Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp

Klayman needs to cite MORE than just Minor v. Happersett. The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed Minor’s definition of NBC and didn’t use the NBC term to characterize its appellant. Wong Kim Ark affirmed the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship.

Further than this, Luria v. United States cites the Minor decision as a legal precedent on defining the eligibility clause as pertaining to “native citizens.” Luria does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark at all on this clause. It means that Minor is THE Supreme Court precedent. The one point, however, that needs to be explained is that Minor defined native citizens the exact same as natural-born citizens: as children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It also needs to be explained that Minor reviewed ALL other ways to become a citizen, but it only characterized one class of citizens as natural-born.

Some Foggers point to the second class of birth citizenship in Minor, claiming the “doubt” leaves open the question of natural-born citizenship, but this is false. If there was a doubt about such persons being citizens, then resolving that doubt would require making a statutory interpretation that goes beyond the “NATURAL” part of the characterization of natural-born citizenship.

Further yet, Wong Kim Ark resolved the doubt expressed in Minor by affiriming the second class of birth citizens was a completely DIFFERENT class of citizenship than NBC, and that it only applies to the children of resident aliens who must have permanent residence and domicil. Obama’s father was not a resident alien (which is proved by his immigration files) and Obama’s mama’s citizenship is irrelevant under the WKA decision and under the legal precedent in Shanks v. Dupont that says the natural citizenship status of married women is governed by the Law of Nations.

This makes FOUR separate Supreme Court cases that preclude Obama from being Constituonally eligible. There is no higher judicial authority. Obama’s occupation of the White House is a de facto occupation, but is Constitutionally illegitimate. The smartest thing for the court to do is err on the side of the only known Supreme Court precedent, which means vacating Obama from the Florida ballot.


58 posted on 05/31/2012 9:26:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

I remember reading his initial court brief not too long ago. I had the same thought that he could have beefed it up a lot more.


59 posted on 05/31/2012 9:30:34 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: edge919
Problem has always been there is really no legal precedent for dealing with the eligibility of the POTUS.
BO has known this from the git=go and has taken advantage of it.
So we will continue to try again and again to get the right defendant, plaintiff and premise in front of the right judge. Eventually the right combination will come together.
62 posted on 05/31/2012 9:40:32 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya."..Is he lying now or lying then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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