MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION (NBC).

Natural Born Citizen (blog) ^ | June 24, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

[Mr Rogers]

You can suggest, but any court would laugh at you.

Natural born subject was the pre-Independence legal term, and it had a long history and was in use throughout the colonies. When the colonies became free, they changed their laws by replacing ‘natural born subject’ with ‘natural born citizen’ - so there really isn’t any doubt about what the states thought they were ratifying when the ratified the Constitution.

[Jeff Winston]

That’s a good observation, but I think you’re reading too much into the Preamble of the Constitution.

The purpose of the Preamble was to show a reason why a Constitution was being written. It was not to legally define who would and would not be considered a natural born citizen, and in fact, no thought whatsoever would have been given to that particular question by the person who drafted that sentence.

Sorry. As I say, it’s a good observation.

[MHGinTN]

Notice a trend? ... A n00b has bee recruited to carry on this oh so reasoned discussion over the NBC issue. And here and there one of the regulars chimes in to keep the wave rolling. The White Hut bastard must be very worried about the rising tide of discussion on his fraudulent self.

[Political Junkie Too]

The purpose of the Preamble was to show a reason why a Constitution was being written.

And the purpose of Article I was to establish Congress. The purpose of Article II was to establish the Presidency. The purpose of Article V was to establish the amendment process.

Every part had a purpose.

Who says what the limits of the Preamble are? Has this been tested?

Article VI Section 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Preamble is certainly a "Thing in the Constitution." I don't know why it is so easily dismissed as irrelevant.

It seems to me that the Preamble is virgin territory for someone to argue before the Supreme Court.

It clearly lays out whom the Constitution was meant to serve. The terms used in the Constitution should first be assessed against this.

-PJ

[aruanan]

It is therefore very clear that the whole Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett was well aware of the Presidential eligibility implications when they explicitly rejected the notion that "natural born citizens" are only the children born on US soil of two US citizen parents.

They didn't "explicitly reject" anything. The court wasn't coming up with anything at all novel in this decision. They discussed that what made a natural born citizen wasn't solely being born within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, within U.S. territory (because the children born of aliens or foreigners on U.S. soil were certainly not natural-born citizens and perhaps not even citizens at all--that was the doubt they didn't feel a need to address in this case) but to parents who were both citizens of the United States, that is, as citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, wherever in the world they happened to be at the time of the child's birth.

Based on then-current law, John McCain could have been born anywhere in the world, on or off a U.S. military base and still be a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born to two parents who were both citizens of the United States and, through their citizenship, subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution.

This is not a condition enjoyed by Barry Obama because no matter where he was born, he was not born to two citizen parents and, therefore, cannot possibly be a natural born citizen since his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of two different nations. And since there has been no law passed in the intervening time to the contrary and no subsequent Supreme Court decision specifically contradicting the definitions employed by the court in Minor v Happersett, Barry Obama is just plain sh-t out of luck. The best he can hope for is to continue bobbing and weaving and obfuscating.

This does, though, give insight into why Chester A. Arthur was so anxious to cover up the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, making Arthur ineligible to be president, just six short years after the Minor v Happersett decision, because he was not a natural born citizen. As an attorney appointed by Grant as the Collector of the Port of New York betwen 1871 and 1878 and having formerly been involved in civil rights cases, you can bet that he was intimately familiar with a major case on a major civil rights issue in the Supreme Court and the Court's explicit reasoning on the matter of natural born citizenship and how that related to his own history.

[Seizethecarp]

“I can think of exactly two cases in which the courts have ruled on the merits of birther arguments. You sure you want us to mention them?”

In context I was referring exclusively to federal court birther cases which had risen to SCOTUS and been denied certiorari. Don't even try with the delusional, erroneous on its face Ankeny state court case, if that was one of your “two” cases.

In any case feel free to mention any case. I find that most FReepers (not the trolls, of course) are truth seekers and open to exploring all arguments.

[Jeff Winston]

Even if the people of the United States established the Constitution in order to obtain blessings for their own physical children, there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests whether the children of resident aliens under the jurisdiction of the United States are or are not natural-born citizens.

It simply isn’t there.

[Political Junkie Too]

...no thought whatsoever would have been given to that particular question by the person who drafted that sentence.

I've written my thoughts on this matter before. I think great thought was put into crafting that sentence. The clues that I see are the use of Capitalizations. Capitalizations represented proper nouns and references to God. I think they took great care to write that sentence.

From my post from an older abortion thread:

I posted here the idea that the Constitution actually does have a ban on abortion, or at least a protection of life.

In the Preamble, it says "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

I suggested that the "Blessings of Liberty" refers to rights granted from God (Blessings and Liberty being capitalized, and Liberty being one of three capitalized rights from the Declaration from our Creator), and "secure... our posterity" means for our children and their children.

I point this out because it was the practice to capitalize all references to God, such as "Him" and "Creator." Following this practice, the gifts of the Creator, namely Rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, are capitalized, too. Furthermore, in the preamble to the Constitution, the word Blessings is also capitalized, which I take to mean from the Creator, and Liberty is also capitalized, which is one of the three rights from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration. All this, taken together, tells me that the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the Blessings of the unalienable rights that come from the Creator, and not just to us but to our children and their children.

How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?

-PJ

[aruanan]

Even if the people of the United States established the Constitution in order to obtain blessings for their own physical children, there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests whether the children of resident aliens under the jurisdiction of the United States are or are not natural-born citizens.

It simply isn’t there.

According to Minor v Happersett there never was any doubt that children of resident aliens were not natural-born citizens. There was doubt about whether they were citizens at all but the court didn't feel a need to resolve that because that matter wasn't pertinent to the case at hand, Minor obviously, by her birth to two citizen parents, being a natural-born citizen.

[Political Junkie Too]

...there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests whether the children of resident aliens under the jurisdiction of the United States are or are not natural-born citizens. It simply isn’t there.

Then the Founders didn't intend it to be there.

The use of the words "our Posterity" weren't meant to be their own ("physical") children, "Posterity" is too much a term of art for that. They meant it to be the opposite of "antiquity," as Thomas Paine would have put it in The Rights Of Man. They used words like this to recognize their obligations to the past People who strove for them, and the obligations they themselves owed to future generations.

The "resident aliens under the jurisdiction" were not the people making the Constitution. The "resident aliens under the jurisdiction" at the time of ratifying the Constitution would have immediately become "We the People." Future "resident aliens under the jurisdiction" would be addressed via the Rules of Naturalization that were granted to Congress to develop. So we know that the Founders considered that there would be "resident aliens under the jurisdiction."

-PJ

[aruanan]

I'm pretty sure what I said was a second class of citizen, but let me check....

Yep, I did.

The two classes were not referring to two classes of citizens, but to two groups of people, the one consisting of those who were undoubtedly citizens who were born to parents both of whom were citizens, and the other those who may or may not be citizens who were born to aliens or foreigners in the United States.

Fine, ya don't want to believe the English there, what's the only other time the word "class" appears in MvH?

The first time is referring to certain persons or classes of persons who became citizens upon the formation of the United States by the adoption of the Constitution. The second time is referring to two groups of people, as mentioned above: the first, natural-born, indisputably citizens; the second, children born to aliens and foreigners in the U.S. whose citizenship was in doubt but whose lack of natural-born citizenship was never in doubt.

[Jeff Winston]

They didn't "explicitly reject" anything.

But they did.

TWO SCANT PARAGRAPHS DOWN from where they quoted Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "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" - they followed it up by recognizing:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, [ - A MERE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION - ] provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and 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.

In recognizing - TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN FROM WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY - "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,"

The United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett thereby recognized that children born abroad of US citizen parents are eligible to run for President of the United States.

There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between "citizens" and "NATURAL-BORN citizens," and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

This is therefore an EXPLICIT REJECTION of the birther doctrine that "natural born citizens" are ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND of US citizen parents.

And if you can't convincingly disprove that, then YOU HAVE NO CASE; the "both-and" definition of "natural born citizen" is DEAD.

[Jeff Winston]

They didn't "explicitly reject" anything.

But they did.

TWO SCANT PARAGRAPHS DOWN from where they quoted Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "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" - they followed it up by recognizing:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, [ - A MERE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION - ] provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and 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.

In recognizing - TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN FROM WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY - "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,"

The United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett thereby recognized that children born abroad of US citizen parents are eligible to run for President of the United States.

There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between "citizens" and "NATURAL-BORN citizens," and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

This is therefore an EXPLICIT REJECTION of the birther doctrine that "natural born citizens" are ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND of US citizen parents.

And if you can't convincingly disprove that, then YOU HAVE NO CASE; the "both-and" definition of "natural born citizen" is DEAD.

[edge919]

The two classes were not referring to two classes of citizens, but to two groups of people, the one consisting of those who were undoubtedly citizens who were born to parents both of whom were citizens, and the other those who may or may not be citizens who were born to aliens or foreigners in the United States.

How do you figure a group of persons for whom you can't say to whom they were born is a class of persons??? This makes no sense. The two classes Waite was referring to was 1) Constitutional natural born citizens and 2) "citizens" as recognized by "some authorities" with no regard to the citizenship of the parents. There is doubt about the second class of citizens, but not the first.

[Jeff Winston]

Sorry for the double post.

Nathanael, ping to post re: explicit Supreme Court rejection of birther doctrine.

[edge919]

MvH is not describing two distinct classes, but is saying some authorities broaden the definition by eliminating the jus sanguinis requirement. Anyone who is a member of the first, more restrictive class is, by the definition set forth in MvH, also a member of the second, broader class.

Once again, the birther argument impales itself on the crystal clarity of the English.

Sorry, but what exactly is your point?? NBC is obviously a subclass of the term "citizen". No so-called "birther" would argue against that. Waite isn't trying to define what it means to be a citizen. He's rejecting Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen because she is a natural born citizen. If he accepted her argument, there was no need to explain why there are doubts about the citizenship of persons who are not born in the country to citizen parents. Second, what you and the other faithers and Obots overlook is that Waite distinguished natives or natural born citizens from aliens or foreigners. Anyone who is NOT born in the country to citizen parents is naturally an alien or naturally a foreigner. The only way they become citizens is through collective naturalization (by statute or Constitutional declaration) or by voluntary naturalization.

[Red Steel]

Say what? Let's see, you just got through telling me I'm full of guano for suggesting "class" does not mean "citizen".

Good to see that you can recognize yourself.

No you're saying there aren't two classes of citizen? Did you get Donofrio's approval before admitting that?

Oh yeah FoGBlower, I've got him on the line now.

And since you're determined to ignore the facts, I'll spell it out for you, so everyone in this forum can see what a clumsy lout you are at logical thinking:

LoL. You certianly are... that you are full of lizard guano.

In the second instance Waite is clearly simply restating (and slightly expanding on) what he said in the first, albeit with slightly different wording. So if we want to know whether "class" in the second instance refers to "citizen" or "children" we need only glance up two paragraphs, where Waite explicitly says "classes of persons".

No village Foggy, Waite clearly differentiates between children "born within the jurisdiction" (the jus soli and who are not NBCs) who some thought to be "citizens" at birth, but that was doubtful they were actually citizens because they were not formally naturalized to be US citizens. If the child's parents were foreigners, the child was still a foreign citizen, just like his parents, regardless if the child was born in the United States. Children and their mothers would inherit the father's US citizenship after he took the oath of citizenship regardless where the child was born. ...As it did not matter where the child was born in the US of A, the child was still considered a foreigner until his father naturalized as a US citizen. This would all change about 25 years later when justice Gray wrongfully (another story) decreed Wong Kim Ark a citizen in 1898.

English can be such a bitch.

Yeah, certainly for deranged FogBlowers. Hey Fogblower, you should post your illusions on Donofrio's website This article and thread is about his works. Here you go Foggy troll.

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

Now, I've shown you exactly why "class" cannot be referring to "citizen". In response all you do is tell me I'm full of nonsense without even the slightest attempt to defend your view.

Wow, you are a Foggy clown. Class or citizen or whatever you want to name it. Is that people can and do become citizens of these United States in different ways and circumstances, but it does not make them all natural born citizens.

If you want to, you know, actually provide some evidence or something, I'd be happy to discuss that, otherwise I'll just chalk up another Obot win.

Oh please Obot you're killing me.

[Red Steel]

Notice a trend? ... A n00b has bee recruited to carry on this oh so reasoned discussion over the NBC issue. And here and there one of the regulars chimes in to keep the wave rolling. The White Hut bastard must be very worried about the rising tide of discussion on his fraudulent self.

Yes I notice right away about this guy. The FOGbutt signs up on the 21st and waits 2 days later to post on an eligibility thread that looked to be done. He could be a retread reestablishing his FR trolling career.

[Red Steel]

Our new Foggy “friend” is into playing word games.

[edge919]

I’ve noticed that the new talking point is that Minor was allegedly talking about “classes of children” ... which fits the grade-school mentality of faithers and Obots.