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.”
Note - there are doubts about the meaning of NBC, and the court doesn’t try to resolve those doubt.
WKA did.
Minor:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
WKA:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
LOL!!
This make you fill your panties, mister?
Before determining whether she had a right to vote or not, the Justices had to determine if she was a citizen.
They did determine that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen as she was born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents. So her attempt at using the 14th Amendment was in error.
SCOTUS determined that the U.S. Constitution does not give the right to vote to anyone - man or woman - but they certainly provided a definition of natural born citizen.
AND IT DOES SET A LEGAL PRECEDENCE AS IT WAS IN THE SYLLABUS!
Note - there are doubts about the meaning of NBC, and the court doesn’t try to resolve those doubt.
You're wrong as usual.
"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. As to this class ["This class" Ms. WKA - means NOT the natural born citizen class] there have been doubts, but never as to the first [first = NBCs]. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” [is "to solve the doubts" of being "citizen," born within the jurisdiction, and again NOT about natural born citizen]."
Great to hear from you again, Mr. Rogers. I miss your state of AZ dearly (I have friends in Bizbee) but can’t get there because of my health.
You appear to have replied rather quickly and as the article at the top of the thread is a follow-up to an earlier piece by Donofrio here is a key bit from that piece that you also might want to scoff at:
THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT
In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.
Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.
end quote
“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”
Leo Donofrio comes to his crank legal claims not from idiocy, but by devoting his formidable intellect to convincing himself of the greatness of his own stream of consciousness. That’s a common phenomenon among fringe-thinkers and conspiracy theorists. Another, also amply demonstrated by Leo Donofrio, is is the refusal to take correction.
As a result of his latest arguably-eligibility-related lawsuit, Leo and his law partner, fellow eligibility lawyer Steven Pidgeon, are getting beaten with the clue-stick by the federal courts. Beaten hard.
Most of us are not lawyers, and thus our law firms — without actually existing — are doing much better than Donofrio & Pidgeon. Leo conceive one of his intricate theories, concluding he could revive a dead claim in a bankruptcy case, after the time to appeal had already expired, then somehow prevail and throw in a writ of quo warranto to challenge Obama. I kid you not. Total face-plant of course.
Donofrio partnered with Pidgeon, and without any notable experience with bankruptcy, they offered a deal that the clients accepted. Game on. They petitioned the Bankruptcy Court. Denied. They went up to the District Court. Dismissed. They appealed to the Circuit Court. Dismissal affirmed, with a note, “As to the merits of Appellants’ claims, they are utterly frivolous.”
Along the way, it turned out that Donofrio and Pidgeon’s clients were pursuing their interests on other fronts. Those other efforts were more fruitful, and when it came out D&P petitioned to withdraw from representing their clients. Their clients opposed the motion to withdraw, saying they were happy with D&P’s representation. What deal did Donofrio and Pidgeon offer, so that their clients remained happy with their losing results? Don’t know; the retainer agreement is undisclosed. We do know that D&P wanted out, but the clients held D&P to it.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Donofrio and Pidgeon’s appeal as “utterly frivolous” on the merits, the winning opposition petitioned for costs. D&P’s clients responded effectively. D&P’s clients, it turned out, had competent legal counsel, and they argued that an award of costs should be charged to the law firm of D&P rather than to the actual litigants. D&P also responded, arguing against any such award.
We have a multi-way dispute: The winning defendant argues for costs; the losing plaintiff argues that law firm of D&P should bear any such awarded costs; and D&P argue that there should be no award of costs. Two sides are going to break even and one is going to lose. Difficulty in foreseeing the verdict indicates lack of grasp of reality.
Donofrio responded much like we’ve seen him do in previous cases: with blog rants and raves about how he was so right and the courts are all a bunch of fraud. 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.
Much like the logician in the album of the soundtrack of the trailer of the film of Monty Python and the holy grail, I seem to have strayed from my original point. In a nutshell: Leo Donofrio is amazingly skilled at deluding his own impressive intellect. An idiot he is not. Self-deluded he is. 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?
"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.
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?
I suggest that the Constitution defines who are natural born citizens at the very beginning of the document.
Preamble"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?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.
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
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.