Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Do you and Leo not understand that the lower court accepted as true all the material facts and THREW THE CASE OUT.
Citizenship was NOT AN ISSUE .
Right to vote was an issue.
What was before the court????? Not her citizenship because that was already accepted.
The issue before the court was whether a female citizen could vote. Not whether she was a female citizen. That had already been accepted by the lower court.
Both of you should look up the meaning of the word “HOLDING”
Btw, even if the holding was that Minor was an NBC , it is STILL NOT precedent because the issue was not one of her being born of alien parents. She wasn’t born of alien parents. NOT GERMANE TO THE CASE.
Fair enough, but in Barry's case declaring himself as born to a single mother (and no UK father and not being a UK subject at birth) he may save his presidency from being declared ineligible, if SCOTUS goes along with him being NBC (and born in the US).
The “law of bastardy” is no longer in effect as a “disability” for most US citizens. But it is a matter of national security for both the UK and US. Marriage still determines legal paternity for purposes of determining unitary vs dual citizenship or no citizenship of a child born outside the US to US citizen father (who may be married to someone else) and non-citizen mother.
But since the majority of children in some communities (and many European countries) are the children of unmarried parents being a “bastard” is passe as, unfortunately, is being married and being a Christian and complying with scripture on marriage and procreation.
The insult “he is a bastard” has a totally different meaning and partisans are eager to apply it to folks they disdain having nothing to do with whether their mothers were married. Witness MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan’s new book “Greedy Bastards” about the thieving Wall Street Bankers.
Heck, MSNBC caters to liberals and AA’s and 70% of AA’s children are born out of wedlock and I believe that Al Sharpton comes on right after Ratigan and doesn't seem to mind or comment on Ratigan’s book title.
But I do appreciate your concern and it did occur to me when I first heard the book title.
I went back and read the ENTIRE passage. Your understanding is much worse than I thought.
The court is using that passage to show that there have been many cases involving women and personal jurisdiction and not one raised an objection based on sex.
Good Lord, that excerpt has nothing to do with putting her own citizenship on the record.
This is an important point. The Minor court did not specifically say that Virginia Minor was born of citizen parents, but it was understood by the Supreme Court more than 20 years later in Wong Kim Ark, when Justice Gray explained the holding in Minor:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
See?? Justice Waite did not specifically say Minor had citizen parents, but Justice Gray understood that she did AND he made sure to include this factor as part of the holding. Why do you think he did that??
“We both agree that for all others who claim natural-born citizenship, legal arguments can be made to the contrary, do we not?” -bet
Nope.
I am saying that if you were not born in country by 2 citizen parents, you are not NBC.
Justice Horace Gray was appointed by Chestur Arthur.
Arthur did a lot of document shredding a la a burning trash can before he died.
For those that don’t understand the importance of Chestur Arthur and Horace Gray....Arthur’s father was naturalized AFTER he was born. Chester knew it.
British Father.
President born in the US.
Sound familiar????
Ummm, you didn’t answer my question. This sentence about the holding in Minor doesn’t help Chester Arthur, who would have been old news at the time of the WKA decision anyway. Let’s focus, chick. Why do both decision emphasize citizen parents??
Ummm, you didn’t answer my question. This sentence about the holding in Minor doesn’t help Chester Arthur, who would have been old news at the time of the WKA decision anyway. Let’s focus, chick. Why do both decision emphasize citizen parents??
The Ark case is a MESS. It is too time consuming to go through that case. People have done it ad nauseum.
The salient point is that Horace Gray was appointed by Chestur Arthur - a fraud who may not have been eligible for President - depending on the definition of Natural Born citizen.
His father was an alien at the time Chester was born. According to the decision in Ark, Chester was a citizen.
What would have happened if Gray had ruled another way?????
The fact is that Horace Gray had a vested interest in a decision and that may have been the reason it turned out the way it did and why it was such a mess.
Focus. The citation of the Minor holding is very simple and elegant and does NOT help Arthur nor does it involve Arthur. Why does Gray emphasize Virginia Minor’s citizenship was based in part on citizen parents when that was never specifically stated?? There’s a reason. Think about it and answer the question.
This is a very interesting discussion on
http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/
“They are also attempting to keep their prior adjudication to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.”
And why does Gray need Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen???? Because he needs Chester Arthur to be a citizen????
You need to read this IN DEPTH and comprehend it.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/
I agree with Justice Stevens quote:
“A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
“I don’t know why you addressed that to me. I’m not a Paul fan. It doesn’t surprise me that he hasn’t addressed this. He’s a Congressman. He’s part of the system.”
I only copied you because you were also copied on the previous posting. It was not directed to you, and I offer my apologies if that was the impression that was given.
It probably took about 5-6 people, if “Koa” and the Prius Chat poster were actually the workers at the Honolulu Advertiser who pulled off the switch of the microfilms.
It would not be hard at all to replace the microfilms, and there is decent evidence of how it was actually done at the Library of Congress. The box of microfilm had its label changed for a while and then changed back to its original number. So there would have been a while when only the person who changed the index number on the box knew where it was - until they didn’t need that microfilm hidden any more and changed the index number back so it would be filed again where people could find it. Unfortunately for them, the changes on the box were done in ink so they still show. They might have changed out that box by now but ladysforest has photos of it on her blog, I believe.
And unfortunately for them, the microfilm that’s now in that box has a tear in it and other indicators that it would never have passed the quality inspection for the microfilming company it supposedly came from. It seems almost certain that it came from somebody else.
That’s one example of the kinds of physical evidence I’m talking about. I’ve got other examples on my blog - scratches disappearing over time, provably false claims by the people who claimed to have made copies of the announcements from library microfilm, etc. There’s other stuff that I haven’t gone into because the birth certificate, birth index, Sunahara, etc stuff seemed more important. And ladysforest has a lot of stuff on her blog too. She’s really done a fantastic job of researching the birth announcements.
Regarding a paper copy, the Bishop Library in Hawaii has in its list of holdings a claim that it has paper copies of the old archived newspapers from this time period. But now they’re saying they don’t have any...
Of course, we were also told the HDOH didn’t have any birth records for Virginia Sunahara, but we know how that turned out.
Obama Sr. had nothing else to offer in 1971.
Bagging a vacation in Hawaii for a Kenyan passport and citizenship documents for Jr. was a sweet deal.
For Jr. the world was made right. His father traversed the globe to rescue him. He was a Harvard man, a Kenyan prince.
After so many beach sunsets and free lunches, Sr. rides into the sunset, his boys hero.
Americas first foreign citizen president arrived in 1971 and he would eventually rape the country that saved him. His American Identity became an enigma, lost but presumed. He furthered the cause for Islam and its Theocracies, and bankrupted America. He left an indelible mark, this Kenyan boy. He gave America what he felt it deserved for deporting his father. Economic ruin.
Thank you. I understand now what you were doing.
I apologize as well.
Look, you really don’t understand the Supreme Court if you can’t comprehend something was going on in that Wong Kim Ark Decision. Gray NEEDED Arthur to be a citizen. There may be other explanations for one of the most incompetent rulings ever handed down but Arthur’s citizenship at stake certainly fills the bill.
The statement about Minor is describing her situation. It is not a holding that the only definition of an NBC is jus soli and Jus sanguinis.
Get a grip on the reality of Wong Kim Ark and start to think about WHY they totally ignored evidence that would have shown the intent of Congress in the language of the 14th amendment and WHY did they twist it around to try to get around Elk? Why was there so much convoluted nonsense just to make Ark a citizen????????
There was a high intrigue in that decision. Were they paid off or was something else at stake???
This is the reason I don’t discuss Wong Kim Ark . People like you haven’t even BEGUN to think about what was really taking place in that decision.
I'll concede that this scenario is not out of the realm of of judicial possibility. However, and I may be coming in here late (this thread has grown by over 200 posts since I went to bed last night here in Yokohama) and this point may already have been been gnawed over since I last weighed in, but just as food for thought:
If the founder's intention by inserting the NBC language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to minimize to the greatest extent possible the potential for divided loyalties in a person elected to wield the presidential levers of power, then simple logic would seem to dictate that a person with one foreign born parent, regardless of the legal parentage status of that alien progenitor, would have at least a theoretically higher chance of having sympathies with the foreign nation of the alien parent's origin than a child born to parents who are both citizens.
I could easily back the events in SvenMagnussen’s #675 as the ‘post 1971’ events.
The main point being something of significant substance happened in 1971. And that should be investigated as much, if not more, intensely than what happened in 1961.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.