“Hello, noobie.
If it is settled law, then why are Democratic-socialist lawyers, like Sarah Herlihy, demanding Article II, Section 1, be changed?
Here’s why - when the Court held that Virginia Minor was a citizen under Article 2, Section 1, because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. It is United States law, period.”
Hi there, oldbie!
“Settled law” can be changed by a new decision of the Supreme Court at any time. Whenver the Constitution is amended, it revises what was settled law.
For example the Framers prohibited taxing personal incomes. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified and the federal personal income tax became the law of the land.
The Roberts court is obviously unimpressed with Minor v Happersett being “stare decisis” for Article II, Section 1 eligibility. They have already rejected hearing appeals that attempted to use Minor as a precedent in the briefs submitted for Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro.
Minor was a women’s suffrage appeal under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that had nothing to do with presidential eligibility. Virginia Minor wanted to be able to vote and thought that the 14th Amendment gave her that right.
Only Congress can remove a President, not SCOTUS. Attorneys are wasting their time in the courts. When Congress has had enough of the incompetent, bumbling, community organizer in the White House, they’ll remove him from office. If not, the voters will do so. Obama keeps violating the Constitution and refusing to uphold laws, both impeachable offenses.
The U.S.Constitution can be amended; well, duh!
I know what Virgina Minor wanted, thank you very much. But Supreme Courts often take on cases and make surprising determinations no one anticipated.
The first should have been expected, as Virginia Minor wasn’t a citizen under the 14th Amendment. She was born in the United States of citizen (2) parents, so she was a natural born citizen as that Supreme Court determined.
Further, SCOTUS determined that the U.S.Constitution doesn’t state whether men or women have the right to vote, which set the stage for the 15th and 19th Amendments.
“...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.”
“But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:”
“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
“2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”
“That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.”
“It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.”
“But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.”
“The Court also held that the Constitution did not grant anyone a right to vote. So, our country chose to amend the Constitution by the 19th Amendment and thereafter all citizens were directly granted a right to vote by the Constitution.”
“But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by defining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. AND THEY DID THIS BY SPECIFICALLY AVOIDING THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND BY SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUING ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1.” [Capitalized emphasis mine,]
Per: MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.