Minor vs. Hapersett
“Mrs. Virginia Minor was a native-born American citizen from Missouri who had the audacity to try to register to vote. The registrar, one Happersett, refused because Minor was not “male”. Minor sued in local court and the Missouri State Supreme Court, but she lost. She appealed to the United States Supreme Court claiming that she was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and was entitled to vote. The Supreme Court agreed that she was a natural born citizen of the United States, but that didn’t make her eligible to vote.
So incidentally to the main question in the case, the Supreme Court did discuss citizenship...
The section from Minor that is alluded to by the opening quotation is one in which the court is describing the state of citizenship in the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment (something that is overlooked by those who use the citation). Here is what the court said:
[To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”
and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.]
Let’s take a minute to digest that lengthy citation. The most obvious point is that there are two and exactly two kinds of citizens discussed here: ” natural born” and “naturalized”. Take a minute and reread the citation and verify this for yourself. You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen. Note: “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” — not “natural born citizens” but “citizens” but natural born implied because they are born citizens.
The issue addressed in this section is not who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen. So when the court talks about “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” they are saying that there are “doubts” as to whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at all. This is the point glossed over when trying to use this case to create a third type of citizen (the non-natural born, non-naturalized citizen).
Let me quote from an earlier portion of the decision:
[Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.]
What can be seen from this quotation is the distinction between the concept of who is in a class and whether members of that class are citizens. In relating Minor to the question of Obama natural born citizenship Minor informs us that those born citizens are natural born citizens, but Minor does not inform us who are born citizens. Focus on this language from the Court:
[These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.]
The distinction is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens).
All of the preceding discussion is related to the situation before passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment”). The reason for this digression to the time before the Fourteenth Amendment was the question of whether Minor was a citizen apart from the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that she was: “she has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” She was such a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pesky argument about those not born of citizen parents before the Fourteenth Amendment “it is not necessary to solve”.
I don’t know if this question was ever solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons living born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.”
The final paragraph above is pretty clear. The other cases are minor by comparison and have been discussed at length here. Apuzzo simply strings them together out of context to make it appear they have bearing on this issue that they do not. Apuzzo has no expertise in this field, he will continue to lose on this issue, and cutting and pasting his article proves nothing.
The quotes you cite simply support the fact that NBC is a requirement for President, which needs no support since it is in the Constitution. They say nothing about requiring two citizen parents.
Would you believe US census records from 1790-1880 where in children born to an alien father on US soil were considered aliens themselves? ____________________________________________
Congressional testimony from 1892 on the US population from 1790-1880, who were the natives and who were the aliens/foreigners and the natives were not the immediate offspring of alien fathers. This is directly from automated text so the spelling may be a bit off.
Mr Schade: Now, these figures were published at that time in various magazines, and I dare say they have been accepted by European statisticians as most trustworthy in ascertaining as to what this country has gained in population through immigration.
Now, I have made another calculation. I have gone up to 1890. Taking 1.38, which annual rate has been recognized by the census of 1870 as correct, I have found that the population of this country in 1890 would have been—that is, if there had been no immigration since 1790— 12,726,033, instead of 56,000,000, leaving out the 8,000,000 colored people. I intend to be as liberal as possible. Having added the 8,000,000 of negroes to those 12,726,000,1 will add another 5,000,000 thereby increasing the population to 25,000,000. Every fair-minded man will concede that I am as liberal as I possibly can be. I am, therefore, justified to claim that of the 64,000,000 people who inhabit this country at the present time 25,000,000 are such as have a right to say that they descend from the people who were here at the time of the First Census in 1790, and the balance (about 40,000,000) are either foreign immigrants or are descendants of those who came here since 1790.
Now. I want to give you some proof, taken also from the census of 1880, showing that this assertion of mine, this calculation is correct. In 1880 the foreigners and their children (not grandchildren) outnumbered the natives in the following States(see chart in the records)
The CnAirman. Are you allowing the natives any childreu or only the foreigners?
x Mr. Schaue. I repeat again that this statement is taken from the census of 1880. The census stated, for instance, that the foreigners number so many and those born in this country of foreign parents were so many. By adding them together I construed the above table.
The Chairman. You compare those with the native born?
Mr. Schade. I give the foreigners and their children. I do not add their grandchildren, because I give them to the natives.
Representative Geissenhaineb. You do add the children?
Mr. Schade. Yes, sir.
Mr. Deily. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. There are about (35,000,000 people in the country to-day. Now, how has he figured the ratio of increase of the immigrants during that time, and does he mean to say that the ratio of increase of the immigrants and their children is over 40,000,000, while that of the natives is only 25,000,000?
Mr. Schade. Certainly.
Mr. Deily. Will the gentleman inform me how many immigrants have lauded in this country and what the ratio of increase has been, at the same rate he is figuring there?
Mr. Schade. Do you want me to answer?
Mr. Deily. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schade. I have taken the official 3,231,000 of 1790 as a basis for my calculation, giving them an annual increase of 1.38 per cent, the most favorable of any country. By that calculation I have shown you that our population, had there been no immigration since 1790, would. in 1890, have been about 25,000,000 instead of 64,000,000.
Senator Hale. Your figures, from 1790 to 1890, would show the native population, including the blacks, to be 25,000,000?
Mr. Schade. Yes, sir.
Senator Hale. And as the whole population of the United States is 65,000,000, you conclude from that that the other 40,000,000 are foreigners and their increase.
Mr. Schade. Yes, sir; foreigners and their children since 1790.
Seems you should go back and read AGAIN what YOU posted.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...
Ooops
Let's do. From Minor versus Happersett in 1875:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Could you tell all of us just where that "resort" was/is??? It's not in the 14th Amendment because that is in the Constitution. So then could that resort be here:
1] “THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
and here:
2]SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
and here:
3] Vattel's LAW OF NATIONS which is mentioned in the Constitution.
Let's continue with Justice Waite and find out for sure:
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
There we have a definition found also at those previous "resorts". But then you say this:
You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen.
Sure you won't unless you actually read these words of Justice Waite in the next line:
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Aren't those two separate classes of citizens described here by Justice Waite???