Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eligibility rulings vanish from Net (Minor v Happersett, FReeper Danae quoted)
World Net Daily ^ | October 23, 2011 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp

A New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court has published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were scrubbed at one of the key online resources for legal documents.

The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was the Luria case.

Dianna Cotter wrote in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner: "This was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by Internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colo., in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive."

She noted that attorneys working on arguments always would return to the originals from the Supreme Court, "but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: americanlegalnet; birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; justia; justiaunreliable; leodonofrio; minor; minorvhappersett; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nolo; obama; publicresourceorg; stacystern; stopusingjustia; timstanley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-191 next last
To: rolling_stone
INS would have had to know about it to take action or exclude him. once here he could have also been deported if he was excludable at time of entry. There are other deportable offenses if committed since entry.

That's true. Of course, he was required to TELL them, so that is just another violation. It is all irrelevant now, but I find it amusing that according to our law he wasn't even here legally!

excludable from admission/entry
section 212 :
(a)9-convicted of CIMT- crime involving moral turpitude or admit elements of such- except minors)
11-aliens who are polygamists, or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy

13- aliens coming to the US to commit any immoral sex act

28(C) Commies-

deportable section 241 (a)(1) -(excludable at time of entry)

You know exactly what I am talking about and have done a better job citing it than have I. Thanks.

101 posted on 10/25/2011 7:56:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
And that "strictest definition" would be THIS ONE provided by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett:

Among the definitions commonly brought up, yes, I think that would be the most strict. It's also one I don't believe anyone besides birthers really accept.

102 posted on 10/25/2011 8:02:43 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
When caught red-handed, what else would Tim Stanley say? It was a computer bug! A bug that just happened to excise Minor v Happersett citations. What a coincidence!

Plus a number of other citations that have nothing to do with citizenship. I can post a few later if you'd like.

103 posted on 10/25/2011 8:07:21 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
So pretty much all the conservative bloggers, legal minds, commentators, think tanks and foundations are just stupid and obstinate?

That is an oversimplification, but strange as it seems, Yes. You may not be old enough to be aware of cognitive dissonance, but I have long since learned that perfectly reasonable people will often have some little cul-de-sac in their mind where they cease being reasonable.

I know an Aerospace/Electronics Engineer who is perfectly reasonable on every issue except for the legalization of drugs, and on that issue he is out there in the lunatic fringe. (He is a Libertarian) Conservatives who wish to argue that Obama is legitimate would seem to be of a similar mental discordance.

Another possibility is that Birthers are simply wrong and never get anywhere for the same reason Truthers never get anywhere. Which is, because they’re wrong.

But if this were true, it would have been easy to demonstrate this by pointing out that there are no examples during the Founding era that support the "birther" position. Unfortunately for your side, the facts are to the contrary. Indeed, there are few examples that support the jus soli interpretation until much later, and most of those are US Courts applying English "common law" in the absence of actual knowledge of American Law and principles regarding it.

But it makes them happy to think that they are among the select few who have figured things out. There is that.

Not at all. I regard it as terribly sad that so many Americans have lost the knowledge of their National Heritage, and as a result have done horrendous damage to our society and our freedoms. It would benefit us all to rekindle the Spirit of American Independence and the principles upon which this nation was founded. It is still currently the best in the world, but having lost many of it's important principles it will not long remain so.


104 posted on 10/25/2011 8:18:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Good morning Princess,

Not everyone agrees with you. An immigrant in La Casa Blanca is new Constitutional territory. Now I have been serious in my discussion, GET IT? So you can stop your SHRIEKING. I have found lawyers to be particularly IGNORANT of our Framers and their intent.

It you are looking for an AMEN to everything you say, this is NOT your forum.

We disagree. Dig? Live with it.

105 posted on 10/25/2011 8:32:21 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Think outside the pizza box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

LOL
Live with it? No problem. I don’t consider your angry beligernet opinions important enough to be concerned about, so living with it is sort of well... not a problem. You are nothing but a an impotent harpy looking for a fight.

tata.


106 posted on 10/25/2011 8:57:02 AM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Danae

” Barry, how can you be a Natural Born Citizen if you were born British as well?”

I have never, not once, heard Obama claim that he was a Natural Born Citizen. He always parses with....”I was born here, I am a citizen.”

Just once I would love to hear some reporter ask him a followup question framing the NBC requirement of Article II......but all I hear is crickets from the 4 Estate.

I was born here, I’m a citizen is NOT the eligibility requirement. Both Obama and the press know it.


107 posted on 10/25/2011 9:12:37 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
Thank you for the Geo Washington letters in your #78. Spot on.
One can imagine you did very well in school!

You are welcome. Spread the word!

Of course, many of the founders had a professional or personal relationship with Washington, and it should be no surprise that his stated views on this issue would later find a place in the Constitution.

Exactly my point. The Distrust of foreign influence is a natural inheritance for our government.

108 posted on 10/25/2011 9:13:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

....It’s also one I don’t believe anyone besides birthers really accept....

So its pick and choose court cases for the anti-constitutionalists? That isn’t how it works.

How about posting those cases you are talking about


109 posted on 10/25/2011 9:15:39 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; Mr Rogers
the blogger wrote the line

Okay. So when, in response to "you will not find a reputable lawyer or a court to back your fantasies up," you wrote "Here is one, Frederick Van Dyne Assistant Solicitor US Department of State," what you really meant was "No, I guess I won't."

Lynch was not a Supreme Court case. I never said it was. I was following your link to your expert--the comment that "The executive departments of our government have repeatedly affirmed this doctrine" was van Dyne's. He also writes,

The Constitution of the United States, whille it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866. Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed to be natural-born citizens thereof.
Again, thanks for pointing out such a clear resource.
110 posted on 10/25/2011 9:25:02 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
How about posting those cases you are talking about

It appears as though the cases can no longer be archive searched, so that's a no-go. Oh well. It's not like any of the conspiracy loonies took it seriously when I posted them months ago.

111 posted on 10/25/2011 9:36:53 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Among the definitions commonly brought up, yes, I think that would be the most strict. It's also one I don't believe anyone besides birthers really accept.

Getting your side to make an admission against interest is often like pulling teeth. It is to your credit that you have done so.

However, this begs the next question. Why should we wish to use other than the "strictest" standard?

112 posted on 10/25/2011 10:31:26 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well that would apparently include the author of the article you link in post #77. In that article the author repeats a bunch Birther talking points that range from flat out falsehoods to base speculation and make no mention of BHO’s not being an NBC due to his parentage. None. Zip. Zero.

Why is this particular Birther so ignorant then as to be focusing on untenable claims if they are ultimately irrelevant because BHO isn’t a NBC due to his father being Kenyan?


113 posted on 10/25/2011 10:45:16 AM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

There are two other cases just in the screenshots in the Examiner article. The references to case names of “Osborn v. Bank of United States” and “United States v. Babbitt” also disappear, replaced by hyperlinks with the U.S. Reports numbers for those cases. Just like “Minor.”

This is why it doesn’t make any sense to see people claiming that Justia’s changes affected ONLY references to “Minor v Happersett.” The deletion and replacement of “Osborn v. Bank” in Luria is even in the same PARAGRAPH as Minor.


114 posted on 10/25/2011 10:49:22 AM PDT by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Getting your side to make an admission against interest is often like pulling teeth. It is to your credit that you have done so.

I think you're reading too much into my statement if you think I'm making an "admission against interest." All I meant was that it was one definition that's brought up on these birther threads.

115 posted on 10/25/2011 10:49:37 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Kleon
However, this begs the next question. Why should we wish to use other than the "strictest" standard?

That's just the strictest standard commonly discussed, as Kleon said. There are stricter standards one can imagine--how about requiring that the president be a descendant of someone who was here at the time of the Constitution's writing, to whom "our posterity" would directly refer? (Some on your side have come awful close to saying that's what they really meant.) Or that the president have lived his entire life in the United States, rather than just 14 years (something you came close to saying yourself, if I remember correctly)?

The point being that we clearly use other than the strictest imaginable standard. So strictness per se isn't really an argument for the standard under discussion.

116 posted on 10/25/2011 11:10:52 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Well that would apparently include the author of the article you link in post #77. In that article the author repeats a bunch Birther talking points that range from flat out falsehoods to base speculation ...

I re-read the article to see what you are talking about. Despite this, I failed to see what exactly to which you are referring as "flat out falsehoods". Base Speculation, perhaps in some parts, but "flat out falsehoods?" Mens Rea, dude.

...and make no mention of BHO’s not being an NBC due to his parentage. None. Zip. Zero.

As the primary purpose of the article is to explain WHY so many people are stupid and obstinate on this issue, then it isn't really that germane to the topic, is it?

Why is this particular Birther so ignorant then as to be focusing on untenable claims if they are ultimately irrelevant because BHO isn’t a NBC due to his father being Kenyan?

I think i've covered this six ways to Sunday. MOST people have a false understanding of the term of art "natural born citizen." No thanks to bad court decisions such as Wong Kim Ark, People have ever since gone beyond the holding of the court that the man was a "citizen" and have subsequently claimed the court decided who was a "natural born citizen", which the court did not.

Given the legal system's worship of precedent, and the incorrect assumptions regarding this one, the general public has since become completely convinced that the only requirement is to be "born" somewhere in the nation's boundaries.

This leaves the EASIEST way of demonstrating non-compliance as finding out whether the man was even born in this country. ( Which is the lowest possible standard of citizenship.) You simply have to work with the basis of knowledge that your audience possesses. If he cannot even meet THAT weakest standard, "it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other."

Beyond that, you have to make your audience more knowledgeable, a much more difficult task, especially with you carpers and nay-Sayers about.

117 posted on 10/25/2011 11:43:56 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well, 3/4 of the way through Obama’s term, good luck getting anywhere with that.


118 posted on 10/25/2011 11:49:36 AM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
I think you're reading too much into my statement if you think I'm making an "admission against interest."

Conceding that it is an acknowledged standard by the Supreme Court which is tougher than the one which you advocate, IS an admission contrary to your position.

All I meant was that it was one definition that's brought up on these birther threads.

Of which, among knowledgeable people, the issue devolves to two; Jus Soli, and the composite of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinus. Any standard which is mentioned beyond these two are usually the assertions of uniformed people.

Even so, you haven't answered the question. Why should we use the weakest standard for our Executive? England never did so.

119 posted on 10/25/2011 11:51:49 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Well, 3/4 of the way through Obama’s term, good luck getting anywhere with that.

Yes, you Vichys have certainly been useful to the regime by obfuscating a quicker resolution.

120 posted on 10/25/2011 11:55:33 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson