Posted on 06/24/2011 9:38:55 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.
And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
This sounds logical but only if you ignore the explicit language of Minor and if you disregard the John Jay letter to CIC George Washington which was explicitly intended to EXCLUDE UK Natural Born Subjects from being eligible to be CIC (such as Obama claims to be which I dispute) and was incorporated into the Constitution.
I don't believe this is correct. The 1790 law was replaced and the language extending NBC status to the children of US citizens born overseas was dropped.
Under then-current law and Leo's analysis of Minor, McCain was not only not NBC, McCain was not even a US citizen at birth.
McCain became a nunc pro tunc (retroactive) US Citizen at birth being born to US citizens on foreign soil only due to a law passed shortly after he was born. That makes McCain a statutory citizen and a statutory citizen can never be a natural born citizen, IMO.
In noting the ongoing dialogue surrounding children born on US soil of alien parents and then explicitly refusing to settle the debate, the Court was saying it explicitly refused to restrict citizenship to only those born of citizen parents.
Beyond that, you have some novel ideas regarding "subject to the jurisdiction" which run directly counter to established case law.
IIRC (and as extensively documented and discussed in FR) the 1790 Law you cite was replaced with a law (in 1795, IIRC) which DROPPED the language extending NBC status to children born to two US citizen out of the country.
IMO, the language in the 1790 law you cite unconstitutionally attempted to amend the NBC languange in the constitution without actually using the amendment process.
Never happened. Nope. Nuh-uh. At no time during the proceedings of the case was Minor's citizenship ever contested (had it been, she would not have had standing to bring the case in the first place), nor was it ever necessary for her to defend it. How could Waite be rejecting an argument she never made?
From the original Statement:
"It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a native-born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri."
(Am I the only one in this discussion that has read the original brief and petition?)
A humble hat tip to you!
What was your previous screen name?
“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land but the moral relations of his parentage 4”
[4 Vattel sect 216 220 ] Pg. 12
“7 Under view of the law of nations natives or natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” (Vattel, book 1, cited as source. Most probably the 1797 version).
[5 Vattel Book I p 101] Pg. 12
“The natural born or native is one who is born in the country of citizen parents 4”
[4 Vattel Droit des Gens 1 io xix sect 212 Ed Paris 1863] Pg. XI
Alexander Porter Morse...Treatise on Citizenship referencing Vattel.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts?page=56#56
Mr Rogers “I guess I don’t see how that one sentence in a book would lead to everyone assuming that the phrase “natural born citizen” refers to someone who is a citizen by birth AND has TWO citizens for parents.”
Mr Rogers “It doesn’t use the phrase “natural born citizen”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts?page=65#65
The appellants have properly put forward their claims, but the federal courts (including SCOTUS to justify granting cert) cannot REACH any claims on eligibility if the plaintiffs cannot establish STANDING.
All that SCOTUS did in refusing certiorari was to let stand the lower court’s denial of standing and in doing so SCOTUS made absolutely NO ruling or expression of opinion on the merits of plaintiffs claims that Obama is ineligible.
The Drake/Keyes case could yet be remanded to the district court for a hearing on the merits. Only after such a hearing, including discovery, could it be concluded that a refusal to grant certiorari would reflect a lack of support from SCOTUS on ineligibility claims, IMO.
That’s just as clear as it was in Minor v Happersett.
Incorrect, IMO.
"Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is simply the definition of "failure to establish redressability," which is an element of standing.
Redressability is only one of three elements a plainfiff must successfully assert to gain standing, so Hollister is also a failure to gain standing and was NOT decided on the merits.
See Wiki: "There are three standing requirements:
"1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
"2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[15]
"3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury."
Perhaps you can relate the story of wanting an American passport, and being required to show your parents were citizens as was required by Vattel...
That was Swiss law, not American.
Your tag line is antithetical to your defense of the won on this thread.
Sniff, sniff.....
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.