligibility was affirmed in Luria v. United States. IOW, 27 Supreme Court justices agreed with Minor that NBC is defined as all children born in the country to citizen parents. Those born outside the country and born to an alien father can only become citizens through the naturalization authority of Congress.

In Obama’s case, he proved the Constitution can simply be ignored as long as you have enough popular support.

IOW, you have nothing.

Show the ruling and what it said specifically about Lewis’ dicta on how NBC is defined. A procedural denial doesn’t make bad dicta good.

I explained what I meant. What part did you truly not understand?? I was very specific about the cited legal principle and I’m pretty sure it was your link I used to cite it.

Sorry, but I already showed where it means the same thing.

This is probably why they’re waiting so long. They can certainly point out the actual Constitutional precedent, but it doesn’t mean that they can enforce any kind of meaningful resolution other than to de-legitimize the 2012 election results in Alabama.

That’s a trainwreck of a decision. The judge cites Minor to say that the Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens and then he goes straight to the 14th amendment of the Constitution to define eligibility. IOW, it’s a direct contradiction of unanimous Supreme Court precedent. I don’t know what argument Voeltz made, but it’s easy to show this judge contradicted his own rationale.

According to whom?? The principle is in effect whether it’s stated or not. I showed the definition and how that fit the exact verbiage used in the denial.

I think you may have forgotten or did not know that the Voeltz v. Obama lawsuits are ballot challenges.

I didn't forget anything. I responded to what the denial said verbatim and I gave an explicit definition that backed up my point. Now you're trying to baffle you're way out of an obviously losing argument with a bunch of irrelevant commentary and quotations. This is a typical fogger tactic, but no one is falling for it.

Sorry, all you're doing is denying the obvious. Here's a definition that directly links standing and the right to legal relief.

"Standing to sue" is defined as the one who has the right to relief in court. What this means is that the person who is suing the other person in court has a claim against that other person. A simple example would be where one person might be injured as a result of an automobile accident, but another person attempts to sue for those injuries. This other person clearly lacks standing to sue because he or she has no right to that relief in court.

link to definition

This court said the plaintiffs didn't clearly prove a legal right to relief, which is the same as not proving they have standing. Why is it so hard for you to admit this??

It was the basis of the denial. You even posted a link to it.

Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.

How about that. The Florida Supreme Court resorts to legal standing to deny the appeal.

The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has been “stare decisis” for the last 115 years.

The holding in Wonk Kim Ark did NOT declare him to be a natural-born citizen. The Indiana Appeals Court admitted this which I've already quoted. Your other comments here don't address the problems I brought up with the inconsistent bases for each ruling you quoted. You're resorting to an appeal of circular logic about whether the cases were appealed or not. That won't make the rulings any less consistent.

The same law that was used to create a standard Federal birth certificate in 1955. The “en route” terminology is used in the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for coding and geographic particulars.

Right. Because that's what a custodian of records does: he verifies factual claims according to what is disclosed on the vital records. And Bennett was satisfied that Onaka had done what Bennett had requested. Or am I missing the part where Bennett says "Gee, I never asked Onaka to tell me if he has a valid birth record on file, but I guess I should just assume that when Onaka goes through the formality of verifying these 10 items I asked that he's doing so from an invalid record."

Bennett didn't bother to read the letter before making a decision. He didn't care one whit about whether Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. went through the formality of verifying 10 items and not verifying the items that were on the DOH's own standard request form. And you're missing an important part of the law on self-authentication in the rules of evidence. The custodian of certified records is supposed to verify that copies of such records are CORRECT copies. It's not just a matter of verifying a few "factual claims" contained in a record. That's not the custodian's only responsibility.

Since vital records offices don't purport to keep invalid records around that they use to verify claims, it IS the same.

This is more nonsense because such offices would keep all records on file whether they are valid or not. They only CERTIFY the ones that are valid. The other records remain invalid until required documentation or evidence is presented.

Again, the statute speaks about the custodian verifying "the existence of a certificate" but does not say anything about the custodian having to "declare the record is valid."

That part is covered under the Federal Rules of evidence and in the part of the Hawaii statute that says the letter of verification would verify any facts relating to the vital event AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT. That would include verifying whether the copy of the record is a TRUE copy.

An excerpt from the Appellants’ brief in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

This excerpt is a reaction to the lower court citing the Look Tin Sing case, which erroneously stated a person born in the country to noncitizen parents would be a natural-born citizen. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision supported that conclusion.

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

They also note that there was NOTHING in Wong Kim Ark to support this conclusion:

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...

IOW, what you cited was actually just dicta. The actually ruling only said:

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The Ankeny court avoided declaring ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen on the basis of their "guidance" from Wong Kim Ark. All they said was that there was a conflict in the plaintiffs definition of NBC that they didn't have to accepts as true. The meat of the ruling was that the governor couldn't be required to vet presidential candidates.

Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

It's MORE well-settled by 27 Supreme Court justices that natural-born citizens are defined as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Note how Judge Gibney cites NOTHING to support his dicta.

“For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012

Wow, this is a whopper. Ankeny didn't say anything about Obama becoming a citizen at birth nor did it says that Obama was a natural-born citizen. In fact, the Ankeny decision barely discussed Obama at all. And it's intereesting how this administrative judge says he "considered" that Obama was born in the United States, even though Obama never provided any evidence of this. At least this judge was smart enough not to cite Wong Kim Ark directly. It just gives us four decisions with vastly different bases for their rulings.