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 ...
That is an excellent bit of information! I wonder if there is an account of it in a book somewhere?
...I know the Heritage Foundation doesn’t agree with you. I’m still waiting for a birther to step up and inform them of the egregious errors in their Heritage Guide to the Constitution.....
I find it hard to believe you haven’t ratted out as you call them the conspiracy loonies to Heritage yet. Go ahead!
We most certainly should not. We should use the highest reasonable standard, and that of being born here to American Citizen Parents is not so unreasonable that 95% of Americans cannot meet it already. Why must we tolerate the introduction of questionable Allegiance into our government?
Given all the evidence which demonstrate the stronger standard is historically correct, why should anyone wish to argue for the legitimacy of the weaker?
I like The Rutter Group guidebooks.
No. That is a small portion of what is available on Lexis or Westlaw.
All legal cases and all statutes are available free on the Internet and are easily accessable.
Unreported cases aren't on Google. Lots of federal district court cases aren't on google. Lots of state cases aren't on Google.
Both Lexis and Westlaw have more steps to get the statute.
This is fairly trivial, but it's a one step search on Lexis or Westlaw, too. You have to pay for it, of course, but it's a one step search. On Lexis, click "get a document." Type your cite and hit enter. Done. On Westlaw, there's a banner on the left side of the page when you sign in. Type your cite and click the button. Done.
Matthew Bender? I haven't seen one of their books since law school. I guess some states use their forms, but forms are easily found on Google, free of charge.
I'm not talking about forms. Forget forms--who uses forms? For example, you can't be a competent copyright lawyer without Nimmer on Copyright, which is a Matthew Bender volume. Show me where on Google I can find an up-to-date copy of Nimmer. Or Areeda's Antitrust Law (which is on CCH). Or Wigmore on Evidence. Or back issues of the Harvard Law Review, beyond a running few issues.
There might be some companies or small legal outfits that skip on Lexis or Westlaw to save money, but I don't think you'll see it from any competent litigators. If you are a transactional lawyer, you don't need Lexis or Westlaw but, then, you're not really doing any legal research.
You know they have published a booklet with the common fallacy in it. What you don't know is whether or not they have looked at arguments and evidence to the contrary and decided against them. Again, merely repeating a common belief is not the same as having knowingly affirmed it.
There's actually quite a bit of discussion in that book of what "allegiance" and "jurisdiction" mean, and nothing indicates that citizen parents are required. (Remember, this is the child's allegiance we're talking about, not the parents'.) Read the part about the discussion of the civil rights act of 1866, which van Dyne says was Congress's first attempt to define citizenship. One representative quoted William Rawle's 1825 View of the Constitution of the United States to the effect that "Every person born iwthin the United States, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution." Another one asked, "What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?"
A later court said,
When it is said that, by the common law, a person born of alien parents, and in the allegiance of the United States, is born a citizen thereof, it is necessarily understood that he is not only born on soil over which the United States has or claims jurisdiction, but that such jurisdiction for the time being is both actual and exclusive, so that such person is, in fact, born within the power, protection, and obedience of the United States.That's a pretty clear statement that someone born in Hawaii in 1961 was born "in allegiance" to the U.S. and, taken with the previous quotes, is a natural-born citizen regardless of his parents' condition (usual exceptions for ambassadors etc.).
The child does not have allegiance to Hawaii and neither did his father. They were both British subjects. Their allegiance was to Britain. His father completed his temporary studies and returned to his country and worked for the government there.
It matters not, all other arguments are moot, by way of collateral estoppel, the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett determined who was a Natural Born Citizen and affirmed it in Wong Kim Ark. If Won Kim Ark was a NBC as you claim, the Supreme Court would never have had to use the 14th amendment to determine he was a citizen. They did not use the 14th amendment to determine Virginia Minor was a citizen as she was a Natural Born Citizen.
The thing people are refusing to see is that the law is not an ass (I can't say that for all judges or lawyers) and it would be absurd to say a child born in the US to two illegal alien parents (or a foundling of unknown parentage) was a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US. Native born yes, born a citizen yes, Natural Born no.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 81 the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Sez who? I bet Hawaii thought the child had allegiance to it. If you bothered to read, and were able to understand, the very book you linked to--or even the bits I've posted here--you'd know that "allegiance" doesn't refer to some kind of generalized loyalty. Did the child have the rights of an American citizen or a British citizen? If the father had committed a crime, would he have been tried under American law or British law?
If Won Kim Ark was a NBC as you claim, the Supreme Court would never have had to use the 14th amendment to determine he was a citizen. They did not use the 14th amendment to determine Virginia Minor was a citizen as she was a Natural Born Citizen.
That's circular. Obviously Wong Kim Ark was not born of two citizen parents, so they couldn't use that standard. That they used another standard does not prove that he wasn't an NBC.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Nobody said it did. That excerpt applies to a child born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. If we get one of those running for president, we should probably have the discussion about whether they're eligible for the presidency. Oh wait, we did and we (sorta) did.
If NBC meant born in the USA of alien parents then they would not have needed the 14th amendment, your argument is circular.
While you are reading your oldies but goodies, find the part that says the bill of rights does not pertain to aliens....
....In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes. ...
....Nobody said it did. That excerpt applies to a child born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. If we get one of those running for president, we should probably have the discussion about whether they're eligible for the presidency. Oh wait, we did and we (sorta) did.....
That excerpt applies to anyone.
Seriously? You've already forgotten what your expert wrote: "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"? I just posted that this morning, and now you're claiming that what "allegiance" means has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizen?
That excerpt applies to anyone.
First of all, if it doesn't imply they're a natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes, it certainly doesn't imply they're not. Second, it applies to someone who's a "natural born citizen pursuant to a statute." People who are natural born citizens because they're born here are not NBCs pursuant to a statute. The 1866 civil rights act and the 14th Amendment didn't make up anything new, they were just "declaratory of the common law" (in the words of your expert). And remember what the common law said? (Hint: it's in my last paragraph.)
if that is the case, please explain why the founders included the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution instead of just ‘citizen’. why make the distinction? why was the office of the president singled out for this requirement?
and please, try to explain it without resorting to name calling. we’re no longer in junior high.
“if that is the case, please explain why the founders included the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution instead of just ‘citizen’”
Because there are also naturalized citizens.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884):
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
As discussed, natural born citizen is the American form of the well established legal term “natural born subject” used in English Common law.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
It is worth noting that the original draft of the Constitution allowed naturalized citizens to become President. The revision done in August tightened the requirement.
What we do know for certain is that Obama has publicly called Kenya his home country. His wife has publicly called Kenya his home country. He was born a dual citizen. He was an adult citizen of Kenya. He refuses to allow inspection of his birth records held by Hawaii, yet basis his eligibility on those records.
These are very unfortunate facts, and it wont get resolved here. However, We can all agree, Americans deserve much better - An honest an open president who calls America his home country while sending Americans to war in Africa. Not Kenya.
“However, We can all agree, Americans deserve much better - An honest an open president who calls America his home country while sending Americans to war in Africa.”
On that, I totally agree!
Hey twit,
Say Hussein’s Brit/Kenyan Birth Cert fell into your lap. Tell me how you would have the judicial branch get him booted from office before November 2012.
In Presidential elections the judiciary cannot interfere with Congress nor states when they execute their Constitutional duty. Courts have no role deciding for whom state electors vote or the Senate recognizes as qualified. If state electors vote for Rubio, or Jindal the judiciary cannot and will not do a thing.
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.