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 ...
“In treating the right to security, we have shown that nature gives men a right to employ force, when it is necessary for their defense and for the preservation of their rights.”
It is from Vattel and the source of the 2nd Amendment.
If I'm wrong in my earlier reply about native born citizens then why don't you try to write something up that is easily understood and which doesn't require someone to seek a cool compress to their forehead from trying to puzzle through all this.
There has got to be a way to make this understandable to the everyday Joe/Joan Six Pack instead of all this back and forth legal tightrope act packed with mental gymnastics.
Simply pumping out source after source after source with no explanation and arguing legal penumbras doesn't bring any understanding to the average person. Now I don't know about you, but after working an eight hour or longer day in the hot June sun of humid SE Texas I'm usually too tired to want to think about complicated political issues when I get home. I want nothing more than some AC (Easy Peasy) and something cool to drink (Lemon Squeezy)! Joe/Joan Six Pack needs to be able to sit down and read a short concise article that factually, yet simply, lays this issue out. That's what I was trying to do as to the issue of his website and what it says.
So you take a shot at it. If I've missed it then give me a link. Unless somebody can do that then this will never catch on in the public's mind. It'll forever stay in the hinterlands and if Obama should win in 2012, or the next time it comes up, we're right back in the hinterlands doing the same thing all over again.
I hope you don't take that in the wrong way and I further hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.
There is just no other way to say it than that Donofrio is flat-out wrong, and thus is every birther that has cut-n-pasted him on this point.
1) In the opening paragraph of the MvH opinion Waite is crystal clear that the only question before the Court was whether the privileges and immunities of citizenship included suffrage. It was the only question decided by the Missouri State Supreme Court, and it was the only question the USSC had any intention of determining.
2) Here is the holding of the Court in MvH in its entirety. There is nothing regarding Minor's citizenship in it:
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
3) Minor's citizenship was conceded by the defense all the way back in the original pleadings filed in the St. Louis County courthouse. From the original statement and brief:
It is admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a nativeborn, free white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri
Minor's citizenship was never challenged, never debated, never denied, never questioned, never argued. And courts are not generally in the habit of answering questions they are not asked (well, OK, activist courts are often accused of doing so, but by all account's Waite's was no activist court).
4) Only a US citizen would have standing to bring a case on citizen rights. Had Minor's citizenship at any point been in doubt she would have been denied standing, told to first go prove her citizenship, then come back and refile MvH. The very fact that the case made it all the way to the SCOTUS is compelling evidence that Minor's citizenship was never an issue.
There is just no evidence anywhere to suggest that Minor had to assert her citizenship in Minor, nor did she.
Yes, I know the quote is from Vattel.
And it’s a good quote.
I wouldn’t characterize it, however, as “the source of the Second Amendment.”
As you might know, guncite.com is a pretty good site for Second Amendment issues. On the origin of the Second Amendment, they reprint a 1982 article from The Journal of American History, by Dr. Robert E Shalope, which is titled, appropriately enough, “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment.”
This article cites the following as people who probably influenced the development of the Second Amendment, or at least had significant things to say relating to its ideological underpinnings:
Niccolo Machiavelli
Sir Walter Raleigh
Jean Bodin
Marchamont Nedham
James Harrington
John Trenchard
Thomas Gordon
Walter Moyle
James Burgh
Richard Price
George Mason
Matthew Robinson-Morris Rokeby
John Allen
Charles Lee
James Madison
Timothy Dwight
Joel Barlow
Adam Smith
Samuel Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Elbridge Gerry
Thomas Scott
George Washington
In the entire list of two dozen names, Vattel’s does not appear. I’m not saying he had no influence, but if he were “the source of the Second Amendment,” you would think that he might be at least mentioned in a scholarly article article entitled “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment.”
Likewise, The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court, a recent work of 220 pages, mentions Vattel’s name on precisely 5 pages, outside of 3 mentions in the notes and index.
Also interesting is:
Lots of good info in there, and the point: Of course the Founding Fathers consulted Vattel. They consulted everything.
But they didn’t focus on Vattel. They focused far more on Blackstone and English common law.
In short, I see no real evidence at all that Vattel was “the source of the Second Amendment.”
But even if he were, that would in no way imply that he was also the source of the definition of natural born citizen.
The Founding Fathers, as the one blogger noted, read everything they could get their hands on.
As should you. You’re definitely not going to get the whole truth from Donofrio or Apuzzo.
In fact, from what I’ve analyzed of their writings, if you just stick to those two as your sources, you’re going to get very little of it.
I've come to the same conclusion.
That there are different statutes or provisions that one might fall under in order to be born a citizen doesn't make it a different way - they are still born a citizen and need no legal naturalization process.
So what are your qualifications to unequivocally state this? Who are you? You're posting under an anonymous name on FR! Why should anybody value your opinion over that of a man who is known to be a lawyer?
So what are your qualifications to unequivocally state this? Who are you? You're posting under an anonymous name on FR! Why should anybody value your opinion over that of a man who is known to be a lawyer?
Here's another Vattel quote:
A cette prémiére Loi, dont je ne doute point que l'expérience ne montrât bien-tôt l'efficace, il seroit bon de joindre les Réglemens suivans: 1. Puisque la coûtume veut que la Noblesse & les Gens de Guerre marchent toûjours armés, en pleine paix, il faudroit au moins tenir exactement la main à l'observation des Loix, qui ne permettent qu'à ces deux Ordres de porter l'épée. (Les Droits des Gens, Liv. 1, Chap 13, Sec. 176)
Hmm, the father of the 2nd Amendment opposed the right to bear arms. Who knew?
Really, if you're looking for the source of the 2nd Amendment, you might try starting with the English Bill of Rights.
That's a complicated passage, colloquial and seemingly archaic, but I'm going to give it a go here. I'm sure this isn't going to be an expert translation.
Please correct me if I've made any huge errors.
"Regarding this first law, which I am sure experience will soon prove, it would be good to lay down the following rules: 1. Since custom requires that the Nobility and the Army always go about armed, even in time of peace, it would be necessary to adhere to Laws, which permit only these two Orders to carry the sword."
(The Rights of the People, Book 1, Chapter 13)
Vattel, it seems, was not the father of the Second Amendment. More like the father of Gun Control.
And Nathanael, please correct me even in any minor errors. It'll be good for my French.
"Regarding this first law, which I am sure experience will soon prove, it would be good to lay down the following rules: 1. Since custom requires the Nobility and the Army to go about always armed, even in times of absolute peace, it would be necessary at least to hold tight to Laws, which permit only these two Orders to carry the sword."
Is that your reading as well?
"Swords are only for the Politicians and the Army/ Police."
"Regarding this first law, which I am certain experience will soon prove, it would be good to lay down the following Rules: "
"1. Since custom would dictate that the Nobility and the Army should go about always armed, even in times of full peace, it is necessary at least to hold fast to Laws, which will allow only these two Orders to carry a sword."
That's a good and legitimate question.
The ONLY reason for anybody to value my opinion - OR Donofrio's - is the quality of the information they receive from either source.
Valuing Donofrio's opinion simply because he's passed a bar exam and is working as a lawyer is not really a good reason.
Or do you not know that not all lawyers are good at what they do, and not all lawyers are honest in what they say?
Donofrio's authority is based on the fact that he's passed a bar exam somewhere, and hung out a shingle as a lawyer.
Any authority I have comes from the fact that I've done a significant amount of research for myself, I've done a significant amount of analysis, I've critiqued Donofrio's statements, and no one, apparently, can really find any good fault with my critiques.
If you find that I am consistently honest in what I say, and careful in my reasoning, and am therefore generally a source of reliable information, then that might lead you suspect that what I'm saying may very well be correct.
But if you want to have the best shot at ferreting out the truth (all the more so since you haven't established my reliability in your own mind, but as a good general policy even when you have), don't take my word for it, or Donofrio's.
Go through the process I outlined in the other thread to someone else:
1) Read the actual court cases for yourself. See what they actually say. Do so without reference to writings by Donofrio, Apuzzo, etc. to interpret them for you and tell you what they supposedly mean.
You can start with the four Supreme Court cases that supposedly define natural born citizen as being a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents.
Read the entire text of all four cases, and see if you can find any explicit statement in the majority opinion of any one of the four that says:
"A natural born citizen is a child born on US soil of two US citizen parents."
Or, "Persons born on US soil are not natural born citizens unless both parents are US citizens at the time of birth."
Or, "The Founding Fathers relied upon Vattel for the meaning of 'natural born citizen,' and not upon English common law."
See if you can find any one of the above. And don't let the assumption that you're not going to, stop you from looking. Read all of the majority opinions carefully, and analyze what the courts actually said.
2) Answer the question that I asked you in the other thread. Think long and hard and see if you can really come up with an answer.
3) Work your way through my reasoning on Minor v. Happersett - not for the purpose of trying to prove me wrong, but for the purpose of understanding what I said, asking yourself whether it makes sense, and seeing whether it seems to match what Minor v. Happersett actually says.
4) Read through the entire majority opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, very carefully, taking notes as you go along, of what Justice Gray actually says - not what you or Leo Donofrio want him to say.
5) Spend at least 3 or 4 hours doing outside research into historical writings regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen." And by "outside," I'm talking about outside of Donofrio's and Apuzzo's blogs, although you can certainly include those as well. There's plenty of material on the internet.
6) Go through Donofrio's post on Minor v. Happersett setting a binding precedent, very carefully and logically. See what logical fallacies you can pinpoint.
Actually... sigh... I didn’t really want to do this, because - as I just said - I do prefer more to deal in the arguments themselves than in the personals.
But I just sent a freepmail to Las Vegas Ron advising him of a couple of things about Leo Donofrio that I felt he should be aware of before taking his opinions as gospel.
And the information is all public. It’s been written, put out there and promoted by Donofrio himself, and in fact has been published here on FR before.
And I realized that LVR isn’t necessarily going to have a quick reference to what I’m talking about.
And then I thought, you know, it’s not just LVR. It’s relevant that anybody knows what Donofrio states about himself before they take his writings too seriously.
For that reason, I am posting Leo Donofrio’s statements about himself in the following thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2741006/posts
A failed lawyer, that's how Donofrio described himself. And a drug addict, a stalker, a professional poker player and the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, who "speaks with a mandate from Heaven" and channels Paul McCartney from the music of the Stone Roses.
Oh, and you might also want to google "appeal to authority".
Forget the hypothetical - Obama has just one citizen parent, making him ineligible, even if he was born in Hawaii.
On a related note, releasing a forged birth certificate is surely an impeachable offense - wouldn’t you agree?
The entire thrust of Wong Kim Ark, which is as close as we actually have to a precedent, is that NO citizen parents are required to make a natural born citizen - only being born in the United States.
On a related note, releasing a forged birth certificate is surely an impeachable offense - wouldn’t you agree?
Absolutely. And if you can demonstrate in a court of law that Obama's birth certificate is forged, then I'd say go for it.
congress is the only court needed to begin impeachment.
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.