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]

I'm very good at reading dingbat. You should take up your silly objections with Donofrio. You can register your complaints at his website.

I'll even help you out by showing you the way there.

Click here:
"US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT."

[philman_36]

So, now that everybody knows what you think of Leo why don't you comment on the conclusions he has drawn. What was that? About 500-600 words talking about (bashing) Leo and not one single word about the article and its subject?
622 negatively influencing words! WOW!

[aruanan]

Only an idiot would believe a case involving a woman’s right to vote under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a binding statement of the meaning of NBC - particularly since the time it is mentioned, the court says there is doubt about the meaning:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Perhaps you could look at your comments and then read again what you copied and pasted from Minor v Happersett to give what you think is support for what you said above.

You made two glaring errors: 1. that the case referring to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in determining a woman's right to vote was not a "binding statement" of the meaning of NBC, 2. that in the opinion doubt was expressed about the meaning of NBC.

You got it exactly backwards. The doubt expressed was whether children who were born of foreigners or aliens in the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens of the United States by virtue of birth in the United States. The court said that determining an answer to this question was irrelevant to the case at hand because there was no doubt that the plaintiff was a citizen because she was, indeed, born in the United States to parents who were both citizens. Thus the fact of her citizenship was without doubt and the question of whether children born to non-citizen parents "within the jurisdiction" had nothing to do with the case at hand, in other words:

"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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." [Emphasis added]

The question is now whether being a citizen is sufficient grounds, in and of itself, to be able to vote.

Though it is true that all who vote must be citizens, whether naturalized or natural-born, it doesn't necessarily follow that all who are citizens are, therefore, eligible under the Constitution to vote.

In Minor v Happersett, the court sought to answer this question, "Does being an American citizen in and of itself make one eligible to vote under the Constitution because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?" To answer this they made two determinations:

1. Given that only citizens could vote, was Minor a citizen? They construed the natural-born clause of Article 2, Section 1 to find that Minor was a natural-born citizen, that is, one born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution to parents who were both citizens. This established as a precedent the meaning of "natural born citizen." This is, indeed, a legally binding meaning of "natural born citizen."

2. Did Minor's status as a U.S. citizen give her, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a right to vote? The court found, correctly, that it did not since suffrage was not specifically given to female citizens in the Constitution, but only to male citizens.

[Mr Rogers]

“The doubt expressed was whether children who were born of foreigners or aliens in the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens of the United States by virtue of birth in the United States.”

No. No one from colonial times on ever doubted that the children of aliens, if born in the US (or colonies), were citizens. There are no cases where any court ever found that a child of an alien, born while the alien was living in the US (or colonies), was NOT a citizen.

None. THAT question was never at doubt.

You see, at no time in our history have we EVER followed Vattel or Swiss customs on citizenship. We have laws going back to the 1600s concerning citizenship (or being a natural born subject, or a naturalized subject), and NO ONE ever questioned or rejected citizenship for those born in the country of alien parents.

“They construed the natural-born clause of Article 2, Section 1 to find that Minor was a natural-born citizen, that is, one born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution to parents who were both citizens. This established as a precedent the meaning of “natural born citizen.” This is, indeed, a legally binding meaning of “natural born citizen.””

No. They construed it to have several possible meanings, and said she met the qualifications for one of those possible meanings, so the court didn’t need to determine any other.

Years later, it WAS an issue for WKA, and the court went to great length to show that WKA met the requirement for natural born subject and thus natural born citizen, and thus was a citizen.

You can reject my analysis, but no court ever has. No state ever has. And no Congressman ever has. And with the election of Obama, and his time in office, no one ever will.

Obama will be removed at the ballot box. He will NEVER be removed due to his father being a Kenya

“You should take up your silly objections with Donofrio.”

The courts have made it plain that they don’t care squat for Donofrio’s legal analysis. There is nothing a court to do that would make it more obvious that they think he is a nut.

[Nathanael1]

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens [ that's "citizens" - not natural born citizens] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents."

FIFY :-)

"This class" Ms. WKA - means NOT the natural born citizen class

The straight implication of your contention that MvH reads, "As to this class of citizen there have been doubts" is that MvH is in doubt about whether this second class of citizen exists at all. You really sure that's what you want to argue?

Waite was talking about classes of children, not citizens. It's right there in English.

Question: What does "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" mean?

[is "to solve the doubts" of being "citizen," born within the jurisdiction, and again NOT about natural born citizen]."

So NBCs are not "born within the jurisdiction"? Hadn't heard that one before.

[Nathanael1]

Before determining whether she had a right to vote or not, the Justices had to determine if she was a citizen.

Nonsense. Had there ever been the slightest doubt as to Minor's citizenship she never would have had standing to bring the case in the first place. The mere fact that MvH reached the USSC at all is compelling prima facie argument that Minor's citizenship was not being questioned and did not need to be "determined".

Waite in unequivocal terms makes clear that the only question before the Court, and the only question the court was determining, was whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. No question of Minor's citizenship was being asked of the Court, nor was the Court answering any such question. So said Waite.

So her attempt at using the 14th Amendment was in error.

Sorry, where exactly did the Court say Minor was in error?

[bluecat6]

Instead, they say there is doubt, with some saying that those born of alien parents are also NBC...

Materially incorrect.

"The doubt" was whether they were citizens at all - not whether they were natural born Citizens. These dance was done specific to avoid the "anchor baby" argument of the 14th. It is the "anchor baby" argument that is "in doubt" not whether this 'class' is a "citizen" or a "natural born Citizen".

[aruanan]

Waite in unequivocal terms makes clear that the only question before the Court, and the only question the court was determining, was whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. No question of Minor's citizenship was being asked of the Court, nor was the Court answering any such question. So said Waite.

Why don't you actually read Minor v Happensett instead of relying on someone else's mischaracterization of it? Here's what happened:

In Minor v Happersett, the court sought to answer this question, "Does being an American citizen in and of itself make one eligible to vote under the Constitution because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?" To answer this they made two determinations:

1. Given that only citizens could vote, was Minor a citizen? They construed the natural-born clause of Article 2, Section 1 to find that Minor was a natural-born citizen, that is, one born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution to parents who were both citizens. This established as a precedent the meaning of "natural born citizen." This is, indeed, a legally binding meaning of "natural born citizen."

2. Did Minor's status as a U.S. citizen give her, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a right to vote? The court found, correctly, that it did not since suffrage was not specifically given to female citizens in the Constitution, but only to male citizens.

[Nathanael1]

In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens

Wait! The Court said "citizens" not "natural born citizens". WTF?

the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen.

Nonsense. MvH was a case about citizens' rights. Only a bona fide citizen would even have standing to bring such a case. Had there ever been the slightest doubt over her citizenship Minor would have been chased out of court on standing alone.

Second, as has been pointed out twice already, Waite was very clear that the Court was deciding one question, and one question only: voting rights. There was no other determination made by the Court.

[aruanan]

Instead, they say there is doubt, with some saying that those born of alien parents are also NBC...

Materially incorrect.

"The doubt" was whether they were citizens at all - not whether they were natural born Citizens. These dance was done specific to avoid the "anchor baby" argument of the 14th. It is the "anchor baby" argument that is "in doubt" not whether this 'class' is a "citizen" or a "natural born Citizen".

I see, Mr Rogers, that you are at it again with your mischaracterization of Minor v Happersett. The judges said that some had doubt about whether children born of alien parents in the United States were citizens at all, not whether they could be "natural born citizens." If they were born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution to parents who were both citizens, they were natural-born citizens. If the parents were not citizens, there was doubt as to whether those so born were or were not citizens, but no doubt at all as to whether or not they were natural-born citizens.

[Nathanael1]

They said there was doubt about the citizenship of a child born in the U.S.A. to non-citizen parents.

What do the words "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" mean?

[Red Steel]

The straight implication of your contention that MvH reads, "As to this class of citizen there have been doubts" is that MvH is in doubt about whether this second class of citizen exists at all. You really sure that's what you want to argue?

Oh our new troll chimes in. Nowhere is there a "contention" that there are 2nd class citizens. "Includes as citizens" means just that. It means they are not natural born citizens because Waite compares them to children born in country and with citizen parents. You should read the syllabus FogBlower.

Here it is the link for your inCONvenience.

Syllabus SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett

" ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:

The fourteenth amendment [ERROR] to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."

...

The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.

1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. "

-end snip-

Waite was talking about classes of children, not citizens. It's right there in English.

Parsing more nonsense I see.

Waite was talking about "born within the jurisdiction" of the United States without regard to the parents as a class of citizens - NOT that they are natural born citizens but citizens of another regard.

So NBCs are not "born within the jurisdiction"? Hadn't heard that one before...."

Sure you have FogBlower and don't leave out in having citizen parents.

[Nathanael1]

the only question before the Court, and the only question the court was determining, was whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote.

Why don't you actually read Minor v Happensett instead of relying on someone else's mischaracterization of it?

"The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination."

That, in case you missed it, was Chief Justice Waite mischaracterizing his own decision.

[Red Steel]

Why don't you actually read Minor v Happensett instead of relying on someone else's mischaracterization of it?

Our new troll's objective here is confuse and muck up like a FogBowBlower. It is quite obvious.

[Mr Rogers]

“The judges said that some had doubt about whether children born of alien parents in the United States were citizens at all, not whether they could be “natural born citizens.””

No. No one in the history of the USA or the colonies had ever expressed any doubt about the citizenship of a free person born in the USA. In fact, there is almost no doubt about the natural born subject/citizen status of those born of alien parents in the colonies/USA - but there was no doubt whatsoever about the citizenship.

We are and have been governed by the laws of the colonies and the US, not Vattel. There is not a single case where the citizenship of someone born in the US of non-ambassador parents has ever been questioned.

[noinfringers2]

As I read what was posted there were/are two distinct situations noted. In one it is specific as to recognition as to NBC. In the other it is specific as to just citizen. Am I missing something as to these two noted situations?

[Red Steel]

The after-birthers and obots have their panties in a wad over this one. They are obviously nervous as indicated by their responses....some of whom we've not herd much from in a long time...or ever.

Yeah, and full of piss and nonsense.

[noinfringers2]

Are you saying/meaning that within the determination of an ‘ONLY’ issue other declarations have no substance or validity in law?

[Mr Rogers]

“Am I missing something as to these two noted situations?”

Context.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.”

“Some authorities go further” - thus linking that sentence with the previous sentence: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

The court didn’t say that some add an additional category, called ‘plain citizen by birth’. They discuss an unquestioned meaning of natural born citizen, and then say “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

[Nathanael1]

Nowhere is there a "contention" that there are 2nd class citizens.

I'm pretty sure what I said was a second class of citizen, but let me check....

Yep, I did.

You should read the syllabus.

Nah, you wade around in the Cliff Notes. I'll be reading the actual opinion.

as a class of citizens

Fine, ya don't want to believe the English there, what's the only other time the word "class" appears in MvH?