Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: ROCKLOBSTER
What you reference in Minor vs. Happersett is DICTA, about as effective as including a statement that the sky was blue that day. The issue in Minor vs. Happersett was not "natural born" citizenship, but rather whether the plaintiff there, a suffragette, could FORCE Missouri to allow her to vote by a decision of the courts aand ultimately of SCOTUS. The holding was NO.

Chester Arthur was a conservative Republican, a so-called Stalwart. Check out his status. Born certainly in Canada, probably of Canadian parents. Are you pretending to be an expert on the citizenship status of all those who served as POTUS? That would be a hopeless task according to strict Birther fantasy. Was M3R qualified by those standards? Goldwater? George Romney? John McCain? All other major party POTUS candidates? You might get easy research on birthplace. Citizenship of parent(s) not so much.

I am kind of partial to missionary pots for Birthers. Maybe Obozo's Kentyan relatives can supply them? I am not going to apologize either, at my age, for dropping a letter every now and then.

The constitution most certainly does not enshrine Birther fantasy that would require TWO American parents AND birth in the US. Also the XIVth Amendment has something to say about birthplace but not restrictively so and NOTHING about citizenship of parents. The XIVth Amendment is, by definition, enacted SUBSEQUENT to the original constitution and therefore, modifies it to the extent necessary. That rule of judicial construction is as ironclad as any and guarantees that we have an ongoing ability to legislate changes in constitution or law, by amendment or statute as may me appropriate to the change.

Why resist Birtherism? Because it plays no role in our constitution and Trumpettes are cute when they are pissed. It's fun to enforce the constitution AS WRITTEN against any and all who would distort it.

450 posted on 04/17/2016 3:06:18 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk
What you reference in Minor vs. Happersett is DICTA, about as effective as including a statement that the sky was blue that day. The issue in Minor vs. Happersett was not "natural born" citizenship, but rather whether the plaintiff there, a suffragette, could FORCE Missouri to allow her to vote by a decision of the courts aand ultimately of SCOTUS. The holding was NO.

What, did somebody ask you that? None of that is relevant.

Chester Arthur was a conservative Republican, a so-called Stalwart. Check out his status. Born certainly in Canada, probably of Canadian parents.

Another damn Canuk usurper. (yeah we all know about that)

Are you pretending to be an expert on the citizenship status of all those who served as POTUS?

Well, same as anyone else who can read. It's not real complicated.

Was M3R qualified by those standards?

Who?

Goldwater?

Born in US Territory, probably yes.

George Romney?

Probably not

John McCain?

Panama was a US protectorate, (unlike Canada) his parents were there in service to the US. (unlike Crews)

None of them got elected. And the term is not "qualified" it's "eligible"

I am not going to apologize either, at my age, for dropping a letter every now and then.

IT'S AN ACRONYN for crying out loud. We can only assume you meant:

Parents Over the Shoulder, Perception of Teasing Scale, Plain Old Time Sharing, Post Office Telephone Service, Purchase Of Telephones & Services, Purchasing Online Tracking System, Playhouse on the Square, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, Protector of the Small, P!$$ Off, Tomorrow's Saturday, Plain Old Telephone System, Part of the Solution, Parting on the Square, Pat on the Shoulder, or Path Of The Shell.

The constitution most certainly does not enshrine Birther fantasy that would require TWO American parents AND birth in the US.

They didn't define "war" or the little baby Jesus either. Both are mentioned in the Constitution. They figured nobody would be so stupid as to not know the meanings. AND, you forgot to capitalize Constitution.

Why resist Birtherism?

Because it's RAT-speak, right out of the Obama campaign, after Hillary pointed out what's-his-name's ineligibility. But it's derogatory, sort of like if I called you a Child Molester. Not that I'm calling you a child molester or anything. Unless, of course, you are one.

Because it plays no role in our constitution [sic]

Really! You mean the framers WANTED the English "royalty" to be able to become President of the United States?

Using your logic, anybody from any country (or planet for that matter) could be President...no limitations....

I don't think so.

The XIVth Amendment is, by definition, enacted SUBSEQUENT to the original constitution and therefore, modifies it to the extent necessary.

That refers only to naturalization and citizenship...not eligibility.

That rule of judicial construction is as ironclad as any and guarantees that we have an ongoing ability to legislate changes in constitution or law, by amendment or statute as may me appropriate to the change.

You did not say that...you did not say that...

GEEEEEEZZ!!!

458 posted on 04/17/2016 5:28:21 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Ohhh....Derka derka derka!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson