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

To: Kenny Bunk
You reference Minor v. Happersett regarding "doubt" and there is ample reason for such doubt. Recall also from same that Some authorities go further and extend natural-born status to those born in the nation regardless of parental citizenship. But, there was no need to resolve those doubts at the time in order to render a verdict.

By electing, certifying and allowing Obama to not just serve out his term, but reelecting him, it can be argued persuasively that those doubts have been resolved. Should his reelection be certified and he serves a second full term without successful challenge, that will likely be regarded as having removed all doubt.

So, we will have had Presidential candidates not born in the United States and we will have had a two term President born to a noncitizen father, whose citizenship was legally imposed upon his son at birth. The so-called citizenship clause is being slowly but surely probed, tested and undermined.

One day, we will have a President who is neither the child of citizens nor born in this country, Count on it. We're watching the groundwork being laid as we speak, disrupted by all manner of silliness intended to tinfoil any discussion of the matter, and I place Orly Taitz at the top of the heap of that silliness.

153 posted on 01/05/2013 8:38:29 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]


To: RegulatorCountry
Recall also from same that Some authorities go further and extend natural-born status to those born in the nation regardless of parental citizenship.

That's not what the court was saying. They said that some authorities go further and declare as CITIZENS, those persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. It's not implying anything about these persons being natural-born citizens. The thing that was not doubted was the citizenship of those born in the country to citizen parents. This class of persons was EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural-born. There's no doubt they are citizens. The other class of persons were not characterized this way because there is doubt that they are citizens at all. They didn't need to resolve any doubts for such persons because they were acknowledging that Virginia Minor was definitely a citizen because she fit the class of persons who were EXCLUSIVELY characterized as natural-born citizens. This holding was affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision when it wrote:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...

The paragraph prior to this quotes the natural-born citizen characterization and it is the last time in the Wong Kim Ark decision that the term natural-born citizen is used. It specifies that Minor was born to citizen parents. There's no reason for the court to do this unless it was affirming a separate class of citizenship from the one it was using to apply to Wong Kim Ark. For the next 25 pages it construes a completely separate type of birth citizenship that is defined strictly by the 14th amendment but requires the parents to have permanent residence and domicil. Obama fails to be a citizen under this 14h amendment ruling since his parents did NOT have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. when he was born. IOW, there is doubt he is a citizen and there is NO DOUBT that he is NOT a natural-born citizen.

156 posted on 01/05/2013 10:16:44 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | 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