MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION (NBC).

Natural Born Citizen (blog) ^ | June 24, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

[SatinDoll]

As I have already said, I am not a lawyer. So, go use your arguments against Leo Donofrio.

Unless, of course, you just want to rant out of frustration and will not face a legal argument. In that case, rant away. I don’t give a damn what either of you has to say, particularly after reading some of the crap Obots have been bleating the past 24 hours.

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

He will be civil, as always. For him these issues are an exercise, kind of like calisthenics for the rest of us.

[jh4freedom]

The appellant’s brief in Hollister v Soetoro used Minor v Happersett as referencd precedent. That appeal was presented to the US Supreme Court Justices for Certiorari conferences on two occasions but the Petition was denied both times.
See page 35 of the Appellants’ brief:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22846775/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-JOINT-APPELLANT-BRIEF-1216986-Transport-Room

Both Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro have made the “two citizen parents are required” argument to the Supreme Court but the Roberts court does not appear to be interested. Neither appeal has made the “Discuss” list at the Supreme Court which means automatic denials.
It only takes the interest of one Justice to put an appeal on the Discuss list and it takes the concurrence of four Justices to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

[BladeBryan]

philman_36 wrote: “So, now that everybody knows what you think of Leo”

And my facts will check out.

“why don’t you comment on the conclusions he has drawn.”

The implication was clear: It is fantasy. We’ve been over it before, as you, philman_36, know. How does it not dawn on you, even at this point, that lawyers who lose so badly every single time might not be your best source for legal analysis?

I was responding to a comment, “Only an idiot would believe [...]” I disagree. Ludicrous as the belief is, intelligent people sometimes convince themselves of nonsense. It’s a fascinating phenomenon: People turn their intellect against themselves. They believe codswallop not from witlessness, but because they are clever enough to contrive a trick for which they themselves fall.

[philman_36]

You're nothing but a smear merchant. Instead of addressing what he wrote you write a 600 word attack piece.
You're contemptible and not worth my time.

[SatinDoll]

The only way it will catch the SCOTUS’s attention is if an amendment to a State’s constitution includes it as a an eligibility requirement (for President & V.President) to be on that State’s ballot.

The Democrats would no doubt challenge the legality of such a requirement and it would go to the Supremes.

They will literally have to have it shoved in their faces.

[Jeff Winston]

OF COURSE someone born in the US of citizen parents is a citizen.

HOWEVER, Minor did NOT determine that ONLY those born of citizen parents are NBC. Instead, they say there is doubt, with some saying that those born of alien parents are also NBC, and that they (the court) has no reason to determine if that is true.

This is precisely what Minor v. Happersett said.

Except... you left one thing out.

Minor v. Happersett also stated, explicitly, that children born of US citizens abroad are natural-born citizens as well.

Therefore, Donofrio's claim is false.

[Jeff Winston]

Does it not occur to people here that lawyers who get trounced in court, every single time, might not their best source of legal scholarship?

rotfl.

BTW, ping to 46. :-)

[phockthis]

sfl

[Jeff Winston]

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.

A specific note: This appears to be true both before and after Minor v. Happersett.

In August of 1895, a young man named Wong Kim Ark was detained by Customs at the Port of San Francisco and denied entry into the United States, on the ground that he was not a US citizen, despite having been born in the US.

The initial case was in federal district court, which ruled in Wong's favor and ordered him to be released from immigrations custody.

The government appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which gave us the USSC ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

[Jeff Winston]

Are you now demanding that people should actually read Supreme Court cases before making sweeping and definitive pronouncements on them?

That's kind of raising the bar a bit, isn't it?

[Red Steel]

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

You're splitting fine hairs. There are no "second class of citizen" in the United States. The existence of the Constitutional natural born citizen clause does not make other who are not NBC second class.

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

Spin all you like but you're full of nonsense.

[Seizethecarp]

“Both Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro have made the “two citizen parents are required” argument to the Supreme Court but the Roberts court does not appear to be interested. Neither appeal has made the “Discuss” list at the Supreme Court which means automatic denials.”

The MERITS of the case including the “two parents are required argument” was NOT before SCOTUS. STANDING was before the federal courts and the case was denied STANDING by the lower court and that was affirmed on appeal. SCOTUS declined to take the case, period, and no reason was given for or against the two parent argument.

No federal court can get to the merits of the NBC claims without first granting standing. Anti-birthers mischaracterize the failure to grant certiorari as an adverse assessment of the merits of birther cases, but this has not been true in any case because no case has been granted standing.

[Nathanael1]

with some saying that those born of alien parents are also NBC

children born of US citizens abroad are natural-born citizens as well.

MvH describes the "doubted class" not as "born in the jurisdiction of alien parents", but "born in the district without reference to the citizenship of the parents", a phrase which is utterly inclusive of the first class.

MvH is not describing two distinct classes, but is saying some authorities broaden the definition by eliminating the jus sanguinis requirement. Anyone who is a member of the first, more restrictive class is, by the definition set forth in MvH, also a member of the second, broader class.

Once again, the birther argument impales itself on the crystal clarity of the English.

[Nathanael1]

There are no "second class of citizen" in the United States.

Say what? Let's see, you just got through telling me I'm full of guano for suggesting "class" does not mean "citizen". No you're saying there aren't two classes of citizen? Did you get Donofrio's approval before admitting that?

And since you're determined to ignore the facts, I'll spell it out for you, so everyone in this forum can see what a clumsy lout you are at logical thinking:

The word "class" appears exactly twice in MvH. Here's the first:

Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people

The second is the one you love to quote:

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

In the second instance Waite is clearly simply restating (and slightly expanding on) what he said in the first, albeit with slightly different wording. So if we want to know whether "class" in the second instance refers to "citizen" or "children" we need only glance up two paragraphs, where Waite explicitly says "classes of persons".

English can be such a bitch.

Now, I've shown you exactly why "class" cannot be referring to "citizen". In response all you do is tell me I'm full of nonsense without even the slightest attempt to defend your view. If you want to, you know, actually provide some evidence or something, I'd be happy to discuss that, otherwise I'll just chalk up another Obot win.

[Nathanael1]

I can think of exactly two cases in which the courts have ruled on the merits of birther arguments. You sure you want us to mention them?

[Jeff Winston]

I think this would be a good point... except for the fact that Justice Waite immediately follows up that sentence with:

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

He therefore is thinking in terms of two "classes" or identifiable groups of people.

It's always good to check the context of the sentence.

Nonetheless, I do agree with your statement that the birther argument is impaling itself.

It is particularly impaling itself by claiming that Minor v. Happersett establishes a legal precedent for the birther definition of "natural born citizen" when the opinion in that case quite clearly contradicts their definition by directly stating that according to US law, the children born of US citizens abroad are natural-born citizens too.

And it states this in a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling that directly quotes the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution: "...no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.

It is therefore very clear that the whole Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett was well aware of the Presidential eligibility implications when they explicitly rejected the notion that "natural born citizens" are only the children born on US soil of two US citizen parents.

[Jeff Winston]

“Class,” as far as I see, simply means a particular identifiable group of people. There’s no social meaning attached to the word.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

I suggest that the Constitution defines who are natural born citizens at the very beginning of the document.

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children. Whom else was it crafted to secure?

Naturalized citizens can become a part of "We the People," and then their children can become natural born citizens.

It's right there in the first words.

-PJ

[Jeff Winston]

You may still be correct, though. I’d have to think about it.

[Jeff Winston]

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that as far as the actual sentence goes, you are correct.

I'm not sure of the importance of that, though. Because the doubts about the second (inclusive) class, cannot be due to the members of the first class, about whom there are no doubts. The doubt is due solely to the added members, who consist of children of foreigners born on US soil.

In any practical terms, it therefore seems to mean the same thing, no matter whether you parse it inclusively or exclusively.