Tyrant’s Gun-Walking Attorney General vs. the Law:
”It matters not.
He is now YOUR King
... even if it was by trick.
And on the morrow,
you will be audited
and then removed as units."
Something to copy and paste and to send to tour local electors?
OK, I’ll try it again, how about a condensed version on the side of 40’ tractor trailers?
Driven around each states capitols?
A nationwide effort to “educate” the people?
Prime time commercials?
Tyrant’s Gun-Walking Attorney General vs. the Law:
”It matters not.
He is now YOUR King
... even if it was by trick.
And on the morrow,
you will be audited
and then removed as units."
This is a paper that says it doesn't matter if your parents are aliens and discounts any Vattel influence.
One would think this would be the end of it. But the hard core birthers will be along to pick holes in it.
It looks like someone got a grant to bury Vattel. He ignored, intentionally I’m sure, Washington’s reliance on Vattel on how to conduct himself in office.
Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett.
That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
Thanks for this post.
It is time to demand that Tyrant Obama be forced to re-apply for a citizenship test by the now defunct Congressional Super Committee.
Another deadlock with lots of hype.
In case you did not see this...(and I would really like to know your thoughts.)
ping
Simple question on this report.
Why now?
From the report:
“The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not havethe constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case. In dicta , that is, in a discussion not directly relevant to or part of the holding in the case, the Court explained:”
The quotes the definitions used in the case.
But it is NOT dicta. It is completely relevant and critical to the ruling since it defines the source of Citizenship - and he has to show that that source is NOT the 14th Amendment.
This CRS report is the very first time anyone has claimed the M v H ruling specifics as dicta.
So does Congress know that it still has a problem? Yes.
Did they ask for this report for cover? Yes.
Does the report lie to provide that cover? Yes.
Cowards.
Can anyone else see why this country is in a perpetual state of GRIDLOCK in Congress? It takes this “Attorney” FIFTY pages of gobledy-gook and baloney to explain, investigate, theorize, extrapolate and pontificate upon what appears to ME to be a pretty well-written, clear-cut statement within our Constitution. I’m going out on a limb here. . . elect me president and I will BAR (hee hee) attorneys from serving in the State and Federal houses of Congress. Only the judicial branch is where they belong.
The only Birthers left at this point are the True Believers.
I won't be the least bit surprised to see one of them claim that this research paper now gives them “standing” to sue or something.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark thus concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms”the common law rule of “citizenship by birth within the territory,” even if one is born of alien parents in this country, and approved of the characterization of the children of such resident aliens as “natural born” citizens of the United States.63
There's nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that "approved" a characterization of children of resident aliens as natural born citizens. This is an outright fabrication. It's footnoted to page 693, which is the part where Gray quotes Binney saying the child of an alien "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen." This passage doesn't approve of a characterization, nor does anything else on this page. It's making an analogy in which it still distinguishes children of aliens from natural-born citizenship. It only says their level of citizenship is the same by virtue of the 14th amendment, which no one disagrees with. If the president requirement was only basic citizenship, then this would be true. But it requires the specific characterization of "natural-born" which is neither expressly stated nor implied. Secondly, this is the same kind of dicta that Maskell downplays from Minor. He also ignores that this passage requires domicile (Obama's father was not domiciled in the U.S.): "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction ..." Under this requirement, Obama fails to be a 14th amendment citizen.
Maskell, for unknown reasons, wants to downplay the influence of Vattel. He says he was only cited once by the Federal Convention of 1787. This ignores that Vattel was cited frequently by the Journals of the Continental Congress between at least 1780 and 1787. The Law of Nations is cited even more frequently.
This next passage is another work of fiction. It says that Minor v Happersett:
... discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so.
This is NOT what it says. Some authorities include as citizens those born "without reference to the citizenship of their parents." This doesn't say anything about a question of whether such children would be a "natural born" citizen. It's questioning whether they are citizens. It also does NOT say that some authorities hold such persons to be NBCs.
The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case.
... because it established an exclusive set of criteria for defining natural-born. Maskell claims the discussion quoted here is dicta and not relevant to the holding in the case, which is false. This was the basis for establishing Virginia Minor's citizenship in rejecting an argument that it was derived through the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark noted this fact and affirmed it, which Maskell fails to understand.
The majority opinion of the Court [in WKA] clearly found, by any fair reading of its reasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation),regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen
The conclusion above is based on the same dicta using the Binney "as much a citizen" citation. It's a faulty conclusion and poor reading.
By footnote, Maskell claims this about Minor:
Any analysis of the distinction between “holding” and dicta is simplified in Minor v. Happersett, as the Supreme Court expressly explained that “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve” the issue of parental citizenship, thus clearly stating that its discussion was not part of, and theresolution of the issue not necessary to, the underlying holding or ruling of that case.
Waite did NOT say it is not necessary to solve the issue of "parental citizenship." He solved it quite clearly. All persons born in the country to citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It is a type of citizenship without doubt. What Waite did NOT solve is the issue of territorial-birth citizenship. "Parental citizenship" was directly applicable to the holding in Minor because it was used to reject the 14th amendment citizenship argument proposed by Virginia Minor.
There are plenty of other errors. What needs to be understood is that Minor was a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen. The Supreme Court affirmed that definition in Wong Kim Ark. There was no way Horace Gray was going to overturn a unanimous decision. There's no other higher judicial or legal authority. Not 20th century "legal scholars." Not circuit court decisions. Not state appeals court decisions. And not the CRS.
I believe Obama’s own “fight the smears” website said he was eligible for British citizenship at birth, and for Kenyan citizenship if he applied at age 18. I myself was not eligible for either, and I suspect a lot of other Americans were not by birth. I think the answer to the trivia question “who was the last US president born a British subject is arguably answered correctly by pointing to Barack Obama.
I am only stating my opinion as to what I believe the law should be. I also believe, perhaps incorrectly, that dual citizenship is a relatively recent concept.
Just my two cents.