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.

[Red Steel]

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.

Fogblower, Gray didn't even try to claim that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. Only precedent in making WKA a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.

No matter how you Fogblowers try to turn WKA into an NBC - there is no there there.

[Seizethecarp]

“However, the Act is strong prima facie evidence that the first Congress saw no constitutional issues with it.”

People make mistakes...and then correct them! The fact that the NBC language in the 1790 law was almost immediately removed is prima facie evidence that the founders HAD issues with the 1970 Act NBC language, IMO. Otherwise, why did they remove it? The NBC statutory language was eradicated as though it never existed.

[Nathanael1]

You are attempting to nitpick allmendream's use of "two ways" when in fact he is directly quoting MvH. If you think your enumeration trumps a Supreme Court decision, then go pick a fight with Justice Waite.

allmendream was responding to your statement to me:

Is that people can and do become citizens of these United States in different ways

Which Waite enumerates: 1) through birth; 2) through naturalization; and 3) see 1 and 2 above. Citizens are either natural born or they are naturalized. There is no other class.

[bushpilot1]

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Volume 1

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. Volume 2.

[Red Steel]

You are attempting to nitpick allmendream's use of "two ways" when in fact he is directly quoting MvH. If you think your enumeration trumps a Supreme Court decision, then go pick a fight with Justice Waite.

Your Democrat in crime AllSpews was the one nitpicking because he's nothing but a troll. As for Justice Waite, I have no disagreement in what he said. It is you who defends your Obama no matter how many times you have to turn yourself into a pretzel.

[Nathanael1]

The fact that the NBC language in the 1790 law was almost immediately removed

The entire act was "almost immediately removed". Without evidence, pointing fingers at any one provision is speculation. There were numerous differences between the Acts of 1790 and 1795. One was that the requirement for term of residence prior to naturalization was dramatically increased, specifically out of fear of being inundated with Jacobins fleeing the French Revolution. There was also a lot of political infighting going on between Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and Republicans, which resulted in a whole line of short-lived naturalization acts between 1790 and 1802, in at least one case specifically intended to suppress the political base of one side or the other.

I think it's far too simplistic and speculative to simply point at the disappearance of any particular provision and declare it must reflect constitutional issues.

[philman_36]

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. (that's Lecture 13, see below)
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” (that's Lecture 25, see below)
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

Well once again you're up to your old tricks. First off, you've merged two seperate Lectures as if they're one...
Lecture 13 Of the President or here...
COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW
PART II Lecture XIII- OF THE PRESIDENT.

2. Qualifications. — The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome. The age of the President is sufficient to have formed his public and private character; and his previous domestic residence is intended to afford to his fellow-citizens the opportunity to attain a correct knowledge of his principles and capacity, and to have enabled him to acquire habits of attachment and obedience to the laws, and of devotion to the public welfare.
Lecture 25 Of Natives and Aliens
We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
(2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Snip...The statute of 7 Ann, c. 5. was to the same general effect; but the statute of 4 Geo. II. c. 31. required only that the father should be a natural born subject at the birth of the child, and it applied to all children then born, or thereafter to be born. Under these statutes it has been held, that to entitle a child born abroad to the rights of an English natural born subject, the father must be an English subject; and if the father be an alien, the child cannot inherit to the mother, though she was born under the king's allegiance.
Here also...James Kent, Commentaries 1:397--98; 2:33--63
Context, old chap...context.
So now what's your point since both separate and distinct Lectures are up for everyone to see?

And as to your Leake v. Gilchrist quote...I can post snippets of decisions too. Big whoop! What's your point?

[MHGinTN]

Heh heh, you’re not supposed to catch the lies when this one floats them ... got that native son? LOL

[philman_36]

Please provide the page number to the above quote by you.
I'm not him, but see 147. He's making it appear that two separate Lectures are one.

[philman_36]

If I play stupid that doesn't mean I am stupid.

[MHGinTN]

I admire your patience. I cannot abide purposeful liars, so I usually stay off these threads of late. Too many ‘odd n00b’ posters and the same old twisters lying for their massah barry.

[MHGinTN]

It’s Gina Bukin’s turn to float that lie around. You are in the middle of ‘team play’.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Thanks for posting the context of those lectures—they say as clearly as anything I’ve seen that natural-born citizen and native citizen mean exactly the same thing. Are you claiming that “natives” means something different than “native citizens”?

[philman_36]

Are you claiming that “natives” means something different than “native citizens”?
I'm not "claiming" anything. I think too many people are trying to confound the issue with all of this legal mumbajumba penumbra BS. I'm looking at this in as practical a manner as I can and as best I can I'm trying to get my thoughts across in a manner that's easily understood.

See 121. Percy A. Bridgham, aka “The People’s Lawyer“ explains it far better than I could.

“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.”

FAMILY MAN:
President Obama with brother in younger days

Wouldn't you consider an anchor baby a native born citizen instead of a natural born citizen? Neither parent is a Citizen in any manner yet their child retains jus soli (right of the soil) simply due to their being born on American soil.

What do you call a child born here prematurely while their parents from a foreign country were visiting Disney World on vacation? And what would you call a child born of a foreign Mother going to school here on a student visa that was impregnated by a Citizen Father during a wild fraternity party? If you reverse the roles you've got Obama. (Father student/Mother US Citizen)
Both are here for a single dedicated purpose and neither planned on staying here after their purpose was complete. Either way, some, or all, of their children's parents are foreigners.
None need to be naturalized due to jus soli yet none have complete jus sanguinis (right of blood) (for instance the female visa student could have been impregnated by a naturalized citizen...Indian/ Nat. Indian, Chinese/Nat. Chinese, etc.)
What would you call them besides native born citizens?

They've all become "natives" of the nation in the aspect that we all share place of birth in common. They're extended all rights under law except for the right to run for POTUS.

Now if you take that as me claiming that “natives” means something different than “native citizens” then so be it.
I'll leave the legal mumbajumba penumbra up to those who get paid to do that sort of thing.

[rxsid]

"There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between "citizens" and "NATURAL-BORN citizens," and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

This is therefore an EXPLICIT REJECTION of the birther doctrine that "natural born citizens" are ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND of US citizen parents.

And if you can't convincingly disprove that, then YOU HAVE NO CASE; the "both-and" definition of "natural born citizen" is DEAD."

Huh?

Are you alleging the framers would have been OK with a multinational, or someone who was born with foreign citizenship and foreign allegiance to be the Commander in Chief (post grandfather clause)? They would have considered such a person to be a "natural born Citizen?"

[rxsid]

"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!" "

You know for a fact that that (or similar) didn't happen?

[rxsid]

Leo continues to show the distinction, even though it appears difficult for some to accept:

rialcniseloc Says:
June 27, 2011 at 6:56 AM

If I read this right, it appears that the argument that the Minor statement is dicta not precedent, would be based on the fact that this case was about womens right to vote not the issue of citizenship and a defintion of dicta is defined as opinions not necessarily related to the ruling of the actual case and in this case it was about voting, not whether she was a citizen.

Does the dicta argument have any leg to stand on? Seems like a loophole.

ed. Read my article again… the dicta contention has no leg to stand on. Before the Court could get to voting rights, they had to establish that she was a US citizen. In doing so (which the first two points of the syllabus does focus on), they made precedent. The case is famously known for holding that she (and all women) are equal citizens to men. – Leo"

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-18549

[Jeff Winston]

Freeper Bubba Ho-Tep was born an Italian citizen, of two US citizen parents in the United States.

Are you proposing that he’s ineligible to run for President of the United States?

The Founding Fathers set up a system that would help protect against foreign influence. They never intended to try and create one that was completely bulletproof in that regard. It was simply one protection. They also relied upon the good sense of the citizens.

At the close of the Constitution Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, ““Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

The reply: “A Republic, if you can keep it!”

There was therefore some doubt as to whether the American form of government would long endure, and an acknowledgment that that question would be decided by its citizens.

Likewise, the Presidential eligibility clause only requires the candidate to have resided in the United States for fourteen years.

The Presidential eligibility clause therefore EXPLICITY allows for a person to have lived MOST of their life OVERSEAS.

Because anybody old enough to run for President would have to be 35 years of age.

If you’re only requiring the President to have lived in the US for 14 years, you are EXPLICITLY allowing him to have spent 21 years outside of the country.

In reality, it’s longer, as NOBODY has EVER been elected to the office of President at the age of 35.

It is therefore OBVIOUS that they never intended the eligibility clause to be an absolute insulation from any foreign influence.

Every single bit of research I’ve done now points to the almost certainty (I am restraining myself at this point from simply calling it a fact) that the Founding Fathers intended for ALL children born on US soil, including the children of aliens, to be considered as natural born citizens, and knew full well that any such person would be eligible to run for President.

“Eligible” doesn’t mean elected. The Presidency was intended to be protected partly by the eligibility clause.

It was intended MOSTLY to be protected by the good sense of the citizens.

[Seizethecarp]

“The case is famously known for holding that she (and all women) are equal citizens to men. – Leo”

...which they couldn’t reach without defining her NBC status, which they clearly did!

The Ivy League law professors and journals must be “evading” citation of this precedent setting case, as I believe Justice Thomas would say.

[bushpilot1]

Hope this helps..