JustiaGate

The Examiner ^ | 10-20-2011 | Dianna Cotter

[Danae]

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

[Semper911]

If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen.

So you believe it is not necessary for both parents to be US citizens?

Because that is the issue here -- Obama's father was not, and it is not even in dispute.

The "naturalized citizen" issue has nothing to do with this issue. The whole case turns on the definition of NBC.

This new information about the case law being scrubbed seems to suggest there are many others besides me who think Obama has an eligibility issue.

[Danae]

Thanks Interesting Times!

I hope that it makes a difference!

[edge919]

Interesting that YOU say and even emphasize “OR” but the section you quote from Colonial charter says “and”.

Sorry, but the conjunction is irrelevant, particularly when we look at how denizens were defined (from the William Blackstone commentaries):

A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them.

It's a separate term. This shows that those who are denizens or subjects and going to born denizens or subjects. Since they are separate entities, the "and" is not being used to combine the denizens and subjects as single characteristic.

As is pointed out by those who claim KWArk doesn't say what it says - subjects are not citizens. ;)

Right, and denizens are not subjects, so what exactly is your point?? I'm simply showing that you can be born as part of the dominion and not be natural born.

The 14th Amendment doesn't invent a third category - there is not third category - before the 14th and after one was either born a citizen with natural allegiance or one needed to be “naturalized”.

Sorry, but it is a third category. Justice Gray called it "citizenship by birth." He had to invent this third category because he admitted at least twice in the WKA decision that NBCs are not defined by the 14th amendment.

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

When construing the 14th amendment, it (the Constituton) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The means that those who are citizens via the birth clause of the 14th amendment are NOT NBCs.

[allmendream]

According to the first naturalization act passed by Congress it was not necessary for both parents to be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen.

Obviously the view of who is a natural born citizen in 1790 was not an ironclad definition involving the necessity for two citizen parents at the time of birth.

[bluecat6]

According to the first naturalization act passed by Congress it was not necessary for both parents to be US citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen. Obviously the view of who is a natural born citizen in 1790 was not an ironclad definition involving the necessity for two citizen parents at the time of birth.

BS

The act says "parents" - PLURAL

Furthermore the act did NOT declare those meeting the criteria (two citizen parents) to BE natural born Citizens. It declared that they are to be 'CONSIDERED AS' natural born Citizens. Basically, it says - we know they are not, but we will call them than any way. And the only reason that would be necessary is for the office of President. So apparently, some members of Congress wanted their offspring to be eligible for President even if they were born visiting family in the old country.

The fact that the passages was dropped 5 years later indicates Congress probably knew they screwed up and just quietly dropped it. But clearly - parentage was the prime driver in viewing citizenship rites. The act basically waived the jus soli requirement, incorrectly. So it was fixed by just removing it.

SR 511 makes the same mistake in that is says the act defines the definition of a natural born Citizen. But interestingly, if SR 511 did have teeth and was accurate Obama could not be eligible.

[edge919]

Under the requirement in the natuarlization act of 1790, the father still needs to be a citizen. This would still exclude Obama from being an NBC, of course.

[daisy mae for the usa]

I left FR to work-out and do some other stuff, and while I was enjoying sweating to “boot camp” my mind freed up a little and I started remembering Obama’s swearing in.

I recall he was sworn in incorrectly, then re-sworn in. But, somewhere in there he and Biden had a meeting with the Supreme Court, and then Biden, in typical Joe fashion, made that bizarre statement about in 6 months... something, something,something... and you will have to get behind this president.

I can’t remember the exact words. But what went on in that meeting? Why did Biden say 6 months, instead of *approximately* six months, or *somewhere in the near future*? Am I even remembering correctly?

Could it be possible that they actually BLACKMAILED the supreme court? Is that why, when Obama had that state of the union address where he essentially humiliated the supreme court, they sat there and took it?

I know none of these questions are pertinent to this thread, exactly, but it relates because there may actually be a time line mapping out using these dates when things were scrubbed from Justia.

Willful intent to over-throw is looking possible to imply at the least. Especially when you factor in F&F and connections with Occupy through Van Jones, Inc./s, and O’s vocal support of the *movement*, which I am now suspecting is plan B if Plan A could not be carried out over a four year period. I am wondering if the Tea Party movement put a kink in Plan A.

All poor memory, speculation and opinion. Worthless, I am sure, but I can’t help contemplating.

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. This cover-up shows that someone knew in advance of his nomination that zero isn’t eligible.

I am willing to bet, if they could be found, his college records show him as a citizen of Indonesia.

[Danae]

With an unconstitutional POTUS anything is possible. He isn’t bound by the constitution.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “U.S. law should always be a reflection of our best understanding of natural law.” <<

.
A fluffy, irrelevant statement at best.

.
>> “If someone is born a citizen under U.S. law, in recognition of the natural allegiance they have due to conditions of birth, they are a natural born citizen” <<

.
That describes the original “Natural Born” citizen, but leaves out many that are scooped up under the 14th amendment, who become citizens merely because their parents are here under a visa, but totally lack any allegiance or reason for allegiance, thus are not in conformance with the intent of the Natural Born requirement for the presidency, and in fact fly in the face of it.

The 14th amendment unquestionably created a third, loophole citizenship category without any allegiance that SCOTUS later named “Native Born.”

[editor-surveyor]

>> “I am willing to bet, if they could be found, his college records show him as a citizen of Indonesia.” <<

.
And, in addition, likely failing in all classes, or even expelled.

[AmericanVictory]

What Van Devanter held in Luria was that a naturalized citizen was not on an "equal footing" with the "native citizen" in respect to the issue of eligibility to be President. Van Devanter was an extremely careful and conservative strict constructionist. He carefully used the words "native citizen," not "natural born citizen." In doing so he cited the well known opinion of Marshall in Osborn v. Bank where Marshall makes the point that a "naturalized citizen" is a "creature of the law" as opposed to one of the Constitution. Marshall, in his concurring opinion in the Venus, where Marshall was joined by Livingston, made clear that the phrase "natural born citizen" differs from "native citizen" as the former is used in Art II and that as used in Article II the phrase was taken by the Framers from Vattel and in fact Marshall gives the exact translation from Vattel in the Venus. Thus, it is evident that in carefully adhering to Marshall's opinion in Luria Van Devanter was not holding that "native citizen" as a phrase is not the same as the phrase "natural born citizen" as that phrase describes presidential eligibility. It is necessary to be a "native citizen" to be eligible to be President, but neither Van Devanter in Luria or Marshall in Osborn v. Bank held that being "native born" was sufficient to be President.

[little jeremiah]

That’s interesting.

[Danae]

Not to mention that the 14th Amendment did not affect or change Minor V. Happersett 88 US 162, nor did it change the definition of Natural Born Citizen it codified into law.

Natural Born citizen = Born in the US or its territory + 2 parents who are citizens. This class of citizen has no other possible citizenship. It was this specific class of citizen which is eligible for POTUS and no other. Fair or not, it is the LAW. The law isn’t supposed to be fair. It is supposed to protect society at large. In this case it protects the entire nation from usurpation by a person with divided loyalties.

It is what it is. Fair is a subjective thing, and the law CANNOT ever be subjective.

[Danae]

Thanks Beckwith!

That historical information is important!

[allmendream]

It says those born of a citizen FATHER overseas.

So clearly the criteria understood in 1790 was not born in country of two citizen parents when a child born of a citizen father (one parent) overseas (not in the USA) was considered as a natural born citizen - thus there was no need to “naturalize” them - and they would be eligible for the Presidency.

[Danae]

That was changed in 1795.

[allmendream]

Indeed, under the provisions of the 1790 law 0bama would most certainly not be eligible.

But it is OBVIOUS to all but the deliberately obtuse that the 1790 law showed the supposed requirement of both citizen parents and born in country is a recent invention, not a well known and well understood universally accepted norm during the time of our founders, or subsequently - right up until shortly AFTER the 2008 election.

[Danae]

Part of that is due to the fact of Minor being scrubbed off the internet. I am CERTAIN this was not the only act of obfucation.

[Semper911]

So you believe that a person born in the US of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father is a natural born citizen. We got it.

I disagree, as do many others, bet we've got it.

Why were the case law records scrubbed?