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 ...
English is very nuanced. So you just keep on talking...
With all the arguments about NBC I still find myself wondering why the Founders who were learned men and good at expression and debate would explicitly in a Founding Document make a clear distinction between a ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA and just simple ‘citizen’ for congresspersons. Those men surely realized and wanted a difference. I tend to believe the best resolution for the difference is to know/understand what history was at and before the signing of the Constitution. All cases and rulings afterwards were just a matter of other humans/judges trying to fit such cases into the container already set and should not change/distort the container. None of these later cases can individually or collectively change the distinction set by the words in the Constitution. Of course I admit to believing that the Founding Fathers had more integrity for a USA than many present day judges.
“With all the arguments about NBC I still find myself wondering why the Founders who were learned men and good at expression and debate would explicitly in a Founding Document make a clear distinction between a ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA and just simple ‘citizen’ for congresspersons.”
Simple. A congressman - Senator or Representative - can be a naturalized citizen. The President cannot, unless he was alive during the Revolution (think Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the NBC clause). There was also a guy in the 1790s who was second in line behind the VP as President who was born in England.
In the original draft of the Constitution, naturalized citizens COULD become President. After debate and discussion, that was changed in the final version. The Presidency requires a native citizen, or in the legal term used in the state laws at the time, a ‘natural born citizen’, updating the older ‘natural born subject’ used prior to independence.
But there was no additional requirement to have citizen parents. That came from a poor translation of Vattel written 10 years AFTER the Constitution in a discussion of Swiss laws, and has never applied to America.
Just for accuracy's sake: It wasn't created with Quark, which is page layout software. Quartz, on the other hand, is part of the native Mac OS X display software. It's also part of what lets the Mac write PDF files from any application. So, from what I read, the fact that the creator is listed as "Quartz PDFContext" probably means the scan was opened in some Mac program from which it was "printed" to PDF, or opened in the Mac's native graphics viewer (Preview) and exported as PDF.
Note that Preview has a "reduce file size" Quartz filter option. Some argue that its operation would account for many of the "anomalies" in the birth certificate.
Based on one typo and the fact that I'm multilingual, huh? With your evidence bar set that low, it's no wonder you think the birth certificate is a forgery. Credible evidence flies so far over your head you need a telescope to see it.
instead of addressing what I wrote you decided to break off into a divergent tangent.
If I could have found a point in there worth addressing I would have addressed it.
First you seem obsessed with insinuating yourself into any conversation which has the audacity to mention (or not) your screen name without permission. Then you decide to play spelling^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H grammar Nazi. Then you launch into some supercilious, multi-post rant on some English idiom that, aside from its utter irrelevance to anything whatsover, in fact does in some dialects of English mean exactly what you claim it doesn't, strict grammatical analyses to the contrary notwithstanding. Guess what? Idioms do that. Get used to it.
And then you have the temerity to accuse me of changing the subject.
(And just to show you exactly how colossally, stupendously far off the mark you and your assumptions are, I have a masters in linguistics, over a decade of professional experience in English language education, and am about to publish my second English textbook. You, on the other hand, have ... umm ... what, exactly?)
Now, unless you actually have something to say that's not utterly vacuous, I have more important things to do with my time. Like staring at my walls.
“You’re nothing but a smear merchant. Instead of addressing what he wrote you write a 600 word attack piece.”
I’m unlikely to change philman_36’s opinion of me, but I’ll point out that I wrote:
“Here in reality Donofrio just plain lost, but how bad remains to be seen. The side that trounced D&P has so far only listed minor costs. Paying for the other side’s photocopying may sting a bit, but it’s not big money. IANAL. Near as I can tell, the remand clearly orders charges costs to D&B, and whether that will include attorney’s fees remains open as of this day.”
Since I wrote that, the winning side — that beat Donofrio and Pidgeon — has moved for attorneys fees, naming the amount of $128,762.50. In the same motion they note that Donofrio and Pidgeon (D&P) have not yet paid the already-assessed expenses amounting to $117.60. When I previously wrote of how the winners had “only listed minor costs”, and “it’s not big money”, that hundred-some dollar figure was what I meant. The big deal on the award I described as: “whether that will include attorney’s fees remains open as of this day.”
$128,762.50 seems high. Leo Donofrio made a point of how his opponents should not have needed $600/hr lawyers if his case were “utterly frivolous” as the Court found it to be. His figure for the rate is remarkably precise, as the winners filing names: “Requested Fees — 213.75 Hours, $128,762.50”. That works out to $602.40 per hour. It also means 5.3 weeks work at that rate to produce the filings that so easily trounced D&P.
Is $128,762.50 a reasonable amount? Will the winners collect anything like that from losers Donofrio and Pidgeon? I don’t know. I am not, have never been, and am unlikely to ever be a lawyer. $128,762.50 strikes me as high by a factor of a few to several. That said, I’m happy with my reporting here. Novice though I am on such matter, I darn sure called this one.
I’m unlikely to change philman_36’s opinion of me...
You're whacked out of your mind!
I’m unlikely to change your opinion of me...
No, you haven't changed my opinion of you...you've got, IMO, some serious issues.
“I’m unlikely to change your opinion of me.”
Well, the appropriate retraction for your falsified quote of Charles Gordon’s paper would go a long way.
Even you know that I need more information than just your assertion if I'm to address your "issue".
How about a link to the reply I made?
You do know how to link so either give one or I say, I say...quit bothering me, kid. /Foghorn Leghorn
philman_36 “Even you know that I need more information than just your assertion if I’m to address your ‘issue’.
How about a link to the reply I made?”
It hadn’t occurred to me that you wouldn’t remember falsifying the quote, particularly since you had thanked for spurring you on to read Gordon, which must have taken hours.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2737918/posts?page=257#257
“You do know how to link so either give one or I say, I say...quit bothering me, kid.”
I love your act where you keep saying you won’t reply to my posts in your replies to my posts.
Okay, now that I know what you're talking about, what are you claiming I falsified?
It's a shame you have to be led by the hand like this.
So after giving Jeff Winston a chance to show an honest pursuit of truth, JW showed that his “analysis” devolves into OBOT talking points and misdirection.
As an example, JW tries to spin the layers in the WH LFCOLB as no sign of forgery, because the AP LFCOLB is high resolution and does not have layers, and no forger would have made such a bad mistake. He makes this case with the coating “if I was really smart, I’d be able to follow his logic” [paraphrased]. (source: FRmail with JW)
Hahahaahaha
Be warned not to be distracted by Jeff Winston. His flak is just a sign we are over the target.
I think you somewhat misinterpret the point I made.
Regardless of that, you and quite a few others seem quite content to turn on and devour your fellow conservatives.
I honestly have never seen anything like it.
Please, point out the part I got wrong.
I couldn’t care less about eating “conservatives” that are not truth-seeking patriots, and posters that cast aspersions on truth-seekers deserve no quarter.
Please, point out the part I got wrong.
I couldn’t care less about eating “conservatives” that are not truth-seeking patriots, and posters that cast aspersions on truth-seekers deserve no quarter.
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.