Replies

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.

“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.