Posted on 02/05/2012 2:16:29 AM PST by edge919
In the ballot hearing in Georgia, Judge Malihi cited Ankeny v. Daniels from the Indiana Appeals Court to define natural-born citizen, using jus soli criteria to declare Barack "No Show" Obama to be eligible for Georgia's primary ballot, despite the lack of actual legal evidence to prove whether or not Barry was even born in the United States or not. That aside, the ruling is based on an errant conclusion.
Keeping things simple, the best way to emphasize why Minor v. Happersett is the one & only legal precedent and Wong Kim Ark is not, is to use Ankeny v. Daniels to show where it admits that its rationale is flawed. The Indiana Appeals Court admits there was an NBC definition in Minor:
"Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
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 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.
First, there's a clear error. Ankeny says the 14th amendment and Article II were read in tandem. This is false. The 14th amendment was used by Virginia Minor in an argument to claim she was a citizen, and from that citizenship she had a right to vote through the privileges and immunities clause. The Supreme Court rejected that her citizenship was due from the 14th amendment. But before they got to Article II, they covered the other way you could become a citizen ... by self-declaration and political unification.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.
This is kind of important, because it rejects the English common law theory of natural-born citizenship AND it rejects the trite argument that the courts have only recognized two ways to become a citizen. When the country was formed, those persons loyal to the United States were the original citizens and their children were natural-born citizens. But by treaty, those persons loyal to the crown and their children, even those born on U.S. soil AFTER the declaration of Independence were natural-born subjects. This was formalized through the Treaty of 1783. Thus, the Constitution, being established only four years later was not going to use a standard of citizenship that allowed anyone born on the soil to be president. This explains why the Minor court said that "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" was the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" ... it matches the Law of Nations, and it's why the court characterized this type of citizenship EXCLUSIVELY as natural-born citizen. By using this definition, this would have made Virginia Minor legally capable of running for president even though the court denied she had a right to vote.
Ankeny argues that Minor "contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." A) This is false, because Minor contemplated several combinations of factors related to citizenship including split nationalities:
... in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
The Minor court considered every combination it considered to be relevant, but it purposely and willfully only characterized ONE class of persons as natural-born citizens: those born in the country to citizen parents.
B) The other reason Ankeny's conclusion is false is because the Minor distinction of children born to citizen parents serves no purpose if not tied to how natural-born citizenship is exclusively defined. The characterization is self-limiting: "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." For those latter persons to be citizens, they must rely on other means of citizenship such as through the Constitution or statutory law. If jus soli was enough to be a natural-born citizen, then the court could have simply accepted Minor's 14th amendment argument, but they did NOT ... and Ankeny admits it:
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution, so this means that the 14th amendment does NOT define NBC. This destroys Ankeny's assumption that jus soli is enough to be an NBC. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark says this same thing, and it cites and affirms the Minor definition of NBC. The Ark case knew it could not apply the NBC definition to Wong Kim Ark, so it relied on applying common law, with some stipulations. Ankeny cites some of that common law, but it was dicta.
Ankeny claimed that "Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." I've already shown this is false, but it's important to understand that under Ankeny's logic, Wong Kim Ark ALSO left this question open. And they admit it, by way of footnote:
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 is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural-born citizen. Again, using Ankeny's logic, this means the question is "left open." Why rely on a case that does not declare its subject an NBC, when the other one does?? Ankeny says it's immaterial to all but 44 people, which were all the people who were president, but this is false. The NBC criteria is to protect the public by trying to ensure we have a president who is less subject to foreign entanglements ... and that criteria would be material to ANYONE and EVERY ONE who wants to run for president.
Atty. Van Irion to Appeal Judge Malihi’s Decision: Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation
“The one point of good news from this ruling is that we have FINALLY gotten a court to rule on the merits of our argument. This may seem like a hollow victory, but it isn’t. Before this everyone that has brought a challenge against Obama’s eligibility has been dismissed on procedural grounds. Nothing is more devastating to the rule of law than a judicial branch that refuses to do its job. Before this case we had courts across the country telling Americans that they had no right to enforce the Constitution. That was absurdity at its most extreme. Liberty Legal Foundation found a case that we believed would at least get a ruling on the merits. We hate the ruling we got, but at least we got a ruling. Now we can appeal that ruling. The appeals process now will focus on the definition of “natural born citizen” rather than procedure for the first time since the issue of Obama’s eligibility was raise in 2008.”
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/attorney-van-irion-to-appeal-judge.html
Mr Rogers wrote:
“Here is the short version, for those who find reading a chore:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
If two paragraphs is too much, here is the one sentence version:
“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
My response:
That is easily disputed by actual facts. Every child born in the U.S. was NOT a natural-born citizen in the late 18th century and for even most of the 19th century. Some children born in the U.S. were not even citizens, at all. Blacks were not provided birthright citizenship until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and subsequently the 14th Amendment, and Native Americans were not provided birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
As discussed in WKA, blacks were considered property and thus could not be citizens, while Indians were treated separately in the Constitution, being members of foreign nations inside the USA.
The critical statement remains:
““The same rule [the rule applying to natural born subjects] was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution [as natural born citizens, since we were no longer subjects] as originally established.”
IOW, the rule applied to subjects in the colonies continued to be applied to citizens after Independence. Thus, NBS = NBC.
You're funny. I guess you missed the part where the Judge said the Birth Certificate copy from the internet isn't good for anything, but then said that he considers Obama born in Hawaii.
What evidence does the Judge have that Obama was born in Hawaii? The only piece that "sort of" indicated it the Judge Rejected!
How is coming to a conclusion without evidence deciding a case on it's merits?
I suggest you take it up with them.
I suggest you take it up with them.
Perhaps in the first two cases, but Orly contested that claim. If the issue is contested, how can the judge rule in absence of any evidence?
Even in the first two cases, why should the Judge accept plaintiff's mere allegation on this?
And you seem to unable to comprehend this simplest point. Orly did not stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii. Whatever the previous two attorneys said does not bind her case.
She stipulated that Obama's location of birth is in question. You may argue that the first two attorneys stipulated Hawaii, but Orly did not. His ruling cannot encompass all three cases because the facts as stipulated in the first two cases cannot bind the third case where such "facts" are in dispute.
Rogers, do you not understand what it means to C&P the "entire" decision?? You stopped at Part III. All this says is that English common law was observed in the colonies to make persons natural-born subjects. Part V is where the court cites Minor v. Happersett and gives an exclusive, self-limiting definition of NBC. Notice, the court did NOT stop at part III. Thanks for proving me right yet again. You make it so easy.
Malihi’s decision didn’t stipulate any facts. The judge said he “considered” that Obama was born in Hawaii. He did not cite any source for showing if this is indeed fact or not. Since he admits Obama did NOT enter any legal evidence to support this claim, then it is an opinion, not an actual fact.
What you cited does NOT say this in even the most remote or convoluted fashion. At best, it says NBS = NBS. That's it.
I used your comment to add on top of. I'm preaching to the Obots who may not have understand the full breadth of what you had posted. I do that a lot. Instead, "yes, but ... ", this is a "yes, and ..."
I have cut & pasted, and linked to, the entire decision many times.
However, this sentence:
““The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
does not equal “All this says is that English common law was observed in the colonies to make persons natural-born subjects.”
Why cut and paste an entire decision when you cannot even read ONE SENTENCE?????
Let me repeat just part of the sentence, since whole sentences are beyond you: “...and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Now, what is it that continued to prevail under the Constitution? That “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject” - but if it continued to prevail UNDER the Constitution, then it means that every child born in the US of alien parents was a natural-born citizen”.
The principle that birth in the territory gave natural born status was true of natural born subjects under the colonies, and natural born citizens under the states. That is the only way the “rule in force in all the English Colonies” could have “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
You cannot delete half the sentence to make it read as you wish. WKA made Ark a NBC, as the dissent understood, and as every citizenship decision citing it has understood. You do not have to like it, but if you continue to ignore it, you will continue to LOSE - which is all that birthers have ever done - LOSE!
Until you can show WKA doesn’t apply to Obama, every court will laugh at you - even when Obama & his lawyer refuse to show up.
But you won’t listen, so you will continue to have Obama beat you like a red-haired stepchild. Tell me, do you LIKE getting your ass whupped by Obama? Is it fun for you?
The entire decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Read it, and listen to how you MIGHT be able to argue it doesn’t apply to Obama.
“Mr Rogers, Obama was born a member of a foreign nation.”
Another country made it possible for him to claim citizenship. He did not. Indians are foreign nations located INSIDE the US, so births inside the US territory did not result in US citizenship.
But since birthers love to get their butts beat, go ahead and go to court arguing that Obama is a subject of Queen Elizabeth, and therefor ineligible to be President. That will get you laughed out of court even faster than claiming Minor determines NBC status!
Really - how many times do y’all have to get laughed out of court before you figure out your arguments are legally stupid? Unless and until you argue that WKA doesn’t apply to Obama - and that argument is weak, but certainly COULD be made - you don’t have any chance at all. It has gotten so bad that Obama doesn’t even bother sending an attorney any more...
... that NBS = NBS. That's what the Treaty of 1783 is about as was affirmed in Inglis and Shanks. If this meant what you want it to mean, why did the court not stop its decision here??? It continued on for 46 more pages.
WKA made Ark a NBC, as the dissent understood, and as every citizenship decision citing it has understood.
Wrong. Ankeny footnoted that it did NOT make Ark an NBC.
The entire decision:
... includes Part V, which cites Minor v. Happersett for the court's official definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Thanks again for proving me right. It's so easy, even a cavemen could do it. Rogers, are you a caveman??
OK. You and the other Obama Butt Boys feel free to keep getting your butts spanked by Obama. If you think WKA says that people born in England continued to be natural born subjects under the Constitution, then you are way beyond any help. Keep losing, and squeal like a pig every time Obama spanks your ass.
And I say the same thing to you as well.
Reply 14 @You can't just make statements like yours without backing them up.
This is how conflict starts.
As the SoS for the State of Georgia Mr. Kemp is aware of the weight of his words. You need to take the time to do the legwork on your statement and back it up. Otherwise, all you're doing is wantonly spreading a fire.
This is not a slight, nor do I wish to pick a fight. I would simply like to flesh this out. If it's BS then it needs to be cut off at the pass.
Seriously, did you just skip reading my replies while you were reading the thread? I mean, this all happened early on in the thread and you first reply was at #37, well after you had to have read the conversation.
Ah, got it.
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.