US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 06/21/2011 | Leo Donofrio

[philman_36]

You touched on everything except my most important statement at...159

But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.
Oh, one other thing. The "official, I shit you not" BC has been released and Gordon doesn't apply as the birth in question was stateside, not abroad.

[philman_36]

The papers by Gordon and Pryor focus on the eligibility of foreign-born citizens from birth, because that was the question in doubt. They note that the eligibility of the native-born was already clear and settled, and there is no record of anyone disagreeing with those notes until people wanted to deny Obama’s eligibility.

BTW, if they both focus on "foreign-born citizens from birth" why do defenders of the current WH occupant, such as yourself, continually use them as references when, according to supporters, he was born in Hawaii?
It seems to me that their use as sources only further emphasizes the argument of critics.

[BladeBryan]

“Again, the court rejected this claim.
...in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position ...”

What a mess. The Court agreed that her argument for citizenship was sufficient, but noted that it was not necessary. That kind of thing happens all the time. Lawyers occasionally get surprised by which points the Court regard as key, so they deliberately err on the side of caution and over-argue the overt.

I’m not claiming to be a legal authority. I’m not. The issue here is fantasy versus reality. Leo Donofrio devoted his formidable intellect to deluding himself, and that much he did. You are free to embrace the theories of losing attorney Leo Donofrio. Self-delusion is one’s right, but not a winning strategy.

[penelopesire]

Wow!

Can’t wait to read the link and all of the posts in this thread. We are living in a completely lawless country now...run by a chicago thug marxist.

Heaven help us.

[BladeBryan]

philman_36 wrote:

"BTW, if they both focus on "foreign-born citizens from birth" why do defenders of the current WH occupant, such as yourself, continually use them as references when, according to supporters, he was born in Hawaii?"

For exactly the reasons I've explained over and over. They made entirely clear -- and no one rebutted them on it -- that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled. Here it is again, since you missed the point all the times before:

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

"It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

In our time there have been no papers in the American Legal Literature about whether native-born citizens qualify as Article II natural-citizens. That much was clear and settled long ago, so the literature on presidential eligibility simply pointed it out and no one disagreed.

Again: I'm wrong on that, please cite one 'birther' speaking up before 2008 on the insufficiency of native-born citizenship. I've been doing this a while, so I know to expect a lot ducking, playing dumb, and tries to change the subject. One thing I've learned not to expect is a straight answer to that challenge. I'm not asking whether the issue was in doubt a hundred years ago. I'm not here considering illegal aliens. Please don't bother citing what Breck Long argued in 1916 about a candidate born before the 14'th Amendment. Just show me one current denier of Obama's eligibility who before 2008 argued that native-born citizenship was insufficient.

[BladeBryan]

I wrote:

“Again: I’m wrong on that, please cite”

I make typos all the time, and rarely get beaten up for it. This one is silly-looking enough that I’ll point out that I omitted “If”. Doh!

[philman_36]

I don't even know why I bother with you. You're talking in circles as you usually do.

...please cite one 'birther' speaking up before 2008 on the insufficiency of native-born citizenship.
So what is the point you're trying to make by asking for such a cite? That just because nobody brought it up it isn't relevant?
That dog don't hunt.
So I've got a question...Are you Bill Bryan from thefogbow.com? You even spell Bryan the same way.

[edge919]

What a mess. The Court agreed that her argument for citizenship was sufficient, but noted that it was not necessary. That kind of thing happens all the time. Lawyers occasionally get surprised by which points the Court regard as key, so they deliberately err on the side of caution and over-argue the overt.

You're not reading very well. The court didn't agree with Minor's argument on citizenship. They rejected it, not just for her, but they rejected the 14th amendment for women as a class. When it says, "it did not need this amendment to give them that position," the "them" refers to "women," not just Virginia Minor. Read and learn:

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.

And ...

Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.

[edge919]

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not." [Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]

"It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." [Jill Pryor, 'The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility', 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]

The point that is missed is that in the eyes of the Supreme Court, "native-born" or "native" means to be born to citizen parents. Here's Minor's definition ONCE more:

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.

As such, "native-born" means born to a native citizen, not born to a native land.

[little jeremiah]

The Fogbow wankers are all over these threads. It’s clear to anyone who reads. You’re pulverizing them and it’s fun to watch.

Hey, Fogbow leftist slime - you’re pwned! You think you’re impressing anyone? HA HA HA!

You’re beaten and bloody and broken and just crawl back for more.

[little jeremiah]

It’s clear from some of these wankers that toking too much weed really paralyzes the cognitive thinking aspect.

[philman_36]

I just can’t understand the abject adulation.

[philman_36]

Did you have any problems opening that file? I get nothing when I open it.

[philman_36]

Never mind. I’m just going to download it to read.

[edge919]

Donofrio gets it wrong in nearly every respect. First, of course, the antecedent of "class" in MvH is not "citizen", it's "children". MvH is not talking about two classes of citizen, it's talking about two classes of children: the first class of children, jus soli and jus sanguinis, are universally acknowledged as citizens. As to the second class of children, those born jus soli alone, there is some disagreement as to whether they, too, are citizens, but never mind: voting rights don't devolve from the 14th amendment, so it's all dicta anyway. And, unfortunately for Donofrio, you don't build legal arguments out of dicta.

This is one of the strangest rebuttals I've seen. You think it means two classes of children and not two classes of citizens?? As worded, one class of children are NBCs and the others are not. If what you think is true, then the court is saying there are doubts that the second class are children, rather than there are doubts that they are citizens. That makes no sense.

As for it just being dicta, the evidence disputes this. Justice Gray cited the dicta from Minor and followed it as guidance in the Wong Kim Ark decision. He noted that the Supreme Court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." and then cited the Minor definition of natural born citizen, explaining how it was used to declare Virginia Minor to be a citizen. From that point forward in the WKA decision, Gray focused on how to interpret the birth and subject clause of the 14th amendment to apply to a person who was NOT born to citizen parents. Had Justice Waite accepted Virginia Minor's claim of being a 14th amendment citizen, there would have been no need for Gray to proceed beyond his citatioon of Minor in the WKA decision. Minor set a precedent that could NOT be used in application to a person NOT born to citizen parents.

[little jeremiah]

Leftist ideology, infantile idol worship, and hourly wage will probably cover it.

Add the weed and - voila!

[philman_36]

First off, I would like to thank you for spurring me on to read Gordon. I've been truly negligent in not having read his opinion beforehand.
And so, having done so let's discuss your often used parenthetical...
"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents."
The first thing that strikes me is that you fail to use the whole paragraph. Perhaps that's because it doesn't help your argument since you have the tendency to present the concept of native-born to be the same as natural-born. So, for clarity...the whole paragraph instead of your snippet.
The approach of our 45th presidential election evokes once again the question of constitutional eligibility. Under the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution, only "natural-born" citizens are qualified for this highest office. It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.' The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents. Can they [native-born citizens] be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?
Do you consider your actions ethical since the usage of your snippet limits the thoughts Gordon was trying to present?

To continue the natural/native born aspect...

A third puzzling element of the constitutional declaration is its specification that the presidential aspirant must have "been fourteen years a resident of the United States." If the Framers were speaking only of the native-born, this limitation would hardly have been necessary. It can doubtless be urged that this residence qualification was intended to relate only to the portion of the qualification clause dealing with citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. But while the language of the qualification clause obviously includes this group, it is not in context limited to them. Indeed, it seems consistent with a supposition that the "natural-born" qualification was intended to include those who had acquired United States citizenship at birth abroad.⁷
And one more...
Next, I turn to Chancellor Kent's famous Commentaries. At one point Kent seemed to equate natural-born with native-born and believed (like Story) ¹⁸³ that the purpose of the presidential qualification clause was to exclude "ambitious foreigners."¹⁸⁴
So here again we see that a distinction is being made though I will agree with footnote 138.
It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. It is manifest that these statements of the majority and dissenters in Wong Kim Ark were dicta, pure and simple. The question before the Court concerned children born in the United States, and it was not asked to pass on the status of children born abroad. Several of the propositions expounded by the majority are, as I have suggested, debatable. In any event, the majority's opinion did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. ¹³⁸
138. All authorities agree that the terms "native" and "natural-born" both refer to citizenship acquired at the time of birth. Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 666, 667 (1927) ; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 665 (N.Y. 1844) ("both expressions assume that birth is a test of citizenship . . ."); Morse, Natural Born Citizen of the United States, 66 ALBANY L.J. 99, 100 (1904).
It appears, at least to me, that even Gordon makes the distinction that they were not synonymous in definition and referred to two different types of citizens.

So stop your petty games and stop trying to misconstrue the quote to suit your particular, obviously biased, view.
And now to the meat...
What say you? Answer his question.
Can the "native-born" be regarded as "natural-born" within the contemplation of the Constitution?

And an interesting aside...
Don't you find that while using Minor v. Happersett as a source Gordon failed to recognize Vattel as a potential source for the term "natural born citizen" when he wrote this...

The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who "were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."¹⁴² While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it. ¹⁴³

Oh, my...it only "appears to equate" the two terms.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

This is one of the strangest rebuttals I've seen. You think it means two classes of children and not two classes of citizens?? As worded, one class of children are NBCs and the others are not. If what you think is true, then the court is saying there are doubts that the second class are children, rather than there are doubts that they are citizens. That makes no sense.

Of course it means two classes of children. One class is "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens." The second is "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." It doesn't take a law degree, just the ability to read plain English, to figure that one out.

The court isn't distinguishing between two kinds of citizens here. It did that in the previous paragraph:

the Constitution itself...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.

So they just got finished saying that there are only two classes of citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. The next paragraph isn't further subdividing "born citizens," it's just noting that "born in the country of citizen parents" definitely means "born citizen," while "born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" might or might not mean "born citizen." But there's still only one kind of "born citizen," and it means the same as "native" or "natural born."

[edge919]

It doesn't take a law degree, just the ability to read plain English, to figure that one out.

It's a meaningless distinction to say that it distinguishes between two classes of children but not two classes of citizen. The Constitution itself distinguishes between two classes of citizen. One, NBC, is a requirement for presidential office. The other, citizen of the United States (and a lesser class), is a requirement for Congress. That the court recognizes TWO ways citizens can be created, doesn't mean there is only one class of citizenship per way. One can be a citizen at birth via the naturalization statute, such as in the naturalization act of 1790.

So they just got finished saying that there are only two classes of citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens.

It doesn't say "class" in this section, while it does talk about "class" in reference to NBC and those citizens recognized by "some authorities" who were born in the country without regard to their parents. The latter class of citizenship (of which there is doubt) lumps together both children born of citizens, and those NOT born of citizens. IOW, it's not two separate classes of children, but TWO separate classes of citizen: One is NBC and the other are born citizens whose citizenship would be in doubt.

[edge919]

Gordon contradicts the standard faither line NBC being defined by English common law on the sole basis of jus soli:

"The common law, as it had developed through the years, recognized a combination of the jus soli and the jus sanguinis. A similar combination has always been embraced by the laws of the United States, except for the possibility of an inadvertent hiatus between 1802 and 1855."