Skip to comments.Arizona deputies in Hawaii seeking Obama birth certificate
Posted on 05/22/2012 7:56:20 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Two men who identified themselves as being from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Phoenix went to the Hawaii Department of Health Monday morning requesting verification of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, said a state spokeswoman.
A Hawaii deputy attorney general gave the men information concerning the legal requirements to obtain such a document; the requirements are posted on the Health Department's website. The two men then left the office, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.
The two men showed Maricopa County Sheriff's Office badges and identified themselves as Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewcz, Okubo said. They are "authorized by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, who is conducting an official investigation," a spokesman for the sheriff's office said in an email.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been researching Obama's residency status using a volunteer cold-case "posse," but now has employed a taxpayer-funded deputy, The Arizona Republic reported Monday.
Zullo is a volunteer, the Republic reported, but Okubo said that Mackiewicz presented a business card showing he is with the Threats Management Unit of the sheriff's office.
Arapaio's birth certificate investigation comes as the U.S. Justice Department is suing his office for alleged civil rights violations, including discrimination against Hispanics.
Separately, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who says he is not a "birther," said in a radio interview Thursday that Obama's Arizona ballot status is in question unless Hawaii responds positively to his request under a Hawaii law regarding confirmation of birth certificates.
Hawaii Department of Attorney General spokesman Josh Wisch said Monday the department has been in touch with Bennett since Friday and that he would need to provide legal authority showing his office is "a governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities."
Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. Birthers contend Obama was not born in the United States and thus not eligible to be president. The state released a copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate last year, but the release did not satisfy many birthers.
Bennett, a Republican who is reportedly considering a run for governor in Arizona, said Friday he assumes he'll get the confirmation he requested in March from Hawaii officials.
Whew!!! Finally finished wading through all those 9000+ posts this morning; read all night, I did. (wink)
I do, however, seem to have missed something. Might you, perhaps, direct me to one of those posts that credibly asserts that the PARENTS of an American NBC must be BORN IN THE USA?
Parents do not have to be born in the US for the child to be a natural born citizen, the parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child.
To be natural born you must be born to citizens. At the Framing, the citizenship of the wife followed that of the husband, hence two citizen parents.
He will help find it.
You are supposed to include the person you are criticizing as a recipient of the post.
Agreed. Thank you.
And yet at least nine times the US supreme Court has defined “natural born” as born of two citizen parents.
English common law was to be ignored as much as possible for definitions, I mean we where at war with them!
The "Certificate of Live Birth" that was released by obama shows his mother to be 18 years old. Looks as if they tried to cover this one.
Yes it would, you have to wonder why the Speaker of the House or any number of his committee chairman have not obtained that information.
Of course you have to believe they don't already know all that information, but I personally am pretty sure they already know all that, so either they are incredibly stupid, corrupt or complicit.
Punchamullah, mears just reminded me that I should have pinged you to this comment because it pertains to you. Sorry I forgot.
"Full faith and credit" in the Constitution gives Arizona all the requirement it needs.
The Supremacy clause in the Constitution overrides Hawaii's laws on the matter of Arizona's access.
Thank you, you voiced what I have been trying to piece together for years.
Minor is president
Ark is dicta
And Obama is still not qualified.
Like I said in an earlier post the experts on this subject reside here on FREE REPUBLIC.
That's what we said when the first COLB came out.
See post 195..... long read but good and no the parents of an NBC do not have to be born in the US they do however have to be US citizens at the birth.
To put it another way two people born in say China come to the US legally, they study, take the oath and become US citizens. They then start a family, any children of those two will be/are “natural born citizens”
Minor is president, Ark is dicta and Obama is still not qualified.
Re: Minor—do you mean “precedent”?
YES hanging my head
Remind me next time to read the post as well as spell check it.
Thanks for putting up the link to your most excellent analysis. I forgot to bookmark it when I originally read it back in January. It’s now been added.
I like it.
Truther + Birfer = Proofer.
Secondly, I do not seek credit...
Too bad, I'm giving it to you whether you want it or not.
2) I relied heavily on the work of others in writing my essay.
I've relied heavily on the work of others as well in my learning. However, you went through the effort of nicely putting it all together and deserve due credit.
Don't pay attention. It's a repeat of a movie we've all seen before.
Just read this thread: Rubio and Birthright Citizenship.
Be sure to read this post to see what the plain-meaning really was in 1791.
Excellent work by a member of the Class of ‘98.
I have never asserted otherwise.
In Post #17, atc23 posited that in order to be NBC, the parents must be born in the USA. Ne was challenged on this by New Jersey Realist in Post 57, whereupon NJR was attacked by MHGinTN in Post 61. In Post 77, I supported NJR’s contention that it is NOT required that the parents be born in the USA, a position to which I still adhere. Buckeye Texan and Jeff Vader understood my post, however, as others (unnamed) could not, they chose to insult me and try out some creative name calling.
I’ve been here a while, understand clearly the issue, and agree that Zippy is not NBC. Would that others on this thread could read and think before shooting from the hip.
And yet at least nine times the US supreme Court has defined natural born as born of two citizen parents
Then answer this question. If Vattel wrote: The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens then why didnt the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
“Natural Born” means a status that exists as a result the of nature of one’s birth - no act of man or government can change that.
Exactly correct!!!!! A naturalized citizen cannot be president; that is what that means. Born of the soil = natural. There are TWO categories of citizens spelled out in the Constitution: Natural and Naturalized.
Tell me ONE authority that will declare obummer not to be NBC and make it stick UNLESS they prove he was not born in HI. Who are you people preaching to, the wind? No one believes you. Give up the insanity!
Believe me, Hell will freeze over before he is declared not to be eligible and removed from office unless it can be proven that he was not born in America. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It will not happen because the framers didn’t require two parent citizens if born in the USA.
The common law of England has not been declared by the Constitution to be a part of the law of the United States.
Of course what you say in the above sentence is true. We rebelled against England after all, BUT
Where is the proof that the framers relied upon Vattel for their definition of NBC?
Vattel wrote: The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didnt the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way? Why instead did they use a phrase understood in common law? Were they stupid?
Yes, that's Sunnny Boy's proof he's a NBC just like the squatter in the WH.
Aliens do not produce citizens, natural born or otherwise. Aliens produce aliens. See the Naturalization Acts of 1790, et. seq.
Are you serious? Unless a baby born on US soil belongs to ambassadors or foreign representative, he/she received an American birth certificate. A certificate of birth attesting to the fact that it was born on U.S. soil. A natural citizen. JUS SOLI.
A baby born overseas to American citizens is issued an American birth certificate by the American Consul in that country. A natural citizen. JUS SANGUINE.
EVERYONE else is a foreigner and requires a court to declare him or her a U.S. citizen. Naturalized citizen.
If the framers wanted a citizen parent rule for those born on U.S. soil, they would have mentioned it, don’t you think?
The Supreme Court (PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
307 U.S. 325) quoted the following from a lower-court ruling in their findings:
Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;
Young Steinkauler had alien parents! If this doesn’t define NBC I don’t know what else does?
Despite all the verbiage, Minor v. Happersett basically stated that it was the English common law rule that was incorporated into the NBC clause. The court never made a ruling on NBC - just instructed us to look elsewhere (English common law) to define NBC. Common law at the time for people born in the U.S. (except for children of ambassadors, etc) were JUS SOLI - Natural Born Citizens. If the framers had meant otherwise, they would have written it down.
Try to digest this quickie:
Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiffs ballot challenge does not fit neatly, if at all, within A.R.S.§ 16-351. Although Arizona courts have addressed challenges dealing with federal offices,
see, e.g., Harless v. Lockwood,
85 Ariz. 97, 100, 332 P.2d 887, 888 (1958), the current controversy over the Presidents qualification under the United States Constitution to hold the office of the President of the United States is uniquely federal in character and better suited for the federal courts to handle following the upcomingPresidential election.
See Markham Robinson v. Bowen
, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1147 (N.D.Cal. 2008);
see alsoKeyes v. Bowen
, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 207, 216-17 (Cal. Ct. App.),
, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 199 (2011).But even assuming that the current challenge falls within this Courts purview to decide, there are indispensible parties, most notably Arizonas Secretary of State, who has not been named in the lawsuit.
A.R.S.§ 16-344(A), (B). Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent inconstruing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co.
, 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitutionand thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV);
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion,
Minor v. Happersett
,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise. Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings to Gather Important Information for CourtsDeliberations. Plaintiff argues that he would like more time to present evidence and case law and, given his
status, leniency is proper. The absence of an attorney, however, does not entitle Plaintiff to favorableconsideration,
Copper State Bank v. Saggio
, 139 Ariz. 438, 442, 679 P.2d 84, 88 (App. 1984), and in anyevent the matters which Plaintiff seeks to present would not, in the Courts opinion, change the outcome of the decision in this case.
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The Court will not grant a stay under these circumstances.
Accordingly, and upon careful consideration,
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING
the Arizona Democratic Partys Motion to Dismiss for the reasonsstated herein and
all relief requested.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING
with prejudice Plaintiffs Ballot Challenge Pursuant toA.R.S. § 16-351(B) and Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution and Rule 8.
Your kneepads give you away, drone.
You have your opinions. I have mind so I am the drone. Nice logic.
Yes I have read all the NBC of 2 parent crap and it is just that, CRAP. There is no proof. There is no court in this land that will take your side. That tells me you are a bunch of fanatics undeserving of calling anyone a drone.
I’ll repeat this again:
Vattel wrote: The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didnt the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
That is the $64,000 question you people cannot answer and it is a total fail on your part.
Resorting to insults instead of proof is the bain of ignorant people.
You can climb atop the Empire State Building and shout out throughout all eternity that the moon is made out of cheese you would be wrong. A lie repeated 50 million times does not make it the truth.
You lie about NBC and 2 parents. You can scream it out all you want you cannot prove your assertion. Quote all the text you want; there is no proof. You cannot prove an omission. You worship people like Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo. They are no different than the Rev Jackson and Al Sharpton. They all lie for a reason. Think about that.
How can you swear much less know that the framers of our Constitution relied upon Vattel and not the common law of the time? Secondary authorities DO NOT COUNT. Bring on the proof. Just because YOU say 2 citizen parents are required doesn’t make it true. The framers didn’t say it. Just because there are a million like minded of you living under a delusion doesn’t make it true.
FACT IS: Justice Roberts, upholder of the Constitution, swore in the idiot in question (twice as a matter of fact)as our President. I don’t like it but that is the FACT. You are not going to change it UNLESS you can prove Obama was not born in this country....then we have a chance at justice. In the meantime, quit the insanity.
Vattel wrote: The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didnt the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way? Did they forget? Are they stupid?
Second; the phrase natural born as used at that time was clearly understood by all to mean born on US soil of parents who are US citizens.
Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel. You know that is the truth because you go on to say: “Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).”
English common law was practiced in the colonies since day one. That was the CONTEXT of the time. That is what was common to the people. Vattel was just some recent philosopher born in 1714 and totally unheard of by the common populace. The framers used him for his ideas on international trade - nothing more. If they subscribed to his views on your 2 citizen parent rule, they would have written it that way because it was precisely AGAINST what was common knowledge.
English common law was used until the adoption of the constitution. English common law was avoided as much as possible for two reasons, one we where at war with england and two the common law was oriented towards subjects, sovereignty and royalty making it a difficult fit for a free people in a brand new republic.
English common law is not a part of our constitution nor our laws per say. Out of necessity some definitions have been carried over. Natural born was not one of them.
Nice comment. I mistakenly said parents born in the US as well. Simple mistake but these people, misguided as they are, know what is meant. The fact that they can’t prove what they say drives them crazy.
I think we both agree that Obozo has to be removed from office. That will never happen if these idiots pursue it their way. It will happen when it is proven that he was not born in the US. That is the key. Evidence is showing up that it could be true. If only the authorities really looked into the Social Security Number situation and the draft registration, that would also uncover Bummer for the fraud he is.
Failing that, the electorate must remove him CONSTITUTIONALLY by voting him the hell out.
“Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel.”
Wrong the writers of the constitution clearly understood the meaning of the phrase Natural Born.
“You know that is the truth because you go on to say: Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).”
That was a comma not a period, include the entire sentence.
and the interjected ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and the fact that we have no current president.
Ambiguity.. doubtfulness or uncertainty in meaning.
There was no ambiguity then during the writing and adoption of the constitution. There is no ambiguity now as to the meaning. The attempted interjection of ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and Obama being ineligible for the office.
I agree with punchamullah. I have not found one piece of evidence in the mountain of crap posted here and anywhere else including apuzzo and donofrio that prove the framers meant NBC = 2 citizen parents. It cannot be found. All I see are people's opinions and court dicta that goes both ways, but not one FACT that proves that the framers FORGOT to add the phrase "2 citizen parents" but MEANT to include it. It is not written therefore it does not exist. The context of the time (English common law) tells me the framers forgot nothing.
It is you people who believe in this non-existant phrase that are screwed up. The rest of us want proof. If there is proof then I will come aboard with pleasure,
If you truly believe a NBC should have citizen parents, and you have every right to that opinion, write your congressman and try to have him get it enacted into law. That's the only way it will be done - but then again the Supremes will strike it down, 9 to 0, won't they?
Things that are self-evident do not require a definition - otherwise, we'd have ended up with a 100-page monstrosity like the EU "Constitution." The basic fact is that anything that relies on "natural law" relies on the "Law of Nations."
You should particularly pay attention to John Jay's letter to Washington suggesting the restriction to Natural Born Citizens as a way to bar someone with divided loyalties from becoming Commander-in-Chief.
The definition is also implicit in the exception made for "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Everyone alive at the time had parents who were not citizens at the time of their birth, even though they had been born in one of the colonies that became states. It was felt that, having participated in the Revolution that brought us independence, they could be trusted not to betray us.
Finally, whether or not the Founders defined the term explicitly, the US Supreme Court definitely did in Minor vs. Happersett - which remains binding precedent to this day. To quote from that decision, 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."
Note that they say that there are doubts as to whether "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" are even citizens at all - not whether they qualify as NBC. Since the case they were considering involved a woman who was a NBC (born in the US of parents who were both citizens), they had no need to resolve the doubts as to the status of second group of potential, plain (i.e. not natural born) citizens
For a great part of our history, even being born here did not make you a citizen, unless your parents were citizens. This was changed with the 14th Amendment, to ensure that freed slaves were accorded citizenship. It was made clear by its framers, at the time of its adoption, that this Amendment only accorded "birthright citizenship" and would not, indeed, could not alter the requirements for NBC. Note also, the language of the 14th - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." Who is not "subject to the jurisdiction?" Foreign diplomats and agents, those in the country illegally and transients who have been admitted for a short period. This leads to the question as to whether Obama is even a citizen (which might explain why his Social Security No. fails E-Verify.)
English common law is not a part of our constitution nor our laws per say. Out of necessity some definitions have been carried over. Natural born was not one of them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, shouda, coulda, wouda. PROOF man!
Things that were “self evident” as you put it came from English common law, not Vattel. Vattel’s book was originally published in 1758. How many colonists knew his work to make it “common” knowledge? Are you for real?
Are you seriously posing that Vattel was “self evident” during the revolution? That’s 18 years for pete’s sake yet all colonists took this guy’s theories to heart. THIS IS INSANITY!!!!!!!
As for the other dicta you cite; that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
As I said, NBC is a status afford by the nature of one's birth, and cannot be altered or modified by any Sovereign, government or law.
If your theory were to be correct, my father would have been a NBC of Imperial Germany.
Thankfully, considering the way WWI was proceeding for Germany, he was not - otherwise, he'd never survived to get to the US in 1927 & I wouldn't be here!
BTW, my Dad (& London-born Mom) both became citizens in the 1930s, so I was a NBC when I was born in 1943!
I think it’s important to know why dozens of nations, including the U.S., have “Natural Born Citizen” as an eligibility standard for their highest elective office. No nation wants a situation where, once elected, someone legally abandons their citizenship in the country they were elected and legally claims citizenship in a foreign country to which they are legally entitled to citizenship. Because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of Pres. Obama’s birth, it is understood that Pres. Obama could legally drop his U.S. citizenship and legally claim British citizenship. I don’t think anyone wants a situation where, once elected, our president could legally abandon their U.S. citizenship and legally adopt foreign citizenship.
To reply to your earlier post, The flaw in the argument can be found in the structure of the English language. Just as to “immunize” is to make one immune, so is “naturalize” the process that makes one “natural.” Anyone who has been naturalized is accorded all the rights and privileges of a natural citizen. This does not make him a natural-born citizen.
You understand! A naturalized citizen IS accorded all the rights and priveleges of a natural born citizen except that he cannot run for President as stipulated in the Constitution. A naturalized citizen is not born in this country - not “natural” born - thus ineligible for the office. That is the distinction.
Since as long as I can remember, if you are born in the U.S you get a U.S. birth certificate. That is not naturalization - that is natural born.
Regarding Franklin, in 1775 he wrote to Charles Dumas, an editor and journalist in the Netherlands, and thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest edition of Vattel (published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that his personal copy was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the Continental Congress meeting in 1775.
To quote: "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author."
If they were consulting it in 1775, don't you think they might have thought about it in 1787?
Also, Washington himself set a world record for overdue library books, by checking out a copy of Vattel from the NY Public Library, which was not returned for 220 years! He must have thought it worth keeping for reference.
I have the overwhelming desire to point out the Supreme Court finding in Minor vs Haperset (SP) which sets or establishes precedent.
Ark is dicta that means it is nice to know but not a part of the finding.
Finding meaning a lawful definition
Precedent meaning an establishment of law
Minor gave a definition of natural born which was found to be a finding which established precedent and all of that set in concrete “born with both parents US citizens” as natural born.
several years ago I skimmed an essay that went into detail about how and why English common law was not in the constitution nor was it really a part of our body of law. Then with in the last week maybe two weeks reference was made to that essay either here or another forum dealing with NBC questions. that reminded me of that essay’s conclusions. English common law has to do with the relationship between a man and his king. That way of thinking will not fit a free man in a new republic which is throwing the entire concept of monarchy in the dirt.
The only commonality between our body of law and English common law is both are written in English and use a lot of latin words.
Quoting the 1898 Supreme Court Case US v Wong Kim Ark:
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.
Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State.
The Court in the brief passage above also made the following CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT:
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.
It appears that this Supreme Court decision sets two precedents:
1. English common law was in effect and not Vattel
2. NBC is actually defined.
The source for the above can be found here:
All remarks that are outside of the core reasoning for a case are considered to be one or another form of side comments. Such side comments may not be as thoroughly researched as the core reasoning. They are not part of the holding in a case, and they do not carry the same authority. For this reason, such statements simply do not immediately, at least create precedents. Theres a Latin term for this: dictum. And it simply means something said. The plural of dictum is dicta, which is the more commonly used term. And the most common kind of dicta is obiter dicta, which means things said in passing.
An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the courts opinion, does not form a necessary part of the courts decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument.
Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive. (Source: Wikipedia)
The paragraph you attribute to the definition of NBC reads:
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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words all children are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as all persons, and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
The above statement is considered orbiter dicta non binding, non precedent setting. If it WAS ratio decidendi it would prove to you something else that you refuse to acknowledge.
The paragraph just prior to the one above reads:
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 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, 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.
The Court here admits only two kinds of citizens: Those who are born citizens, and those who are created by naturalization. And they dont subdivide those who are born citizens into natural born citizens and persons who are merely born citizens, but are not natural born. The fact is, no significant legal authority has ever, in the past history of the United States, claimed that such a division exists.
Now where in Happersett does it say that two citizen parents are required in order to make a natural born citizen? It doesnt.
It says that 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.
Yes, it identifies those who are born in a country of two citizen parents as natural born citizens but nowhere does the Court say that those who are born in a country, but dont have two citizen parents, are not natural born citizens.
There was not, and never had been, any fictional third category of native-born citizens who were born citizens, but who were not natural-born. Such a third category appears NOWHERE not in Minor v. Happersett. Not in US v. Wong Kim Ark. And not in any other case in the entire history of American jurisprudence that anybody has ever produced.
The birther movement claims that the Supreme Court actually did address in one or two sentences the issue of whether such people were natural born, even though they didnt address the issue of whether they were citizens.
When the Supreme Court addresses a matter,they address it. They dont write just one or two sentences on a matter. They go extensively into the pros and cons.
The Court spent 6 entire pages on whether or not Virginia Minor was a citizen when it had already been conceded by everybody that she was!
And the Court told us themselves, in Minor v Happersett, that they werent going to get into citizenship issues regarding the children born on US soil of non-citizen parents.
How much space would it take for the Supreme Court to actually explore the issue? Would one or two sentences do? It turns out that we know the answer to that question: It would take the Supreme Court more than 50 pages to explore that particular issue. Not two sentences.
And we know that, for a fact, because thats exactly how much space it did take them, when they finally explored and answered that EXACT question. The case was United States v Wong Kim Ark.
Finally, in March 2012, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County very specifically ruled that Minor v Happersett quite simply does not say what the birthers claim it says. Heres what that court said:
[Supreme Court] precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.,
At least NINE federal and state courts not even counting US v Wong Kim Ark have either found or stated that citizen parents are NOT required to make a natural born citizen, or have given examples of people who were natural born citizens, who clearly did NOT have two US citizen parents. These cases include:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)
Tisdale v. Obama (US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, 2012)
Lynch v. Clarke (New York, 1844)
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind. Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama (Georgia, 2012)
Allen v Democratic Party (AZ Superior Court, Pima Co., 2012)
Purpura & Moran v. Obama (New Jersey, 2012)
At the same time, no court has ever ruled that two citizen parents are required.
I wont even get into US v Wong Kim Ark because it would take up too much verbiage but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the room that totally slaps down the birther movement with a giant bat and it DOES SET precedent.
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.