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.

[Jeff Winston]

All right. If you think you have the evidence to prove in Congress that his birth certificate is forged, then I say go for it.

[Triple]

You have been on almost all of these threads - do you think the LFCOLB issued by the White House is authentic?

[bushpilot1]

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=6106

[rxsid]

"But they didn’t focus on Vattel. They focused far more on Blackstone and English common law."

The father of the Constitution
The father of the Bill of Rights and the
The father of the 14th Amendment would all disagree with your opinion:

 

James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York Octr. 18. 1787:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."

 

George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

 
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

Furthermore, had they continued to use the laws of the crown, there never would have been a Deceleration of Independence.

English common law at the time didn't allow for "quitting" the crown. The Law of Nations, however, did allow for that. They clearly began their transition from the crown's law to that of their own (American common law) based in large part on natural law principles.

[rxsid]

"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. "

WKA was not found to be a "natural born Citizen." Even the Ankeny court in Indian acknowledged that. Why do you spread lies? What's your agenda?

[rxsid]

Indiana.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

"the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14

What does footnote 14 say?

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.

It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.

[Red Steel]

Nathanael -

"The claim has, unsurprisingly been being cut-n-pasted over at FreeRepublic since about seven milliseconds after Donofrio posted it on his blog. I've been looking at the claim and recently posted the following over at FR. Given that Fogbow represents the greatest meeting of legal minds in the history of this or any other universe, I was wondering if I could get an assessment of my arguments. Have I created any egregious mistakes? Any loopholes big enough to drive a birther argument through?"

LoL. Fogblowers have the "greatest legal minds" for a 60s, psychedelic, on acid hippies, and out of this world San Fransisco, Haight-Ashbury street subculture drug compound.

[bushpilot1]

After posting the link..realized 36 had previously located nat at fogblower.

[Jeff Winston]

You have been on almost all of these threads - do you think the LFCOLB issued by the White House is authentic?

I am now prepared to issue the following authoritative pronouncement on that subject:

Heck, I don't know.

Might be, might not be.

In spite of many claims to the contrary, no one's produced any evidence it isn't that would stand up in a court of law.

Doesn't mean it's genuine, doesn't mean it's not.

There are two possible ways he could be ineligible to hold the office. He could have a fake birth certificate, or the Constitution could require birth on US soil by TWO US citizen parents.

Since there's no good evidence for the first, and the second is apparently not the case (once you do enough reading on the matter), anyone who pushes those two issues too hard is ultimately only going to end up disappointed or embarrassed.

And in the end, we're just simply going to have to vote the guy out.

And I know. I'm kind of a meanie, or at least a wet blanket, for stepping on people's fantasies. The problem is, unless someone produces some real compelling evidence of forgery that we've never seen before, that's all they are: fantasies; and sooner or later, one way or another, they're going to lead to disappointment anyway.

And the disappointment, if it comes in the form of believing that the failure to remove Obama was due to a failure of the system, will lead to a false belief: that our American system is so corrupt that it can't clean out an obviously ineligible pretender to the nation's highest office.

I don't see any evidence that's the case. From all I see, except for the fact that essentially no one vetted the man in the first place - which in itself is a HUGE problem and ought to be fixed - the system at this point is probably okay.

There just isn't the evidence for ineligibility that some claim there is.

[bushpilot1]

“Greetings, all. I’m a bit new here — sent over by Dr. Conspiracy.”

Did the known liar and fraud Dr. Conspire send you to Free Republic?

[bushpilot1]

Have the same question...why are u spreading lies on Free Republic.

[Red Steel]

Always had After-Birther Nat pegged as a replacement troll to replenish the ranks because of the zots.

[bushpilot1]

Leo probably visits the NBC threads at FR...some of the information posted on his blog related to this thread and the one posted by rxsid was previously posted on FR.

The “legal precedent” was first posted on FR months ago.

[Triple]

“In spite of many claims to the contrary, no one’s (sic) produced any evidence it isn’t (sic) that would stand up in a court of law.” - JW

Interesting, you have commented so many threads, usually supporting the status quo WRT Obama. have challenged many reviews of the LFCOLB, and gone back and forth with many posters regarding the LFCOLB. After all this, you are undecided?

How do you determine that none of the *many* reviews will stand up in court?

Are you in the legal profession?

Are you aware that some claims (Vogt) (Gulf drilling case) have been submitted to the legal system?

What motivates you to post on all these LFCOLB threads?

[philman_36]

So both of you are a couple of nobodies. Thanks very much. Just what I figured.

First and foremost with guys like you two I heed Sun Tzu - All warfare is based on deception.
And the two of you seem quite adept at deception.

[philman_36]

Now that’s brazen!

[philman_36]

Why do you spread lies? What's your agenda?
Sun Tzu - All warfare is based on deception.

[Jeff Winston]

Of course they couldn't simply adopt the whole of English common law.

The part that was inconsistent with the new Republic, they quite rightly threw away.

But on the whole, our cultural and legal heritage stemmed from Great Britain, and not from the Swiss and French world.

Given our vast heritage as long-standing colonies of Great Britain, and the fact (as I posted on another thread) that 85% of our white population (the non-whites were chiefly Indians and slaves) at the time of independence came from Great Britain, whereas something fewer than 3% of the population came from France, Switzerland, etc., it doesn't even make sense to argue that our legal system derived from Vattel rather than Blackstone unless you can produce the quotes to prove it.

And as far as I can see, nobody can.

As far as the quotes go, they're good quotes. But...

Madison also said that place of birth was what applied in regard to citizenship in the United States. He could've chosen to quote Vattel, but he didn't.

Mason's quote does not reflect a wholesale rejection of the common law heritage (why would we throw the baby out with the bath water?).

And Bingham's quotes are very curious indeed. For if what he really meant was citizens, then why didn't he use the term? It's certainly a whole lot less of a mouthful than "owing allegiance to no other sovereignty." Surely by the time of the Civil War, we had citizens.

In fact, earlier speakers used the term citizen dating from the Revolution - close to a century before Bingham's time.

And when you talk about US citizens, do you say "US citizen" - or do you say "a person owing allegiance to no other sovereignty?"

[Jeff Winston]

Have the same question...why are u spreading lies on Free Republic.

No. The question is: why are YOU (maybe, possibly) spreading lies on FreeRepublic?

You've accused me of spreading lies on FreeRepublic.

I made an error, and corrected it.

In fact, it was nobody other than myself who first spotted the error.

I was the person who corrected myself.

That alone should tell you that I'm constantly checking facts, and when I spot an error, I fix it. Even if it's my own.

An error is not the same thing as a lie.

Or have you never made an error?

You've asserted that I'm spreading lies on FreeRepublic. Is that simply an error on your part (it's understandable if it is), or is it a deliberate lie? Only you can tell us.

[Jeff Winston]

“In spite of many claims to the contrary, no one’s (sic) produced any evidence it isn’t (sic) that would stand up in a court of law.”

First of all, there are no errors in the quote. So you might start by getting that right.

After all this, you are undecided?

No, I'm decided, as I indicated.

I'm decided that out of everything I've seen (and I've probably seen all of it, or at least about 99% of it), no one has yet produced any credible evidence that Obama's long form birth certificate is a forgery that would stand up in a court of law.

As to whether the underlying document is forged, I can't say. I don't think I'm God, but apparently you do, or think I ought to be.

How do you determine that none of the *many* reviews will stand up in court?

Obviously, I speak within the context of what I'm aware of. But I'm well enough acquainted with the arguments that have been brought that I've certainly reviewed every major one, and pretty much ever minor one as well.

Are you in the legal profession?

It's none of your business whether I am or aren't. Sorry, it just isn't.

Are you aware that some claims (Vogt) (Gulf drilling case) have been submitted to the legal system?

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of Vogt's claims.

What motivates you to post on all these LFCOLB threads?

I was interested in finding out for myself whether or not Obama was eligible, and I frankly don't like to see conservatives look like fools.

I particularly wouldn't care to see FR totally overrun with erroneous, debunkable birther doctrine and conspiracy theories, and from everything I've ever seen him write on the subject, I believe JimRob shares the same point of view. Ask him if you like.