MultipleInstances..Conclusively Establish Supreme Court’s Holding-Minorv.Happersett-..Precedent

Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible

Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person “born a citizen”.

The Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being “born a citizen”. This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution).

The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible. (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)

Other instances of gross intellectual dishonesty documented at this blog include the recent attempt by Justia.com to rewrite American history by scrubbing links in subsequent cases which establish that Minor v. Happersett has been cited multiple times as precedent on citizenship issues as well as voting rights.

Another instance of this misleading practice was the revision of a Michigan Law Review article by well-known legal scholar, Professor Lawrence Solum, wherein his original analysis – that only a person born in the US of citizen parents was beyond question eligible for POTUS – was scrubbed to include as eligible those born of only one citizen parent.

The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship. (See also my previous two reports analyzing Minor v. Happersett, here and here.)

The Supreme Court’s analysis in Minor elicited a specific definition of the class of natural-born citizens in order to avoid a tricky interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s nebulous phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Therefore, according to the Supreme Court’s definition, Obama is not eligible to be President since the class of natural-born citizens was held to be those born in the US to parents who are citizens. His father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled here.

That Virginia Minor was not running for President makes no difference at all. By directly construing Article 2 Section 1 in determining that Minor was a citizen prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that persons born in the US to parents who are citizens are “natives or natural-born citizens.”

These are referred to as a “class” of persons separate from the class of persons born to alien parents. The Court in Minor acknowledged that, despite existing doubts, the class born to non-citizen parents might be citizens. But they weren’t natural-born.

I have been asked many times over the last three years whether I believe this issue will ever reach a decision on the merits in any federal court. For a long time, I thought the answer was an emphatic “never” since the Supreme Court was twice handed the issue on a silver platter. Both Donofrio v. Wells, and the petition I prepared in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz were referred to the full Court for conference. Nobody knows how many votes, if any, were in favor of reviewing the eligibility of Obama. Regardless, certiorari was refused in both cases.

However, with a recent trial balloon thrown out by the Governor of North Carolina regarding a possible suspension of elections in 2012, the game has changed drastically.

The economy all over the world is scary. Protests are circling the nation. The UN is increasing its interference with national sovereignty. And all currencies could go belly up as the Ponzi scheme of Fiat paper and fractional reserve banking threatens to make the Great Depression seem not so great. And there is a very strong possibility Obama could lose this election. I am very concerned that he will not leave office quietly if the people do not invite him to return and that suspension of the 2012 election might be attempted. This could happen through a national emergency and subsequent martial law.

Many have incorrectly asserted that the original 1790 act ‘defined’ natural born Citizen. It did not, it declared those meeting a criteria AS ‘natural born Citizens’.

No Bluecat6, what the 1790 Naturalization act asserted exceeded the authority of the Congress, and was eliminated from US Code in the 1795 act. But it was a "Naturalization Act." There are two classes of citizen, natural, and naturalized. Like the 14th Amendment, the most it could have done was to create a naturalized "born citizen", which was called a "native born citizen of the US, as Obama declared himself to be. The 1790 act, deceptively used by Obama’s constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe, when he asserted that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to two citizen parents in the submission by Tribe and Ted Olson to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over Senate Res 511, which was signed in agreement by all senators including Obama, but excluding McCain (as it could have cause legal trouble had he prevailed over Obama).

Leo Donofrio has erased any legal doubts about whether Justice Waite's statement was dictum. The Minor case was built upon the “..., it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” statement, previously common law understood by our framers, as were almost all terms used in the Constitution. It was the only constitutional definition of a class of citizen before the 14th Amendment. Virginia Minor was one of the majority of citizens who were natural born citizens, thus asserting beyond doubt that she was a citizen. About the class of naturalized citizens there were many doubts, so Waite told us his decision was independent of the 14th Amendment by design, and thus uncorrupted by the doubts about who were citizens.

No law, no amendment, no supreme court decision has altered the definition made precedent by Minor v. Happersett. It is a remarkable time when states, beholden to political forces, unions, statists, will resort to altering the constitutional definition of who is eligible to be president in their official documents. It is more understandable that Obama’s fellow travelers, people who honestly, as Barack told us, want to dispense with the Constitution because it prevents them from doing what they feel the nation needs. The owners of justia.com, federal judges who are all political appointees, will lie to protect what they perceive as their political comrades. Now both New York and Indiana have shown that holding temporary power - because that is all that it will be - trumps the constitution.

As Donofrio pointed out, the Waite decision does not invalidate the remarkable history recounted on rxsid’s “home page”, leading to Ramsay, Jefferson, Franklin (many times) our first law school William and Mary, Marshall, Washington,... But having decided law eliminates the need to another interpretation. It may not be necessary, though certainly interesting, to know to whom Barack was born, or how many social security numbers he has, and with what names. Only an amendment can alter the Minor decision.

Republicans were quiet because they were just as complicit in supporting McCain, whom the Democrat Senate whitewashed with SR 511 and the Obama-McCaskill SB 2678 during the spring of 2008. They are willing crooks, and one way or another, in the famous words of Obama’s spiritual adviser for two decades, “The chickens are coming home to roost.” They should all be prosecuted, because all of them knew that Obama was born to an alien father. Obama told us. He also told that that he was born, natural born it turns out, though he didn't include that on his web site, a subject of the British Commonwealth. Would our founders and framers have writen a constitution which would sanction as president, our sovereign, the son, born to and a subject of our enemy Great Britain?

This is one of the reasons the whole mess with Lt Col Terry Lakin was so serious. Nobody in the leadership would even try to get answers for Lakin; they all collectively yawned. The military is off in foreign lands protecting us from the enemy and yet when the enemy grabs our heart with one fist and our lungs with the other, right here at home, the military yawns.

We recently had a military officer who testified to Congress that the White House pressured him to change his testimony in order to benefit Light Squared, a company that had contributed to the dems. So we know that the White House is willing to trash the honor and integrity of our military system. In that particular case, the officer was too honorable to put up with it, but it appears to me that Denise Lind was not so honorable and ruled - for all practical purposes - that it makes no difference to the lawfulness of combat orders if they are issued by someone not authorized by the War Powers Act and the US Contitution.

IOW, the leadership in the military does not inspire much confidence. And the rank-and-file are being told that is treason to not just do as they are told - REGARDLESS of whether what they are told to do complies with the laws of this land. So the only people who will NOT fire on fellow red-blooded Americans if the commie Obama tells them to are the ones who refuse to believe what they are told.

Interesting observation about the 10 governors and the executive order. Especially since one of those 10 suggested that elections be suspended, as you noted. I agree with Donofrio that it was a trial balloon. Some of us have been saying for a long time that this could be Obama’s strategy when he can’t hide his lawlessness any longer. The protests can easily turn to riots if Obama (or more likely his surrogates such as SEIU, Jimmy Hoffa Jr, Biden, etc) calls for them to get violent. And these protests surfaced - at a time when the only economic news was about rising unemployment, not about Wall Street corruption - right about the time when Solydra, Right On, and Fast & Furious were revealing just what traitorous enemies we have in positions of power in this administration.

We are in for some very interesting times, and I’m not feeling real good about which way the rank-and-file military will go, given the training and influence they’re getting under this leadership.

I believe we are in violent agreement. I was trying to point that the original act did not ever ‘define’ nbC. It tried to grant legal rights to those not true nbCs with the legal status of nbC. And that was for only one purpose - to allow a certain class of non-nbC to be TREATED as nbC for purposes of allowing them to be President.

The Senates SR 511 contains a direct lie concerning the act when it says that nbC was ‘defined’ by the act.

Lets repeat that - the US Senate - almost in total - lied to the American people in SR 511. Of that - there is no doubt.

Because of this FandF will unfold quickly and before the full election cycle in 2012. The liars who signed and voted for SR511 and ignored their duty are looking for cover and FandF gives it to them in a neat package to avoid their failing in defending the Constitution.

The 1790 Naturalization Act exposes the fundamental flaw in the English common law argument embraced by Obots and apologists. English common law already recognized as natural born subjects those children who were born OUTSIDE of the King’s dominions as long as they were born to fathers who were natural born subjects. If the common law prevailed, there was no need to insert the birth abroad part into the naturalization act. If it were understood that simple birth on U.S. soil was sufficient to be a natural-born citizen, then it would have also been understood that birth abroad to a citizen father was also sufficient to this purpose. The fact is that the Constitution only recognized as citizens of those born in the united States to “ourselves and our posterity” ... which is why the Minor decision says there was no doubt about children born in the country to citizen parents. These alone were the natural-born citizens. For any other citizenship there was doubt, which can be shown by the revision of the Naturalization Act in removing the natural-born language.

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.