Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
It doesn't have your snippet either so I'm wondering what/where your source is.
You're all over the place and it isn't flattering...
squeeky fromm Jennifer4Hillary
I am NOT that person and I don’t know why they keep saying it.
I really do thank you for that unsolicited admission on your part.
You just ooze.
The Delta Report - Peace In Our Time!!! (or, How Obama Learned A Lesson From Sarah Palin!!!)
We know this is true because poor foolish Sarah Palin used those words in a speech...
Oh, the phony baloney crap about the use of the term “blood libel” by Sarah Palin is just DISGUSTING!!!
If anybody is interested, I have a blogsite that is mostly birther which I don't list on economy blogs because that is usually way off topic.
http://squeekyfromm.wordpress.com/
You blog pimp almost everywhere that you go.
What's this?!
Squeeky Fromm Comments On Obama's Plan To End World Hunger
She remains in hiding, perhaps out of shame, for giving her mentor and one-time protector, PjFoggy a treacherous dolchstoss Foggy was unable to comment due to his severe wounding.
Was this spoken by someone who gave a dolchstoss to her former patron?
Perhaps you can find your post if you look here...
SqueekyFromm (SqueekyFromm) Member Since December 25, 2010
You're an open book.
...those freeper posters are mean.
This is awesome — this means Gov Palin will be facing “Can I call you Joe?” Biden in the election?
TYVM, EXCELLENT, I would have missed this! Appreciate it.
He also added that "a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines 'natural-born Citizen' more inclusively than Minor did" would also reverse the precedent he says was set by Minor.
If he believes that a Constitutional amendment defining NBC would reverse the definition he gathered from Minor, then I have a hard time believing that his position is, as you said, that a natural-born citizen does not require a law to clarify his status. If he really did believe that, then a Constitutional amendment couldn't reverse the definition of NBC.
TL;DR
It means Too Long; Didn't Read.
While I understand that Leo is a lawyer and is used to blathering on and on and on, the expectation from the headline would be one bullet point highlighting the SC case and one or two sentences summarizing the precedent.
After that, Leo will have the audience's attention and can go into detail for those that care, and the rest of us can go look up the court case and decide for ourselves.
As written, I doubt most people (other than the really interested and patient FReepers) will actually read this. It's too long, too dense, and doesn't get to the point right away
If Trump continues his silence, which I believe is the case, then I think Trump is in cahoot with the usurper in the Whit-Hut, an interloper by helping getting out a fraud birth certificate that approx 62% of his kool-aid drinkers, even Congress(?), thinks is genuine!!!
Blogger pimp, hmmm????????????????
The Minor case did NOT deal with who is a citizen. It dealt with the question of who had the right to vote.
It made a passing reference to citizenship:
“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 [p168] 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.”
It is obvious to an honest reader that Minor does NOT require two citizen parents for someone to be a NBC, nor did they attempt to answer that question.
Here is what they considered:
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”
It was admitted, from the beginning, that she was a citizen. This was a 14th Amendment case in the sense that it used the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which provides that “no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Only an idiot would believe this case was about the citizenship of the woman.
The facts of the case:
“In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a “male citizen of the United States,” but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.”
Please note that NO ONE argued she was not a citizen. That was given. The question was if citizenship and the equal protection clause meant that women had the right to vote.
The actual decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
It only takes one little forgery to satisfy the obamanoids that this is all a wild goose chase which they must then ridicule. Who at Kapiolani would risk their job status over questioning some supposedly long forgotten piece of data in the archives? Moral bankruptcy is the spittlegeist of our age. We cannot even out an obamanoid at FR without being ridiculed and threatened!
reiterated at my website for the umteenth time in March of this year http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/birthright-jus-soli-citizenship-only-applied-to-state-citizenship-prior-to-march-26-1790/
One of the 1st pieces of evidence that was brought to my attention nearly 3 years ago and hundreds of hours of research since was the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins in which Justice Gray stated in the deciding opinion of the court.
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Gray is merely reiterating the deciding opinion written by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons” born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction” are.
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…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,”
That last highlighted & underlined part refers specifically to the 14th Amendment, so Leo is WRONG when he claimed that the 14th had no bearing on Waite's as well as the courts final decision. Right there in that one sentence, they declared that all persons born to 2 citizen parents are citizens and all others born to atleast one foreign parent are naturalized along with all other children(persons) of their parents. Period. IOW, there is no such thing as naturalized at birth according to the original intent of the 14th. All it did was state what had always been and according to the US Constitution, blacks that were born to parents in the US were US citizens at birth because, even though they were slaves, they never claimed allegiance to any foreign sovereign and no foreign sovereign recognized them as such. Their complete allegiance was due to the United States. This is reiterated over and over again in the congressional debates as some tried to state that the 14th naturalized the blacks, when in fact it did not and the later(the 14th did not naturalize blacks) was the final decision of Congress. Some of these lawyers need to spend some time with Fredrick Douglas reading his works. Then maybe they would actually understand & therefore be able to make a better argument for that which they write about.
Cannot disagree. Especially on the moral bankruptcy.
Yes, HALF truths. Out of context.
Look, Leo is a JERK. He is a KOOK. Yet, he is a GENIUS. He is a brilliant legal mind. He has tenacity. He won't give up. He keeps saying he has, yet he keeps popping back up with a new angle or a new perspective. Maybe just a significant nuance, always interesting.
If your child had a brain tumor and Leo Donofrio was the best brain surgeon available, would you not allow him to operate on your child because of his views?
I don't want to gay marry Leo. I don't see how his personal political views matter when it comes to a matter of LAW”.
What do you hope to be when you grow up?
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.