Posted on 06/24/2011 9:38:55 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.
And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
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
ping...
Only an idiot would believe a case involving a woman’s right to vote under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a binding statement of the meaning of NBC - particularly since the time it is mentioned, the court says there is doubt about the meaning:
“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.”
Note - there are doubts about the meaning of NBC, and the court doesn’t try to resolve those doubt.
WKA did.
Minor:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
WKA:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
LOL!!
This make you fill your panties, mister?
Before determining whether she had a right to vote or not, the Justices had to determine if she was a citizen.
They did determine that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen as she was born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents. So her attempt at using the 14th Amendment was in error.
SCOTUS determined that the U.S. Constitution does not give the right to vote to anyone - man or woman - but they certainly provided a definition of natural born citizen.
AND IT DOES SET A LEGAL PRECEDENCE AS IT WAS IN THE SYLLABUS!
I must conclude birthers are too stupid to read.
OF COURSE someone born in the US of citizen parents is a citizen.
HOWEVER, Minor did NOT determine that ONLY those born of citizen parents are NBC. Instead, they say there is doubt, with some saying that those born of alien parents are also NBC, and that they (the court) has no reason to determine if that is true.
Note - there are doubts about the meaning of NBC, and the court doesn’t try to resolve those doubt.
You're wrong as usual.
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens [ that's "citizens" - not natural born citizens] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class ["This class" Ms. WKA - means NOT the natural born citizen class] there have been doubts, but never as to the first [first = NBCs]. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” [is "to solve the doubts" of being "citizen," born within the jurisdiction, and again NOT about natural born citizen]."
Did you bother to read that quotation? It states that although there doubts as to whether a person acquires citizenship at birth without regard to the citizenship of the parents,it goes on to state: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Meaning the Court is not deciding that issue and the opinion is of not binding on that subject.
Did you bother to read Donofrio’s article? I think not.
Psst. Next time you decide to play lawyer, you ought to know that the word is “PRECEDENT” not “PRECEDENCE”. Of course I have to assume that you do not have any legal training, otherwise you would understand that in the first paragraph of the opinion the Court states that the ONLY issue it is deciding is whether the female plaintiff has a right to vote.
“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. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it 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.”
yes, red steel, you did not read the article closely.
No doubt means...no doubt. The first definition and the clearest one is a child born of two citizen parents. There is only one other case to consider: One citizen parent. The reason for the doubts is that there can be a whole bunch of special circumstances concerning age, which parent transmits citizenship, even military service. The job of the court was not to go through those cases. They simply recognized it is a complex area they weren’t going to touch in that case.
The way I put this is that Leo did what a good workman does. He taps on the wall until he hears that resonant “thud” that tells him where he can hang the painting so it doesn’t fall down.
----
"But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:
“1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.” (Emphasis added.)
That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.
It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.
But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens".
- - - - - -
-End Snip-
To repeat, "that's a direct 'HOLDING' of the case."
You should know that's NOT dictum or dicta or obit dicta BUT the "HOLDING."
The Supreme Court of the United States holds that Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. "Psst"... Obama is not legitimate.
flak...over the target.
You’re correct; I’m not a lawyer.
But right now there are one Hell of a lot of Democrats wishing they didn’t understand the significance of Donofrio’s finding in Minor vs. Happersett.
Nope. They said there was doubt about the citizenship of a child born in the U.S.A. to non-citizen parents.
Read it again, I’ll ever provide a link.
I’m not the person who is unable to read the above and comprehend, mister. Then again, maybe you just don’t want to comprehend due to the personal impact of your life.
Great to hear from you again, Mr. Rogers. I miss your state of AZ dearly (I have friends in Bizbee) but can’t get there because of my health.
You appear to have replied rather quickly and as the article at the top of the thread is a follow-up to an earlier piece by Donofrio here is a key bit from that piece that you also might want to scoff at:
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.
end quote
cf Massachusetts legislature in:
[p.89, History of Vermont: natural, civil, and statistical, in three ..., Parts 1-3 By Zadock Thompson]
re: ``.. who was not a natural born citizen...``
“Only an idiot would believe a case involving a woman’s right to vote under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a binding statement of the meaning of NBC - particularly since the time it is mentioned, the court says there is doubt about the meaning”
Leo Donofrio comes to his crank legal claims not from idiocy, but by devoting his formidable intellect to convincing himself of the greatness of his own stream of consciousness. That’s a common phenomenon among fringe-thinkers and conspiracy theorists. Another, also amply demonstrated by Leo Donofrio, is is the refusal to take correction.
As a result of his latest arguably-eligibility-related lawsuit, Leo and his law partner, fellow eligibility lawyer Steven Pidgeon, are getting beaten with the clue-stick by the federal courts. Beaten hard.
Most of us are not lawyers, and thus our law firms — without actually existing — are doing much better than Donofrio & Pidgeon. Leo conceive one of his intricate theories, concluding he could revive a dead claim in a bankruptcy case, after the time to appeal had already expired, then somehow prevail and throw in a writ of quo warranto to challenge Obama. I kid you not. Total face-plant of course.
Donofrio partnered with Pidgeon, and without any notable experience with bankruptcy, they offered a deal that the clients accepted. Game on. They petitioned the Bankruptcy Court. Denied. They went up to the District Court. Dismissed. They appealed to the Circuit Court. Dismissal affirmed, with a note, “As to the merits of Appellants’ claims, they are utterly frivolous.”
Along the way, it turned out that Donofrio and Pidgeon’s clients were pursuing their interests on other fronts. Those other efforts were more fruitful, and when it came out D&P petitioned to withdraw from representing their clients. Their clients opposed the motion to withdraw, saying they were happy with D&P’s representation. What deal did Donofrio and Pidgeon offer, so that their clients remained happy with their losing results? Don’t know; the retainer agreement is undisclosed. We do know that D&P wanted out, but the clients held D&P to it.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Donofrio and Pidgeon’s appeal as “utterly frivolous” on the merits, the winning opposition petitioned for costs. D&P’s clients responded effectively. D&P’s clients, it turned out, had competent legal counsel, and they argued that an award of costs should be charged to the law firm of D&P rather than to the actual litigants. D&P also responded, arguing against any such award.
We have a multi-way dispute: The winning defendant argues for costs; the losing plaintiff argues that law firm of D&P should bear any such awarded costs; and D&P argue that there should be no award of costs. Two sides are going to break even and one is going to lose. Difficulty in foreseeing the verdict indicates lack of grasp of reality.
Donofrio responded much like we’ve seen him do in previous cases: with blog rants and raves about how he was so right and the courts are all a bunch of fraud. Here in reality Donofrio just plain lost, but how bad remains to be seen. The side that trounced D&P has so far only listed minor costs. Paying for the other side’s photocopying may sting a bit, but it’s not big money. IANAL. Near as I can tell, the remand clearly orders charges costs to D&B, and whether that will include attorney’s fees remains open as of this day.
Much like the logician in the album of the soundtrack of the trailer of the film of Monty Python and the holy grail, I seem to have strayed from my original point. In a nutshell: Leo Donofrio is amazingly skilled at deluding his own impressive intellect. An idiot he is not. Self-deluded he is. Does it not occur to people here that lawyers who get trounced in court, every single time, might not their best source of legal scholarship?
You aren’t very good at reading in context, are you?
But then, someone who can read more than one sentence will not be a birther.
SFL
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.