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

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

[rxsid]

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

The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.

Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases“.

Precedent that must be followed is known as binding precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.

It can no longer be denied that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.

Therefore, Obama – according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be President.

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote – the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.

Therefore, lower court decisions – such as the holding in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below, we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v. Happersett.

THE SUPREME COURT IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT DIRECTLY CONSTRUED THE US CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE

Before revisiting Minor, we must revisit Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to review a clearly erroneous statement made by Justice Gray concerning the prior holding in the Minor case:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ “ (Wong Kim Ark at 655.)

This unfortunate remark by Justice Gray contains a clearly erroneous statement. The Supreme Court in Minor did not construe the 14th Amendment as to the issue of citizenship. Gray is absolutely wrong. The Court in Minor construed Article 2 Section 1, not the 14th Amendment. For over a century, it has been wrongly assumed that the Court in Minor did construe the 14th Amendment, and that the holding of Minor was later superseded by Wong Kim Ark. This is not correct.

A more careful reading of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor makes it clear that it did not construe the 14th Amendment with regard to the citizenship of the woman who wished to vote. The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.

The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1:

“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 …

“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. 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. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. (Emphasis added.)

There you have it. The Court stops short of construing the 14th Amendment as to whether the woman in question was a US citizen. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen.

The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark.

The Court in Minor went on to decide the issue of whether citizens are granted a right to vote by the Constitution, holding that it did not. Again, this part of the holding was superseded by the 19th Amendment, but the determination that Mrs. Minor was a “natural-born citizen” is still controlling precedent.

Since the Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to citizenship, it is clear that Justice Gray’s statement – concerning the citizenship passage by Justice Waite in Minor – was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1 instead of the 14th Amendment. As such, Minor is the only US Supreme Court case which has directly construed the Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen clause. Therefore, Minor’s construction below creates binding legal precedent:

“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.“ (Emphasis added.)

Whether the holding here was influenced by Vattel is not truly important. Sure, it looks just like Vattel’s definition, but Vattel does not make legal precedent – the US Supreme Court does. All that matters here is what the Supreme court held. So we must carefully examine the actual words stated by the Supreme Court. We must not allow ourselves to be guided by what the Supreme Court did not say. What the Court actually said is what makes law.

In the above passage, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt.

By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

The Court also noted that some authorities include as “citizens” those born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The Court refers to these people as a different “class”. The Court in Minor refused to comment on the “citizenship” of such persons since Mrs. Minor was not in that class. They didn’t need to reach the 14th Amendment to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen since the Court previously established that she was a “natural-born citizen”. Read the following again:

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“

This class is specifically defined as “natural-born citizens” by the Court. The other class – those born in the US without citizen “parents” – may or may not be “citizens”. But the Minor Court never suggested that this other class might also be natural-born citizens.

It’s quite the opposite. The Minor Court makes clear that this class are not Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizens. If this other class were natural-born there would be no doubt as to their citizenship.

The Minor Court refrained from making a “citizenship” determination as to that class, but the Court did note that they were a different class. Later, in 1898, the Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did.

In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

This is so very evident by the fact that the Minor Court specifically states that the “citizenship” of those who have non-citizen parents was historically subject to doubt. Whether the 14th Amendment nullified those doubts was irrelevant to the Court in Minor, since Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen.

The 14th Amendment specifically confers only “citizenship”. In Minor, the US Supreme Court directly recognized that natural-born citizens were a class of citizens who did not need the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship. The class of natural-born citizens was perfectly defined in the Minor case.

Therefore, we have a direct determination by the US Supreme Court which defines a natural-born citizen as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. The citizenship of this class has never been in doubt. The citizenship of the other class was in doubt. But even if that doubt was erased – as to their citizenship – that they are not natural-born citizens was established as precedent by the Supreme Court in Minor. In order for that precedent to be reversed, one of two things are necessary:

- a Constitutional amendment which specifically defines “natural-born Citizen” more inclusively than Minor did , or;

- a Supreme Court case which overrules the definition of natural-born citizen in the Minor case

We have neither.

Minor was decided seven years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Minor did not consider anyone but those born of citizen parents on US soil to be natural-born citizens. Later, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court stated that persons born on US soil to (some) alien parents were “citizens”, but that case specifically construed only the 14th Amendment.

Read again Justice Gray’s statement as to Minor, “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said…“ Nope. Not true. Gray was wrong in that Justice Waite did not construe the 14th Amendment in the quoted passage. Chief Justice Waite construed Article 2 Section 1. Whereas, Justice Gray construed the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the two cases are not in conflict.

ARKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.

The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question.

That is the most important sentence I’ve ever written at this blog. So please read it again. [edit: emphasis added] The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”.

Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.

WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

That the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark limited its holding strictly to the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship – and did not make any new determination as to Article 2 Section 1 – is evident from the following statement by Gray regarding the dissent by Justice Curtis in the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

‘The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

At first glance, Gray’s reliance upon the dissent’s passage in the Dred Scott case would appear to contradict everything I have written above. But it doesn’t. It actually confirms my analysis.

Justice Gray chooses his words carefully and so we must examine them carefully. Note where Gray says, “And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Well, if we are talking only about “citizenship”, then – to this extent – Justice Gray is correct. But if we are talking about the definition of a “natural-born citizen”, then Gray is grossly mistaken.

The Dred Scott majority may not have expressed a different opinion as to “citizenship”, but the majority’s definition of a natural-born citizen is vastly different than that of Justice Curtis in his dissent. The majority opinion in Dred Scott, citing Vattel directly, stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

Again:

“I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”

Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable…”

Unexceptionable is defined as; ” not open to any objection or criticism.” The Supreme Court majority, in the Dred Scott case, clearly states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. Therefore, Justice Gray’s reliance upon the dissent in the Dred Scott case is strictly limited to its discussion of “citizenship” by Gray’s very choice of the words, “to this extent”.

Since Gray stated that none of the other justices in the Dred Scott case expressed a different opinion than Curtis did in his dissent, it is obvious that Gray’s statement only applies to general citizenship, and not to the definition of those who fall into the class of natural-born citizens. The majority in Dred Scott did, in fact, express a completely different opinion than Curtis on the issue of who was an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen.

Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” – with regard to the dissent by Curtis – indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.

THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINITION OF PRECEDENT

In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain “…reason as an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision”, then that reasoning is not simply dictum:

“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.”

The Supreme Court in Minor specifically construed Article 2 Section 1 by defining – as natural-born citizens – those persons born in the US to parents who were citizens.

Again, the Supreme Court specifically avoided the 14th Amendment, by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

In order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote, the Court first needed to determine if she was a US citizen. They determined that she was a citizen because she was in the class of “natural-born citizens”. And, in doing so, they made it clear that persons born of non-citizen parents were not natural-born citizens.

The Court left open the question of whether those born of non-citizen parents were “citizens”. But the Court did not leave open their specific construction of Article 2 Section 1. Their definition of a “natural-born citizen” was the core reason they found Mrs. Minor to be a citizen. Therefore, the Minor Court established binding precedent as follows:

“…[A]ll 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...”

Please also note that the Court here makes specific reference to both aliens and foreigners as distinguished from natural-born citizens. Aliens are just that, aliens. They are not citizens. But we have always had many foreigners in this country who were citizens. Those who came here from foreign lands were foreigners naturalized as citizens. Some who were born in the US with dual citizenship – like Obama – were also citizens of the nation of their parents. These are citizens, but also foreigners. The Court in Minor made the careful distinction that a natural-born citizen is not an alien or a foreigner.

CITIZENS MAY BE BORN OR NATURALIZED

A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:

“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 providesthat ‘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.”

Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

“This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”

This is most likely because the statute did not actually deem such a person to be a natural-born citizen, the act simply stated that such a person was to be “considered as” a natural-born citizen.

The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens. Therefore, they are not eligible to be President.

I am not arguing that Obama was naturalized. But Minor does establish that not all “born citizens” are “natural-born”. Minor also gives an unequivocal definition of who fits into the class of natural-born citizens. Obama does not fit into that class. Born in the US to a citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father, Obama was born with dual nationality and dual allegiance, part US citizen, part foreigner. Minor makes a clear distinction between natural-born citizens and aliens or foreigners.

No Constitutional amendment supersedes Minor by defining natural-born citizen in a more inclusive way. No US Supreme Court case has overruled it. Justice Gray’s statement that the Court in Minor construed the 14th Amendment in the passage quoted is wrong. The Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 while directly avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark directly construed the 14th Amendment and specifically avoided construction of Article 2 Section 1. The two case are not in contradiction. They are consistent.

Wong Kim Ark is specifically limited to determining who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Minor is specifically limited to determining who is a US citizen, natural-born.

According to the US Supreme Court precedent established by Minor, Obama is not eligible to the office of President of the United States. [Edit: emphasis added]

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq."

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

[philman_36]

Obama is not a citizen.
I give up. I was looking for some help and I get a cryptic response.
Thanks anyway.

[philman_36]

I knew I'd read up on this somewhere...

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”
It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

Snip...And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
Snip...The question we are raising is not something made up to deal with Obama alone. As I have stressed many times throughout the history of this blog, those who are “native born” are not necessarily “natural born”.

So thanks for the brain freeze. I still stand by my statement with one correction...
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 location of birth) with dual citizenship because of his purported Father's citizenship.

[Seizethecarp]

(Comment to the new Leo post)

jimmy Says:
June 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I’m trying to link this to my FB page, but FB keeps removing it.
Am I allowed to link this ?

ed. It looks like we may have really struck a chord now… I am receiving multiple messages that Facebook is banning links here. This is huge if true. – Leo

[Red Steel]

Bump read...

[Red Steel]

ed. It looks like we may have really struck a chord now… I am receiving multiple messages that Facebook is banning links here. This is huge if true. – Leo

Well, it looks like the Facebook people are convinced. ;-)

[philman_36]

Just getting my ducks in a row.

[Seizethecarp]

I put the new Leo blog up on FR here (with my earlier title corrected):

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2739696/posts?page=1

[Nathanael1]

the Court in Minor defined nbc…

Except, of course, that it didn't.

[BladeBryan]

philman_36 wrote: “You poor guy. You do it again while denying that you do. And you should just throw every source you use out the window since what you believe (’I equate...’) overrides everything.”

You tell not the truth. I’ve been consistent all along: That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago, and that’s we enough to dismiss the nonsense at issue. You asked a broader question, and I can tell you that the modern consensus is that “natural-born citizen” means citizen from birth.

philman_36 claimed: “No, I injected “[native-born citizens]” into the sentence to give clarification to the “they” mentioned.”

No, philman_36, the antecedent was clear. Here it is without your falsification:

“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 be regarded as ‘natural-born’ within the contemplation of the Constitution?”

Perfectly clear what question he was examining. You, philman_36, quoted falsely.

[BladeBryan]

edge919 wrote: “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.”

Whatever fantasies you entertain about your own constitutional scholarship, I quoted the Pryor’s article in the peer-reviewed literature of American law:

“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 meaning of “’native-born’ citizens” there is given: “those born in the United States”. If you want to argue that there’s also another, different usage, it doesn’t matter. You were wrong to say I missed anything in citing Pryor and Gordon. You, not I, missed the meaning.

[BladeBryan]

philman_36 wrote:

Snip...And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but [...]

And in that same essay Breck Long argued:

Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.

Barack Obama, like all of us who still draw breath, was born after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether his eligibility would have been questionable as late as 1868, or even 1898 when U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was decided, is not the issue. In our time, there has been one saying that to be eligible for the presidency, native-born citizens also have to be born of two parents who are citizens. That is, not until 2008 when a certain faction desperately wanted to deny that the particular individual could be president.

[philman_36]

Man, after your 600 word attack on Donofrio I’ve got nothing but contempt for you. Don’t bother me again.

[SatinDoll]

“...That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago,..”

You’re full of crap and spreading lies.

Natural born Citizen is an eligibility requirement to serve as President of the United States per Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, period. It does not appear ANYWHERE else in the statutes covering citizenship.

For the Federal descriptions of citizenship, go to:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services - Citizenship

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

* Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
* had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

* Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
* Apply for naturalization

The above describe ‘native born’, ‘derived, and ‘naturalized’ citizenship. You will not find ‘natural born citizenship anywhere on that government site. It is not recognized as a statutory type of citizenship.

The eligibility requirements for Senator and Representative require one be a Citizen (native born, derived from parents, or naturalized - it doesn’t matter).

To be President requires a person be a Natural born Citizen (note the wording; person, rather than ‘citizen’). The Constitutional Congress was very detailed about this issue.

Leo Donofrio has now found the definition in legal precedent.

Don’t bother spreading any more disinformation on Free Republic.

[BladeBryan]

“...That native-born citizens are natural born citizens was clear and settled long ago,..”

You’re full of crap and spreading lies.

I had already cited it to the pear-reviewed literature of the discipline, earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

"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).]

Leo Donofrio has now found the definition in legal precedent.

Have you noticed the results when Donofrio tests his legal theories in court?

[SatinDoll]

Nice try. But you’re still full of crap.

Jill Pryor is a 100%, in-the-tank socialist and Democrat, so she would write propaganda screed, non of which is accurate. She wants to see the United States join in the socialist utopia known as Globalism.

WOW! No surprise there!

Pryor is just like Herlihy, another commie Democrat hell-bent on destroying the United States via Globalism (AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE - SARAH P. HERLIHY).

Pryor and Herlihy present arguments at odds with one another; one claims falsely it is all settled, while the other whines it must be changed. Obviously, overthrowing the United States from within causes schizophrenia in the Democratic.

You aren’t a Conservative, so I’m not surprised you read anti-American propaganda.

Doubtless there will be court challenges.

Doubtless SCOTUS will follow precedent set by other Supreme Courts before them, not some left-wing authors and certainly not by your opinions.

“There is a gun behind every blade of grass.” Overthrowing the U.S. isn’t going to be a cake-walk.

[April Lexington]

Nice work.

[Mr. Wright]

I am thoroughly convinced that this is why Chief Justice Roberts “botched” it, when giving Hussein Obama the Oath of Office. He knew in his heart that this guy was not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to serve.

[BladeBryan]

“Pryor and Herlihy present arguments at odds with one another; one claims falsely it is all settled, while the other whines it must be changed.”

What in Herlihy’s paper do you read as implying that the question is open as to whether native-born citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as Article II natural-born citizens?

“Doubtless there will be court challenges.

Doubtless SCOTUS will follow precedent set by other Supreme Courts before them, not some left-wing authors and certainly not by your opinions.”

There have already been court challenges. SCOTUS has said: Denied; denied; dismissed; denied; congratulation Mr. President; dismissed; dissmissed; denied; dismissed; welcome to the Court Justice Sotomayor; welcome to the Court Justice Kagan; dismissed, dismissed. I may have missed one or two, as counting blither defeats has become challenging. Listing their victories is easier; here’s the list:

[SatinDoll]

You stink of DU desperation and write like a frustrated priss. What a pity!

Donofrio recognized after his case was tossed, and with which others haven’t yet come to grips, is that only Congress can remove a President.

Thomas Edison liked to say that his experiments in making a light bulb resulted in over ninety ways not to make a light bulb - but he only needed one to be successful.

Bryan, it ain’t over yet!

The word is getting out that Obama is not eligible to be President, and worse, he is incompetent. A President can commit only so many impeachable acts before getting thrown out. Even Democrats in Congress are restive; no one wants to go down politically because the Democratic hierarchy pushed as a genius candidate for President what is, in reality, an empty suit taking orders from communist Valerie Jarrett, a slumlord!

George Soros recognizes from what direction the next move will come, and soon. That is why he is so keen to see all States have SoSs in his corrupt back pocket: to block the will of the people.

When the shit hits the fan, Bryan, and the economy collapses, lamp posts everywhere will bear strange fruit. Progressives hanging dead by their necks. It has happened before and as we all know, history repeats itself.