Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
The Dems are going to have to find a way to bail on the Dalai Bama. Maybe this will help.
Leo stopped playing poker long enough to do his homework at Freerepublic! ... A bit late to the party though.
Ping
Amazing article. Thanks for posting.
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. ”.
A closer reading of Minor and Happersett ... Donofrio is correct. The Supreme Court cites "some authorities" (Commie Fogblowers of the time) that a class of persons born in the jurisdiction are NBC, but not them, and they do construe in their opinion the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution in deciding Minor as a citizen. We missed this for years...
- - - - - - - - - - -
From MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)
"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
Page 88 U. S. 168
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."
-end snip-
Ping.
Just because it was in a Naturalization Act doesn't mean it requires an act of naturalization. Jeez, this guy stoops to Clintonesque levels of obfuscation.
I’m not sure why Donofrio is patting himself on the back over this. I’ve been citing the Minor decision and its definition of NBC for months, as well as the affirmation of that decision in Wong Kim Ark that the Minor decision recognized citizenship on the combined basis of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. What this doesn’t do, however, is buy anyone “legal standing.”
Indeed. Many have discussed the Minor case for some time now. Including Leo. I believe his latest post is a deeper look at the Minor case as being precedent setting.
You're not making much sense here. Maybe you can try again and explain what it is you think you're saying.
You’ve still got an unanswered reply waiting for you from me, Mr. Leonard.
Implying that Leo is behind the curve as compared to FR birthers is laughable. He was pursuing the legal definition of natural-born citizen before the concept ever occurred to FR birthers.
I think you should go back and read Donofrio's argument first. Donofrio claims that "some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status." To support this claim, he points out that the Act that granted this group natural born citizenship status had "Naturalization" in its name. That is the extent of his argument. Like I said, absolutely Clintonesque.
Not surprisingly, you’ve missed the point of Leo’s analysis.
I don't think we'll ever sort out how a pro-gay-marriage 9/11 truther who wanted Bush tried for treason ever became the Constitutional scholar of choice on this forum.
I've followed all of his analysis since October 2008.
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.