Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919

“No, the Supreme Court has only cited Minor as stare decisis and NOT Wong Kim Ark on Art. II eligibility in Luria v. United States. No other Supreme Court decision has said otherwise. None.”


Because Minor v. Happersett was a women’s suffrage case and not a natural born citizen case, the majority decision says, and I quote:
“ For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Wong Kim Ark has been cited successfully in Article II section 1 rulings, such as in Ankeny. Minor v. Happersett has been cited unsuccessfully in Article II, Section 1 rulings such as in Allen v. Obama:
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

No court has ever ruled that Minor v. Happersett has applicability to natural born citizenship or presidential eligibility.


454 posted on 04/05/2013 12:47:55 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus
Wong Kim Ark has been cited successfully in Article II section 1 rulings, such as in Ankeny.

It shouldn't have been though because Gray makes it clear that the ruling is limited to the agreed upon facts of the case, including permanently domiciled parents.

456 posted on 04/05/2013 1:13:31 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies ]

To: Nero Germanicus
No court has ever ruled that Minor v. Happersett has applicability to natural born citizenship or presidential eligibility.

Wrong. Read it and weep.

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

There it is. A direct quote. And notice, absolutely nothing about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which was 15 years earlier than this UNANIMOUS decision by the Supreme Court in Luria v. United States. And even though it says "native citizen," Minor exclusively defined native citizens as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. No lower court trumps this decision. All you've shown is that judges in Indiana, Arizona and Georgia are ignorant of actual Supreme Court precedence.

467 posted on 04/05/2013 9:07:17 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson