Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
And I note with a great deal of amusement that with all of your point by point responding you didn't even touch this...
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...
You are misreading the complaint. Based on a provision of the Missouri state constitution which declared "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote," Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, had refused to allow Virginia Minor to register to vote, "assigning for cause that she was not a 'male citizen of the United States,' but a woman."
Note that Missouri was explicitly denying suffrage not on the charge that Minor wasn't a citizen, but that she wasn't a he.
So Minor sued, complaining that because she was a citizen the Missouri provision was in violation of her 14th Amendment guarantee to "privileges and immunities of citizens", one of which was suffrage. At no point from the original pleading through the Supreme Court ruling was Minor's citizenship ever questioned, nor was she ever called upon to defend it.
Here's the opening sentence of Minor v Happersett:
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.
Note what Waite states the question put before the Court to: not "Is a woman a citizen?" but "Is a a woman who is a citizen entitled to suffrage?" Minor said, "yes" because suffrage was one of the "privileges of citizens" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Had Minor's citizenship not been assumed at any point along the way, in fact, her suit would quite possibly have simply been dismissed on lack of standing.
Waite continues:
From the opinion [of the Missouri Supreme Court], we find that [this question] was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
The only question asked and answered in MvH is whether suffrage was one of the 14th Amendment "privileges". So said Waite. Minor's citizenship was never questioned, and the Supreme Court had no intention of answering it in any other fashion than by simply assuming it.
Here's the full text of Minor v. Happersett so you can check my citations:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
If you have a source that reads Minor differently, I'd love to see it.
You: You made no point and I was asking a question.
I made several points -- which you ignored -- and you were just being obnoxious. Still are. I admire your consistency.
Me: First, Squeeky is a "her" not a "them".
You: And how do you know this?
Well, let's see, I clicked on her user name, and it said "I am Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter!" I looked at her blogs (links are on her user page) and they, perhaps not coincidentally, also said, "Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter". I noted that folk in this forum have called her "girl". And, on a more subjective note, she talks like a girl :-) So, just in case you were absent the year they offered biology, I'll let you in on a little secret: girls are "she".
Or do you mean, "When Squeeky says she's a girl, how do you know she's not lying?" To which the only replies I can think of all involve eye rolls and incredulous guffaws.
I wasn't speaking on her behalf. I was speaking about what your actions accomplished.
And you got it wrong even then. What was I saying about consistency?
Now, if you have something on-topic you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to oblige. Otherwise, I think I've had about as much fun at your expense as general civility will allow.
You just keep on carrying that water, mule.
I can show you pictures of me right here on FR to prove I'm a man. I can even ping people I've personally met and spent time with.
Just a word of warning. Believe what you will.
No, not at all.
At no point from the original pleading through the Supreme Court ruling was Minor's citizenship ever questioned, nor was she ever called upon to defend it.
You need to read the whole decision. You've ignored several parts. You also need to read this thread better because I've already cited the part where the court acknowledges that Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen under the 14th amendment
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
The underlined part above is the birth clause from the 14th amendment. Minor is citing this clause to establish herself as a citizen, but the court rejected it.
...in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position ...
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.
... the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.
The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Do you understand now?? The court said she was already a citizen as she met the court's definition of natural born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. If what you think was true, the court wouldn't have spent the first half of the decision discussing citizenship ... but it did.
You're deluding yourself. The Constitution does not use "naturalized" citizen as a requirement of office.
Your side argues that a native-born citizen is one who is born in the country to citizen parents??? That's great. Then you agree. Obama is not constitutionally eligble for office. Thanks for clearing that up.
I didn't miss it at all. It's why I showed that it is NOT legally accurate according to the Supreme Court, which said native means being born in the country to citizen parents. Why did you respond TWICE to the same post of mine?? You didn't think all the way through??
249...never mind.
And ya know, I can't find anything, anywhere on what her maiden name was or who her parents were. I was hoping that finding that information would possibly help me in figuring out why native-born was used to describe her.
Then again, I'm not too familiar with genealogy research so perhaps I'm just missing the info that is out there.
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
Note in particular the initial "as", which carries the sense of "because". From the "as" on forward, everything before the main subject "she", including the part you underlined, is part of the subordinate phrase introduced by the subordinating injunction "as". That is to say, everything from "as" to "resides", inclusive, is not part of the main sentence, but simply providing supporting information.
Let's look at the sentence again. This time I've made two small clarifying changes, and underlined the subordinate clause:
The argument is, that because a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, [therefore] she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
While it might be clarifying to recast Minor's argument syllogistically, I'll forego that at the moment, as I think it should be sufficiently clear from the above that the phrase "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not part of Minor's argument, it is one of its premises. The thing about premises is that their truth is assumed, not argued. That's what makes them premises.
Let's look at it another way. According to Waite, the one and only question being presented to the Court in MvH was "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." (Notice the "who" here, indicating once again that Minor's citizenship is simply assumed, not argued.)
But note well: the issue before the Court is voting rights. And who has standing to bring a case on voting rights? Only a US citizen. If Minor's citizenship had at any time been in doubt, she would never have had standing to bring the suit in the first place. This is critical, so I'll repeat it: since the question is one involving the "privileges and immunities of citizenship", only a US citizen would have had standing to bring the case at all. The very fact that MvH made it all the way to the Supreme Court is compelling argument that Minor's citizenship had never been in doubt.
the court acknowledges that Virginia Minor argued she was a citizen under the 14th amendment
The Court acknowledges that Minor was a citizen for 14th Amendment purposes, not that "she argued she was".
The Founders liked the Anglo Saxon period in England between the Romans and the Normans. There is a word from this era..Gecynde. Gecynde means Kind and Natural.
If you want to understand the meaning of natural, native and Kind and how it relates to natural born citizen this is a start.
So as I understand it I'm a natural born citizen. Obama is a native born citizen (due to the nature of his Mother's citizenship) with dual citizenship because of his purported Father's citizenship.
Am I getting this right so far in your book?
(the lyrics "I'm your native son..." keep going through my mind)
R V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Posted in Uncategorized on June 24, 2011 by naturalborncitizen
Per a Leo comment to the thread blog post:
begin quote:
I abide by the SCOTUS standard stated in O’GILVIE ET AL., MINORS v. UNITED STATES – 519 U.S. 79 (1996):
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an “independent” ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”
Rather than reaching the 14th Amendment issue, the SCOTUS in Minor looked to an independent ground in support of its decision that Minor was a US citizen. That ground was Article 2 Section 1, the natural born citizen clause. In doing so, the Court in Minor defined nbc… and it is the only SCOTUS case which directly construed the A2S1 nbc clause as part of its reasoning. According to the majority in Ogilvie and Breyer’s opinion, such reasoning is not dictum. – Leo
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.