MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION (NBC).

Natural Born Citizen (blog) ^ | June 24, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

[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.

[philman_36]

While we're over here discussing all of this I would like to remind everyone that you can still, to this very day, go over to fightthesmears.com and see what kind of citizen "Constitutional scholar" (spit) Obama considers himself to be.
I say that it's what he believes because if he thought that the information was wrong he would be the first one to ask for a correction.

www.fightthesmears.com
The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

And since this particular thread has been driven to the "two classes of citizens" argument I thought I would point out, according to Obama's own website, he through one of his websites, truthfully tells you what type of citizen he considers himself to be...

A native born citizen - born in America to a foreigner and a US Citizen...truth you can believe right out of the horses mouth.
So don't rail at me and argue this case says this or that case says that. That is what "Fearless Leader" has to say about himself.

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

[jh4freedom]

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

(b) How to Present Defenses.

Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;

(3) improper venue;

(4) insufficient process;

(5) insufficient service of process;

(6) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED; and

(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.

A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm

Responsive Pleading

A formal declaration by a party in reply to a prior declaration by an opponent.

Before a lawsuit goes to trial, each party makes a series of formal written declarations to the court. These declarations are called pleadings. Generally, they consist of factual claims, allegations, and legal defenses; the parties assert their respective versions of what happened and how they want the court to rule. Typically, this involves the plaintiff filing a complaint and the defendant responding with an answer. This process can occur several times, depending on the complexity of the case. For example, a party may amend its pleadings, which in turn allows the opposing party to answer the amended Pleading. When the answers respond to the factual assertions of an opponent’s prior pleading, for example, by denying them, they are called responsive pleadings. This process is also known as joining issue.

The distinguishing feature of a responsive pleading is that it replies to the merits of the allegations raised by an opposing party. By contrast, parties may choose to ignore the substance of an opponent’s pleading and ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit on some other grounds, such as the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the suit.

[philman_36]

FAMILY MAN: President Obama with brother in younger days

[philman_36]

And I really, really, really, really want someone to tell me that fightthesmears.com doesn't know what they're talking about!

For the moment you make that argument then you bring into play their capability to authoritatively state that the original COLB was authentic.

If they're wrong on one thing (native born) then how can they be considered right on the other (COLB authenticity).

After all, aren't they the "experts" that we could all trust?

[Seizethecarp]

Per your quote from FRE:

“Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:”

“(6) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED”

This just affirms my point.

A failure such as this is failure of an element of standing and if the pleading of such a failure is sustained by the court the hearing will not proceed on the merits and the case will be dismissed, as has been true on all eligibility cases so far.

[philman_36]

obama camp creates fightthesmears

[Red Steel]

Only TWO ways, actually. One is via the natural act of being born - a U.S. citizen, or one must undergo a legal “naturalization” process.

No no AllSpews not entirely correct or what I was saying.

As I mentioned, there have been "different ways and circumstances," that one could or can become a US citizen. What comes to mind....

-- Born in the US or its territories.
a) Born to parents who are legally in the jurisdiction in accordance with the 14th Amend., and US v. WKA, 1898.
b) Natural Born Citizen where no man made or positive laws are required.

-- Born overseas to American parents or parent via US statute law.

a) Born in the canal zone. See McCain
b) Born to a US citizen mother who was at least 19 years old and who lived 10 years in the United States and at least 5 of those year have to be after the age of 14 years old. (Obama Jr. should be SOL if SADO gave birth to him overseas)

Here's an interesting one from US Code.

"A person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States."

Et cetera et cetera...

Or as Edge919 succinctly said up this thread to our Noob:

"Anyone who is NOT born in the country to citizen parents is naturally an alien or naturally a foreigner. The only way they become citizens is through collective naturalization (by statute or Constitutional declaration) or by voluntary naturalization. "

Lets see here in short who are not natural born citizens.

1) Constitutional declaration. See our US Constitution.
3) Statute or positive law. See US Code Title 8, 1401 for general examples
2) collective naturalization. See 14th Amendment.
3) voluntary naturalization. As get in the immigration line.

"Only TWO" ways? LoL. I don't thinks so.

[philman_36]

Here's something you might find of interest, j h...
JAG HUNTER

[Mr Rogers]

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

[Nathanael1]

IMO, the language in the 1790 law you cite unconstitutionally attempted to amend the NBC languange

Perhaps, if one wants to speculate. However, the Act is strong prima facie evidence that the first Congress saw no constitutional issues with it. Why did none of the framers of the Constitution -- many of whom were members of Congress when the Act passed -- stand up and say, "Hey, that's not what we said three years ago!"

The citation in Waite suggests (though this may be no more than an argument from silence) the Waite court also saw no constitutional issues in it.

[Nathanael1]

"Only TWO" ways?

"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 or they may be created by naturalization."

You can go argue with the Supreme Court.

[Red Steel]

You have to be dense. I listed numerous ways to clarify my remarks in the post above about the different naturalization processes, and being born a citizen, which the born citizen may or may not be a natural born citizen.

[Nathanael1]

The two classes were not referring to two classes of citizens, but to two groups of people, the one consisting of those who were undoubtedly citizens who were born to parents both of whom were citizens, and the other those who may or may not be citizens who were born to aliens or foreigners in the United States.

I concur with all but the underscored bit. If Waite had intended "born to aliens or foreigners" he would have written that. But he wrote "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents". The only feasible construct of those words is "born in the jurisdiction with no consideration given as to whether their parents were or were not citizens". And that would be inclusive of those born of two citizen parents.

There is just no way to derive two mutually exclusive classes from the words of MvH here.

[Nathanael1]

2) "citizens" as recognized by "some authorities" with no regard to the citizenship of the parents.

Good. Now take the last step: "with no regard to the citizenship of the parents" is inclusive of those born of citizen parents. Thus, the "second class" is an expansion of (or, as Waite says, "going further" than) the first, not distinct and separate from it.

[Nathanael1]

NBC is obviously a subclass of the term "citizen". No so-called "birther" would argue against that.

If you mean subclass of the "citizen" which Waite describes as "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", then birthers argue against it constantly. Look at the number of times in this thread alone one birther or another has insisted Waite is talking about children born of two citizen parents on the one hand and of aliens or foreigners on the other. Obviously, any class of children born of two citizen parents cannot be a subclass of children born of aliens.

[Nathanael1]

Waite clearly differentiates between children "born within the jurisdiction" (the jus soli and who are not NBCs) who some thought to be "citizens" at birth, but that was doubtful they were actually citizens because they were not formally naturalized to be US citizens.

Wow, you're just all over the map here. "The just soli and who are not NBCs" -- I'm not even sure what that means. Are NBCs not jus soli? What you appear to be trying to say is, "jus soli who are not also jus sanguinis", but even that doesn't clear things up.

who some thought to be "citizens" at birth, but that was doubtful they were actually citizens...

So far so good...

...because they were not formally naturalized to be US citizens.

Woops. Some doubted their citizenship because they were not jus sanguinis, not because they were not naturalized.

This would all change about 25 years later when justice Gray wrongfully (another story) decreed Wong Kim Ark a citizen in 1898.

Birther dance. Whether Gray ruled wrongly is irrelevant. WKA is legally binding precedent, and has been for more than a century, no matter how novel or specious or vapid you may think Gray's reasoning was.

[Nathanael1]

Waite clearly differentiates between children "born within the jurisdiction" (the jus soli and who are not NBCs) who some thought to be "citizens" at birth, but that was doubtful they were actually citizens because they were not formally naturalized to be US citizens.

Wow, you're just all over the map here. "The just soli and who are not NBCs" -- I'm not even sure what that means. Are NBCs not jus soli? What you appear to be trying to say is, "jus soli who are not also jus sanguinis", but even that doesn't clear things up.

who some thought to be "citizens" at birth, but that was doubtful they were actually citizens...

So far so good...

...because they were not formally naturalized to be US citizens.

Woops. Some doubted their citizenship because they were not jus sanguinis, not because they were not naturalized.

This would all change about 25 years later when justice Gray wrongfully (another story) decreed Wong Kim Ark a citizen in 1898.

Birther dance. Whether Gray ruled wrongly is irrelevant. WKA is legally binding precedent, and has been for more than a century, no matter how novel or specious or vapid you may think Gray's reasoning was.

[bushpilot1]

“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

Please provide the page number to the above quote by you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AMJCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kent+Commentaries++1826&hl=en&ei=vPgHTrjBOqqGmQXqxti7DQ&sa=X&;

[aruanan]

I concur with all but the underscored bit. If Waite had intended "born to aliens or foreigners" he would have written that. But he wrote "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents". The only feasible construct of those words is "born in the jurisdiction with no consideration given as to whether their parents were or were not citizens".

That's because he was referring to what he had already written in the previous sentence about aliens and foreigners:

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.

Okay, well, this is simply positing the existence of three groups. But the outcome is exactly the same. This is marking out a certain group, those who were born to parents who were citizens, the natural-born, whose status as citizens was not in doubt, and including them hypothetically within a larger group, all those born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. It was said that there was doubt about the citizenship of this larger class derived from the more lax classification but not about the smaller class of natural-born citizens contained within it. The only ones in that larger class to whom doubt of their citizenship would be entertained would have been those born not to parents, both of which were citizens, but to those whose parents, one or both, were aliens and foreigners, those who are not natural-born.

That is, we have group A: the natural-born, all those born to parents who are both citizens, group B: all those born to parents who are not both citizens but aliens and foreigners, and group C: all those born to parents without reference to the citizenship of their parents. If there is no doubt as to the citizenship of A and doubt as to the citizenship of C, then the only ones remaining of C after A, the natural-born, is removed are those of B, those born to parents who are not both citizens and who are aliens and foreigners, those who are not natural-born.

[Red Steel]

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

The 1896 Boston Globe lawyer understood the meaning of the natural born citizen Constitutional clause is about natural law. Too bad that the dense here seem not to be able buy a clue, although, I believe it is more than being obtuse.